Xbox 2 to Release in Fall of This Year 765
GamesIndustry.biz has the news that the Xbox 2 will be launched sometime in late fall of this year. With EA games already working on Xbox 2 titles and rumors of a name for the console in circulation, it looks like the first of the next-gen consoles will be here soon. From the article: "Many have expressed concern that Microsoft is forcing the next generation of console hardware too early, and that the current generation still has much to achieve. The most famous example of this came from then Nintendo of Europe MD David Gosen speaking at an ELSPA summit in London last October, where he lambasted Microsoft for pushing a next generation machine to market in 2005, and even went so far as to question Microsoft's motivation as profit." Additionally, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has Balmer saying that they will "blow by Sony" with their next console.
Um, duh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, hello? What other motivation does a for-profit business ultimately have?
Stupidest. Comment. Ever.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Funny)
Gotta love Microsoft. Looks like they're really pushing for success with this one by following in the footsteps of Sega.
Go Xboxcast.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Interesting)
EA more than kind of sucks. EA is evil incarnate! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's nothing like that at all. Maxis was the developer of The Sims, EA was just the publisher. In fact, few of the original titles in the series you named were actually developed in-house at EA, as you might know if you had even rudimentary knowledge about how the game biz works nowadays. Here's a quick listing of some quality games and their original developers:
The Sims - Maxis (Purchased by EA during Sims development, project almost cancelled)
Goldeneye - Rare (Now owned by Microsoft)
Need For Speed - Black Box (Purchased by EA, 2002)
Burnout - Criterion (Purchased by EA, 2004)
EA doesn't create. EA buys, strip-mines, and casts aside. They're significantly worse than Microsoft on almost any scale-- demonize Microsoft's monopolistic tactics if you will, but at least M$ still creates innovative products and don't treat their employees like shit. Compare that to EA-- worst working conditions in the gaming biz, and they do things like acquire exclusive rights to produce games from the NFL.
If you like good games, you should hate EA. They're the worst of the worst, a solely short-term-profit motivated corporation with no vision, integrity or class. EA is dedicated to mediocrity, and that's all there is to it.
That's the reason why I'm still a fan of Valve's Steam Content Distribution idea, despite all of the short-sighted bitching about minor issues that I see right here on Slashdot. The best way to ensure good games is to cut out out the middlemen and nuke the overhead, because the biggest obstacle to the release of quality games right now is the publisher. Reliable pay-to-play online distribution does just that.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:3, Interesting)
These two are non-sequitur. I don't disagree with your first point; Microsoft won't give up that easy. They're too prideful.
But money doesn't buy a successful console. Sony already has the hype engine going strong: multiple super multi-core ultra-fast CPUs in the PS3! Whether this lives up to claims or not, hype is hype. Sony has a lot of things going for them; 2 successful consoles, lots of game houses, features (backward compatibility etc.), and this time they're trying to add hardware superiority
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Interesting)
The PS3 has been repeatedly confirmed as being backward-compatible with the PS2, but not the PS1. The PS1 isn't that big of a loss at this point; a good reason for keeping a PSTwo around, or getting a PSOne if you're desperate for some reason. We're talking about a gaming system that will be over a decade old here. It's not that it's dead; it's just that continuing backward compatibility would cost more than it's worth.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:3, Funny)
Well, a geek can dream, can't he? Maybe if we pray *really* hard...
Re:Um, duh? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about the games, most of which, unfortunately, suck more than they don't.
Re:Difference in cultures... (Score:4, Interesting)
Who controls Japan isn't even in question at this point. Nintendo has a better chance of toppling Sony over there than Microsoft does. Hardly anyone owns an X-Box and even Japan-exclusive games for the system sell poorly.
I somehow doubt MS was talking about the Japanese market when they mentioned "blowing by Sony", though. I really expect to see MS drop entirely out of the Asian market in the next console generation and just focus on Europe and North America. If they don't, then they really deserve whatever ill fortune comes their way; the Asian market has made it very clear that they don't like the X-Box and don't want MS in their console marketplace.
That's totally what I thought! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and if MS is late with the XBox 2, that could hurt them I think. I think a lot of the console market has to do with number of titles
Re:Um, duh? (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree pretty much. I don't think Microsoft really gets it (when have they ever?), but they've got a lot of money to pour into their failure, too.
My main point is that first-out-the-door hasn't meant a sure-fire winner. In fact, I don't think it has in a long time. Nintendo wasn't first out the door with NES or SNES. Sony wasn't first out the door with the PS1 or PS2 (or PS3).
In the end, it comes down to one thing: having all the game houses making all the games for your console.
Microsoft doesn't
Re:Um, duh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft seems to realize this, their strategy seems simple; BUY ALL THE GAME HOUSES!
