Posted by
michael
on from the soon-to-be-illegal dept.
Tauvix writes: "AnandTech is running an in-depth article on the hardware of the X-box as compared to a PC, the PS2, and the Gamecube. There's some very interesting suprises and commentary on what was done right, and what could have been done better."
what's really needed is the investment into making a game that makes use of all the new geforce 3 hardware. having console games made for the xbox (then probably being very easily ported to windows) will mean a larger amount of investment in pc games in the long run.
I find it hard to believe the XBox you mention caught on fire... And please, if it's serious, do you have any evidence? I can hardly believe microsoft would knowingly kill their reputation by selling dangerous equipment.
M$ miscalculating game strategy?
by
HiredMan
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Here's something I'm unsure of - if standardesque DirectX software is used to program the XBox then shouldn't porting those games to a Windows computer be fairly easy? I know the XBox has nifty optimizations - especially for 3D - but isn't just about ANY decent gaming computer sold today able to match the specialty hardware because it has a processor that's twice as fast and a video card that can be repeatedly upgraded?
The reason I ask is because most hardcore gamers (obviously the core XBox market) probably have a gaming computer and if I can get Halo or DOA3 or TitleX for my computer (which has better graphics than my TV set and I'm used to playing games on) why would I buy an XBox?
Why wouldn't I would buy a PS2 or a gamecube if I buy a console so I could play games NOT available on my computer....
This being said is M$ going to have to embargo the good XBox games to "XBox only" to keep the Windows game market from eating their own lunch?
If M$ doesn't have a big backlog of cool XBox only games would seem that they might be limiting their market to "gamers who can't afford a good gaming computer" and those who have enough money to buy everything out there. I don't think this is a broad enough market to support an entire platform.
Anand wrote a very good article with plenty of meat and potatos to satisfy but I think he is sort of missing a very important point. He mentions in the article how the PS2 falls behind the XBox in some way because it has less fancy graphics and sound capabilities. SONY HAS SOLD NEARLY 20 MILLION OF THE FUCKING THINGS AND HAS HUNDREDS OF GAMES AVAILABLE FOR IT. I think Anand needs to reassess his position on the PS2. It is still selling for 300$ because people are still eating it up at this price. The XBox may be able to do a bajillion polygons per second but it still doesn't have the game franchises that make bank on console systems. Nintendo's also in a good position because they are destined to get the little kids who want to play Pokemon until their eyes fall out. Who cares if Pikachu's only rendered with half a million fucking surfaces, people want to play the games not write a master's thesis on the theoretical graphic capabilities of a computer system. I bought a GC on my way home from Louisiana and since I've been home my brother's been playing Rogue Squadron almst non-stop. He hasn't yet complained about the lack of theoretical polygons the GC can render yet and I sort of doubt he will. The XBox will only truely contend with Nintendo and Sony when it has games in high demand. I thought it's launch titles were pretty crappy compared to the GC's though a little better than what the PS2 originally offered. Besides that I got a GC and two games for the price of either the PS2 or XBox.
Slashdot Mirror
what's really needed is the investment into making a game that makes use of all the new geforce 3 hardware. having console games made for the xbox (then probably being very easily ported to windows) will mean a larger amount of investment in pc games in the long run.
(also possibly a monopoly on the games market)
free (as in mp3s) electronic music
I find it hard to believe the XBox you mention caught on fire... And please, if it's serious, do you have any evidence? I can hardly believe microsoft would knowingly kill their reputation by selling dangerous equipment.
Here's something I'm unsure of - if standardesque DirectX software is used to program the XBox then shouldn't porting those games to a Windows computer be fairly easy? I know the XBox has nifty optimizations - especially for 3D - but isn't just about ANY decent gaming computer sold today able to match the specialty hardware because it has a processor that's twice as fast and a video card that can be repeatedly upgraded?
The reason I ask is because most hardcore gamers (obviously the core XBox market) probably have a gaming computer and if I can get Halo or DOA3 or TitleX for my computer (which has better graphics than my TV set and I'm used to playing games on) why would I buy an XBox?
Why wouldn't I would buy a PS2 or a gamecube if I buy a console so I could play games NOT available on my computer....
This being said is M$ going to have to embargo the good XBox games to "XBox only" to keep the Windows game market from eating their own lunch?
If M$ doesn't have a big backlog of cool XBox only games would seem that they might be limiting their market to "gamers who can't afford a good gaming computer" and those who have enough money to buy everything out there. I don't think this is a broad enough market to support an entire platform.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
Anand wrote a very good article with plenty of meat and potatos to satisfy but I think he is sort of missing a very important point. He mentions in the article how the PS2 falls behind the XBox in some way because it has less fancy graphics and sound capabilities. SONY HAS SOLD NEARLY 20 MILLION OF THE FUCKING THINGS AND HAS HUNDREDS OF GAMES AVAILABLE FOR IT. I think Anand needs to reassess his position on the PS2. It is still selling for 300$ because people are still eating it up at this price. The XBox may be able to do a bajillion polygons per second but it still doesn't have the game franchises that make bank on console systems. Nintendo's also in a good position because they are destined to get the little kids who want to play Pokemon until their eyes fall out. Who cares if Pikachu's only rendered with half a million fucking surfaces, people want to play the games not write a master's thesis on the theoretical graphic capabilities of a computer system. I bought a GC on my way home from Louisiana and since I've been home my brother's been playing Rogue Squadron almst non-stop. He hasn't yet complained about the lack of theoretical polygons the GC can render yet and I sort of doubt he will. The XBox will only truely contend with Nintendo and Sony when it has games in high demand. I thought it's launch titles were pretty crappy compared to the GC's though a little better than what the PS2 originally offered. Besides that I got a GC and two games for the price of either the PS2 or XBox.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.