Slashdot Mirror

Yes. And they do: when console games hit a certain rate of penetration, the Big Three turn them over to "Platinum" status, slash the System Licensing cost to a few bucks, and let the publisher re-release the game at that magic price-point of 20-25 bucks.

Is it worth it for them to do this with new games? Hell no. Market research demonstrates that casual gamers such as yourself almost never know when a new game is coming out anyway, don't read the magazines where those dates are advertised, and don't frequent the websites that hype them (although, since you're reading Slashdot Games, you might be less "casual" than you'd like to believe). So releasing a new title at a lower price point doesn't gain the publisher anything: they can release it at full price, wait while your hardcore friends play it and tell you how great it is, and by the time you decide to see what the fuss is about, the price is already in the sweet spot.

And if your gaming friends aren't playing it and telling you how great it is? Then you probably wouldn't buy it even if it was $20 on launch day.

This second-stage of a console game's life is extremely profitable for the publisher: sales volume typically goes way up. But it doesn't work with new games. I was at Atari when they considered releasing a title at a $25 price point for launch: the problem is that hardcore gamers see this as a sign that the game isn't good (not because we released it cheap, but because they hadn't heard much about it and, seeing it at that price point, presume it's been on shelves for months and wasn't selling), and casual gamers don't hear about it from hardcore gamers, so they don't give it a second glance. It's not impossible, mind. But it doesn't usually pay off.

If reviews did correlate to game sales, that would still be useless information to the publisher, as game reviews are an independent, objective evaluation of a game's enjoyability.

Unless they aren't.

I think it's a bit more subtle than that. For the most part, game reviews aren't objective. Go read recent reviews from IGN, Gamespot, etc. For certain games, there is quite a bit of whining about how the game is hard, or there are elements they don't like, etc. I'm going to pick on IGN here, because they have specifically annoyed me recently. Some examples:

• Need for Speed: Most Wanted (PSP): Two of the major complaints are that there are cops that chase you, and there isn't a storyline. In a racing game. About avoiding cops while racing.
• Magna Carta: The major complaint is that it's difficult. (And that the voice acting is "perhaps the worst on the PS2", which means the reviewer hasn't played much. Like Ys VI.)
• Legend of Heroes: The major complaint is basically that the story is unoriginal and the graphics are "simple". (Compare this to the Golden Sun review; Golden Sun has a far more generic storyline and very generic characters.)

I could go on, but you can also read the site. Now how does this relate to the article and topic at hand? Step back to objectivity. If you read through these reviews, you can see quite a bit of subjective bias; many have a feeling of "I'd rather be playing another game", "Why isn't it like this other game", or "I don't like this sort of game". Note how none of these biases are remotely relevant to the reader: the reader is trying to determine if they'd enjoy the game.

A factual/objective way to observe this dichotomy is to see the large difference between reader scores and reviewer scores. While there may be a bit of reader inflation, it's still very significant differences here. In the other direction, as well: if you check various reviews, you'll often see highly-scored reviews and low-scored reader reviews. (Unfortunately I can't go back too far in the recent reviews, but GTA:SA is at least a slight example.)

So how does this relate to your point? It may not be that the publishers pay for reviews, at least directly. However, a highly-hyped game from a big-name publisher will inevitably get a higher score than an equally good unhyped game from a lesser-known publisher. (Pick random examples. Check them out against your favorite review sites. Try big-name games that got a lot of previews vs games that you didn't hear much of that barely got reviews.)

So, in conclusion, is it worth it to spend money hyping games to reviewers so it gets a higher score? Fortunately, for the little guy, this seems to not be the case. (And indeed, as games like Katamari show, unheard-of games can sell in large quantities just by word of mouth.) Maybe this will get more money spent improving the games.

But probably not.

If reviews did correlate to game sales, that would still be useless information to the publisher, as game reviews are an independent, objective evaluation of a game's enjoyability.

Unless they aren't.

