Gon, you obviously feel like we have to prove something to you. I tried to answer your questions earlier, but apparently you didn't read everything or you don't care.
I'm personally not interested in answering every one of your "yeah, but..." questions. If you have anything NEW to ask, I'd be happy to answer.
I have an Xbox, but I'm growing less than enthused about the 360. I'd probably rather just hook a next generation Mac mini with Front Row up to a HDTV (assuming it supports the Apple Remote like the new iMac). The only thing I really find exciting about the new Xbox is that it sounds like the 360 will let you use the remote to turn the Xbox on and off (a feature that was severely lacking on the original Xbox). I guess I was really hoping Microsoft would improve the interoperability between Xbox and other devices (like my Macs), but all they did from what I can tell is add a couple USB ports.
I'm going to wait and see what Sony comes up with.
* It actually has less disc space than the previous xbox.
* It requires developers to write a custom tile based renderer to support decent AA due to the too small 10 megs of EDRAM - even first party developers aren't bothering to do so and that is why you keep hearing about the horrible jaggies on 360 games people are seeing
* It doesn't support HD movies - no next gen disc format and no digital HDMI connection. No 1080p
* Massively overpriced peripherals.
* No backwards compatibility. Microsoft is essentially manually porting some selection of Xbox games to the 360. And you can't even have that unless you pay the extra 100 dollars for the harddrive addon or pay for the more expensive system.
* You have to pay to play online - unlike Sony and Nintendo.
* The ridiculous two SKUs where Microsoft has decreed that all games work without a harddrive - making use of the harddrive few developers will see any reason to support.
* And despite the higher theoretical performance numbers the 360 cpu and graphics unit are claimed to have - the real world performance developers are getting seem to be around a dual 2.5ghz 970 machine with a new graphics card.
roadmap, leave, just leave because you have no clue what you are saying.
microsoft just released a list of 200 plus games that are already backwards compatible with hundreds more to come.
pay to go online, yes. have you seen the new online system? its the best online experience you can prob have, its even better than PC. it's a centeralized service like no other. 50 dollars a year? big whoop.
the ps3 wont have this. the ps3 is leaving online up to the developers, essentially they can do what they want and charge what they want. judging from the current ps2 online thats not a good decision.
the only thing thats going to be overpriced is the playsation. at 500 dollars for just the system...500 now will get you the 360, two games and an extra controller.
up and down developers praise the simplicity to program for the 360 so maybe your missing something there.
why do i keep hearing this from the playstation camp "xbox doesn't have any games" wtf are you talking about?
this time around basically both systems will have the same games besides exclusive titles.
the exclusive battle consist of a hand full of decent playstaion games and metal gear solid vs halo and a few other decent games.
grand theft auto (what really made ps2 great) will be released on both systems at the same time.
ps3vs360
online: 360
controller: 360, hands down lol
system:based on sheer numbers ps3
price: 360
3rd party games: tied
exlusives: personal preference.
blu-ray is up in the air.
nintendo has great first party games, it failed because of the lack of support from other developers.
ok, obviously everything i say is speculation considering i'm not god or the architect of the matrix for that matter.
i cant see into the future.
what i can do is say what i believe and that is the 360 from what i've seen and read is going to be the best system and not because of graphics or machine capabilities.
But it's still speculation. Discounting things based on hype or whatnot is not a good method of evaluation. The PS3 should not be discounted until you can actually play the games and evaluate it. The same goes with the Revolution. Anything else borders on fan-boyism. The only exception might be the 'Phantom,' which will never materialize.
Quote:
you mention nintendo, you mention fun, and yet downplay the 360 because the games dont look that much better than xbox1?
doesn't make sense?
Most XBox/XBox360 games are marketed on their 'leet' and 'realistic' graphics. The entire marketing engine feeds off of the 'improved graphics.' If the graphics are lackluster, then that doesn't say much about the system. Nintendo is not marketing their systems as having superior graphics.
Quote:
first, the games def do look a lot better than the xbox.
also, when has launch titles dictated what the machine could actually do? realize launch titles are rushed and produced with very minimal knowledge of the new system.
Very true. So how do the launch titles tell you that the XBox360 will beat two systems which you have not even seen yet?
Quote:
you're right i haven't heard much from sony besides the blah blah blah cell blah blah blah power blah blah blah our system is a monster and will cost 500 or more dollars blah blah blah look at these numbers
You heard 'blah blah blah' from Microsoft too. Remember that whole MTV thing with the 360 which basically told you nothing about the system other than 'you need to buy it, because we can show you pretty pictures?' The only difference here is that Microsoft came to market first. But that means nothing. Take a look at the Dreamcast.
Quote:
nintendo? who knows. the gamecube sucked and this time they are taking a HUGE risk on the revolution.
Why did the Gamecube suck? Lots of people bought system 'pairs' during this last round of consoles. Gamecube + XBox or Gamecube + PS2. Nintendo has always been able to crank out games based on their long-standing franchises. There will be Mario games, Mario Party games, perhaps a Mario Kart game, a Zelda game or two, a Metroid game or two, etc. They will all sell, and some people will probably buy a Revolution just for their specific game series that they 'have to have' the latest and greatest game for.
