Xbox 2 in 2005 - Revolution in 2006.

[Zackman]

Americans
love those type of games to death, and Halo and Halo 2 are the best
selling games ont he Xbox.

I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: englighten as to what kinds of
games Australians like. Your fellow countrymen on this NG must cringe every
time you open that flapping maw of yours.

MS on the other hand has no
room to fail, though they have endless mounttains of money, that
means nothing if no-one buys its system.

And the Xbox is outselling your beloved Gamecube, a console made by the
oldest name in the business that costs $50 less.

I'm just being realistic here.

You've never been realistic in your life.

I personally don't care in the long
run if MS pulls it off or not in the US

Oh yes you do. You'd cry yourself to sleep at night if MS succeeded.

seeing as Sony will always
have a strangle hold on the industry

That's what they used to say about Nintendo.

You MS fangirls can squeal all you want in joy with your Halos and
other lame-ass American gaming plots and pretty pictures...

And you can go back to playing brooding hermaphrodites in Japanese RPGs with
more cutscenes than gameplay. I'll take Jade Empire any day, thanks.

-Z-

 

[Beck]

Do you really believe that MS will put any of of its 1st party temas on
the
original Xbox after it launches the newer model?

Very wishful dreaming

Yes I do believe they will. There is no way they will want to piss off
people with the original xbox because they know full well that not everybody
is going to buy the new one.

 

[Xenon]

yes I do think 4 years is kinda short.

but remember, from the beginning of MS's enterance into this industry, they
said that they would not change
hardware for 4 years. MS said that in 2000 during a conference call about
Xbox.

meaning Xbox launch in 2001 + 4 years, Xbox 2.

It looks like they're keeping to their word on that one.

 

[Zackman]

This is certainly not a support for the ultimate Nintendo fanboy there
in any way....., but just how do you take a game that doesn't exist?
I'm just curious.

Based on Bioware's spotless reputation, the strength of KOTOR and the two
builds of the game I've had a chance to play thus far. Jade Empire is
shaping up to be KOTOR-quality but with real-time fighting. I'm actually way
more stoked for it than for KOTOR II.

-Z-

 

[Miles Bader]

i think MS has already proven itself to be dedicated to console gaming
with the xbox. i was never a fan of the xbox

I think it's more accurate to say that they're dedicated to dominating
as many markets as they can get away with which are vaguely related to
computers. They don't give a toss about "console gaming" except as a
means to that end.

-Miles

 

[NightSky 421]

But it will not be a 4 year lifespan. They will still continue to make
games for probably 2-3 years after that.

Very true. When the Playstation 2 came out, new games didn't suddenly stop
coming out for the original Playstation. Another strike against Xbox 2 is
that it probably won't be backwards compatible with the original Xbox, which
means there will be only a small number of games available for it at launch.
Meanwhile, the original Xbox has established a firm foothold and if there's
money to be made by developing games for it, they will be made. I also
expect new games will continue to come out for the original Xbox for at
least two years following the release of Xbox 2 while Xbox 2 establishes a
solid user base.

 

[NightSky 421]

http://cube.ign.com/mail.html


Zelda, Revolution, Xbox 2

I don't care much about graphics, whatever platform has the games I want is
the platform I'll support. Gameplay wins out over graphics in my book.

 

[Eiji Hayashi]

And you can go back to playing brooding hermaphrodites in Japanese RPGs with
more cutscenes than gameplay. I'll take Jade Empire any day, thanks.

-Z-

This is certainly not a support for the ultimate Nintendo fanboy there
in any way....., but just how do you take a game that doesn't exist?
I'm just curious.

 

[Doug Jacobs]

Isn't that last comment taking things a little too far? One game isn't
going to make or break any console nowadays IMO.

Metal Gear Solid 2. The promise of this game alone helped drive PS2 sales
early on even when its released library really wasn't all that great. I can
remember SSX being one of the best games for the console almost a year after
it was released...

Anyway, the DC had plenty of great looking games with great playability ...
didn't exactly help much overall in the scheme of things.

Ah, but it didn't have an overwhelming "Gotta get it!" type of game, at
least nothing with the wide appeal of, say, a Metal Gear Solid, Halo,
Mario game. Yes, it had some great games, but many of them didn't start
appearing until almost a year after the console had been released - and
then Sega killed it.

Then again, Sega was already on the ropes even before they released the
DC. They'd already burned their customers with the Sega Saturn - which
I would argue was a better platform AND had some killer games for it even
with its short time on the market.

 

[Doug Jacobs]

Yes I do believe they will. There is no way they will want to piss off
people with the original xbox because they know full well that not everybody
is going to buy the new one.

This *is* Microsoft we're talking about here... They'll probably tell
everyone to "upgrade" to Xbox Next the day it hits the shelves.

 

[Eiji Hayashi]

Yeah, but MS knows that the only way they can gain significant ground on
Sony (they don't care about Nintendo, and neither does Sony) in the next
generation is to 1) launch first, 2) have better hardware and 3) have a
killer app launch title and some killer exclusives. I think the chances of

perhaps you can explain how it's possible to accomplish 1) and 2) at
the same time? It sort of goes against the logic of progress (not to
mention Moore's Law). I'm pretty sure either Sony or MS would hire you
in an instant if you have the secret formula to pulling off that
miracle, and I don't mean a shorter than 3 month launch advantage
either, because that's kinda meaningless, unless the 3 month actually
spans across Christmas, in which case engineers and marketing
strategist in the late launching company should be shot for making
such an obvious mistake.