I think it's a bit more subtle than that. For the most part, game reviews aren't objective. Go read recent reviews from IGN, Gamespot, etc. For certain games, there is quite a bit of whining about how the game is hard, or there are elements they don't like, etc. I'm going to pick on IGN here, because they have specifically annoyed me recently. Some examples:

• Need for Speed: Most Wanted (PSP): Two of the major complaints are that there are cops that chase you, and there isn't a storyline. In a racing game. About avoiding cops while racing.
• Magna Carta: The major complaint is that it's difficult. (And that the voice acting is "perhaps the worst on the PS2", which means the reviewer hasn't played much. Like Ys VI.)
• Legend of Heroes: The major complaint is basically that the story is unoriginal and the graphics are "simple". (Compare this to the Golden Sun review; Golden Sun has a far more generic storyline and very generic characters.)

I could go on, but you can also read the site. Now how does this relate to the article and topic at hand? Step back to objectivity. If you read through these reviews, you can see quite a bit of subjective bias; many have a feeling of "I'd rather be playing another game", "Why isn't it like this other game", or "I don't like this sort of game". Note how none of these biases are remotely relevant to the reader: the reader is trying to determine if they'd enjoy the game.

A factual/objective way to observe this dichotomy is to see the large difference between reader scores and reviewer scores. While there may be a bit of reader inflation, it's still very significant differences here. In the other direction, as well: if you check various reviews, you'll often see highly-scored reviews and low-scored reader reviews. (Unfortunately I can't go back too far in the recent reviews, but GTA:SA is at least a slight example.)

So how does this relate to your point? It may not be that the publishers pay for reviews, at least directly. However, a highly-hyped game from a big-name publisher will inevitably get a higher score than an equally good unhyped game from a lesser-known publisher. (Pick random examples. Check them out against your favorite review sites. Try big-name games that got a lot of previews vs games that you didn't hear much of that barely got reviews.)

So, in conclusion, is it worth it to spend money hyping games to reviewers so it gets a higher score? Fortunately, for the little guy, this seems to not be the case. (And indeed, as games like Katamari show, unheard-of games can sell in large quantities just by word of mouth.) Maybe this will get more money spent improving the games.

But probably not.

If reviews did correlate to game sales, that would still be useless information to the publisher, as game reviews are an independent, objective evaluation of a game's enjoyability.

Unless they aren't.

I think it's a bit more subtle than that. For the most part, game reviews aren't objective. Go read recent reviews from IGN, Gamespot, etc. For certain games, there is quite a bit of whining about how the game is hard, or there are elements they don't like, etc. I'm going to pick on IGN here, because they have specifically annoyed me recently. Some examples:

• Need for Speed: Most Wanted (PSP): Two of the major complaints are that there are cops that chase you, and there isn't a storyline. In a racing game. About avoiding cops while racing.
• Magna Carta: The major complaint is that it's difficult. (And that the voice acting is "perhaps the worst on the PS2", which means the reviewer hasn't played much. Like Ys VI.)
• Legend of Heroes: The major complaint is basically that the story is unoriginal and the graphics are "simple". (Compare this to the Golden Sun review; Golden Sun has a far more generic storyline and very generic characters.)

I could go on, but you can also read the site. Now how does this relate to the article and topic at hand? Step back to objectivity. If you read through these reviews, you can see quite a bit of subjective bias; many have a feeling of "I'd rather be playing another game", "Why isn't it like this other game", or "I don't like this sort of game". Note how none of these biases are remotely relevant to the reader: the reader is trying to determine if they'd enjoy the game.

A factual/objective way to observe this dichotomy is to see the large difference between reader scores and reviewer scores. While there may be a bit of reader inflation, it's still very significant differences here. In the other direction, as well: if you check various reviews, you'll often see highly-scored reviews and low-scored reader reviews. (Unfortunately I can't go back too far in the recent reviews, but GTA:SA is at least a slight example.)

So how does this relate to your point? It may not be that the publishers pay for reviews, at least directly. However, a highly-hyped game from a big-name publisher will inevitably get a higher score than an equally good unhyped game from a lesser-known publisher. (Pick random examples. Check them out against your favorite review sites. Try big-name games that got a lot of previews vs games that you didn't hear much of that barely got reviews.)

So, in conclusion, is it worth it to spend money hyping games to reviewers so it gets a higher score? Fortunately, for the little guy, this seems to not be the case. (And indeed, as games like Katamari show, unheard-of games can sell in large quantities just by word of mouth.) Maybe this will get more money spent improving the games.

But probably not.