How is the Revolution a 'huge' risk though? The controller? Give me a break. They have stated that you can get 'regular' controllers too. The hardcore gamers will play with regular controllers.
Nintendo is targeting the non-gamers with their new controller. If you have ever tried to get a non-gamer to play games, especially someone that is 30+ years old, you know that the largest barrier to entry is the controller. It intimidates them. Those of us that have been gaming since we were little on the Intellivision/Atari 2600/NES are used to the contollers. We have been there through the evolution of the controller to what it is today. We started off with a simple controller and were gradually introduced to new buttons and more buttons as time went on.
Controllers have gotten very complex. It's easy for kids and gamers to pick up on today's controllers, but adults that don't have experience in gaming need the barrier to adoption lowered so that they can easy pick up a controller and get into a game. Just look at the NintendoDS. There were many nay-sayers when it came out. The DS is selling. People are buying it and going for the games.
Your tone seems to think that gaming should be stuck in some rut with no inovation beyond better graphics added onto the same old gameplay with the same old controllers. I mean admit it, they can change the 'form factor' of the XBox controller all they want, but it's still the same controller with a slightly different form factor. People like you need to realize that things need to change. I mean you would probably be on the streets trying to convince people that ordering ice blocks from an ice company was better than an electric-powered refridgerator back in the day.
Let's face it. As much as improving the graphics of a system can be creative at the design/programming level, for the most part it's just a matter of throwing more horsepower at the problem. Sony and Microsoft don't come out with radical new ideas that will change the face of gaming because they are corporations who don't care about the face of gaming. They care about the bottom line. Just like the TV media corporations that try to churn out TV shows that are as mediocre as possible to appeal to the widest audience possible, Sony and Microsoft aren't going to take the risks involved in radical ideas, however minimal.
Now, I don't know if I'll end up getting anything from the next round of consoles, but I think that ragging on Nintendo is a stupid idea. Unless you want the mediocre development from MS and Sony. Because without risks and changes the game console industry will end up looking like EA and the Madden games. You'll just sit there and buy incremental updates every year for a mediocre game that only adds on what is needs to get by and nothing more.
* It actually has less disc space than the previous xbox.
Not many games that I know about actually utilized this space. From what I understand, the hard drive was not used to it's full potential. Microsoft probably picked up on that fact as a way to cut production costs by using a smaller drive. Granted, I never owned an XBox so I'm just talking from second-hand knowledge here. Maybe someone can back me up.
Quote:
* It requires developers to write a custom tile based renderer to support decent AA due to the too small 10 megs of EDRAM - even first party developers are bothering to do so and that is why you keep hearing about the horrible jaggies on 360 games people are seeing
I don't know much about this issue, but won't those custom renderers improve as the system matures? Can they be reused and improved upon in other games by the same company/dev team?
Quote:
* It doesn't support HD movies - no next gen disc format and not digital HDMI connection. No 1080p
To be fair, not many people are going to have 1080p. 1080p will probably be hitting a critical-mass of popularity and cost around the time the next generation of consoles will be coming out (XBox720, PS4, Nintendo RPM)
Quote:
* Massively overpriced peripherals.
What do you expect from MS? They found a way to eliminate those pesky cheap 3rd party controllers.
Quote:
* No backwards compatibility. Microsoft is essentially manually porting some selection of Xbox games to the 360. And you can't even have that unless you pay the extra 100 dollars for the harddrive addon or pay for the more expensive system.
Well, to be fair to Microsoft... XBox games were Intel-based and the XBox360 is PPC-based. They are basically porting those games to a different architecture.
Quote:
* You have to pay to play online - unlike Sony and Nintendo.
Double-edged sword. All games are online, but it also means that the online experience is integrated. XBox Live also guarantees the quality of online service for the games is consistent. It also means XBox360 games will have value-added when it comes to cross-console games. Since they will have 'accomplishments' from even the single-player games as part of your XBox Live identity.
Quote:
* The ridiculous two SKUs where Microsoft has decreed that all games work without a harddrive - making use of the harddrive few developers will see any reason to support.
Yea. This really is a stupid move by MS. Developers don't want to single out the people that don't have a hard drive, but that doesn't mean that there won't be developers that use the hard drive. Look at the PS2. Didn't come with a hard drive, but there were games that utilized it.
Quote:
* And despite the higher theoretical performance numbers the 360 cpu and graphics unit are claimed to have - the real world performance developers are getting seem to be around a dual 2.5ghz 970 machine with a new graphics card.
It's a disaster.
The problem is that the 'power' relies on multi-threading. It's yet to be seen just how much multi-threading can be utilized in gaming. Carmack has even gone on the record saying that games will not benefit from multi-threading. The PS3 may have the same problems. We will have to see.
Why did the Gamecube suck? Lots of people bought system 'pairs' during this last round of consoles. Gamecube + XBox or Gamecube + PS2.
I think you'll find that was the very problem of the Gamecube. As compelling as some of its games might have been they weren't enough for it to become a first console for many people, and only a fraction of the market buy two so you've already cut your target market. As a result many large retailers dumped the gamecube because of lackluster sales, at least in Europe and Oceania, and from there on it was all downhill.
Yet again Nintendo this generation is going with a lets be the second console mentality and it just doesn't work. They'll lose because they're aiming to and unit sales matter.
roadmap, leave, just leave because you have no clue what you are saying.
microsoft just released a list of 200 plus games that are already backwards compatible with hundreds more to come.