So far this doesn't seem to have worked to well for them with the exception of Bungie [bungie.net], although I personally think Halo stinks. Rareware [rareware.com] hasn't released a decent game for the Xbox yet, and Microsoft had to shut down/sell their entire Sports division now that EA and Take-Two have shut them out of Football and Baseball. Most of the games I've enjoyed on t
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Although whatever their motivation (beating the other guys to market, driving the competition out of business, etc), it ultimately comes down to profit.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:4, Insightful)
"..lambasted Microsoft for pushing a next generation machine to market in 2005, and even went so far as to question Microsoft's motivation as profit.
"In every cycle, some manufacturer not profiting from the current cycle is eager to kick-start the next one," he said at the time."
Yep. Stupidest. Comment. Ever.
Although I've never been a fan of Microsoft, even I hope they do well in the console market. It means cheap hardware for me to hack, and I don't care if it comes from Sony, Microsoft or maybe McDonalds someday.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Post people in the industry recognize the three directions that the three main console producers seem to be pushing.
Nintendo is out to take gaming in new directions, changing the way people interact with their games and reaching out to a larger user base. Hence, the DS with its dual screens, the GBA with its universal audience, and the revolutionary controllers it seems to introduce with every console generation.
Sony wants game console synonymous with entertainments systems, and wants every high-end home theater system hooked up with a PlayStation. If you need proof of this, just look at the PSX (the media center, not the original PlayStation that often used those initials as a code name).
Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to have entered the gaming industry because they recognized it as a profitable venture. Without turning this into a flame war, just sit the PS2, the Cube, and the Xbox side-by-side. The PS2 is a sleek, slim, well-designed piece of electronics. The Gamecube is a tiny, uninvasive "toy" that screames accessibility.
The Xbox is a fridge.
Honestly, the "ideals" behind the Xbox are already obsolete. In the days of Media Center PC's, a game console based on PC hardware and running Windows CE is no longer impressive. Xbox Next seems to be sidestepping the "budget PC" architecture, with all this hooplah over Cell processors and next-generation gaming. But still... Microsoft's mission statement remains unchanged, and their values are equally static.
If they do release it in 2005, they have less than 10 months to come up with a Halo-calibre killer app, or they're going to be laughed out of the industry.
First does not always equal success. Dreamcast, anyone?
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Killer App is Halo 2 (Score:3, Interesting)
You think in two dimensions (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids are another obvious example of Nintendo's existing niche. I'm a single parent of two 11-year-olds. Nintendo has a huge advantage with pre-teen kids and their parents. You talk about "killer games," and Nintendo has several killer franchises -- Zelda for one -- that work for a family audience. XBox has exactly zero such games or franchises, unless you want to count sports titles which the PS2 is very comparable in anyway. For my money, the limited range of GC sports titles are more than enough to keep Nintendo on the list of choices, for us. PS2 would be second. XBox's selling points actually make me recoil. (Don't get me wrong, I thought Bungie was the best game company out there period before the MS buyout -- but Halo bores me asleep. One more of those? XBox, from my point of view, is pitching itself to a far nastier audience than I ever want to become part of.)
Their Xbox niche is 25+ year old people, which is a growth market. But even if they win that, and even if it gives them an overall win in the console market, that doesn't mean they've taken Nintendo's audience.
Re:Yawn.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you name one game nintendo released that was on the top 10 games world wide?
It's a bit retarded to ask such questions in an environment where there might be people who actually know the answer.
Pikmin 2 was on the top slot for several weeks in a row, and there were at least two other titles through the course of the year which were at the top slot, and far, far more in the rest of the top ten. If you want I can get a complete list. :-)
Re:Yawn.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask these questions: How much money did nintendo make? How much money did MS xbox division make? How well are the total numbers for the GC vs total numbers for the xbox.
This will tell who dying... no one. Nintendo has it's niche. Like Apple. You can't kill them. They will always be profitable if not mainstream.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Umm Xbox1 is making money (Score:4, Interesting)
What's more, Microsoft has publicly admitted that this is a one-off financial blip, the Home and Entertainments division will not maintain this performance - by their own admission.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um, duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you, but I don't think that will work so well in the console market. Even if they deliver backwards compatibility in their next gen console, the playing field is much more open than in the OS market. Even if they win with this next round of consoles and start screwing everyone (including 3rd party devs) over, with the following gen Sony (and I guarantee you Sony will still be around) can appeal to those same 3rd party devs and have a good shot.
Don't forget, unlike with Windows OS, every new generation requires the customer buy a completely new set of hardware, and unless they deliver backwards compatibility there's not that much reason for a customer to stick with the XBox unless the customer actually likes the product. MS won't have the lock-in they have in the OS market.
Re:Um, duh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically true, and there's a certain % of the market who will get a new OS and slap it on old hardware, but for the most part, people buy the OS w/ their machine and never upgrade.
and unless they deliver backwards compatibility there's not that much reason for a customer to stick with the XBox unless the customer actually likes the product. MS won't have the lock-in they have in the OS
Re:Um, duh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft is a software company looking to create marketshare in a new venue. They are also trying to set up a trojan horse for their MCE initiative.
