Half-Life 2 Not On Xbox?

Thanks to Evil Avatar for pointing to a Puget Sound Business Journal story suggesting that Half-Life 2 may not come out for Xbox after all. This relatively obscure article has word from David Hufford of Microsoft that "As of now, Half-Life 2 is not going to be on the Xbox.. Valve is sending us mixed messages on that." Up to now, established sites such as Planet Half-Life have said of the sequel: "An Xbox port is very likely", but it looks like that may no longer be true. Update: 06/09 21:34 GMT by S : GameSpyDaily have got hold of Valve's Doug Lombardi, who is saying that Half-Life 2 is still planned for both PC and Xbox - it may be that either contract negotiations or simply misinformation is clouding the issue.

Comments

this, despite...

[Recoil_42]

..gabe newell casually talking about it, and confirming it? the article is also very ps2 biased; so i wouldnt be surprised if the author is just talking out of his ass...

Re:this, despite...

[simoniker]

It _is_ odd - I'd be inclined to dismiss the whole thing if it was just opinion - but the fact is, it appears to be a quote from a product manager at Microsoft saying that Half-Life 2 on Xbox isn't happening right now.

So I guess they may still be negotiating, and the Microsoft guy has phrased in badly, but unless the quote is made up or otherwise mangled, it seems the deal is less done that everybody thought. We'll see.

not a bad thing?

[Frizzled]

after what happened to HALO all i can say is "Whew!"

_f

Re:not a bad thing?

[Synic]

sorry not flamebait
i would have to agree that xbox exclusivity for halo was a big disappointment for me

Inaccurate, strange information.

[Babbster]

First off, we have this:

If Microsoft ever had an advantage over Sony due to the built-in hard drive, that advantage may soon disappear.

The writer then goes on to describe the PSX, making that seem like it's going to contend directly with the Xbox because of it's built-in hard drive. Admittedly, he does mention that not every PS2 gamer will upgrade to the PSX but he doesn't make clear why it can never happen: Price. There's NO WAY Sony will release the PSX anywhere near the $200 and under price point of current consoles. The only people who are going to buy a PSX are those who a) want a TiVo-like device and/or b) don't already have a PS2. Even the hard drive add-on for the PS2 is never going to approach the 100% hard drive implementation of the Xbox because the majority of games aren't going to take real advantage of it before the PS2 fades in favor of the PS3.

He then hits us with this:

The old version of Xbox Live only allowed gamers to talk to one another in a central online portal area, but the new version enables them to communicate while actually playing games.

He's getting this backwards. The new functionality to be added to Xbox Live is apparently going to include the ability to chat via voice OUTSIDE of games. The voice communication capability within games has been present in Xbox Live from day one.

Finally, I would note that in regards to Half-Life 2, the author is quoting "a product manager in Microsoft's Xbox group," David Hufford. I don't know what Mr. Hufford's responsibilities are but if there was any firm announcement on there being no HL2 for the Xbox it seems logical that we would hear that either directly from Valve or from one of the "real" Xbox honchos like Jay Allard. Until we do, I wouldn't be surprised if the waffling is a result of financial wrangling between Valve and Microsoft - i.e., they may be looking for "Rockstar money" to get HL2 as an Xbox console exclusive.

In short, I think the author is stringing a lot of disparate facts (and nonfacts) together in order to bolster the hypothesis that Xbox is failing (the Xbox wasn't supposed to make money on its and MS has made this clear over and over again), and I'll wait for official word from Valve, Microsoft or both before worrying about whether or not HL2 hits the Xbox.

Unsubstantiated rumors are news...

[Anonvmous Coward]

... as long as they're against MS.

Re:Unsubstantiated rumors are news...

[NanoGator]

"Unsubstantiated rumors are news as long as they're against MS."

I was thinking the same thing when this article was published.

Biased

[Morgahastu]

I think this author might own some sony shares.

In other "news"

[R0]

There might (not) be a linux client

There's a very real limit

[apierson]

...to what a P3 700 w/ a GeForce 3/4 hybrid can handle. I wonder if all these Xbox owners anxiously awaiting Half-Life 2 for their console actually _saw_ the E3 footage and realized that any release of this game for the Xbox would be _horribly_ neutered compared to the PC version. The Xbox is a child now compared to even middle-end PC's.