Ok... I'll give you this, but I can still look at the list and see games I liked to play on XBox that aren't compatible.
Quote:
pay to go online, yes. have you seen the new online system? its the best online experience you can prob have, its even better than PC. it's a centeralized service like no other. 50 dollars a year? big whoop.
the ps3 wont have this. the ps3 is leaving online up to the developers, essentially they can do what they want and charge what they want. judging from the current ps2 online thats not a good decision.
He's talking about the fact that MS is forcing even single player games to have an online component. MS is trying to force people that don't want to pay for online to *HAVE* to pay for online. This is what he is talking about. He's not talking about the quality of online service.
I don't know if MS is *FORCING* people to sign-up for XBoxLive on the 360 to play any games, but you strayed so far away from his topic that it's not even funny.
Quote:
the only thing thats going to be overpriced is the playsation. at 500 dollars for just the system...500 now will get you the 360, two games and an extra controller.
As far as I know, the $500 price point is no confirmed. It's just speculation. It's like me saying:
"I heard from a friend of a friend of a friend that XBOX720 is going to be $1000 so that only rich people can buy it. I heard that Bill Gates himself said that he wants rich snobs to be able to sneer at the lowly poor people that can't afford a mere $1K gamnig system."
Quote:
up and down developers praise the simplicity to program for the 360 so maybe your missing something there.
I've heard that development on XBox360 AND the Playstation3 sucks. XBox development was aparently easier. But that's just what I hear.
Seriously cite sources of this 'praise' if you want people to take it seriously. Just drop us some links, or else we'll write it off as you just making crap up.
The thing that I don't get is how this is even a factor, based on your later comments in your post? You make it sound like it's so easy to program for the XBox360 that there will be 1000s of exclusive titles due to the ease of creation, but then you later on say that most games will be cross-console from third parties...
Quote:
why do i keep hearing this from the playstation camp "xbox doesn't have any games" wtf are you talking about?
this time around basically both systems will have the same games besides exclusive titles.
True. This time around there will be more cross-console games. But that statement doesn't convey that well. Your statement sounds more like, "They will be the same except for their differences."
Quote:
the exclusive battle consist of a hand full of decent playstaion games and metal gear solid vs halo and a few other decent games.
grand theft auto (what really made ps2 great) will be released on both systems at the same time.
Have a link? GTA games have been coming to PS2 first and then XBox later for this entire past console generation. Why is that going to change now? Sony give up on wooing Rockstar to give them exclusivity for a few months? Seriously. If the XBox360 is so great, then people will just wait the extra 6 months for it to be released on a better console even if it comes to PS3 first.
Metal Gear Solid will probably end up cross-console, with just a delay. That's only possibly though. Have they ported MGS3 to XBox at all? I remember that the rain in the XBox version of MGS2 sucked because they just emulated the PS2 code for it rather than porting it to XBox or something like that.
Quote:
ps3vs360
online: 360
controller: 360, hands down lol
system:based on sheer numbers ps3
price: 360
3rd party games: tied
exlusives: personal preference.
blu-ray is up in the air.
Online, yea. 360 will have a better online experience. But keep in mind that I have fun gaming on my PS2 without going online at all. This may not be a deciding factor.
Controller? The PS3 controller that was demoed isn't even a final design. It may look nothing like that. This is why people need to settle down about deciding who has 'won the console war' when two of the contenders aren't even in the ring yet. It's just idle speculation.
System? You mean 'installed base?' I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
Price? IIRC Sony hasn't announced an official price yet, so this is more idle speculation. You might as well be making up magic numbers and using arcane potions to determine who has won the console war. Maybe you could find that Russian psychic that wanted to sue NASA for screwing up the cosmos when they crashed into that comet. Maybe she can tell you who has won before the war has started.
Third Party Games, yea. There will be massive 3rd party support for both platforms.
At least you didn't go on a flame about the exclusives being better or worse. One note on exclusives though... Things like Xenosaga and Final Fantasy will probably be PS3 only. There are a lot of fans of those series, this could be a deciding factor as well. But it's hard to argue that because how does one determine which fan bases are larger?
Quote:
nintendo has great first party games, it failed because of the lack of support from other developers.
I don't think that they failed. Had they failed, they would be like Sega now, or bought by Microsoft/Sony to make exclusives. We will see how they do this generation of consoles, but it looks like they are targetting a completely different audience with their platforms like Revolution and DS. And as I've stated in another post, if the price is right, people will end up with either a XBox360+Nintendo Rev combo or a PS3+Nintendo Rev combo. I know a lot of people that did this during this generation, including myself.
Carmack has even gone on the record saying that games will not benefit from multi-threading. The PS3 may have the same problems. We will have to see. [/B]
Someone, please stick a fork in Carmack. Anything can benefit from multi-threading. Coding the way he likes to code may not agree with the push for multi-threading, as perhaps evidenced by the fact that Doom 3 runs like crap. Modern RTOSes have gotten extremely good at allowing low latencies on multi-core, multiprocessing hardware. Despite the fact that a multithreaded game in Windows XP may have latency issues, there's no reason to assume that all games are going to be run on Windows XP. This is something that I'd assume Microsoft addressed when coding the OS for the xBox 360, but knowing Microsoft, your guess is as good as mine. They have a pretty solid history of delivering terribly unoptimized products. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
but all they did from what I can tell is add a couple USB ports.
