Halo 2 announced for Xbox *56k Pics Warning*
<a href="http://www.bungie.net"; target="_blank">http://www.bungie.net</a>;
This looks like the game that should have been out for the Mac.
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
This looks like the game that should have been out for the Mac.
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
Comments
<strong>None of that is actual gameplay, is it? Are they just cut scenes?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's all in engine. Halo's cutscenes are also done in engine. The XBox GPU absolutely rules other console GPU's. Halo is the reason I bought an XBox (that and the forthcoming Steel Battalion)
Too bad Halo 2 will probably be out for XBox by the time Halo 1 is on Mac. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
So as a thought for people who want to buy a PC "for games", buy an XBox instead. It costs less (less frequent upgrades too) and is a more usable DVD player.
XBox for games, Mac for everything else. This strategy actually winds up hurting M$ because it denies them OS upgrade revenue and sticks them with a large initial bill because they are heavily subsidizing your XBox.
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: Yevgeny ]</p>
Not really. They get you to buy the machine and they might take a hit. But then whenever you buy an accessory, they make money. Buy a second controller? Money. Buy a memory card? Money. Buy a game? Money. Buy a first party game? Money.
What about Xbox Live as well? $50 for the first year including accessories but how much after that? It could be fairly expensive.
Microsoft is in the position to make a lot of money off of video games right now.
[quote]Random fact of the universe: an XBox costs as much as a WinXp license... I wonder which one has more value?
So as a thought for people who want to buy a PC "for games", buy an XBox instead. It costs less (less frequent upgrades too) and is a more usable DVD player.
<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.newegg.com/"; target="_blank">Win xp pro + power cable</a>: $140
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/offering-page/ref=br__ufu_1/002-6495462-9265663?index=fixed-price&field-offering-type=used&field-asin=B00005V8GB&field-status=open&size=25&rank=+price"; target="_blank">Xbox starter pack</a>:$259
Actually, for people who will have a computer anyway, the cost to upgrade the cpu and video for gaming from a mid-range system is maybe $200. Additionally computer games fall in price over the months more than console games. So in 2 or 3 years you could drop another 100-200 in upgrades and still have better looking games most of the time. So the cost difference is really negligible
In fact, the current Halo can do 16 players just fine now.
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
Take that for what you will. I think that Halo 2 is going to be very interesting to see.
<strong>
Not really. They get you to buy the machine and they might take a hit. But then whenever you buy an accessory, they make money. Buy a second controller? Money. Buy a memory card? Money. Buy a game? Money. Buy a first party game? Money.
What about Xbox Live as well? $50 for the first year including accessories but how much after that? It could be fairly expensive.
Microsoft is in the position to make a lot of money off of video games right now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Buy a thrid party controller. Yes, MS makes some licensing $, but they still don't immediately recoup their losses.
memory card?? Why would you need that- the XBox has a hard drive that is rather useful. You only need a memory card to transfer players between boxes.
Buy a game, make MS rich? Well, yes you do give them money, but it is the same with any other console manufacturer. Game licensing fees are how consoles make their money. MS has to make money somewhere, so it might as well be here.
XBox live costs $? So what? So does .Mac and I think that XBox live will offer better services than .Mac at half the price. Yes, in theory, MS can raise the prices at a later date, but that would kill them in a very competetive market.
XBox live requires broadband? So, if you don't have that, then get it, or don't play online. If you don't want broadband but want to play online, don't go XBox. This is what economists call the "Invisible hand". You are a consumer and you will make a choice. I think that broadband is a good call.
MS charging higher prices once they take over the console market? Remember that the consolemarket seeems to always like to have three players in it, so if MS killed off a competitor (most likely Nintendo), another would come into the market. Even if MS won the console wars and started charging higher prices for stuff, how quickly do you think that someone would scream "antitrust violation"?
If MS is making alot of money off of video games, it is because they are selling a good product in an attempt to gain access to a market. Further, this is a commodity market, and so if they start to mess with consumers, they will find out that consumers will ditch them. MS can not tie consumers to a game console in the same way it can tie a business to Windows. The console market is a different paradigm.
<strong>
Actually, for people who will have a computer anyway, the cost to upgrade the cpu and video for gaming from a mid-range system is maybe $200. Additionally computer games fall in price over the months more than console games. So in 2 or 3 years you could drop another 100-200 in upgrades and still have better looking games most of the time. So the cost difference is really negligible</strong><hr></blockquote>
One advantage to consoles in general is that you will get games written to take full advantage of the chipset (in terms of the number of polys they use). This is not the case for computer games (except games like Quake, Unreal, Doom). Most games on the market right now are meant to run on an NVidia Geforce 2 or equivalent GPU, and this will be the case for some time (esp. for Mac's because Apple keeps shipping cheesy video cards in the consumer machines). Consoles with good graphics cards provide a great gaming experience if the games take advantage of them. I think that Halo2 will take advantage of the XBox.
You upgrade your video card every 2-3 years? You're not much of a gamer (unless you are buying the bleeding edge video card every 2-3 years, but that costs some real $!).
Look at it this way. If you have a PC that you use exclusively for games, then you don't need an XBox. If you do not have such a PC, then the XBox makes a bit of sense because you pay less for the XBox than for the PC system. Remember, I am talking to Mac users who want to play lots of games. In the next month, something like 45 games are being released for the XBox. I don't think that 45 games are released for the Mac in a whole year.
<strong>
<a href="http://www.newegg.com/"; target="_blank">Win xp pro + power cable</a>: $140
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/offering-page/ref=br__ufu_1/002-6495462-9265663?index=fixed-price&field-offering-type=used&field-asin=B00005V8GB&field-status=open&size=25&rank=+price"; target="_blank">Xbox starter pack</a>:$259
</strong><hr></blockquote>
A quick EBay search shows quite a few XBoxes being sold for about $165. The point is still the same. For about $150, you can get an OS license (hardware not supplied) or an OS and hardware to run it. The XBox is a better deal for gamers who do not already own a PC. The games all cost the same, and a singel XBox will let you do 1-4 players on a TV (try that on a single PC!).
<strong>I'm not worried about world info moving around the network. I'm worried about a bunch of high-poly, shadow generating, higher res texture characters moving on the screen. The hardware hasn't changed since halo 1, so all enhancements will have to come from software optimizations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Halo (like all 3D games) has various tricks to get around the fact that all the characters have lots of poly's. Halo in particular simplifies characters if they are farther away (where the increased poly count isn't visible).
You can overload the GeForce 3 GPU in an XBox playing Halo by doing something very simple: kill an elite, stand over the elite and then repeatedly hit the elite. After about ten punches,the framerate drops to about 3 fps because the GPU is trying to overlay the ten bitmaps generated by the splattered blood that your punches made. Walk away from the elite and the framerate picks up with no problems (walk back and it drops down). This is because the GPU is trying to composite the multiple bitmaps, instead of merging them in memory so that the GPU isn't the bottleneck (yes, I was curious to see how they implemented this).
If you could get all thirty palyers on your screen in front of you and *really* close, then you would probably seem some frame rate dropoff. Of course, the next thing that you would see would be a rocket firing from one of the players as he seeks to instantly win the match...