Question for the gamers
- Thread starter theacoustician
- Start date
All three consoles will be demo'ed at E3, which is in a week or so.
Pics are already coming out of the Xbox 360 and articles are popping up about the Cell processor in the PS3. That's about it for now.
Pics are already coming out of the Xbox 360 and articles are popping up about the Cell processor in the PS3. That's about it for now.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
I always said I'd get a PS2 once the price dropped enough, but we rented one and most of the games we tried made my wife nauseous, so we got an X-Box and she's fine with that.
So pretty much which one of the two, PS3 or XBox360, is percieved by my wife to be smoother is the one we get.
So pretty much which one of the two, PS3 or XBox360, is percieved by my wife to be smoother is the one we get.
S
smileynev
Guest
Price price price. I probably won't be buying any of the systems until they drop under $200. If the revolution starts out at that point, I'd probably still wait and see if it drops. I haven't fired up the Gamecube for myself in probably six months and I barely play the xbox now. I'm in no hurry to get any of the systems. The only thing that will drive me to buy one early is the next Halo game. As for backwards compatibility, I don't see the point. If I need to play a previous gen game, I can pull out the old box and hook it up.
Mean Mr. Mustard
Always shouts out something obscene
smileynev said:
It provides a back-catalog of games for anyone who may not own an original xbox, but wants the xbox2, because at launch, Im sure there will only be a handfull of xbox2 games available.
S
smileynev
Guest
Drool-Boy said:
True. But, to be honest, if you buy a new system for all the new fancy graphics, why would you want to play old crappy looking games on your system?
S
smileynev
Guest
taeric said:Because the best games aren't always the newest.And those old games will be much much cheaper.
Of course not. I just think that for most gamers backwards compatibility is not a necessary feature.
My take :
XBox360 - nothing too revolutionary here, except that they'll integrate features of MCE into the box to make it a home media center. If they continue expanding Live and work on a few "must have" games, they have a real chance at taking over the market. Main problem with the Xbox is lack of "must play" exclusive content. All of the best games I've seen for XBox are available on other consoles or PC. If the media center functionality alone pans out, Microsoft will score a major coup. Look for TV listings to come free with Xbox Live (a la Tivo service). Only question is, why the fuck is it so ugly?
PS3 - I think this may have the possibility to knock down Sony out of the top slot. First problem being that there are hints that PS1 & PS2 games will not be backwards compatable. Second problem being that it seems impossibly hard to program for Cell. All reports point to the fact that this box is pure muscle. That used to win the race in the late 90's, but today people want something more in the way of innovation. Unless the PS3 can deliver that, they're sunk. Backwards compatability is a must have or this console will fail. If they start pulling crap that requires users to buy a lot of Sony-only propriatary technology (UMD, Memory Stick, Minidisc, ATRAC, and a host of others), it can and will bog them down.
Revolution - the true dark horse of the competition. It has been hinted by Nintendo that they know that consoles have pushed the technology, horsepower wise, as far as they need to go for quite a while. Games are already taking too long to make and without proper tools to develop games faster, content is suffering. Its pretty but its not compelling content. If it is compelling, the game only lasts 15-20 hours. I'd say the real "revolution" Nintendo is going to announce is slick SDK's that allow game developers to cut the amount of time it takes to make the "pretty" and allow them to concentrate on the compelling game elements. If this is right and they can get publishers to buy in, they have the ability to publish 3 to 4 times the number of games that the competition and have more of them be "must haves". If they do that, plus develop an online strategy, and continue to develop their franchises, Nintendo can come out a whole lot better than anyone ever imagined. They must steer clear from being the "kiddie console" or any other stigma that would drive off older gamers. I really think if Nintendo can't pull off second place with this console, it will be their last home console.
The big factor for all of them is cost. I'm guessing you will see $300-$400 per console. This can be justified if the console either doubles as a media center or sells as a bundle (controllers/games/memory). People will buy a more expensive console if the games are there. If the games start to creep up in cost, people will balk and the console will fail. $50 seems to be the established and accepted price for tier 1 games (with a few $60 super premium games out there). If they try to push the standard tier 1 above $50, you'll see a massive drop in market share. Paying more than $50 for 15-20 hours of entertainment is retarded. Keep the game costs down and make your money by selling additional services (online service, movies on demand, other exclusive content).