Re:There's a very real limit

[Babbster]

Yes, and if graphics were the only concern then your snide, dismissive attitude would be understandable. But the first Half-Life's graphics weren't that groundbreaking even at the time it was released. What set it apart from other FPSs at the same time is that it belonged to that select group (System Shock, Deus Ex, Thief) that placed a premium on good single-player gameplay. Since most of us expect Half-Life 2 to follow in that mold, whether or not the game matches texture for texture, effect for effect, the PC version is quite beside the point.

I would further note that Doom 3's demoed graphics look even better than those of Half-Life 2 and yet Carmack is planning for what he believes will be a very good Xbox version.

Re:There's a very real limit

[Soulslayer]

Of course while a lot of what makes HL2 so neat is not related to the graphics, it does still require significantly more horsepower for those other features. AI and advanced physics models do not necessarily come cheap in terms of processing.

As to graphics, if you've seen HL2 and Doom 3 running at high resolution in person I think you'd realize that HL2s engine actually looks better than Doom 3's. At the very least it's equivalent. And Carmack has stated that there may eventually be a Doom 3 port, but he has not stated that "Doom 3 will look the same on an Xbox as it will on a PC". Concessions will have to be made. There's nothing terribly wrong with the Xbox, but it is essentially an old specialized PC running on 3 generations old graphics hardware.

Re:There's a very real limit

[Babbster]

[sarcasm]I must apologize. I didn't realize that you had worked on the AI, physics and environments for Half-Life 2.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, though, my main problem with your kind of speculation is, well, that it's speculation. You're looking at trailers/demos for an unfinished videogame and making assumptions about the code driving it. Not only that, but you're doing so in a way that demonstrates a clear bias against the Xbox.

I'm well aware that there a lot of people out there (and perhaps especially here on the /.) that don't like the Xbox - usually because of a hatred of Microsoft. That's fine and dandy with me. The problem is that too many of those people (including you) decide to argue against the console on the basis of speculation instead of facts. At the very least, you could wait until Valve tells us what the minimum PC system specs (on the box, as opposed to speculation on unfinished code) for Half-Life 2 will be. Your invective might then carry some weight.

Re:There's a very real limit

[apierson]

I am looking at trailers for a videogame that, regardless of whether or not it's finished, has an OBVIOUS featureset and OBVIOUS capabilities that cannot possibly be taken advantage of in full on a 700MHz P3. My bias is not against the Xbox; rather, it is against Xbox users who persist in claiming that their old hardware can play next-generation games that even people with high-end PC's of _today_ fear they will have to get upgrades to play.

I dislike Microsoft. I dislike their tactics. I am not making my statements based on those dislikes--I am making them based on plain facts.

Re:There's a very real limit

[wormbin]

First: I have to agree with you. Game play beats graphics any day and the original half-life had plenty of innovations (such as level design and story) that had nothing to do with PC horsepower.

Second: have you seen the 25 minute E3 trailer for half-life 2? It looks incredible and it is painfully obvious that the game will likely be crippled by some really good PC hardware (2.5Ghz proc, 0.5G ram, second tier graphics card) much less X-Box hardware.

Third: Do you really want to play the crippled version? Lord of the Rings is still a great movie even if you see it on a 19 inch TV but do you really want that to be your first viewing? Sadly, I'm going to be either upgrading to play HL2 or waiting to purchase/play it until I have the hardware to do it justice.

Re:There's a very real limit

[Babbster]

"Crippled" is obviously a subjective evaluation. I've seen people argue that playing any game at a resolution of less than 1024x768 means that it's crippled which to me is a load unless you're talking about a strategy game.

Believe me. I'm in no way asserting that the Xbox will be able to run Half-Life 2 at full speed, all "gussied up." I merely take issue with way people immediately dismiss it (and the other recent example, Doom 3) as impossible and essentially stating that any Xbox version will suck when, clearly, that kind of judgement should be left to the developers while consumers adopt a more pragmatic "wait-and-see" attitude.

As far as your third question about how I want to play my games? I want to play my games without spending $500 or more on upgrading my PC. You give the example of watching Lord of the Rings on a 19-inch TV. Well, if the choice is between the 19-inch TV and buying a new $500 TV just for that one movie then it's obvious that I'll settle for the 19-inch. Of course, if I'm interested in the material my first viewing would have been in a theater costing me no more than $10, further invalidating that particular analogy.