Sony is a hardware company that is producing cheap razors so they can sell the hell out of the blades. The blades being games, memory sticks and new media formats. Where someone may feel like a brick, Sony is the proverbial wall. Oh yeah, do not forget the media center addition of PS2 (was it PStwo?)
Nintendo, on the other hand, has always professed themselves a gaming company who builds hardware and writes software with the express goal of gaming. This comment from a Nintendo Exec is far from stupid. It is actually very astute. It simultaneously communicates their coporate stance and blasts a competitor for engaging in practices that are harmful to the industry. Quite elegant, actually. Of course, I am probably a fan boy for saying that.
The point is, Nintendo has a niche market carved out, and to be in that niche, they have to appear as the gaming company who is in it for the gamers. They are the Apple of the gaming environment. Of course, DS is a trojan horse for Revolution if you believe Reggie Fils-Aime-Whatever-His-Name-Is-With-A-Hyphen and others have been saying. That and the licensing of PalmOS present some inplication for the DS that make things...interesting. But that is my time!
Personally (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is Microsoft seems very willing to do things for motivations other than profit. All of Microsoft's divisions except Server, OS and Office are consistent and heavy money losers. The XBox has been no exception. Microsoft doesn't really seem to ever show signs of minding this. If it's for purposes of expansion, no amount of money wasted seems to be too great.
Now, mind you, Microsoft insists they do very much intend to make a profit on the XBox 2. They claim this has been the goal all along, lose money on the XBox, make it back on the XBox2. But as I said, I'd question this. Here's why.
The chief reason the XBox has been such a money loser seems to be the cost of the console. Microsoft went out and bought a bunch of relatively expensive commodity PC components from off-the-shelf companies to build the XBox from, and the result seems to have been a console so expensive to manufacture that no realistic amount of game license sales that a single consumer might generate could recoup the loss from selling them that XBox. All signs are Microsoft has learned at least some lesson from the XBox that they will be applying on the XBox 2. Leaked information so far indicates that Microsoft has dropped the hard drive and will be contracting to more traditional video game console contractors-- like IBM-- rather than trying to buy PC components (important because IBM, since they're geared for contracting, will be able to lower their prices over time, whereas PC vendors, since they're geared for bulk, if anything raise prices over time-- because who, for example, makes 8GB hard drives anymore?). This by itself would indicate Microsoft is finally in a position to start making money-- though they'd have to make an awful lot to recoup the billions in losses from the XBox 1-- since they seem to be taking steps to manufacture a console that isn't sold at a large loss.
But I think Microsoft has given indication they aren't going to be taking advantage of that position. The problem is the release date. Microsoft has been very explicit that they intend to beat the PS3 and N5 to market-- and if this article is right, they'll be beating it to market by a LOT. But they probably realize at some level that whether they do that or not, they're going to have to retain the technical lead. Microsoft's entire strategy this generation has been based almost entirely on having the best hardware and attracting developers and users through that. They can't change strategies that quickly; surrendering the technical lead to Sony means potentially surrendering a huge chunk of their fanbase from this generation at the same time, if Sony shows even a hint of competence in marketing. This presents a problem. With the XBox, Microsoft had the advantage of two years to tinker with their hardware and let technology improve after the PS2 was released. With the XBox 2, Microsoft will be giving (or expect to be giving) Sony as much of an extra year to prepare their console, plus they'll have to overcome Sony's crazy vector processing ways (which were enough the PS2 was able to almost keep pace with the XBox and Gamecube when programmed by experts, despite being two years older). This would mean that they would have to design the box to be [i]so[/i] powerful that PPC or no, Hard drive or no, it's going to be sold at a loss.
If I'm right about this, and Microsoft does continue selling the XBox 2 at a loss anywhere near the scale of the XBox-- this seems to mean Microsoft simply doesn't, and never has, cared about profit with the XBox, their "it'll make money eventually" profits aside. Microsoft can sell at some loss and still make a profit, of course, technically, maybe, but the chances of this are so shaky it shows profit isn't actually a goal-- just a nice
Re:Um, duh? (Score:2)
Yep, you guessed it: Profit!
Dreamcast (Score:5, Interesting)
Wanna bet that Sony will once again win with their incredible "wait until we have a good machine" plan?
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:5, Insightful)
The Dreamcast wasn't a bad system. But Sony then released a better system: backwards compatible, better controllers, plays DVDs, etc.
Microsoft attempted that strategy the first time around, but focused on system stats as their definition of "better". Their original controller was a nightmare (and how long did they deny it? Now it's a collector's item, despite their repeated claims that it was perfect), you had to pay extra to unlock the built-in features (Sony did that too, but quickly realised the error of their ways, and by the time of the north american launch, DVD playing was standard out of the box).