If reviews did correlate to game sales, that would still be useless information to the publisher, as game reviews are an independent, objective evaluation of a game's enjoyability.

Unless they aren't.

I think it's a bit more subtle than that. For the most part, game reviews aren't objective. Go read recent reviews from IGN, Gamespot, etc. For certain games, there is quite a bit of whining about how the game is hard, or there are elements they don't like, etc. I'm going to pick on IGN here, because they have specifically annoyed me recently. Some examples:

• Need for Speed: Most Wanted (PSP): Two of the major complaints are that there are cops that chase you, and there isn't a storyline. In a racing game. About avoiding cops while racing.
• Magna Carta: The major complaint is that it's difficult. (And that the voice acting is "perhaps the worst on the PS2", which means the reviewer hasn't played much. Like Ys VI.)
• Legend of Heroes: The major complaint is basically that the story is unoriginal and the graphics are "simple". (Compare this to the Golden Sun review; Golden Sun has a far more generic storyline and very generic characters.)

I could go on, but you can also read the site. Now how does this relate to the article and topic at hand? Step back to objectivity. If you read through these reviews, you can see quite a bit of subjective bias; many have a feeling of "I'd rather be playing another game", "Why isn't it like this other game", or "I don't like this sort of game". Note how none of these biases are remotely relevant to the reader: the reader is trying to determine if they'd enjoy the game.

A factual/objective way to observe this dichotomy is to see the large difference between reader scores and reviewer scores. While there may be a bit of reader inflation, it's still very significant differences here. In the other direction, as well: if you check various reviews, you'll often see highly-scored reviews and low-scored reader reviews. (Unfortunately I can't go back too far in the recent reviews, but GTA:SA is at least a slight example.)

So how does this relate to your point? It may not be that the publishers pay for reviews, at least directly. However, a highly-hyped game from a big-name publisher will inevitably get a higher score than an equally good unhyped game from a lesser-known publisher. (Pick random examples. Check them out against your favorite review sites. Try big-name games that got a lot of previews vs games that you didn't hear much of that barely got reviews.)

So, in conclusion, is it worth it to spend money hyping games to reviewers so it gets a higher score? Fortunately, for the little guy, this seems to not be the case. (And indeed, as games like Katamari show, unheard-of games can sell in large quantities just by word of mouth.) Maybe this will get more money spent improving the games.

But probably not.

If reviews did correlate to game sales, that would still be useless information to the publisher, as game reviews are an independent, objective evaluation of a game's enjoyability.

Unless they aren't.

I think it's a bit more subtle than that. For the most part, game reviews aren't objective. Go read recent reviews from IGN, Gamespot, etc. For certain games, there is quite a bit of whining about how the game is hard, or there are elements they don't like, etc. I'm going to pick on IGN here, because they have specifically annoyed me recently. Some examples:

• Need for Speed: Most Wanted (PSP): Two of the major complaints are that there are cops that chase you, and there isn't a storyline. In a racing game. About avoiding cops while racing.
• Magna Carta: The major complaint is that it's difficult. (And that the voice acting is "perhaps the worst on the PS2", which means the reviewer hasn't played much. Like Ys VI.)
• Legend of Heroes: The major complaint is basically that the story is unoriginal and the graphics are "simple". (Compare this to the Golden Sun review; Golden Sun has a far more generic storyline and very generic characters.)

I could go on, but you can also read the site. Now how does this relate to the article and topic at hand? Step back to objectivity. If you read through these reviews, you can see quite a bit of subjective bias; many have a feeling of "I'd rather be playing another game", "Why isn't it like this other game", or "I don't like this sort of game". Note how none of these biases are remotely relevant to the reader: the reader is trying to determine if they'd enjoy the game.

A factual/objective way to observe this dichotomy is to see the large difference between reader scores and reviewer scores. While there may be a bit of reader inflation, it's still very significant differences here. In the other direction, as well: if you check various reviews, you'll often see highly-scored reviews and low-scored reader reviews. (Unfortunately I can't go back too far in the recent reviews, but GTA:SA is at least a slight example.)

So how does this relate to your point? It may not be that the publishers pay for reviews, at least directly. However, a highly-hyped game from a big-name publisher will inevitably get a higher score than an equally good unhyped game from a lesser-known publisher. (Pick random examples. Check them out against your favorite review sites. Try big-name games that got a lot of previews vs games that you didn't hear much of that barely got reviews.)

