[quote]internet browsing on my new PC...uh huh, that's right... <hr></blockquote>
Okay, if you want to get techncial:
I got my Dreamcast, Keyboard, Mouse, VGA adapter, and BBA (which I'll admit, is rare), for about $100. It will play online games, regular DC games, of course, can hook up to a monitor via VGA (looks very nice), has memory cards which can be used for mini games (think small Game Boy), and will browse the internet (Yes, this means websites).
That cost $100. Every game I purchased for the DC, also, cost me LESS than $10, and all of the games are pretty nice (not just cheap titles). If you want FPS, there's UT and Q3. If you want MMORPG, there's PSO v1 and v2. If you want racing, there are tons of games. If you want fighting, there's Soul Calibur, DOA 2, and more. If you want sports, Sega's titles are terrific and they are playable online.
That system cost me about $100. The total I spent was around $135 after I bought games during the great clearance around/after Christmas. A lot of these games were selling at $5 a piece, some with buy one, get one free deals. The point is that you don't have to go out and spend $1600, $1000, or even $500 on a gaming system. I'm not saying you can get the same deal now that the DC is just about gone, but with the PS2, GCN, and XBox going to be online with months, they might be better alternatives to spending $1600 on a PC.
Exactly, right on, bingo! Price-performance is one thing, but a marketer really has to look at price, performance, and target use. 1600 is way too much for a gaming system, it is also way too much for an e-mail/office app system. Really, a system on which to web-surf, fax, e-mail, and use office apps, shouldn't cost too much more than a high-end console. About 500 USD. With a 15/17CRT monitor and a little extra RAM, about 669 (or 1000 Canadian).
So look at the iMac. As a machine for light uses it is incredibly expensive. Only two kinds of consumers will buy it: those who don't care about price and want style and love macs, and those who are price conscious but notice that the iMac is more than a surf and homework type machine, they want Video/photo-editing, easy web publishing, and CD/DVD editing.
iMac LCD is not an entry level computer so much as it is an entry level 'creative multi-media' machine. The problem is it is pointed straight at the 'first timer/entry level' M$ office plus internet user. For those uses, a mac is just the wrong machine.
You could look at the CRT iMac, but it's current configurtion is simply too expensive for it's intended use. Those machines ought to be around half what they currently cost, at least a third cheaper. That is an entry level office machine, but Apple seems to be clinging to it's creative multi-media history. The only thing left of the CRT iMac is a very strong image. They could make a VERY CHEAP yet PROFITABLE machine out of it that's more of an office machine/internet terminal and continue to sell a ton of them to education and even to business, but it will never really be part of the 'creative' side of mac use any more.
[quote]I got my Dreamcast, Keyboard, Mouse, VGA adapter, and BBA (which I'll admit, is rare), for about $100. It will play online games, regular DC games, of course, can hook up to a monitor via VGA (looks very nice), has memory cards which can be used for mini games (think small Game Boy), and will browse the internet (Yes, this means websites).
That cost $100. Every game I purchased for the DC, also, cost me LESS than $10, and all of the games are pretty nice (not just cheap titles). If you want FPS, there's UT and Q3. If you want MMORPG, there's PSO v1 and v2. If you want racing, there are tons of games. If you want fighting, there's Soul Calibur, DOA 2, and more. If you want sports, Sega's titles are terrific and they are playable online.
That system cost me about $100. The total I spent was around $135 after I bought games during the great clearance around/after Christmas. A lot of these games were selling at $5 a piece, some with buy one, get one free deals. The point is that you don't have to go out and spend $1600, $1000, or even $500 on a gaming system. I'm not saying you can get the same deal now that the DC is just about gone, but with the PS2, GCN, and XBox going to be online with months, they might be better alternatives to spending $1600 on a PC.
<hr></blockquote>
I'd like to see you play an MPEG. Or better yet, see if you can download the Urban Terror mod for Q3.
Oh, and when I said internet browsing, I didn't mean porn...well, meh..hmm, now that you mention it...let's see, I think I better put another 80GB drive in there... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You're missing the point: On the XBox, you CAN do these things. You CAN watch MPEGs, you CAN add patches/skins for games. The Dreamcast was just the beginning, and it's already great. But that's what Microsoft wants: It wants you to buy an XBox for games, not a PC, and we know how MS uses its power in the PC market. It's not a matter of if it will happen, only a matter of when.