Thoughts?
XBox360 - nothing too revolutionary here, except that they'll integrate features of MCE into the box to make it a home media center. If they continue expanding Live and work on a few "must have" games, they have a real chance at taking over the market. Main problem with the Xbox is lack of "must play" exclusive content. All of the best games I've seen for XBox are available on other consoles or PC. If the media center functionality alone pans out, Microsoft will score a major coup. Look for TV listings to come free with Xbox Live (a la Tivo service). Only question is, why the fuck is it so ugly?
PS3 - I think this may have the possibility to knock down Sony out of the top slot. First problem being that there are hints that PS1 & PS2 games will not be backwards compatable. Second problem being that it seems impossibly hard to program for Cell. All reports point to the fact that this box is pure muscle. That used to win the race in the late 90's, but today people want something more in the way of innovation. Unless the PS3 can deliver that, they're sunk. Backwards compatability is a must have or this console will fail. If they start pulling crap that requires users to buy a lot of Sony-only propriatary technology (UMD, Memory Stick, Minidisc, ATRAC, and a host of others), it can and will bog them down.
Revolution - the true dark horse of the competition. It has been hinted by Nintendo that they know that consoles have pushed the technology, horsepower wise, as far as they need to go for quite a while. Games are already taking too long to make and without proper tools to develop games faster, content is suffering. Its pretty but its not compelling content. If it is compelling, the game only lasts 15-20 hours. I'd say the real "revolution" Nintendo is going to announce is slick SDK's that allow game developers to cut the amount of time it takes to make the "pretty" and allow them to concentrate on the compelling game elements. If this is right and they can get publishers to buy in, they have the ability to publish 3 to 4 times the number of games that the competition and have more of them be "must haves". If they do that, plus develop an online strategy, and continue to develop their franchises, Nintendo can come out a whole lot better than anyone ever imagined. They must steer clear from being the "kiddie console" or any other stigma that would drive off older gamers. I really think if Nintendo can't pull off second place with this console, it will be their last home console.
The big factor for all of them is cost. I'm guessing you will see $300-$400 per console. This can be justified if the console either doubles as a media center or sells as a bundle (controllers/games/memory). People will buy a more expensive console if the games are there. If the games start to creep up in cost, people will balk and the console will fail. $50 seems to be the established and accepted price for tier 1 games (with a few $60 super premium games out there). If they try to push the standard tier 1 above $50, you'll see a massive drop in market share. Paying more than $50 for 15-20 hours of entertainment is retarded. Keep the game costs down and make your money by selling additional services (online service, movies on demand, other exclusive content).
Thoughts?
S
smileynev
Guest
S
smileynev
Guest
Mean Mr. Mustard
Always shouts out something obscene
theacoustician said:
Thats also going to be a big issue for me
fifty bucks for a game pisses me off and makes my wife bitch
sixty or sixtyfive bucks for a game and I wont even bother
I basically said its sink or swim time for Nintendo. Hardly fanboy, but I think they realize better than the other two that the market is about to stagnate. I really think Microsoft is in a position to take over.smileynev said:
I think you're a bit off on the PS3. The thing that helped Sony steal the market was not necessarily that they had easier development platforms, but they had cheaper ones. I agree that if they require you to buy a lot of Sony crap they will be making a mistake, but I see no reason to think that they are going to be doing that.
Especially not if you compare it to Nintendo who seem to just love making new gadgets to plug into their systems. I'm not going to say that some aren't cool, but it definitely drives the cost up. And since they are typically only used for a few games... I mean, come one, how many actually took advantage of a gameboy plugged in?
Then there is Microsoft. That whole "we own everything you put on Live" crap was just stupid. It is no wonder that people were leary of making content for it. The only reason they might actually succeed at this has more to do with deep pockets than anything else.