To me, it comes down to what Valve wants. If they feel like the Half-Life 2 experience will be compromised too much by releasing it on the Xbox, then they shouldn't do it. They should perhaps work on doing it for the Xbox 2 (or whatever it's going to be called) and probably release PS3 and GameSphere versions too. In the meantime, the only way I'll upgrade my PC is if there are at least five games which I'm reasonably sure will hold me rapt for hours upon hours AND those five games simply won't run on my PC. Until then, I'll play the few PC games I have and enjoy and stick mostly to playing games on my Xbox, GC and PS2.

Re:There's a very real limit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Seriously, though, my main problem with your kind of speculation is, well, that it's speculation."

Agreed, so here is some non-speculation. During the video of hl2 from e3 (the 500meg one thats been doing the rounds), the presenter can clearly be heard saying "The graphics of the source engine are based around shaders". Now, as i'm sure your aware, the 3rd Generation GFX card in the XBox is capable of supporting only the most simple vetex and fragment shaders, not ones which can support techniques such as "bump-mapped subdivision surfaces" (yes, another quote from the video). Just to be clear - whilst the XBox's gfx card can support these techniques, it cannot do so using shaders, it must rely on the fixed function pipeline and as such will be incapable of rendering the (jaw dropping) scenes we saw in the e3 videos.

Re:There's a very real limit

[Oakey]

You know, gamers are such hypocrits.

"Half Life 2 will suck at low detail settings, low resolution and on your crap hardware."

"It's not about graphics, it's about gameplay."

"Why are you raving on about Vice City so much? It's ooooold.... it's been out on PS2 since last year.. you could have been playing it already, bug free and with a nice controller"

"Yeah... but I get to play it at 1900x1600 (insert other stupidly high resolution) and full detail. The graphics will look so much superior"

This is typical conversation between gamers. I've come to the conclusion, that if someone doesn't own something, then it sucks... until they get their own.. then it's the best thing since the wheel.

Incidently... play Vice City at stupidly high resolution is all very well.. but it sucks ass playing on your 17" monitor compared to 32"+ (or whatever) TV.

Re:There's a very real limit

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO, the graphics on HL2 are what makes the game good. I think Valve is aiming for realism, and that means good in-game physics, graphics, and gameplay. The more attractive the graphics are, the more people are likely to be impressed by it.

For example, when I showed E3 footage to some friends of mine, they thought it was a movie. They were absolutely amazed to find out that it was from a game. Someone even said that he was willing to buy a new computer just to play HL2.

Re:There's a very real limit

[petsounds]

Yes, and if graphics were the only concern then your snide, dismissive attitude would be understandable. But the first Half-Life's graphics weren't that groundbreaking even at the time it was released.

To clarify, the original Half-Life used a heavily-modified Quake 2 engine. No one ever expected it to be the best-looking game. Valve was a small studio; they certainly didn't have the capital to build an engine from scratch. However, Half-Life 2 utilizes the Source Engine, an in-house graphics engine developed by Valve over the last five years specifically designed to run Half-Life 2. While it has been made to be very flexible on a wide array of systems, you won't get all the graphics effects unless you have a DirectX 9-compliant video card. This has been stated several times by Valve in past interviews. While the Xbox could conceivably run HL2, the experience won't be what the designers envisioned. I also have some reservations about the Xbox's CPU being able to handle the advanced AI and physics routines that Half-Life 2 is using.

When it comes down to it though, I don't see why anyone would *choose* to play a FPS on a console instead of on their PC, given the unnatural control mechanisms offered by console controllers.

Re:There's a very real limit

[Babbster]

When it comes down to it though, I don't see why anyone would *choose* to play a FPS on a console instead of on their PC, given the unnatural control mechanisms offered by console controllers.

The rest of your post makes sense, so why did you have to add this - forgive me - blindly stupid paragraph? The next time I aim a real weapon using a mouse and walk forward using the "W" key on my keyboard will be the first time. Whatever you may think of console controllers, they are no more "unnatural" than a mouse/keyboard configuration.

Re:There's a very real limit

[petsounds]

The rest of your post makes sense, so why did you have to add this - forgive me - blindly stupid paragraph? The next time I aim a real weapon using a mouse and walk forward using the "W" key on my keyboard will be the first time. Whatever you may think of console controllers, they are no more "unnatural" than a mouse/keyboard configuration.