I still say x-Box is gonna flop. 5-6 million units and a lot of good games, and good looking games at that, weren't enough to save Dreamcast. Granted, Sega is no Microsoft, but Sony can be just as big a gorilla as M$, and Nintendo has a lot of first-party franchises with big followings.
Programmer, I don't see how an xbox has a memory advantage over a DDR PC??? P4's and Athlons that run up to 3 times faster than xBox can be had. GF4Ti has at least as much performance as x-box's Nv-2A. How would memory factor in? A PC wouldn't need to swap anything but some character and game AI out to main memory since the memory capacity and subsystem of the card would bemore than a match for x-box.
I stand firm in my belief that x-box games will be running on a mid level PC near you by x-mas '02 (well, maybe a little after). Everything I've read about it says that it is basically a highly optimized direct-X game enviroment. Adding up the parts tells me it should be easier to emulate (despite its power) than any of the other consoles. The API (though it may need a little, or a lot, of hacking) is there. The graphics hardware, and CPU and memory power is there. It's just a matter of assembly, coding, cracking, LEGALITY?, and profitablity.
Could M$ shut it all down? Maybe. It would depend on a lot of issues. How was the emulator backwards engineered? Does it violate copy protection of the games? etc... Certainly they could stall it to death in the courts. One thing I think M$ has been crafty about is tying the encryption to the system. Any attempt to emulate the platform could be called an attempt to circumvent copy-protection, which is a no-no.
However, if I had an x-box emulator on my hands that allowed the appropriate PC to play only original x-Box game discs without any possibility of copying the ROMS or taking an image of the disc (at least not with my program) the legality may tip in my favor.
There's no reason to even think M$ wouldn't like such a scheme. xBox's sell at a loss. Selling a software emulator would be more profitable -- as they still reap the game licensing rewards, but without the initial hardware losses. And people can still buy x-boxes cheaper than an equivalent gaming PC, or for TV-family-room-internet-web thingy-devices.
but why emulate an xbox? Surely most of the games that will be released, will be released on a PC aswell given the similarity of the architectures and the ease of porting them over, and they'll probably look, run better too.?
[quote] It's not a matter of if it will happen, only a matter of when.<hr></blockquote>
And with the PC, it's a matter of now. Gaming is very closely linked with the rest of the PC market. Gaming on the console is not the same as it is on the PC. For instance, right now I meet up with members at Ars on IRC and we find a server to play Urban Terror (Q3) on from there. You cannot do that on a console, and you won't for quite awhile.
MacAddict, you will be able to in a matter of months on the XBox, and you'll have technologies such as real time voice chat as well, along with the standard keyboard/mouse if you want.
MS doesn't want gaming on the PC to continue either. That's why they entered the console market, because they WANT it to be the future. If we know Microsoft, it will be the future as well, sabotaging 'competing' games on Windows in favor of getting developers for the XBox.
[quote]MacAddict, you will be able to in a matter of months on the XBox, and you'll have technologies such as real time voice chat as well, along with the standard keyboard/mouse if you want.<hr></blockquote>
I'm 99% positive that Urban Terror will not be ported to the XBox, and I'm also pretty sure that we won't see IRC on the XBox in a few months.
I can connect to IRC servers now through Java based interfaces from the web on my Dreamcast. It will be no different on the XBox, Game Cube, and PS2 when they go online.
As for Q3 add ons, even if someone doesn't port it, you're talking about a game that is how many years old? Two year old PCs can run that game adequately. If you're buying a new $1600 PC to run Q3, don't you think that's a bit strange?
As for UT, Unreal Championship is going to be XBox only, and Unreal 2003 is going to make its way to various consoles as well, along with all of its add ons. The PS2 version of Half Life is also getting an update so you can use the future PS2 HD and go online (will allow you to use the add-ons).
It looks like we're getting nowhere, as you think the PC is still the future of gaming, while I think the consoles will eventually dominate the gaming market, and led by Microsoft, who controls the PC market (much to our dismay), and WANTS the PC to no longer be the gaming platform of choice, I don't see how it's going to not happen.