So, in conclusion, is it worth it to spend money hyping games to reviewers so it gets a higher score? Fortunately, for the little guy, this seems to not be the case. (And indeed, as games like Katamari show, unheard-of games can sell in large quantities just by word of mouth.) Maybe this will get more money spent improving the games.

But probably not.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

I do hope history repeats itself, if they make good on the promises this time, like they did last, we're all in for a real treat.

I'd like to add some detail to this. There are two big myths regarding PS2 pre-launch claims:

1. Sony said the PS2 could render Toy Story in realtime
2. The Final Fantasy 8 demo was faked, and we haven't seen anything like it on the PS2 to date

The first myth is wrong; Sony never said this. If you don't believe me, try and find a quote, from a Sony spokesperson, that says this. Given all the articles are still on the web, this should be fairly easy to do, if this is true. However, it's fairly easy to find quotes from Microsoft spokespeople, like Bill Gates, that the XBOX would have "Toy Story quality graphics" (this particular case is from CES 2001).

The second myth is a result of people being wowed by realtime graphics that blew away the current stuff, and forgetting how crappy the graphics at the time were. Here are two screenshots I managed to find from the FF8 tech demo:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall

Decent. Way better than the PS1. (Note, in that screenshot, only the characters are 3D, the background is prerendered.) However, the original FMV was still far superior:

• Rinoa
• Rinoa and Squall
• More Rinoa
• More Rinoa and Squall

Now, regardless, the claim is that the original demo was faked, and they haven't matched the quality. You be the judge:

• Gran Turismo 3, early 2001
• Metal Gear Solid 2, 2, 3, late 2001
• Jak and Daxter, late 2001 (and a realtime cutscene)
• Silent Hill 3, 2, 3 (no, those are not prerendered, go play the game), early 2003
• Gran Tursmo 4, 2, 3, late 2004

Most of these are at least as good, if not better than the screenshots for the FF8 demo, and most of them are early to mid PS2 games. There are many more examples, but this is enough to compare.

"First, no one from Sony ever claimed it could render Toy Story."

Really?

"Second, Gradius V is actually a later-generation game"

I was referring to Gradius III & IV, a PS2 launch title (complete with $50 price tag). And, yes, a PSX game could look better than that.

I specified "first generation PS2 games." From back in the days of "It can do Toy Story 2 in real time! Oh yeah, and here's Gradius." I think a PSX game with a little make-up can top that.

Then you have a bad memory, or you weren't there. First, no one from Sony ever claimed it could render Toy Story. If you think otherwise, I suggest you find a real quote; all the pre-launch articles are still around, it should be somewhere.

Second, Gradius V is actually a later-generation game that looks pretty cool. It's great fun if you want a 2-player game, I highly recommend it.

Third, first generation games included Dark Cloud and SSX, whose screenshots I have conveniently linked. If you think they look like PS1 games I recommend you have your eyes checked. (Also, check out the videos, which can be more telling for things like texture and motion.)

I specified "first generation PS2 games." From back in the days of "It can do Toy Story 2 in real time! Oh yeah, and here's Gradius." I think a PSX game with a little make-up can top that.

Then you have a bad memory, or you weren't there. First, no one from Sony ever claimed it could render Toy Story. If you think otherwise, I suggest you find a real quote; all the pre-launch articles are still around, it should be somewhere.

Second, Gradius V is actually a later-generation game that looks pretty cool. It's great fun if you want a 2-player game, I highly recommend it.

Third, first generation games included Dark Cloud and SSX, whose screenshots I have conveniently linked. If you think they look like PS1 games I recommend you have your eyes checked. (Also, check out the videos, which can be more telling for things like texture and motion.)

I specified "first generation PS2 games." From back in the days of "It can do Toy Story 2 in real time! Oh yeah, and here's Gradius." I think a PSX game with a little make-up can top that.

Then you have a bad memory, or you weren't there. First, no one from Sony ever claimed it could render Toy Story. If you think otherwise, I suggest you find a real quote; all the pre-launch articles are still around, it should be somewhere.