As far as pricing. I'd be surprised if it was not 300 or so a console. Isn't that what each new generation starts at? I seem to recall paying that for the PS1. And game cost has been established at 50 for a while, hasn't it? The only time I remember them being more was when you were buying cartridges.
Especially not if you compare it to Nintendo who seem to just love making new gadgets to plug into their systems. I'm not going to say that some aren't cool, but it definitely drives the cost up. And since they are typically only used for a few games... I mean, come one, how many actually took advantage of a gameboy plugged in?
Then there is Microsoft. That whole "we own everything you put on Live" crap was just stupid. It is no wonder that people were leary of making content for it. The only reason they might actually succeed at this has more to do with deep pockets than anything else.
As far as pricing. I'd be surprised if it was not 300 or so a console. Isn't that what each new generation starts at? I seem to recall paying that for the PS1. And game cost has been established at 50 for a while, hasn't it? The only time I remember them being more was when you were buying cartridges.
theacoustician said:
i think you may be onto something with the revolution. i think that there needs to be more game production so those of us who won't just run out and buy the newest game to hit the shelves (even if it's crap)won't have to wait as long. $50 is still steep for a game, but considering that most games that i buy have at least a 100-hour playing time appeal to me, that's 50 cents an hour, which is a HELL of a lot less than you'd pay at an arcade to play anything. nintendo has also hinted at total wifi compatability, which immediately kicks the door open for online/networked gaming (ever played double dash with 15 other people? it's awesome. seriously.). playstation will lose most of their market if the ps3 is not backwards compatible. i mean, the entire ps1 chip fit on the ps2 chipset, why can't they do that for the ps3? they've had enough time to develop it. the x-box, well, meh. i like the fact that they're putting together two bundles for it, basically the home PC and non-home pc (straight up console) versions. they also need to shy away from the ease it takes to mod one of them, if they want to make any money.
in short, i've always enjoyed nintendo's creativity and i'll look forward to seeing what the revolution can do, and how it plans to take console gaming to the next level.
S
smileynev
Guest
theacoustician said:
Nintendo has the most to lose and gain in this next iteration. They are by far the most revolutionary of the three, and the most willing to take chances. Their game quality, on a per game basis, surpasses both of them as well. Their problem is the that the public perceives the gamecube as an underpowered kiddy toy. Those of us that own it know that its graphics are as good or better then the Xbox, and the games themselves, the few that they do have, are probably more fun then anything on the other systems.
I see what you mean about Nintendo gadgets, but the one thing they had there was you rarely *had* to buy the gadget to play games. I'm just afraid that as the market moves from "game consoles" to "entertainment consoles", Sony will pull ATRAC-like crap with the PS3. Their biggest problem is that its almost a bunch of smaller companies under one name that fight each other for best interests. Sony electronics took how many years to finally put out a true MP3 player? You know why? Sony Music wouldn't let them. I'm really afraid you'll see this as Sony tries for convergence and they'll end up self destructing.taeric said:
As far as Microsoft, they have a larger entertainment strategy they're developing. They've already gotten WMV approved as a codec used in both Blu-ray and HD-DVD. They're wheeling and dealing with cable companies to provide TV over IP. Don't be surprised if your next set top box from your cable company is an XBox2 or some derivative.
You know.... I hate to say this, but pandering to people that like revolutionary games just isn't that smart. The games that make the most money are big franchise games that have established names. Even those have to be carefull, though.
I mean, what are the games that always sell? Sports games. Behind that would be the latest fads, such as Grand Theft Auto. Hell, they even managed to sell those sequels really well. Did they even update anything other than the setting? Talk about cheap production.
Of course, then there is the whole subscription model. I don't have any numbers, and I don't really care to look them up, but I seem to recall that Sony was making quite a killing off of Everquest.
I mean, what are the games that always sell? Sports games. Behind that would be the latest fads, such as Grand Theft Auto. Hell, they even managed to sell those sequels really well. Did they even update anything other than the setting? Talk about cheap production.
Of course, then there is the whole subscription model. I don't have any numbers, and I don't really care to look them up, but I seem to recall that Sony was making quite a killing off of Everquest.