I'm going to wait and see what Sony comes up with.
They didn't really 'add' some USB ports. The XBox controllers are a variant of USB. You can easily turn USB devices into XBox controller port devices by splicing the connector to the cord, IIRC. You just need to have software on the XBox that will accept it as a device. All MS did was eliminate the proprietary connector.
Someone, please stick a fork in Carmack. Anything can benefit from multi-threading. Coding the way he likes to code may not agree with the push for multi-threading, as perhaps evidenced by the fact that Doom 3 runs like crap. Modern RTOSes have gotten extremely good at allowing low latencies on multi-core, multiprocessing hardware. Despite the fact that a multithreaded game in Windows XP may have latency issues, there's no reason to assume that all games are going to be run on Windows XP. This is something that I'd assume Microsoft addressed when coding the OS for the xBox 360, but knowing Microsoft, your guess is as good as mine. They have a pretty solid history of delivering terribly unoptimized products. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Even if games *CAN* benefit from multi-threading, we won't see those benefits right away. The developers will have to learn to utilize this to it's full potential. The learning curve may be steep.
FWIW, the $500 estimated cost for a PS3 came about when some analyst somewhere figured up the cost of all the components that will (likely) be going into the PS3. That cost, plus a little markup for profit, makes $500.
When I authored this thread, I should have suspected that some here would try to get into a console cat fight.
well .. (not intending to sound like an asshole.. ) but.. to anser the topic of this thread..
i would like to buy a XBox 360.
i mean.. i can play system link with this thing.. connect it to my old xbox.. and i can play HALO 2 (or what ever game i have that supports sys. link .. (i'll have to buy second disc for it.. but hey.. the prices droped bigtime for the cool games.. ))
and i'll have a new console to play with.. play online that is (if you read further .. you know what i mean)
and for going off topic, i would like too say this,
for all of those saying you HAVE to pay for playing online...
that's history.. for a part of it.. you have now 2 sort of XBOX LIVE ACCOUNTS.
-the GOLD account.. a premium sort of xbox live account
-and the SILVER account.. a sort of account that lets you only play online..AFAIK
for the GOLD account.. you pay the usual fee.. that's something like 50 bucks per year.
and for the SILVER account.. don't panic.. i know it's microsoft.. i was shocked too.. it's (omg.. gasp!).. free... yes.. you read it right.. free..
so.. not only it has the best graphics (untill now.. we'll see with the ps 3).. it has free online gaming experience...
(hence the included headphone thing with the premium xbox 360 pack)
as far the pricing.. it's a bargin compared what the ps2 cost when it was launched.. here in europe.. the price was EUR. 1200,-... 1200!!! that's $1440
that's was insane.. i had a friend that paid that amount of cash for it.. and it wrecked his first game he baught with it.. tekken something..
so.. EUR. 399,- ($399) for a new console with lot's of goodies ($99 for the HDD.. so.. it's a nice deal for the premium pack)
the HDD.. well. I saw a game that it required a HDD.. ok.. that was indeed a bad move.. but still.. you're not being forced too buy that game.. and if you do want that game.. and you have a core system.. then.. you're screwed...
and about the HDTV stuff.. i see it as a nice extra.. the icing on the cake.. it's not something i would say.. damn.. i need that thing because it's HD..
and if i would go HD...
i would buy an Apple Cinema Display (or a dell thing).. probably 20" (and Edu. discount... yay! ).. why?.. cause it's cool.. it's stupid.. but i don't care.. and yes.. you can connect it thru VGA... don't know if it's included with the pack.. or you have to buy it seperatly.. but the point is .. you can connect it.. (though i heard if you connect stuff to the Apple Cinema Display it makes it more dimmed.. what ever)
With the recent revelation that the Revolution will not support HD, I've all but abandoned that system. I am going to wait until the spring, around E3 to decide what next gen system to get. I want to see if MS goes through with the upgrade to HD-DVD like had been mentioned. Also, of course, I want to see a playable version of the PS3. I'm hoping MS lowers the price at the time Sony releases the PS3, plus I'm not getting a 360 until Halo 3 is out anyway...
Revolution will probably at least support 480p (gamecube does). That's the same quality as your DVDs. Are you completely abandoning all of your DVDs for HD-DVD/BluRay because DVD isn't 720p/1080p?
FWIW, the $500 estimated cost for a PS3 came about when some analyst somewhere figured up the cost of all the components that will (likely) be going into the PS3. That cost, plus a little markup for profit, makes $500.
When I authored this thread, I should have suspected that some here would try to get into a console cat fight.
But it's still speculation. The PS3 is still in development. Sony could broker deals on components, etc. I think that people should wait for an official announcement before writing PS3 or even the Revolution off. You can't compare 3 consoles when only one console is out and the other two are still being developed.
microsoft just released a list of 200 plus games that are already backwards compatible with hundreds more to come.
Out of how many thousands of games though? This isn't true backwards compatibility and it requires you have the HD to boot. So although they're advertising backward compatibility it isn't strictly speaking true unless you buy the more expensive of their models. If you want backward compatibility Nintendo and Sony are the only ones to really have it thus far.