Second, Gradius V is actually a later-generation game that looks pretty cool. It's great fun if you want a 2-player game, I highly recommend it.

Third, first generation games included Dark Cloud and SSX, whose screenshots I have conveniently linked. If you think they look like PS1 games I recommend you have your eyes checked. (Also, check out the videos, which can be more telling for things like texture and motion.)

I specified "first generation PS2 games." From back in the days of "It can do Toy Story 2 in real time! Oh yeah, and here's Gradius." I think a PSX game with a little make-up can top that.

Then you have a bad memory, or you weren't there. First, no one from Sony ever claimed it could render Toy Story. If you think otherwise, I suggest you find a real quote; all the pre-launch articles are still around, it should be somewhere.

Second, Gradius V is actually a later-generation game that looks pretty cool. It's great fun if you want a 2-player game, I highly recommend it.

Third, first generation games included Dark Cloud and SSX, whose screenshots I have conveniently linked. If you think they look like PS1 games I recommend you have your eyes checked. (Also, check out the videos, which can be more telling for things like texture and motion.)

I specified "first generation PS2 games." From back in the days of "It can do Toy Story 2 in real time! Oh yeah, and here's Gradius." I think a PSX game with a little make-up can top that.

Then you have a bad memory, or you weren't there. First, no one from Sony ever claimed it could render Toy Story. If you think otherwise, I suggest you find a real quote; all the pre-launch articles are still around, it should be somewhere.

Second, Gradius V is actually a later-generation game that looks pretty cool. It's great fun if you want a 2-player game, I highly recommend it.

Third, first generation games included Dark Cloud and SSX, whose screenshots I have conveniently linked. If you think they look like PS1 games I recommend you have your eyes checked. (Also, check out the videos, which can be more telling for things like texture and motion.)

According to a recent IGN article where they talked to developers about the hardware specs, it looks like the price might actually be a lot less than $200:

"Every developer was in agreement that Revolution should launch with a price tag of $149 or lower. Some speculated that based on the tech, a $99 price point would not be out of the question."

This might be a little optimistic, but I don't think there's any way it will sell for more than $200. It looks like Nintendo has decided to put very little focus on the graphics in order to have an insanely low price comprared to Xbox 360 and PS3. I was at first disappointed when I heard that the Revolution wouldn't be much more powerful than this generation's consoles, but with such a low price, I could certainly see it becoming a huge success.

when I'm playing an FPS on my PC right now, and I shift in my chair, sometimes my hand jogs the mouse a bit. so you get really, really good and not jagging your mouse around when you shift in your chair, at microfocusing your attention to detail in the movement of your mouse hand to pinpoint accuracy (in my case a trackball, but I digress). this is one of the reasons that certain FPS players on the PC are more badass than others -- they are incredibly skilled at pinpoint accuracy movement with their optical device. pinpoint accuracy which is not available with even modern analog controllers.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/653/653867p1.html

just -imagine- having such a gun controller. now, i don't know or want to promise that the revolution controller will work as this mock-up. but if it does, oh my god. i will play console FPS games again.

There is no reason to recall the power adapters. The number of failures is less than the average console launch (3-5%). The few people that have had problems are being rather vocal so it seems like the number of failures is much higher. Read the following article for more information: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/673/673686p1.html

"Don't jump the gun. For all you know, the Revolution controller will function like a floaty, laggy air-joystick."

I used an old Dragon magazine (as a very loose basis) to make a module and spent weeis on the map and the scripts and story flow (quite heavily changed) to make it fun... http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Modules.Detai l&id=3808 ...it has 3 diffent endings (and many ways to die). I think BioWare ought to look at the modules in the vault instead of asking for a stupid 4x4 boring chit-chat module. I don't have time to do another, but you can enjoy the one I already did. Cheers, McDoc

... the PSP's launch on March 24th to the 31st of the month. With hardware estimates around 620,000 ...

http://psp.ign.com/articles/604/604548p1.html

The PSP's launch was considered a failure after selling 150% as many units as the XBox 360

McNealy believes Microsoft could have sold up to three times that amount, putting the company halfway to its three month target of 3 million units worldwide. "I think they would have been happy to have sold another million if they could have. They just didn't have them," he said.