I agree that my last statement was a bit dismissive; there are certain times where a console FPS is more fun, such as playing co-op Halo with a friend.

I suppose the "unnatural" aspect has more to do with the inprecise nature of the way you change your camera angle, due to the limited range of movement afforded by a controller stick. A mouse gives you a much finer degree of control, which creates the impression of greater realism. Which is tolerable for a slower-moving game like Halo, but anything that requires a higher level of action..well, I can't imagine playing something like Unreal Tournament using a console controller and having anywhere near the same competency level purely due to the degree of control available.

I think there's also about having the monitor right in front of you that creates a better sense of immersion -- I don't sit a foot from my television.

Re:There's a very real limit

[Babbster]

Good points. Certainly, I myself prefer FPS games with mouse/keyboard over a console controller. I admit that I have a tendency to play devil's advocate on this issue precisely because Halo was quite playable with a console controller once you got used to it (the fact that Halo bored me is another issue entirely).

My immersion factor doesn't go up on the monitor because I sit about 2-1/2 feet from a 17" monitor. I also usually have lights on when I'm playing a PC game. The controls also tend to take me "out of the game" in that I use the mouse and keyboard constantly for my work and so using the same controls for games at times has that association with work. On the other hand, I usually play console games in the dark and the controller is organic to the gaming experience alone with no other associations.

It all comes down to preference. We've all got 'em and it's important that we acknowledge 'em. :)

Re:There's a very real limit

[SuiteSisterMary]

The Xbox is a child now compared to even middle-end PC's.

And most PC games are designed to use five year old PCs. What PC games actually use the pixel shaders in a gefore? Hmmm. Morrowind, for the water...any other mainstream games? Or just tech demos?

Consoles Will Come

[MBCook]

I think we all know that even if Half-Life is barely successfull at all, we'll see it ported to consoles. The big question is when? There is a good chance that it won't come out on consoles untill X-Box 2, PS3, and or the GC's successor (I can't find what I named it in a previous post).

If it does end up on the current consoles, I doubt that it would end up on anything other than the X-Box due to pure processing/graphics power. It would take so much time to get it to run on the PS2/Cube (due to rewriting the graphics stuff) that it might not happen.

Re:Consoles Will Come

[Soulslayer]

The PS2 has a fairly unique architecture, but he GameCube is a Power PC with an ATI Radeon 8500 (ish) graphics chipset. The Cube is not supposed to be a big pain to write for.

However it is highly unlikely that HL2 could be ported to ANY of the consoles without major reduction in capabilities. Remember the Xbox is about equivalent to a 1GHz Celeron running a GeForce 3 Reference (pre-Ti) chipset. (its actual clock is 700Mhz but it gains some speed advantage due to some mainboard and memory enchancements)

HL2's absolute minimum requirements (with nearly every detail setting lowered all the way) has been rumored to be in the 900Mhz GeForce 3 range. To play at anything remotely similar to the detail level of the E3 demonstration is going to require systems 2-3 times as powerful.

It's time for a new generation of console players to learn what the last one did. Consoles will always fall behind top end PCs in terms of graphics performance. And given the delay between new console products you will generally have one year in which you can attempt to claim your console is more powerful than any PC when it comes to games (you'd be wrong, but you can get away with it) followed by 2-3 years of being obviously less advanced.

Of course you won't be spending as much money on hardware as PC gamers so there are some benefits. ;)

Re:Consoles Will Come

[Drakino]

with an ATI Radeon 8500 (ish) graphics chipset.

No. It is a custom designed chipset by a company called ArtX. ATI bought them after the Gamecube chipset was pretty much locked down, and the R300 (Radeon 9500-9800) chip was the first PC video chip that the ArtX team had a chance to help out on.

Re:Consoles Will Come

[aztektum]

then there are those who play console and pc games and eat ramen all year long.

when pc gaming isn't call rts's, fps and "Sim..." games then I'll stop buying my consoles

Re:Consoles Will Come

[PainKilleR-CE]

The PS2 has a fairly unique architecture, but he GameCube is a Power PC with an ATI Radeon 8500 (ish) graphics chipset. The Cube is not supposed to be a big pain to write for.

PowerPC is sometimes a simple port, sometimes a complete rewrite. Remember, there was never a port of HL to the Mac, either (though they did have someone working on it for some time before they trashed it).