Plus, when presented with the opportunity to get a $300 gaming machine/DVD player/Internet browser, mail station, versus a $1600 gaming machine/DVD player (maybe burner), Internet browser, mail station, and word processor, what's going to look better to the average consumer? This is especially going to be true if you have to pay a Microsoft bill every month.
MS doesn't want gaming on the PC to continue either. That's why they entered the console market, because they WANT it to be the future.
<hr></blockquote>
M$ entered the console market because game developers are moving more to the console market and away from the PC market. This is because games sales for consoles are significantly higher than they are for PC's. I don't believe they PC market will be abandoned altogether, but we'll probably see new HOT games coming out for consoles first and then being ported over to PCs like GTA 3 is currently (PS2 to PC).
I don't know what the future of the Xbox is but WSJ reported that M$ was having difficulty convincing the Japanese game makers that they were passionate about making games.
In the past every new console that did not get Japanese support failed to stay around. Xbox may boast high sales in the US and may boast great features but right now they only have two Japanese titles being developed for it ?one from Tecmo and one from Capcom.
Capcom is not happy with M$ since they are fronting all the money for development of a new un-established system who's future is unclear.
The problem with the XBox in Japan is that they had a terrible launch. Typical of Microsoft QA, thousands of machines scratched the games and DVDs when put into the tray loading drive. With the Japanese market already skeptical about the XBox, it didn't help that the machine was destroying discs.
Take that along with the fact that the XBox only had one real game that would interest the Japanese market, and that was DOA 3. Considering DOA 2 for DC and DOA 2: Hardcore for PS2 are VERY similar games, and considering that Virtua Fighter 4 and Tekken 4 just launched in Japan, you can see why its doing poorly.
But I still think its too early to judge either the Game Cube or XBox against the PS2. They both need time before being counted out. It still amazes me that people are already calling the Game Cube the next Dreamcast when there isn't even a Mario game out yet. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
It's still a fight for second place. Game-cube will surely take the silver in Japan, and combined to it's own franchises and it's virtual dominion over hand-held gaming, that will be enough to keep them VERY profitable throughout GC's lifespan.
x-Box has a shot at second in NA. But they're still iffy. They might just survive on the strength of M$'s bank account. Which leads me to think that all three might survive, but only the PS2 can guarantee profitability throughtout its life.
The timing of the next system's releases will be crucial. Sega was too early -- nice system, but too much life and loyalty left in PS1 and N64, and too much promise in PS2 et al. Result: DC is dead. x-Box and GC were far too late. Result: neither will ever occupy the top sales slot; x-Box has power but not enough fans, while GC has price and fans, but not enough power?
PS2 was just right. Perfect timing. Not the most powerful, but just enough features at the price and time to make it sell. Most powerful at debut. Huge fan base. Value pleasing backwards compatibility. And, did I mention a huge head-start. Neither GC or x-Box are so far ahead of PS2 that they warrant a purchase from someone who already owns a PS2.
This would have been a very different game if all three system had launched wihin three months of each other instead of PS2 having over a year head start.
Which brings us back to the question of who will survive? And that won't get answered with this generation. Sega didn't die during the last generation, they came back for one more try. Same thing will happen here. The relative success of each brand NOW will determine it's sales potential the NEXT time around (beginning in 3-4 years time). The company who times the release of new hardware best (balancing price/power/features and the relative life of outgoing platforms) will win the next generation as surely as PS2 has won this one.
Comments
Okay, if you want to get techncial:
I got my Dreamcast, Keyboard, Mouse, VGA adapter, and BBA (which I'll admit, is rare), for about $100. It will play online games, regular DC games, of course, can hook up to a monitor via VGA (looks very nice), has memory cards which can be used for mini games (think small Game Boy), and will browse the internet (Yes, this means websites).
That cost $100. Every game I purchased for the DC, also, cost me LESS than $10, and all of the games are pretty nice (not just cheap titles). If you want FPS, there's UT and Q3. If you want MMORPG, there's PSO v1 and v2. If you want racing, there are tons of games. If you want fighting, there's Soul Calibur, DOA 2, and more. If you want sports, Sega's titles are terrific and they are playable online.