It is easy to make a claim like this without having anything to base it on. I don't work in retail but I have heard that only about 5%-10% of preorders were 'lost' by the 360 shortage; one person I know was saying that their Microsoft rep gave him the impression that they were trying to be just shy of the preorder numbers to ensure a sell out (possibly a paranoid delusion, I don't know). This would imply that for every person who pre-ordered 2 would have walked in in the first week expecting to purchace a system (a highly unlikely situation).

Here's an article about Sony possibly using Linux on the PS3. The chances of this happening are good, we all remember how Sony released the Linux kit for the PS2.

They analyze console growth, and figure that the growth of the industry has been consistant with population growth, and multiple console ownership. Additionally, according to a study by Piper Jalfray, the number of gamers in the male 10-14 bracket are spending less time playing games. The group of young boys that will be feeding into the 10-14 bracket is down 8-10% from previous generations, so the future target market is smaller than before.

1. So, from a bystander, it may feel as if the biggest market is the older crowd. It's not. The largest segment of the market (young boys) is shrinking simply because there are less young boys.

2. There are more consoles in households today, but the penetration is less than it was with the 8 bit NES. Obviously PC penetration is pretty high, but PC's are used for more than games. I don't know how this fits into the calculations.

Gloom and doom? I don't know. Like I said, it was a press conference. After reading it, I do think that they have a point. Time will tell!

Look at this generation compared to the first one 15 years ago. Research today tell us that among those 52 million machines already sold, a full 24 percent are part of dual-system households, and eight percent reside under roofs with all three consoles. The math shows that our 52 million systems have only reaches a little better than 35 million discreet American households, about 31 percent of all current U.S. homes. Back in the 8-bit days, there was only one console -- the original Nintendo Entertainment System -- which meant there were no dual-households. So 31 million systems equaled 31 million homes. And that represented 33 percent of all American homes at the time. It's unsettling to see that in 15 years, we really haven't increased the percentage of game-playing homes. The population has grown, but our [the game industry] relative popularity really hasn't.

Nintendo already made a game titled 'Hey You, Pikachu!' Features: * Fully interactive voice recognition * Mount microphone onto your controller * Tell Pikachu what to do * Play games with Pikachu * Collect items and "friend" points http://ign64.ign.com/articles/153/153734p1.html

If you want to figure out what Nintendo is paying attention to, perhaps you should go check this out. It's a transcript of a presentation given at an investor's meeting (IGN also has some videos of the presentation available in small resolutions for free).

Also, it's odd that you talk about Nintendo as if they make immature games. The games that you think are mature on the PS2 and X-box are really made for children -- those 14-24 year old boys who belive that seeing explosions, blood, guts and dead hookers everywhere makes them a Man. Seriously, a 30 year old man shooting hookers in GTA is not "mature" -- it's childish and pathetic. The problem is that seems to be the ONLY audience that the Xbox is really paying attention to.

Enjoy your Xbox360 & games!

Yes it is a shame that those of us, who prefer to wait a while before buying a new console, will miss out on all the fun.

Nevermind. Here you go everyone: IGN link with no frigging ads

From this presentation Reggie is on record as saying:

Revolution's first announced appeal serves both groups: our virtual console concept. It not only offers direct backward compatibility to all GameCube software, but via downloading, to a library of games that spans the entire 20 years of Nintendo's console history. For the higher age group, this is a nostalgia trip -- and an emotionally-charged one, at that. How many devices allow you to relive part of your youth? At the same time, most of those games are in fact brand new titles even to those approaching their 20s. To borrow another movie analogy, The Wizard of Oz is a revelation the first time you see it no matter how many years after it was filmed. In our industry, Nintendo owns the equivalent of the back libraries of MGM, United Artists and Paramount put together. Virtual console is a direct pipeline to new, simplicity-seeking, blue ocean customers. And these are proven, high-quality game experiences that we an, of course, make available at a far more affordable price than current hits.

It's a great presenation, and you can download a video of it from IGN.

the PS2 lags pretty significantly in its technology (long loading times, framerates, jaggies).