However it is highly unlikely that HL2 could be ported to ANY of the consoles without major reduction in capabilities. Remember the Xbox is about equivalent to a 1GHz Celeron running a GeForce 3 Reference (pre-Ti) chipset. (its actual clock is 700Mhz but it gains some speed advantage due to some mainboard and memory enchancements)

Celerons lose their speed in the same places where the XBox gains it's speed, but in the end it doesn't really matter. Also, it's important to remember that a console port doesn't have to run at the highest PC resolutions (although most XBox games are supposed to support 1080i iirc). You also don't have nearly as much overhead on the XBox as you do on a normal PC, and don't have to worry about what people are running in addition to your game.

HL2's absolute minimum requirements (with nearly every detail setting lowered all the way) has been rumored to be in the 900Mhz GeForce 3 range. To play at anything remotely similar to the detail level of the E3 demonstration is going to require systems 2-3 times as powerful.

Someone else quoted something different elsewhere in this thread, and that at least seemed more substantiated, though I don't trust what Gabe says for much. We'll see when the game comes out what it requires on the PC. Consider, though, that the original HL had pretty low system requirements for it's time (in part due to the engine it was based on, even though they did a significant rewrite of that engine), while still having superior AI to every other FPS game that was out at the time, or even most of the games since.

It's time for a new generation of console players to learn what the last one did. Consoles will always fall behind top end PCs in terms of graphics performance. And given the delay between new console products you will generally have one year in which you can attempt to claim your console is more powerful than any PC when it comes to games (you'd be wrong, but you can get away with it) followed by 2-3 years of being obviously less advanced.

I've always been a huge PC gamer, but there's always going to be an advantage to playing on a console: the system is a known environment for the developer. What runs on a 700MHz PC w/ a high-end GF3 card is going to run significantly better ported to the XBox. PC game developers write games knowing that to get the widest possible audience they'll have to make their game flexible enough to run on the lowest possible system requirements, while still gaining something from higher-powered systems. Meanwhile, console developers only have to write their software to the restrictions of a fixed specification.

As someone that's done both semi-official and unofficial support for the first Half-life (first for Sierra through their message boards for Half-life, TFC, and the first HL expansion, second for PlanetFortress through their website (maintaining a technicallly-oriented FAQ and answering emails to the game-support email address)), there are so many things an end-user can have on their PC that affects game performance that it can get tiresome. If you have an AMD processor, an ATI graphics card, a non-Intel chipset with an Intel CPU, or Norton Anti-Virus is running, I wish you luck playing games (because all of these caused significant problems with Half-life at one time or another).

Of course you won't be spending as much money on hardware as PC gamers so there are some benefits. ;)

Oh, and that, too. Instead of buying a graphics card every 6 months I've bought a new console every 6 months since the DreamCast started to fad

Re:Consoles Will Come

[Soulslayer]

Right the point is that the underlying architecture for both chipsets is actually fairly similar. I didn't say it was an R300 (actually I was eroneously comparing it to the R200 series), just that it is somewhat analogous to that series in terms of internal achritecture.

The "Flipper" chipset developed by ArtX does a lot more than just graphics processing (sound, I/O, memory, etc) but the ArtX team supposedly carried a lot of their design over into the core of the later ATI chips.

More to the point, the Flipper was designed expressly with the intent of making it easy to write for. They were smart enough to realize that making your system a pain in the arse to code for is a good way of killing it fast.

Re:Consoles Will Come

[Soulslayer]

Your points are all certainly valid.

My original post was certainly a bit snippy, but I'd like to stress that I'm most certainly not anti-console (I own several myself). I just tend to get exceedingly tired of people predicting the end of the PC as a gaming platform. It is also tiresome to have to listen to console gamers running around at every new product launch attempting to convince everyone that this console or that is more powerful than a high end PC.

I wish people could just understand that all the various paltforms have their advantages and disadvantages. If you are a true gamer you're going to want to play the best games, regardless of the platform their on. And if you're hardcore you will want to play them on whichever platform gives you the greatest performance. When choosing between HL2 on a PC or the Xbox, I'm going to go with the PC.

Re:Consoles Will Come

[PainKilleR-CE]

I just tend to get exceedingly tired of people predicting the end of the PC as a gaming platform. It is also tiresome to have to listen to console gamers running around at every new product launch attempting to convince everyone that this console or that is more powerful than a high end PC.