Of the current gen, none are utter crap. The Xbox does have slightly better graphics, if you're looking real close, and the Cube has a bunch of lil' gems of games. But since they're in a pissing contest, I think Sony's strategy will get them ahead again.
On the whole, aside from the backroom exclusivity deals, the console wars are good for us gamers, they're trying damn hard to get the best hardware they can, and so devellopers get a good base on which to devellop (hopefully) good games.
Re:Dreamcast (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, for now.
If, and let's hope that's a big if... If Microsoft wins and ends up with vast marketshare compared to it's competitors (like Sony has now), you'll see their real strategy kick in. Do you really want Microsoft software/hardware/formats/DRM as the technology interface between you and content providers? Do you want the console market to stagnate like the office application/web browser/operating system market has since they started dominating those markets?
Given Microsoft's history with how they've used a dominant market position in the past, there won't be an Xbox2 connected to my television no matter how good it is, lest we end up with a decade of video game technology stagnation.
Re:Dreamcast (Score:3, Insightful)
Putting aside the fact that "better controllers" is a subjective item...
The DC controller is vastly superior to the PS. Triggers that are actually triggers are your friend. Putting analog functionality into a button.. did anyone play test this 'feature'? It's fucking maddening. The PS controller is a bit small for me, and since the analog sticks were hacked on, they are obviously mis-placed. I was also never able to get the 'feel' of the sticks. I can move to the extremes without proble
Re:Dreamcast (Score:2)
Re:Dreamcast (Score:5, Interesting)
When the PS3 arrives 1 year later, the Xbox 2 will be (much?) cheaper, have a nice line of games, a larger base of players etc. Sure, the PS3 will have slightly better specs, but what will you pick when you're presented with the choice between a 699 machine and a 349 machine? Where everything else (eventually) points to the 349-machine..
Re:Dreamcast (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care how good Sony is, $700 price tag for a machine is suicide... Neo Geo anyone? I don't think your scenario is going to be the case...
Your scenario also presumes that XBox 2 is going to have a nice line of games... In order for that to work, M$ needs to squeeze Halo 3 and Halo 4 out of Bungie within a year in order to see any success.
Sorry, but when a single title causes your system to significantly increase profits, it really makes me wonder what the system is really being propped up on. Knock Halo out of the equation and honestly, what is XBox left with?
Re:Dreamcast (Score:4, Insightful)
Obligatory Apple price dis alert (Score:5, Funny)
I think they're rushing to market. (Score:5, Insightful)
Replace "PS3" with "PS2" and "Xbox2" with "Dreamcast", and we're 5 years all over again.
The DC was cheaper, had a bigger base of games, and yet, here we are, a few years later, and Sega's hardware division is history. Not that MS would ever stop, but their strategy has been tried before, and I don't think the result will be any different.
Re:Dreamcast (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, it was NOT a DVD player. The PS2 arrived at a critical time where a lot of younger folk still had not had a DVD player and you couldn't get many DVD players under the $100-150 range. So, presto, you buy a $249 console (or whatever it was), and now you've got a DVD player as well. Edge: Slightly Sony. The PS2 might have next-gen DVD media, but who has the hardware to support it? Unless next-gen displays come down to earth levels ($1,000-$4,000) no one will care to adopt this. See, for example, SACD.
Second, by the time the Dreamcast was out in the US, the PS2 was only a month or two away from being released in Japan. Had Sega really hit the market a year before, they could've gobbled up a lot of market share from the aging, ailing N64 and PS1. But when "9-9-99" hit everyone had seen the PS2 videos and knew what was around the corner. Edge: Unknown. This all has to do with expectations. In 1999, everyone knew the PS2 would be insane. Will the PS3 be "insane" compared to the Xbox 2? We'll know this year.
Third, the Dreamcast had no backwards compatibility (to what? the Sega CD?). The PS2 did, so automatically you had a very nice, large game library to play with. Edge: Unknown. Sony, I assume, will have PS1 and PS2 compatability in the PS3. The jury is still out on Xbox 2 having backwards compatibility.
Fourth, EA did not have EA Sports on the Dreamcast. You couldn't play Madden or NBA Live. Now, for most people here, these are non-titles. But a very very large amount of people play these, and face it, Sega didn't have it. If EA continues with Microsoft, the Xbox 2 will have a market advantage come this fall. If you want to play the cool sports games, you need to get the Xbox 2, or settle with the slower version on the PS2. Edge: Microsoft.
I don't think it's plausible that Sony will go the way of Nintendo or Sega. At the same time, I can't see Microsoft getting out of the home gaming market. What IS interesting is the issue of piracy. It greatly affected the Dreamcast and the Xbox, neither did well. But (until recently), that was not the case with the PS2, nor the case with Gamecube. So it doesn't seem to be a primary effect on market position.
I think it is realistic to say that Nintendo will NOT be getting the top spot and will be a No. 2 or No. 3 competitor.
So, no, I would not place any bets on Sony being guaranteed to win. I'm not biased either, I have both systems (and got them both well after release).