That system cost me about $100. The total I spent was around $135 after I bought games during the great clearance around/after Christmas. A lot of these games were selling at $5 a piece, some with buy one, get one free deals. The point is that you don't have to go out and spend $1600, $1000, or even $500 on a gaming system. I'm not saying you can get the same deal now that the DC is just about gone, but with the PS2, GCN, and XBox going to be online with months, they might be better alternatives to spending $1600 on a PC.
So look at the iMac. As a machine for light uses it is incredibly expensive. Only two kinds of consumers will buy it: those who don't care about price and want style and love macs, and those who are price conscious but notice that the iMac is more than a surf and homework type machine, they want Video/photo-editing, easy web publishing, and CD/DVD editing.
iMac LCD is not an entry level computer so much as it is an entry level 'creative multi-media' machine. The problem is it is pointed straight at the 'first timer/entry level' M$ office plus internet user. For those uses, a mac is just the wrong machine.
You could look at the CRT iMac, but it's current configurtion is simply too expensive for it's intended use. Those machines ought to be around half what they currently cost, at least a third cheaper. That is an entry level office machine, but Apple seems to be clinging to it's creative multi-media history. The only thing left of the CRT iMac is a very strong image. They could make a VERY CHEAP yet PROFITABLE machine out of it that's more of an office machine/internet terminal and continue to sell a ton of them to education and even to business, but it will never really be part of the 'creative' side of mac use any more.
That cost $100. Every game I purchased for the DC, also, cost me LESS than $10, and all of the games are pretty nice (not just cheap titles). If you want FPS, there's UT and Q3. If you want MMORPG, there's PSO v1 and v2. If you want racing, there are tons of games. If you want fighting, there's Soul Calibur, DOA 2, and more. If you want sports, Sega's titles are terrific and they are playable online.
That system cost me about $100. The total I spent was around $135 after I bought games during the great clearance around/after Christmas. A lot of these games were selling at $5 a piece, some with buy one, get one free deals. The point is that you don't have to go out and spend $1600, $1000, or even $500 on a gaming system. I'm not saying you can get the same deal now that the DC is just about gone, but with the PS2, GCN, and XBox going to be online with months, they might be better alternatives to spending $1600 on a PC.
<hr></blockquote>
I'd like to see you play an MPEG. Or better yet, see if you can download the Urban Terror mod for Q3.
Oh, and when I said internet browsing, I didn't mean porn...well, meh..hmm, now that you mention it...let's see, I think I better put another 80GB drive in there... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Programmer, I don't see how an xbox has a memory advantage over a DDR PC??? P4's and Athlons that run up to 3 times faster than xBox can be had. GF4Ti has at least as much performance as x-box's Nv-2A. How would memory factor in? A PC wouldn't need to swap anything but some character and game AI out to main memory since the memory capacity and subsystem of the card would bemore than a match for x-box.
I stand firm in my belief that x-box games will be running on a mid level PC near you by x-mas '02 (well, maybe a little after). Everything I've read about it says that it is basically a highly optimized direct-X game enviroment. Adding up the parts tells me it should be easier to emulate (despite its power) than any of the other consoles. The API (though it may need a little, or a lot, of hacking) is there. The graphics hardware, and CPU and memory power is there. It's just a matter of assembly, coding, cracking, LEGALITY?, and profitablity.
Could M$ shut it all down? Maybe. It would depend on a lot of issues. How was the emulator backwards engineered? Does it violate copy protection of the games? etc... Certainly they could stall it to death in the courts. One thing I think M$ has been crafty about is tying the encryption to the system. Any attempt to emulate the platform could be called an attempt to circumvent copy-protection, which is a no-no.
However, if I had an x-box emulator on my hands that allowed the appropriate PC to play only original x-Box game discs without any possibility of copying the ROMS or taking an image of the disc (at least not with my program) the legality may tip in my favor.
There's no reason to even think M$ wouldn't like such a scheme. xBox's sell at a loss. Selling a software emulator would be more profitable -- as they still reap the game licensing rewards, but without the initial hardware losses. And people can still buy x-boxes cheaper than an equivalent gaming PC, or for TV-family-room-internet-web thingy-devices.
And with the PC, it's a matter of now. Gaming is very closely linked with the rest of the PC market. Gaming on the console is not the same as it is on the PC. For instance, right now I meet up with members at Ars on IRC and we find a server to play Urban Terror (Q3) on from there. You cannot do that on a console, and you won't for quite awhile.