Comments
xbox question: using an HDTV, will playing an old xbox game (Dark Alliance II) on an xbox360 look better than playing the same game on an old xbox?
I'm personally not interested in answering every one of your "yeah, but..." questions. If you have anything NEW to ask, I'd be happy to answer.
Originally posted by e1618978
Can you guys please tone down the console battle? Most of us don't care.
xbox question: using an HDTV, will playing an old xbox game (Dark Alliance II) on an xbox360 look better than playing the same game on an old xbox?
In short, yes. Similar to the HD-Upconversion dvd players.
I'm going to wait and see what Sony comes up with.
Nick
* It actually has less disc space than the previous xbox.
* It requires developers to write a custom tile based renderer to support decent AA due to the too small 10 megs of EDRAM - even first party developers aren't bothering to do so and that is why you keep hearing about the horrible jaggies on 360 games people are seeing
* It doesn't support HD movies - no next gen disc format and no digital HDMI connection. No 1080p
* Massively overpriced peripherals.
* No backwards compatibility. Microsoft is essentially manually porting some selection of Xbox games to the 360. And you can't even have that unless you pay the extra 100 dollars for the harddrive addon or pay for the more expensive system.
* You have to pay to play online - unlike Sony and Nintendo.
* The ridiculous two SKUs where Microsoft has decreed that all games work without a harddrive - making use of the harddrive few developers will see any reason to support.
* And despite the higher theoretical performance numbers the 360 cpu and graphics unit are claimed to have - the real world performance developers are getting seem to be around a dual 2.5ghz 970 machine with a new graphics card.
It's a disaster.
microsoft just released a list of 200 plus games that are already backwards compatible with hundreds more to come.
pay to go online, yes. have you seen the new online system? its the best online experience you can prob have, its even better than PC. it's a centeralized service like no other. 50 dollars a year? big whoop.
the ps3 wont have this. the ps3 is leaving online up to the developers, essentially they can do what they want and charge what they want. judging from the current ps2 online thats not a good decision.
the only thing thats going to be overpriced is the playsation. at 500 dollars for just the system...500 now will get you the 360, two games and an extra controller.
up and down developers praise the simplicity to program for the 360 so maybe your missing something there.
why do i keep hearing this from the playstation camp "xbox doesn't have any games" wtf are you talking about?
this time around basically both systems will have the same games besides exclusive titles.
the exclusive battle consist of a hand full of decent playstaion games and metal gear solid vs halo and a few other decent games.
grand theft auto (what really made ps2 great) will be released on both systems at the same time.
ps3vs360
online: 360
controller: 360, hands down lol
system:based on sheer numbers ps3
price: 360
3rd party games: tied
exlusives: personal preference.
blu-ray is up in the air.
nintendo has great first party games, it failed because of the lack of support from other developers.
Originally posted by Elixir
roadmap, leave, just leave because you have no clue what you are saying.
This is funny - you didn't answer any of his bullit points.
Originally posted by Elixir
ok, obviously everything i say is speculation considering i'm not god or the architect of the matrix for that matter.
i cant see into the future.
what i can do is say what i believe and that is the 360 from what i've seen and read is going to be the best system and not because of graphics or machine capabilities.
But it's still speculation. Discounting things based on hype or whatnot is not a good method of evaluation. The PS3 should not be discounted until you can actually play the games and evaluate it. The same goes with the Revolution. Anything else borders on fan-boyism. The only exception might be the 'Phantom,' which will never materialize.
you mention nintendo, you mention fun, and yet downplay the 360 because the games dont look that much better than xbox1?
doesn't make sense?
Most XBox/XBox360 games are marketed on their 'leet' and 'realistic' graphics. The entire marketing engine feeds off of the 'improved graphics.' If the graphics are lackluster, then that doesn't say much about the system. Nintendo is not marketing their systems as having superior graphics.
first, the games def do look a lot better than the xbox.
also, when has launch titles dictated what the machine could actually do? realize launch titles are rushed and produced with very minimal knowledge of the new system.
Very true. So how do the launch titles tell you that the XBox360 will beat two systems which you have not even seen yet?
you're right i haven't heard much from sony besides the blah blah blah cell blah blah blah power blah blah blah our system is a monster and will cost 500 or more dollars blah blah blah look at these numbers
You heard 'blah blah blah' from Microsoft too. Remember that whole MTV thing with the 360 which basically told you nothing about the system other than 'you need to buy it, because we can show you pretty pictures?' The only difference here is that Microsoft came to market first. But that means nothing. Take a look at the Dreamcast.
nintendo? who knows. the gamecube sucked and this time they are taking a HUGE risk on the revolution.
Why did the Gamecube suck? Lots of people bought system 'pairs' during this last round of consoles. Gamecube + XBox or Gamecube + PS2. Nintendo has always been able to crank out games based on their long-standing franchises. There will be Mario games, Mario Party games, perhaps a Mario Kart game, a Zelda game or two, a Metroid game or two, etc. They will all sell, and some people will probably buy a Revolution just for their specific game series that they 'have to have' the latest and greatest game for.