I agree on both points. In the end, it's always possible to get a more powerful PC. There are configurations available that most people never see. At the least, even if a console comes out that gets a 6-month lead on consumer PCs, the workstations that the high-end game artists (especially model designers) are using will blow away the console they're developing for (at least in graphics performance).

I wish people could just understand that all the various paltforms have their advantages and disadvantages.

The hardware flexibility on the PC is both an advantage and a disadvantage, though, in that games are rarely designed for the high end of what's available (and even when they are, within a couple months of release the high end gets higher). On the other hand, the only way a console will ever catch up with the mouse + keyboard input is to sell a USB adapter or use standard USB connectors that allow standard PC mice + keyboards to be attached. There's basically a snowball's chance in hell that a console developer will release a keyboard and mouse that meet my needs.

If you are a true gamer you're going to want to play the best games, regardless of the platform their on. And if you're hardcore you will want to play them on whichever platform gives you the greatest performance. When choosing between HL2 on a PC or the Xbox, I'm going to go with the PC.

I agree there, but not for performance reasons. The XBox should, at least, supply stability that you may or may not see on the PC. The PC offers expandability, though, which is a place where the XBox is more limited (I'm sorry, an 8-10 GB hard disk probably couldn't hold my HL folder when I was actively playing TFC matches).

Of course, as long as HL2 is just what it claims to be, I won't be buying it anyway. WTF is TF2 anyway?

Milking the cow?

[ziggles]

Maybe Valve realizes Microsoft will pay large sums of money to get a practically guarunteed hit game on the xbox.. so they're pretending to play hardball. They get a nice pile of cash for doing something they were probably going to do anyway.

Half-Life is a 3D Video Game SDK - and a game too.

[zulux]

The best thing about Half-life was all the extra mods and games.

Valve knows this - that most of their sales were for Counterstrike and not Half-Life itself.

Senseably, because the XBOX is a closed system, they are keeping it PC only.

Re:Half-Life is a 3D Video Game SDK - and a game t

[Babbster]

That's not why it sold well initially. The reason it was immediately successful (and it was) was that it was an excellent single-player game. Over time it has had longevity beyond that of most single-player first-person shooters because of modifications, but it would have been successful even if there had never been a single mod.

Not true

[swat_r2]

I'm constantly suprised at how great my Xbox console looks compared to my much technically superior PC. Other than Enemy Territory, my "Superior" machine is generating dust and is generally nowhere near as fun. Do you have any recommendations for killer games for the PC that can actually justify an insane hardware upgrade cycle? (Not future titles, current ones) And I don't care for RTS or uninspired FPS's either.

Of course the better resolution and key/mouse is an advantage, but in heated matches of RTCW on both systems, resolution doesn't become much of an issue anymore (it would if my TV were the same size as my monitor, but that's not the case).

And as far as the key/mouse is concerned - yes, there's no denying that it's insanely better. But I'm so used to console shooters it feels great playing that way as well, and you know everyone else is "handicapped" by the gamepad so it evens out the playing field and you can become just as skilled as if you were using keyb/mouse.

Anyway, off on a rant. To sum it up, PC=Good, Xbox=Better.

Re:Not true

[apierson]

You can't be serious. Do you actually believe that an Xbox can compete against, say, a 2.4GHz machine (AMD or P4) with an ATI Radeon 9700 and a gig of PC3200 DDR RAM? How deluded are you? Oh, wait, I know the answer to that one: very!

The Xbox couldn't even compete with my 1.8 AMD XP w/ 128MB Geforce4 and 512MB DDR RAM. Right now, this IS a mid-level machine. Hell, I know some people would argue against even that rating. That aside, the hardware dictates what the machine is capable of handling. Why is this so hard for some Xbox owners to understand?

Ah, RTCW on your TV. I'm assuming you mean a TV and NOT an HDTV. You are aware that it's running at an insanely low resolution, right? IIRC the resolution on your TV is 320x240 (standard non-HDTV TV resolution). Resolution isn't an issue on an Xbox because you're running at such a low resolution.

There's no need to argue over keyboard/mouse vs. controller. The winner in that battle is obvious.