Joke... too... easy... (Score:2, Funny)
XBox 2 specs? (Score:3, Interesting)
PowerPC 970MX (Score:5, Informative)
Re:PowerPC 970MX (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point behind the xbox was for it to be a "console for the developers". It lets people who are used to writing PC games, which includes most studios, to begin writing games immediately for a new console with a minimal learning curve.
From what I understand, the PS2 is INSANELY hard to write software for, and I imagine the gamecube and the forthcoming revolution are/will be the same.
Microsoft really has done a good thing for once by making a device that just plays games and basing it off of a common abstraction layer.
With all that said, if it isn't compatible with my current games, I'm definitely going to hold off buying it until I see what the cell processor infrastructure has to offer. Why buy a console that can't play all my games until I can compare the Xbox Next, the PS3, and the Nintendo Revolution.
Re:PowerPC 970MX (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, directX is not going to address the fact that writing code that actually takes advantage of the multiple CPU's is not easy. Even seasoned developers find this kind of programming hard. You have to deal with a whole range of bugs that aren't a factor with single CPU aware programs. This is has been covered by slashdot a number of times. As the common PC moves towards SMP developers (Java, C++,
While it is true, the XBox is easier to program than Playstation, it should be noted that the success of the Playstation was because Sony provided a well crafted SDK and development platform. It was reported that the Playstation was much easier to write for compared to Nintendo and Sega at the time.
To sum up, your plan of waiting and seeing is a good idea. And I think it's the plan that Sony is counting on.
Re:PowerPC 970MX (Score:3, Informative)
Blow by Sony? Hahaha (Score:3, Informative)
Come on Steve who are you kidding. Even a monkey can see that you will be pwned.
Re:Blow by Sony? Hahaha (Score:4, Interesting)
What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Halo 2 released
Doom 3 released
Red Sox win World Series
Hurd reaches milestone
Now, Xbox2 releasing in November
Has global warming started to cool down hell already?
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Funny)
Hell has a long time yet to completely freeze over!
Not too Early? (Score:2, Interesting)
At this point, if the PS3 is late and/or the Cell chip is hard to write fast code for then the MS early mover advantage could be really bad news for Sony. Of course I think Open Source games will be the kill
Re:Not too Early? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the 'early mover advantage' is that it really only applies to games, not consoles. The real motivation for being an early adopter to a next-gen console is to play the sickest game 3v4R.
But the comments from EA, that "next generation Xbox titles would ship alongside current generation offerings later this year" implies that whatever gam
rumors of a name for the console... how about.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:rumors of a name for the console... how about.. (Score:2)
Forcing the market, I think not (Score:4, Insightful)
Gamecube hasn't even hit a ripe age yet.
Let's all remember that the reason M$ is really putting a new console out is to sweep under the rug the original Xbox's poor performance in the areana.
In all honesty, Sony can wait a while to get the PS3 out. Which it looks like they're planning on doing.
Nintendo hasn't said anything, but I'm going to guess they'll wait a little longer as well.
Anyone care to remind Redmond of the Tortoise vs. the Hare story?
Poor performance? I think not. (Score:2)
Show me this "poor performance" you speak of and then maybe i'll listen to you.
Re:Forcing the market, I think not (Score:3, Insightful)
PPC games optimization (Score:2, Interesting)
xbox is going to solve both of those. Of course they will still need grpahics card optimization and that will be different on Xbox and Macintosh. But clearly the largest obstacles to mac dominance of the gaming world are be
Re:PPC games optimization (Score:2)
http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc.html
Re:PPC games optimization (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be true in a Macintosh fan's wettest dreams. Superior hardware has almost nothing to do with viability as a gaming platform. It's all about market share. Go back to 1986, when the Amiga was the big thing. It had graphic and sound capability beyond any other home PC for it's time. It was not, however, the premier gaming platform becuase there simply wasn't enough market share for every game developer to start making Amiga games. 90% of the games on the shelf were for "MS-DOS". It will take far more than the Xbox's use of PPC chips for the Mac to be a viable gaming platform for any but the most successful and widely distributed games (let alone a dominant gaming platform).
Furthermore, the fact that the xbox ran on wintel hardware didn't mean that the xbox games were easily portable. They ran on a special version of DirectX that was incompatible with Windows DirectX. Games like Halo, which were ported to Windows were ported by third parties, and the backend was a ground-up port. It wasn't just a simple recompile.
The marketshare dictates other issues as well. For example, most peripherals are developed with Wintel in mind (not because Wintel is a technically better or worse platform...it has nothing to do with that -- it's all market share). So when nVidia or ATI crank out their latest graphics card, they have Wintel in mind. The Mac is sort of an afterthought and it tends to show in pricing. Apple went the extra mile by using open standards for their hardware, but you're still paying a premium for Macintosh verisons of Wintel hardware. It's not because they require many hardware tweeks to work -- the hardware is essentially identical. It's becuase the company has to expend the same amount on driver development and support, and the returns are limited. They'd rather stay competitive in the larger market (Wintel) than have to make the Wintel users subsidize the Mac development and support -- hence the premium on Mac graphics cards.