 

[Ice Wipe Inc.]

Microsoft's only focus is to keep its accounts full, not making good games.
They can't totally rely on their buggy OS and PC related products forever,
so instead they copied Sony's market plan but they will never reach Sony's
high becasue they are an American company.

I think it's more accurate to say that they're dedicated to dominating
as many markets as they can get away with which are vaguely related to
computers. They don't give a toss about "console gaming" except as a
means to that end.

-Miles

Economist]

 

[Ice Wipe Inc.]

Heh, I always roll my eyes when guys here use the word 'fanboy' all the
time. I may enjoy Nintendo franchises the most but I don't let gaming rule
my life like a lot of people I know.

Its not my fault I enjoy games that don't require killing...

And you can go back to playing brooding hermaphrodites in Japanese RPGs with
more cutscenes than gameplay. I'll take Jade Empire any day, thanks.

-Z-

This is certainly not a support for the ultimate Nintendo fanboy there
in any way....., but just how do you take a game that doesn't exist?
I'm just curious.[/QUOTE]

 

[Zackman]

Microsoft's only focus is to keep its accounts full, not making good
games. They can't totally rely on their buggy OS and PC related
products forever, so instead they copied Sony's market plan but they
will never reach Sony's high becasue they are an American company.

You have a major case of Japanese envy, Todd. Go **** a koala.

-Z-

 

[Zackman]

perhaps you can explain how it's possible to accomplish 1) and 2) at
the same time?

Xbox 2 and PS3 will be such wildly different machines from the CPUs through
the GPUs that it's conceivable Xbox 2 could launch first and still be more
powerful in some respects, or (and this is pretty much a given) be less
powerful on paper but much easier to program for, and thus much easier for
developers to use the hardware to its potential. But you're right, what I
should have said was launch first with hardware that's still competitive
when the PS3 comes out.

-Z-

 

[Ice Wipe Inc.]

My opinion is that the Xbox will die as quickly as the N64 did if the Xbox 2
can't play Xbox 1 games.

Sony and Nintendo also has the advanteage of having access to 3 large
markets to Microsoft's 2. No matter how good the system goes in the US, it
still won't get any serious support from Japanese developers

 

[dementia]

Heh, I always roll my eyes when guys here use the word 'fanboy' all the
time. I may enjoy Nintendo franchises the most but I don't let gaming rule
my life like a lot of people I know.

Its not my fault I enjoy games that don't require killing...

So you don't like Zelda, Metroid Prime or Mario games?

 

[Billy J. Dancefloor]

Its not my fault I enjoy games that don't require killing.

No, but if one of Sony or MSFT's first-party developers created a game
in which you played a dingo mauling babies by using your sphincter to
manipulate a digeridoo peripheral, you'd be camped out the night before
it was released.

 

[Eiji Hayashi]

Xbox 2 and PS3 will be such wildly different machines from the CPUs through
the GPUs that it's conceivable Xbox 2 could launch first and still be more
powerful in some respects, or (and this is pretty much a given) be less

if that really did occur, then it proves that Sony really screwed up
with their strategy to go the Cell route, and that the entire Cell
idea was wrong, if a competing console could come out earlier and
still be more powerful. This remains to be seen.

powerful on paper but much easier to program for, and thus much easier for
developers to use the hardware to its potential. But you're right, what I

being easy to develop for isn't all positive, because it means that it
will more likely hit its graphical ceiling before the one that's hard
to develop for, since there's a higher learning curve for developers
would only be using a portion of its capabilities at the beginning. If
two console came out at the same time and the game graphic quality are
very comparable, but one is harder to program for and one is easy,
then I'm willing to bet that at the end of the console's lifespan,
we're likely to see the graphics of the hard to develop for console
surpass the one which is easy to develop for

should have said was launch first with hardware that's still competitive
when the PS3 comes out.

depends then on the subjective definition of "competative". Would you
consider the PS2, which came out over 1 year before the XBOX to have
"competative" graphics to XBOX? If you do, then that's what the XBOX
need to shoot for because it's widely expected that it would launch
first. If it indeed launch with the same time advantage that the PS2
enjoyed, then three years from now, the arguments fanboys used to
claim superiority over the other now would actually be reversed, with
PS fanboys claiming superiority of hardware and the XBOX fanboys
claiming better library. However, if it enjoys the same time advantage
but fails to achieve the numerical sales advantage that the PS2
enjoyed over the XBOX, then the PS fanboy would have one additional
ammo.

 

[Zackman]

No, but if one of Sony or MSFT's first-party developers created a game
in which you played a dingo mauling babies by using your sphincter to
manipulate a digeridoo peripheral, you'd be camped out the night
before it was released.

Todd is currently doing a frantic search for "digeridoo peripheral" on
Lik-Sang.com.

-Z-