I will admit very few people have put it all together but the PS2 has prove to be very compenent in all three areas you mentioned. JAK 2 and 3 showed that load times where unecessary, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus and God of War shows that Jagies are no issue (oh and they have no load time issues), God of war showed slow down is a thing of the past , and GT4 showed that when you can sustain 1080i then frame rate is really insignificant. It's interesting that PS2 games get better while XBox games stay pretty so so. Most Xbox fans will tell you that beyond a few minor things like downloadable content, Halo is superior to Halo 2. Oh and by the way does XBox even have any games other than the Halo series? I just realize I can't recall any other Xbox games that get the kind of talk that Katamari Damashi, Disgae or the obvious Final Fantasy get.

So lets try and nip the fan boy thing in the bud once and for all.
Game Critic Awards for 2005 show not one XBox exclusive winner, where ps2 has 2 and heck ps3 grabs 2.
We can make it 2 to 2 at Game Developers Choice awards, and that's including one given to xbox the the I love bees thing.
Over at spike tv Xbox gets the lead with two exclusives where PS2 gets none.
Ign in 2004 (because 2005 is not out yet) give 5 best ofs to PS2 and 2 to Xbox.
I would have put of Gamespots best of but with the buzz I have going it was to hard to calculate.

I guess if you are interested in spending $400 (I'm talking earlier adopters) for the one game worth playing on XBox, then that's fine with me.. I mean there were a few people that shelled out over $200 a pop for neo-geo games.

Sony may have a usable devkit that doesn't cause permanent brain-damage by then.

Ah, the pathetic myths people perpetuate. Try again please, thanks. Plenty to go around.

Gamespot has a good summary of the PS3 SDK. A choice quote:

Sony chief technical officer Masami Chatani was also present at the PlayStation meeting. He disclosed that Nvidia, maker of the PS3's RSX graphics processor, is currently working on a lineup of programmable shader tools for the console. These include a CG compiler, which is a standard for PC graphics that's oriented toward C language; an FX composer, which is a program for creating shaders of various textures, such as skin and hair; PerfHUD and ShaderPerf, which are evaluation tools to optimize the quality of the shaders; and Melody, which lets normal maps be used to drop polygon volumes without lowering graphics quality.

Chatani reconfirmed that the PS3 will support Open GL/ES as its standard API, and he also revealed support for Collada, an open-interchange file format for the interactive 3D industry.

In terms of supporting developers in their use of the Cell processor, Sony is forming an alliance with chipmaker Transmeta Corporation, a company renowned for its software emulation technology and its x86-compatible, software-based microprocessors. Transmeta will be offering an SPE optimizer and software that will let developers effectively program for the Cell processor and its seven SPEs. The tools will allow statistical process control (SPC) simulation on PCs and will also let programmers debug and tune their programs with runtime info. Transmeta's tools will be shipped to developers in Q4 2005.

Do you consider OpenGL and other standard toolkits to "cause permanent brain-damage [sic]"? Do you work for Microsoft?

Sony may have a usable devkit that doesn't cause permanent brain-damage by then.

Ah, the pathetic myths people perpetuate. Try again please, thanks. Plenty to go around.

Gamespot has a good summary of the PS3 SDK. A choice quote:

Sony chief technical officer Masami Chatani was also present at the PlayStation meeting. He disclosed that Nvidia, maker of the PS3's RSX graphics processor, is currently working on a lineup of programmable shader tools for the console. These include a CG compiler, which is a standard for PC graphics that's oriented toward C language; an FX composer, which is a program for creating shaders of various textures, such as skin and hair; PerfHUD and ShaderPerf, which are evaluation tools to optimize the quality of the shaders; and Melody, which lets normal maps be used to drop polygon volumes without lowering graphics quality.

Chatani reconfirmed that the PS3 will support Open GL/ES as its standard API, and he also revealed support for Collada, an open-interchange file format for the interactive 3D industry.

In terms of supporting developers in their use of the Cell processor, Sony is forming an alliance with chipmaker Transmeta Corporation, a company renowned for its software emulation technology and its x86-compatible, software-based microprocessors. Transmeta will be offering an SPE optimizer and software that will let developers effectively program for the Cell processor and its seven SPEs. The tools will allow statistical process control (SPC) simulation on PCs and will also let programmers debug and tune their programs with runtime info. Transmeta's tools will be shipped to developers in Q4 2005.

Do you consider OpenGL and other standard toolkits to "cause permanent brain-damage [sic]"? Do you work for Microsoft?