If you're buying a PC and honestly intend to use it with gaming in mind -- the Macintosh is probably the wrong PC for you. Forget about your allegiances for a second and just look at the software that's out there. I had to face this same issue when I finally ditched my Amiga in 1996. Maybe in 10 years, things could change, but buying a Mac today with the thought-in-mind that it's going to be a dominant (or even viable) gaming platform within its lifetime does not seem realistic to me. I strongly disagree with your statement that this removes the largest obstacle -- or really had anything to do with why Macintoshes aren't dominant gaming platforms.
Re:PPC games optimization (Score:3, Insightful)
Innovating (Score:2)
"The graphics, what it can do, the way things look, huge innovation... What is 'Halo 2?' It's the greatest video game ever written."
"...And furthermore, we fully expect Halo 3 to be the most innovative game ever written!"
Ballmer bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, no.
Graphics are nice, but gameplay is what counts. And Halo 2 is just another multiplayer FPS.
I still replay Super Metroid and Castlevania: Symphoy of the Night about once a year, and every few months I get an urge to replay Rez intensly for a couple of weeks.
The graphics were an important part of the initial experience, but they are just eye candy, and they get old fast. Why would I still play old games when the new ones have the better graphics? Gameplay? That's right.
Re:Ballmer bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
Sam and Max called, Mr. Ballmer, and the little bunny said to go fuck yourself.
Re:Ballmer bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
And try to imagine Castlevania: SOTN without the wonderful flowing sprite artwork of Alucard. Imagine if he was just a colored square. Would the game really be as enjoyable?
This is not to bash Rez and SOTN; they are very fine games that achieve what they're trying to do. What I'm saying is that a game is an organic experience, and you can't isolate out one element like "gameplay" and say that's all that matters. You're right that graphics for the sake of bland "realism" (like in too many FPSes) are usually not worthwhile; but visuals that are fresh, original and inspiring (like those of Rez) and that work together with the gameplay to create an atmosphere (like SOTN) can be what makes a game worth playing.
I hope they work the bugs out this time (Score:4, Insightful)
This is completely backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
So now someone wants to put out something better, and we're all supposed to say no! Too early.... let me play with this one longer?
Bah, those who want to play with PS2 and XBox can do so, but I'm going to take a bet that if this is that much better, people will buy it...if not, it will die.
But retraining new tech for the sake of keeping old tech around? Thats counter-slashdot... and the same argument applies if it was Sony or Microsoft, although I'd also sneak a side bet in that if it was Sony, it would be a good thing... but its Microsoft, and people love to hate them.
PPC? (Score:2)
Next generation too early (Score:2)
I think Nintendo especially have a lot to offer on the GameCube this year, with RE4, Zel
PPC? (Score:2)
Re:PPC? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, there is this new thing called a compiler. It lets you write computer code in a "high level language" and then translates it for you into assembly language for whatever chip you are targetting.
Let the countdown begin! (Score:3, Funny)
It's all about the games... (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of it this way: what can the XBox 2 possibly offer me that's new? Sure they can up the graphics performance, hard drive space, etc, but it's really just making it an evolutionary step better than the current system. Furthermore, if raw performance was a big deal, they'd already dominate the market because the XBox outperforms and has more features than the PS2. Hell, even for existing XBox owners the decision will require some thought seeing as old games won't play on the new system (as far as I know).
On the other hand, the PS3 will be backward compatible, add significant processing power, and quite likely add some new features like having a hard drive and output for HD. Those features, of course, already exist on an XBox, but this means people fixated on hardware performance should be turning to PS3 as the better system. So barring some major manufacturing glitches, delays, etc, I see no reason to think the PS3 will be losing market share to the XBox 2.
Re:It's all about the games... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm curious. You didn't happen to have the PS2 at a vertical angle di
Yet another "next generation" of consoles (Score:5, Insightful)
About the only things that could seem like a major upgrade to me would be improved resolution by requiring an HDTV (not likely to happen), and cheap but effective VR gear like in Sci-Fi (really not likely to happen anytime soon.)
I mean, come on, all the current game systems have many of the same games on them now with little to distinguish them visually and aurally.
Same goes for PC games, really. All FPSers follow the exact same formula, and dispite all the graphical glory possible with Geforce 6800 Ultras and Athlon64 FXs and their ilk, they all boil down to trying to imagine yourself in a virtual world when all you see and experience is coming from the monitor in front of you and the speakers nearby.
Why isn't there true VR yet? A FPSer that utilized immersive, full-body experience would be amazing!
Instead, we just get new super-marketed hype machines that push more polygons than the last models so the eye-candy is sweeter, but otherwise they're the same old thing all over.