How is the Revolution a 'huge' risk though? The controller? Give me a break. They have stated that you can get 'regular' controllers too. The hardcore gamers will play with regular controllers.
Nintendo is targeting the non-gamers with their new controller. If you have ever tried to get a non-gamer to play games, especially someone that is 30+ years old, you know that the largest barrier to entry is the controller. It intimidates them. Those of us that have been gaming since we were little on the Intellivision/Atari 2600/NES are used to the contollers. We have been there through the evolution of the controller to what it is today. We started off with a simple controller and were gradually introduced to new buttons and more buttons as time went on.
Controllers have gotten very complex. It's easy for kids and gamers to pick up on today's controllers, but adults that don't have experience in gaming need the barrier to adoption lowered so that they can easy pick up a controller and get into a game. Just look at the NintendoDS. There were many nay-sayers when it came out. The DS is selling. People are buying it and going for the games.
Your tone seems to think that gaming should be stuck in some rut with no inovation beyond better graphics added onto the same old gameplay with the same old controllers. I mean admit it, they can change the 'form factor' of the XBox controller all they want, but it's still the same controller with a slightly different form factor. People like you need to realize that things need to change. I mean you would probably be on the streets trying to convince people that ordering ice blocks from an ice company was better than an electric-powered refridgerator back in the day.
Let's face it. As much as improving the graphics of a system can be creative at the design/programming level, for the most part it's just a matter of throwing more horsepower at the problem. Sony and Microsoft don't come out with radical new ideas that will change the face of gaming because they are corporations who don't care about the face of gaming. They care about the bottom line. Just like the TV media corporations that try to churn out TV shows that are as mediocre as possible to appeal to the widest audience possible, Sony and Microsoft aren't going to take the risks involved in radical ideas, however minimal.
Now, I don't know if I'll end up getting anything from the next round of consoles, but I think that ragging on Nintendo is a stupid idea. Unless you want the mediocre development from MS and Sony. Because without risks and changes the game console industry will end up looking like EA and the Madden games. You'll just sit there and buy incremental updates every year for a mediocre game that only adds on what is needs to get by and nothing more.
Originally posted by Roadmap
The 360 is a piece of garbage.
* It actually has less disc space than the previous xbox.
Not many games that I know about actually utilized this space. From what I understand, the hard drive was not used to it's full potential. Microsoft probably picked up on that fact as a way to cut production costs by using a smaller drive. Granted, I never owned an XBox so I'm just talking from second-hand knowledge here. Maybe someone can back me up.
* It requires developers to write a custom tile based renderer to support decent AA due to the too small 10 megs of EDRAM - even first party developers are bothering to do so and that is why you keep hearing about the horrible jaggies on 360 games people are seeing
I don't know much about this issue, but won't those custom renderers improve as the system matures? Can they be reused and improved upon in other games by the same company/dev team?
* It doesn't support HD movies - no next gen disc format and not digital HDMI connection. No 1080p
To be fair, not many people are going to have 1080p. 1080p will probably be hitting a critical-mass of popularity and cost around the time the next generation of consoles will be coming out (XBox720, PS4, Nintendo RPM)
* Massively overpriced peripherals.
What do you expect from MS? They found a way to eliminate those pesky cheap 3rd party controllers.
* No backwards compatibility. Microsoft is essentially manually porting some selection of Xbox games to the 360. And you can't even have that unless you pay the extra 100 dollars for the harddrive addon or pay for the more expensive system.
Well, to be fair to Microsoft... XBox games were Intel-based and the XBox360 is PPC-based. They are basically porting those games to a different architecture.
* You have to pay to play online - unlike Sony and Nintendo.
Double-edged sword. All games are online, but it also means that the online experience is integrated. XBox Live also guarantees the quality of online service for the games is consistent. It also means XBox360 games will have value-added when it comes to cross-console games. Since they will have 'accomplishments' from even the single-player games as part of your XBox Live identity.
* The ridiculous two SKUs where Microsoft has decreed that all games work without a harddrive - making use of the harddrive few developers will see any reason to support.
Yea. This really is a stupid move by MS. Developers don't want to single out the people that don't have a hard drive, but that doesn't mean that there won't be developers that use the hard drive. Look at the PS2. Didn't come with a hard drive, but there were games that utilized it.
* And despite the higher theoretical performance numbers the 360 cpu and graphics unit are claimed to have - the real world performance developers are getting seem to be around a dual 2.5ghz 970 machine with a new graphics card.
It's a disaster.
The problem is that the 'power' relies on multi-threading. It's yet to be seen just how much multi-threading can be utilized in gaming. Carmack has even gone on the record saying that games will not benefit from multi-threading. The PS3 may have the same problems. We will have to see.
Originally posted by pyr3
Why did the Gamecube suck? Lots of people bought system 'pairs' during this last round of consoles. Gamecube + XBox or Gamecube + PS2.
I think you'll find that was the very problem of the Gamecube. As compelling as some of its games might have been they weren't enough for it to become a first console for many people, and only a fraction of the market buy two so you've already cut your target market. As a result many large retailers dumped the gamecube because of lackluster sales, at least in Europe and Oceania, and from there on it was all downhill.
Yet again Nintendo this generation is going with a lets be the second console mentality and it just doesn't work. They'll lose because they're aiming to and unit sales matter.