Sorry Fran, but it just isn't the same!
MS doesn't want gaming on the PC to continue either. That's why they entered the console market, because they WANT it to be the future. If we know Microsoft, it will be the future as well, sabotaging 'competing' games on Windows in favor of getting developers for the XBox.
I'm 99% positive that Urban Terror will not be ported to the XBox, and I'm also pretty sure that we won't see IRC on the XBox in a few months.
As for Q3 add ons, even if someone doesn't port it, you're talking about a game that is how many years old? Two year old PCs can run that game adequately. If you're buying a new $1600 PC to run Q3, don't you think that's a bit strange?
As for UT, Unreal Championship is going to be XBox only, and Unreal 2003 is going to make its way to various consoles as well, along with all of its add ons. The PS2 version of Half Life is also getting an update so you can use the future PS2 HD and go online (will allow you to use the add-ons).
It looks like we're getting nowhere, as you think the PC is still the future of gaming, while I think the consoles will eventually dominate the gaming market, and led by Microsoft, who controls the PC market (much to our dismay), and WANTS the PC to no longer be the gaming platform of choice, I don't see how it's going to not happen.
Plus, when presented with the opportunity to get a $300 gaming machine/DVD player/Internet browser, mail station, versus a $1600 gaming machine/DVD player (maybe burner), Internet browser, mail station, and word processor, what's going to look better to the average consumer? This is especially going to be true if you have to pay a Microsoft bill every month.
MS doesn't want gaming on the PC to continue either. That's why they entered the console market, because they WANT it to be the future.
<hr></blockquote>
M$ entered the console market because game developers are moving more to the console market and away from the PC market. This is because games sales for consoles are significantly higher than they are for PC's. I don't believe they PC market will be abandoned altogether, but we'll probably see new HOT games coming out for consoles first and then being ported over to PCs like GTA 3 is currently (PS2 to PC).
I don't know what the future of the Xbox is but WSJ reported that M$ was having difficulty convincing the Japanese game makers that they were passionate about making games.
In the past every new console that did not get Japanese support failed to stay around. Xbox may boast high sales in the US and may boast great features but right now they only have two Japanese titles being developed for it ?one from Tecmo and one from Capcom.
Capcom is not happy with M$ since they are fronting all the money for development of a new un-established system who's future is unclear.
Take that along with the fact that the XBox only had one real game that would interest the Japanese market, and that was DOA 3. Considering DOA 2 for DC and DOA 2: Hardcore for PS2 are VERY similar games, and considering that Virtua Fighter 4 and Tekken 4 just launched in Japan, you can see why its doing poorly.
But I still think its too early to judge either the Game Cube or XBox against the PS2. They both need time before being counted out. It still amazes me that people are already calling the Game Cube the next Dreamcast when there isn't even a Mario game out yet. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
x-Box has a shot at second in NA. But they're still iffy. They might just survive on the strength of M$'s bank account. Which leads me to think that all three might survive, but only the PS2 can guarantee profitability throughtout its life.
The timing of the next system's releases will be crucial. Sega was too early -- nice system, but too much life and loyalty left in PS1 and N64, and too much promise in PS2 et al. Result: DC is dead. x-Box and GC were far too late. Result: neither will ever occupy the top sales slot; x-Box has power but not enough fans, while GC has price and fans, but not enough power?
PS2 was just right. Perfect timing. Not the most powerful, but just enough features at the price and time to make it sell. Most powerful at debut. Huge fan base. Value pleasing backwards compatibility. And, did I mention a huge head-start. Neither GC or x-Box are so far ahead of PS2 that they warrant a purchase from someone who already owns a PS2.
This would have been a very different game if all three system had launched wihin three months of each other instead of PS2 having over a year head start.
Which brings us back to the question of who will survive? And that won't get answered with this generation. Sega didn't die during the last generation, they came back for one more try. Same thing will happen here. The relative success of each brand NOW will determine it's sales potential the NEXT time around (beginning in 3-4 years time). The company who times the release of new hardware best (balancing price/power/features and the relative life of outgoing platforms) will win the next generation as surely as PS2 has won this one.
Finishing orders:
Japan: PS2, GC, xBox.
N.America: PS2, tie for 2nd
Europe: PS2, ???, ???
World: PS2, ??? ???.