Sony may have a usable devkit that doesn't cause permanent brain-damage by then.

Ah, the pathetic myths people perpetuate. Try again please, thanks. Plenty to go around.

Gamespot has a good summary of the PS3 SDK. A choice quote:

Sony chief technical officer Masami Chatani was also present at the PlayStation meeting. He disclosed that Nvidia, maker of the PS3's RSX graphics processor, is currently working on a lineup of programmable shader tools for the console. These include a CG compiler, which is a standard for PC graphics that's oriented toward C language; an FX composer, which is a program for creating shaders of various textures, such as skin and hair; PerfHUD and ShaderPerf, which are evaluation tools to optimize the quality of the shaders; and Melody, which lets normal maps be used to drop polygon volumes without lowering graphics quality.

Chatani reconfirmed that the PS3 will support Open GL/ES as its standard API, and he also revealed support for Collada, an open-interchange file format for the interactive 3D industry.

In terms of supporting developers in their use of the Cell processor, Sony is forming an alliance with chipmaker Transmeta Corporation, a company renowned for its software emulation technology and its x86-compatible, software-based microprocessors. Transmeta will be offering an SPE optimizer and software that will let developers effectively program for the Cell processor and its seven SPEs. The tools will allow statistical process control (SPC) simulation on PCs and will also let programmers debug and tune their programs with runtime info. Transmeta's tools will be shipped to developers in Q4 2005.

Do you consider OpenGL and other standard toolkits to "cause permanent brain-damage [sic]"? Do you work for Microsoft?

Sony may have a usable devkit that doesn't cause permanent brain-damage by then.

Ah, the pathetic myths people perpetuate. Try again please, thanks. Plenty to go around.

Gamespot has a good summary of the PS3 SDK. A choice quote:

Sony chief technical officer Masami Chatani was also present at the PlayStation meeting. He disclosed that Nvidia, maker of the PS3's RSX graphics processor, is currently working on a lineup of programmable shader tools for the console. These include a CG compiler, which is a standard for PC graphics that's oriented toward C language; an FX composer, which is a program for creating shaders of various textures, such as skin and hair; PerfHUD and ShaderPerf, which are evaluation tools to optimize the quality of the shaders; and Melody, which lets normal maps be used to drop polygon volumes without lowering graphics quality.

Chatani reconfirmed that the PS3 will support Open GL/ES as its standard API, and he also revealed support for Collada, an open-interchange file format for the interactive 3D industry.

In terms of supporting developers in their use of the Cell processor, Sony is forming an alliance with chipmaker Transmeta Corporation, a company renowned for its software emulation technology and its x86-compatible, software-based microprocessors. Transmeta will be offering an SPE optimizer and software that will let developers effectively program for the Cell processor and its seven SPEs. The tools will allow statistical process control (SPC) simulation on PCs and will also let programmers debug and tune their programs with runtime info. Transmeta's tools will be shipped to developers in Q4 2005.

Do you consider OpenGL and other standard toolkits to "cause permanent brain-damage [sic]"? Do you work for Microsoft?

DOA3 was big? Did not notice that friend :) I always thought that the best fighter out there on the Xbox was Soul Calibur 2 (which happened to be on all the other consoles as well). The DOA series, though having a great concept with regards to the arena, lacked innovation with regards to combos and all. Rather repetitive if you ask me... And comparing Zelda with Halo is, IMO - so wrong. There's plenty of room for tweaks and changes in an action/adventure/platform game. Zelda is indeed a good example. Wind Waker was so different in the look and feel department as opposed to the dark feel of Ocarina of Time (same series for those not in the know). But Halo ... How different can Halo 3 be from Halo CE & 2...? New weapons? Vehicle? Halo fans might find this interesting though - Halo 2 is being released on the 360 http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/667/667069p1.html I do agree that Fable and KOTOR are great titles. I personally would like to see True Fantasy Live Online be released on 360 (or any other consoles).

Oblivion is delayed until Q1 of 2006 for both the XBox 360 and PC. Q1 is Take-Two interactive's (the publisher's) financial quarter, which goes from Feb to April, so worst case scenario, barring another delay, we don't see it until after the tax man comes.

here's a reference:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/663/663060p1.html