Originally posted by Elixir
roadmap, leave, just leave because you have no clue what you are saying.
microsoft just released a list of 200 plus games that are already backwards compatible with hundreds more to come.
Ok... I'll give you this, but I can still look at the list and see games I liked to play on XBox that aren't compatible.
pay to go online, yes. have you seen the new online system? its the best online experience you can prob have, its even better than PC. it's a centeralized service like no other. 50 dollars a year? big whoop.
the ps3 wont have this. the ps3 is leaving online up to the developers, essentially they can do what they want and charge what they want. judging from the current ps2 online thats not a good decision.
He's talking about the fact that MS is forcing even single player games to have an online component. MS is trying to force people that don't want to pay for online to *HAVE* to pay for online. This is what he is talking about. He's not talking about the quality of online service.
I don't know if MS is *FORCING* people to sign-up for XBoxLive on the 360 to play any games, but you strayed so far away from his topic that it's not even funny.
the only thing thats going to be overpriced is the playsation. at 500 dollars for just the system...500 now will get you the 360, two games and an extra controller.
As far as I know, the $500 price point is no confirmed. It's just speculation. It's like me saying:
"I heard from a friend of a friend of a friend that XBOX720 is going to be $1000 so that only rich people can buy it. I heard that Bill Gates himself said that he wants rich snobs to be able to sneer at the lowly poor people that can't afford a mere $1K gamnig system."
up and down developers praise the simplicity to program for the 360 so maybe your missing something there.
I've heard that development on XBox360 AND the Playstation3 sucks. XBox development was aparently easier. But that's just what I hear.
Seriously cite sources of this 'praise' if you want people to take it seriously. Just drop us some links, or else we'll write it off as you just making crap up.
The thing that I don't get is how this is even a factor, based on your later comments in your post? You make it sound like it's so easy to program for the XBox360 that there will be 1000s of exclusive titles due to the ease of creation, but then you later on say that most games will be cross-console from third parties...
why do i keep hearing this from the playstation camp "xbox doesn't have any games" wtf are you talking about?
this time around basically both systems will have the same games besides exclusive titles.
True. This time around there will be more cross-console games. But that statement doesn't convey that well. Your statement sounds more like, "They will be the same except for their differences."
the exclusive battle consist of a hand full of decent playstaion games and metal gear solid vs halo and a few other decent games.
grand theft auto (what really made ps2 great) will be released on both systems at the same time.
Have a link? GTA games have been coming to PS2 first and then XBox later for this entire past console generation. Why is that going to change now? Sony give up on wooing Rockstar to give them exclusivity for a few months? Seriously. If the XBox360 is so great, then people will just wait the extra 6 months for it to be released on a better console even if it comes to PS3 first.
Metal Gear Solid will probably end up cross-console, with just a delay. That's only possibly though. Have they ported MGS3 to XBox at all? I remember that the rain in the XBox version of MGS2 sucked because they just emulated the PS2 code for it rather than porting it to XBox or something like that.
ps3vs360
online: 360
controller: 360, hands down lol
system:based on sheer numbers ps3
price: 360
3rd party games: tied
exlusives: personal preference.
blu-ray is up in the air.
Online, yea. 360 will have a better online experience. But keep in mind that I have fun gaming on my PS2 without going online at all. This may not be a deciding factor.
Controller? The PS3 controller that was demoed isn't even a final design. It may look nothing like that. This is why people need to settle down about deciding who has 'won the console war' when two of the contenders aren't even in the ring yet. It's just idle speculation.
System? You mean 'installed base?' I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
Price? IIRC Sony hasn't announced an official price yet, so this is more idle speculation. You might as well be making up magic numbers and using arcane potions to determine who has won the console war. Maybe you could find that Russian psychic that wanted to sue NASA for screwing up the cosmos when they crashed into that comet. Maybe she can tell you who has won before the war has started.
Third Party Games, yea. There will be massive 3rd party support for both platforms.
At least you didn't go on a flame about the exclusives being better or worse. One note on exclusives though... Things like Xenosaga and Final Fantasy will probably be PS3 only. There are a lot of fans of those series, this could be a deciding factor as well. But it's hard to argue that because how does one determine which fan bases are larger?
nintendo has great first party games, it failed because of the lack of support from other developers.
I don't think that they failed. Had they failed, they would be like Sega now, or bought by Microsoft/Sony to make exclusives. We will see how they do this generation of consoles, but it looks like they are targetting a completely different audience with their platforms like Revolution and DS. And as I've stated in another post, if the price is right, people will end up with either a XBox360+Nintendo Rev combo or a PS3+Nintendo Rev combo. I know a lot of people that did this during this generation, including myself.
Originally posted by pyr3
Carmack has even gone on the record saying that games will not benefit from multi-threading. The PS3 may have the same problems. We will have to see. [/B]
Someone, please stick a fork in Carmack. Anything can benefit from multi-threading. Coding the way he likes to code may not agree with the push for multi-threading, as perhaps evidenced by the fact that Doom 3 runs like crap. Modern RTOSes have gotten extremely good at allowing low latencies on multi-core, multiprocessing hardware. Despite the fact that a multithreaded game in Windows XP may have latency issues, there's no reason to assume that all games are going to be run on Windows XP. This is something that I'd assume Microsoft addressed when coding the OS for the xBox 360, but knowing Microsoft, your guess is as good as mine. They have a pretty solid history of delivering terribly unoptimized products. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Originally posted by pmjoe
but all they did from what I can tell is add a couple USB ports.