I will admit I enjoy many of the games available for the current systems and they weren't possible before them, but I think the real next generation should be a VR gaming system.
(Yes I know the Virtual-Boy was a flop, but that was Nintendo's mistake in releasing "VR" too early on too inadaquate hardware)
"It's All About Games" = Myth (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not all about the games. The Playstation2 launched with zero great games and I do mean zero. You have no idea how many times gamers would walk in our store during the first 3-5 months after the PS2 launch and just stare at the PS2 wall blankly, as if a great game would suddenly materialize on the shelf before their very eyes. SSX did ok, and so did Madden. But otherwise, the launch was dismal. It was such a game wasteland for the PS2 that people thought Onimusha was the best game since Super Mario. To make it worse, there was not only a shortage of systems, there was a shortage of memory cards. Logistically, the PS2 launch was a failure.
Yet, even before the good stuff starting showing up, it was clear that the PS2 was a better system seller than the Xbox. Was it the backwards compatibility? Nope. Most people who bought the PS2 would buy one or two PS1 games, come in two weeks later, and bitch about the crappiness of PS1 games on the PS2 and never buy another. DVD playback probably had something to do with it. GTA3? No - by then (Christmas) it was already clear that the PS2 was doing far better than the Xbox and GC combined.
It was merely that it was named the Playstation. In the end, it was brand, not games. I wish - I really wish - that it were the games that mattered. But in the end, it's not. What's sad is that with the beginning of the XBox, I saw this "it's all about the games stupid" philosophy in the Xbox coporate guard. The good news is that I think XBox2 will do better (and therefore provider better competition for Sony - always good). The bad news? I think the new guys in charge of Xbox know/learned that it's all about the brand stupid.
Further proof? Cf. Sega, who's last 5-7 years, from Dreamcast to 2K sports, has been a battle against brand.
Good games making a system, and bad games breaking it, is a myth. In the end, brand is almost all that matters (And maybe DVD playback).
The N64 and Branding (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point, but I contend it's still the brand. I'm not talking "Brand Loyalty," which is what you're referring to. I'm talking brand. What Nintendo failed to do was develop a brand that grew with their audience. The PSX had. Nintendo marketed the N64 to kids. Look at the design of the system; round edges, colorful buttons.
Great expectations (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks, Microsoft. (Score:3, Funny)
When you guys first threw your weight into the console game arena, I have to admit I was worried. I was afraid you would do the same thing to it that you've done to the web browser, the personal computer, and well...everything else you've touched. That is, bury anything interesting or innovative under a huge pile of blood money. It really has ruined those things, and made you guys even bigger and wealthier. But it also pissed some people off. Some smart and innovative people, like the folks at Apple, the screaming millions of Linux contributers, the phoenix that was Netscape and is now Mozilla/FF/Thunderbird. You've inspired huge communities of people to do some great things.
And they're starting to nip at your heels, aren't they?
Back to video games. Well, Sony is Sony. Think the installed base of Atari without the complacency. They are fully aware that you'll devour them if they slip up, so they are trying like hell not to. I would say they've done a good job so far. Nintendo has taken a different tack (though they are still beating you everywhere but here). While people denigrate them for being a "kiddy" platform, they forget that we have such a huge market for games now partly because of the success of the NES with us when we were kids.
Your foray into gaming has ensured we have a top dog (maybe an alpha Aibo?) that stays quick on its feet, and guaranteed Big N will be around for at least another 20 years. I couldn't be happier with that. Please, feel free to remain the limburger cheese of the console business. Continue to turn people like me off with your one hit wonder lineup of games. Fight hard for you status as the console people buy after they already have one of the others. And don't hesitate to milk your installed base for whatever (subscriptions, DRM, feature creep) you can.
Thanks,
Dwarfgoanna
Competitiveness (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that bothers me is that Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior in the PC world directly affects their ability to be so competitive in the console world. Microsoft makes use of monopoly rents to subsidize the losses they accrue with the XBox.
It's a lot easier to spread into new markets when you can siphon profits from a monopoly you hold in another market.
Re:Competitiveness (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft just reported their first quarterly profit [gamespot.com] from their Home and Entertainment unit. They lost money on the XBox in the beginning, but they knew all along that the long term would be profitable. The 'monopoly subsidizes the XBox' argument is now void.
Uh, sorry, no. (Score:5, Informative)
Bungie seems to have been the one good investment H&E has made since the beginning of the XBox. But there is no chance they are going to be able to make the segment float on its own. Meanwhile if you can produce an event which causes a quarterly profit once, this isn't terribly impressive. H&E might as well have put $50 million in a savings account every quarter for a few years, then withdrawn it all at once and said "look! we made a profit this quarter!"
Re:More power to them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, this is Slashdot. If there was an article about Bill Gates wiping his nose, he'd be criticised here.
Trying to rationally discuss anything relating to Microsoft on Slashdot is an excercise in futility.
god bless ya ;-) (Score:5, Funny)
With good reason! Have you seen the brand of tissues he's using? That stuff is made directly from trees!