I'm going to wait and see what Sony comes up with.
They didn't really 'add' some USB ports. The XBox controllers are a variant of USB. You can easily turn USB devices into XBox controller port devices by splicing the connector to the cord, IIRC. You just need to have software on the XBox that will accept it as a device. All MS did was eliminate the proprietary connector.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Someone, please stick a fork in Carmack. Anything can benefit from multi-threading. Coding the way he likes to code may not agree with the push for multi-threading, as perhaps evidenced by the fact that Doom 3 runs like crap. Modern RTOSes have gotten extremely good at allowing low latencies on multi-core, multiprocessing hardware. Despite the fact that a multithreaded game in Windows XP may have latency issues, there's no reason to assume that all games are going to be run on Windows XP. This is something that I'd assume Microsoft addressed when coding the OS for the xBox 360, but knowing Microsoft, your guess is as good as mine. They have a pretty solid history of delivering terribly unoptimized products. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Even if games *CAN* benefit from multi-threading, we won't see those benefits right away. The developers will have to learn to utilize this to it's full potential. The learning curve may be steep.
When I authored this thread, I should have suspected that some here would try to get into a console cat fight.
i would like to buy a XBox 360.
i mean.. i can play system link with this thing.. connect it to my old xbox.. and i can play HALO 2 (or what ever game i have that supports sys. link .. (i'll have to buy second disc for it.. but hey.. the prices droped bigtime for the cool games.. ))
and i'll have a new console to play with.. play online that is (if you read further .. you know what i mean)
and for going off topic, i would like too say this,
for all of those saying you HAVE to pay for playing online...
that's history.. for a part of it.. you have now 2 sort of XBOX LIVE ACCOUNTS.
-the GOLD account.. a premium sort of xbox live account
-and the SILVER account.. a sort of account that lets you only play online..AFAIK
for the GOLD account.. you pay the usual fee.. that's something like 50 bucks per year.
and for the SILVER account.. don't panic.. i know it's microsoft.. i was shocked too.. it's (omg.. gasp!).. free... yes.. you read it right.. free..
so.. not only it has the best graphics (untill now.. we'll see with the ps 3).. it has free online gaming experience...
(hence the included headphone thing with the premium xbox 360 pack)
as far the pricing.. it's a bargin compared what the ps2 cost when it was launched.. here in europe.. the price was EUR. 1200,-... 1200!!! that's $1440
that's was insane.. i had a friend that paid that amount of cash for it.. and it wrecked his first game he baught with it.. tekken something..
so.. EUR. 399,- ($399) for a new console with lot's of goodies ($99 for the HDD.. so.. it's a nice deal for the premium pack)
the HDD.. well. I saw a game that it required a HDD.. ok.. that was indeed a bad move.. but still.. you're not being forced too buy that game.. and if you do want that game.. and you have a core system.. then.. you're screwed...
and about the HDTV stuff.. i see it as a nice extra.. the icing on the cake.. it's not something i would say.. damn.. i need that thing because it's HD..
and if i would go HD...
i would buy an Apple Cinema Display (or a dell thing).. probably 20" (and Edu. discount... yay! ).. why?.. cause it's cool.. it's stupid.. but i don't care.. and yes.. you can connect it thru VGA... don't know if it's included with the pack.. or you have to buy it seperatly.. but the point is .. you can connect it.. (though i heard if you connect stuff to the Apple Cinema Display it makes it more dimmed.. what ever)
so.. that's what i wanted to say.
Originally posted by DanMacMan
With the recent revelation that the Revolution will not support HD, I've all but abandoned that system. I am going to wait until the spring, around E3 to decide what next gen system to get. I want to see if MS goes through with the upgrade to HD-DVD like had been mentioned. Also, of course, I want to see a playable version of the PS3. I'm hoping MS lowers the price at the time Sony releases the PS3, plus I'm not getting a 360 until Halo 3 is out anyway...
Revolution will probably at least support 480p (gamecube does). That's the same quality as your DVDs. Are you completely abandoning all of your DVDs for HD-DVD/BluRay because DVD isn't 720p/1080p?
Originally posted by CosmoNut
FWIW, the $500 estimated cost for a PS3 came about when some analyst somewhere figured up the cost of all the components that will (likely) be going into the PS3. That cost, plus a little markup for profit, makes $500.
When I authored this thread, I should have suspected that some here would try to get into a console cat fight.
But it's still speculation. The PS3 is still in development. Sony could broker deals on components, etc. I think that people should wait for an official announcement before writing PS3 or even the Revolution off. You can't compare 3 consoles when only one console is out and the other two are still being developed.
Originally posted by Elixir
microsoft just released a list of 200 plus games that are already backwards compatible with hundreds more to come.
Out of how many thousands of games though? This isn't true backwards compatibility and it requires you have the HD to boot. So although they're advertising backward compatibility it isn't strictly speaking true unless you buy the more expensive of their models. If you want backward compatibility Nintendo and Sony are the only ones to really have it thus far.