Responsible people use tissues made from recycled paper. He's clearly mad with power!
Re:More power to them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More power to them. (Score:5, Informative)
Now, I'm no huge fan of the XBox, nor Microsoft. But I will give credit where it is due. The XBox (a year after launch) brought the best online connectivity solution out, passing what Sega was starting to do on the Dreamcast. The XBox live service blows away gaming online on any other console. GameCube has what, one true online game? Playstation has a few, but they don't link in any way, so I can't see if my friends are playing game A or B. Lastly on the online area, the XBox shipped standard with ethernet for online play. Dreamcast shipped standard with a modem. Gamecube ships with no connectivity option, and only recently were PS2s being sold with the networking built in (the mini PS2), or with an adaptor in the box.
The XBox also excels in putting out more HD games then any other console. Gamecube only does 480p, and the PS2 claims to do 480p as well on some games. Neither outdo almost every Dreamcast game supporting 480p, except the XBox going on to also support 720p and in some cases 1080i.
Then there is audio. Way better support from the developers for full 5.1 sound out of the XBox compared to any of the others.
I didn't even touch on the hard drive yet and already have 3 major points. The drive allows expansions to games, like the added game types and maps to MechAssault. Though that I feel was more due to MechAssalult being rushed for release, but hey, at least it could be added later.
The first next gen console I got was the Dreamcast and loved it. Next I got a Gamecube, just because Nintendo does indeed do well in making fun to play games. I picked up my XBox when Steel Battalion came out (I'm a mech junkie), and finally only recently got a mini PS2 and several of the now $20 games. I still have more GameCube games over any other console, but that may change now that I own an HDTV and want to see more games on it take advantage of the higher resolution. I don't like the idea of supporting Microsoft a ton here, but they are doing a decent job in the console space. I saw both the Gamecube and PS2 as a downgrade to the Dreamcast in several areas, only the XBox was an upgrade to me.
Re:Profit?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:According to "sources". (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, Nintendo was waiting on the release schedules of these guys to decide when to release the Revolution. They wanted to avoid what happened with the Gamecube by coming out too late. It's expected that the Revolution will be coming out early next year.
All three will be unveiled at this year's E3. If there was ever an E3 to be at, this would be the one (I want to see the new Zelda game).
Re:According to "sources". (Score:3, Informative)
X - the quintessential variable
by 32_Footsteps,
in Games
, Jun 30, 2000
Pros: Potentially powerful, has serious marketing muscle behind it
Cons: Serious questions about games and support, can the X-Box survive a DOJ breakup?
Yes, that was almost 5 years ago... Why are you talking of every 2 years ? I don't like Microsoft, and I dislikes console even more. But what I hate most, that's those "like fact" sentences.
Re:According to "sources". (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing these guys know how to do is LEARN and implement what they learn.
Re:According to "sources". (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect my post above was unclear, I am sorry. What I was trying to point out is that gamesindustry.biz has no evidence in their article more solid than "according to sources". I was not trying to say Microsoft couldn't or wouldn't or shouldn't release their console in that timeframe, just trying to observe that maybe readers should be aware that this news is not from official sources and should not be taken simply at the Slashdot headline's word. We don't know anything for certain yet.
Re:According to "sources". (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason for buying a console is to PLAY GAMES. Buy games you like, with high replayability, and keep it for 5-10 years. The Atari 2600 was still fun for me in the 1990s.
Re:According to "sources". (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:According to "sources". (Score:3, Informative)
Here [uchicago.edu] they claim it's been out since 1994.
Which puts it between at least 10, possibly 11 years now.
Not sure if that's authoratative, but it's at least a date I found via a quick google search.
It's been obsoleted by the PS2 for what a little over 4 years? (It came out during the Christmas shopping season of 2000 if I remember correctly).
However, it's not like a lot of titles are being released. It's not like th
Re:According to "sources". (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the current hardware on the PS2/GameCube/X-Box is more than enough to make great games for the next year or so.
That works out well then, considering "XBox 2" won't be coming out until late this year (at the earliest) and both PS3 and Revolution aren't coming out until sometime in 2006.
And even with new consoles being released, there will probably be games released for current-gen consoles for at least the next 2-3 years. There won't be as many, but it's not like your PS2 or XBox immediately becomes worthless the minute a new console comes out.
I am inclined to agree with the statement that the only reason M$ is doing this is for profit.
You really think Sony and Nintendo do what they do for anything other than profit? Sure they'll talk about the artistry involved in creating games and how they're inspired to push the limits of technology, but that's mostly PR. All three companies want to own the video game market and make as much money as possible.
Re:The Bigger Concern (Score:5, Insightful)
Because...
Re:The Bigger Concern (Score:5, Funny)
Live in girlfriends / wives don't like lots of boxes cluttering up "their" living room. That's wasted space where you could put another coffee table or something.