By the way, your problem seems to be with one or both of two things: game developers and/or your lack of an ability to pick up good PC game titles. Do you think the devs developing games for PC's are just simply "stupider"? Oh! Or maybe they're just not as cool as the console game devs! Wrong on both counts, especially because many development houses develop games for PC's _and_ consoles. And as far as your inability to find good games: that's your problem, man. I shouldn't have to sit here and list all the PC games I've played over the years because you can't pick up a few simple gaming magazines or check out some gaming forums (try the Ars Technica GESC). In truth, I think you're just lazy, and it's just easier for you to just go out and rent every Xbox title on the shelf until you hit a few good ones.

Anyway, off on a rant. To sum it up, You=Stupid, Xbox="Good for a console, underpowered compared to a PC".

Re:Not true

[swat_r2]

Hey, it's just an opinion - no need to twist your panties up like that, last time I checked we were all entitled to one, correct? Only difference is that I don't stoop to name calling, but I forgive your ignorance :)

I have your system down to the spec, I try almost every new game to come out, and aside from ET I've barely found anything recent that's not a lame FPS or RTS. That's not me ranting against the PC, I love it and I wish I enjoyed the more recent titles. I have more fun loading up classics like SS2 and DX, or DOTT and GrimF.

That being said, I think the Xbox is much more fun and enjoyable - there's no denying some of the games are junky PS2 ports, but there's a lot that are extrememly great. And even if the cycle is heading towards the PC end and the Xbox is becoming more dated, the Xbox 2 will come and the cycle will restart, making the 9700 look silly. Get it?

Re:Not true

[apierson]

Oh, like the Xbox made the Geforce4 look silly? Oh wait, the Xbox houses a modified Geforce3, that's right. Silly ME. You know, if graphics weren't that much of an issue, they should have at least thrown an at-the-time current processor in the Xbox as well. The graphics card & processor in the released Xbox 2 won't even be equivalent to the mid- to high-end graphics cards & processors that are on the market when it is released, because at a certain point during the development of the Xbox 2 the hardware choices are frozen. You don't think they just throw them in three days before release, do you?

Let's say they're developing the Xbox2 right now....you'll have your nice Xbox2 with an ATI Radeon 9700 for its gfx and--if you're _lucky_--a 2GHz proc (but if history repeats itself, you'll more likely get a 1.6). At the time the Xbox2 is released, even middle-end machines will naturally be a decent bit ahead of the game, and high end machines (the domain of hardcore gamers) will definitely be way ahead.

Like I said, I'm not going to list all the PC games that have made many people's lists of "top pc gaming favs of this year" (or last year, for that matter). There are plenty of places out on the net for you to find things like that.

I honestly think you don't have any real intention of finding the good PC games--you're enjoying kicking back on the couch in front of the tv holding a single controller in your hand and playing Halo or whatnot. More power to you--just don't cast aspersions on PC gamers because PC gaming isn't "comfortable" for you right now.

That being said, please oh PLEASE don't make statements like "I think the Xbox is much more fun and enjoyable"--make statements like "I think the games I play on the Xbox are more fun and enjoyable"...unless, of course, you're outside playing baseball with your Xbox. Again, your issue never seemed to be with the hardware. /me adjusts his panties

flash the cash

[moankey]

Well MS could always just do what they did with Bungie buy the company and release only on their Xbox.

Re:flash the cash

[wormbin]

Unlikely.

Valve is a private company that was founded by a couple of ex-Microsofties who now have plenty of cash. Valve doesn't get bought by anyone unless the founders say so.

Anything to do with MS's X-Box Live Server monopol

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be because of Microsoft's archaic decision to monopolize the server setup for X-Box Live. All games MUST be played on Microsoft's servers. If the game is planning on being online multiplayer, which one would expect of it (although, HL itself had sort of a limited multiplayer), it could cause the decision.
Mike

Question?

[swat_r2]

Ask yourself why the Console market is thriving in comparison to the more niche PC gaming market. You can argue against it all you want but you're on a slowly sinking ship. It'll never go away obviously (and I sure hope it doesn't) but PC gaming doesn't have a chance against consoles.

As for the rest of your post, everything is pure speculation unless you really are on the Xbox dev team.

Hey, people still use the Mac ;) And it *is* better at graphics apps.

Re:Anything to do with MS's X-Box Live Server mono

[Babbster]

Actually, all connections MUST be made through Microsoft's servers. The actual serving of the games is handled by one of the Xboxen actually involved in playing the game or on someone's dedicated server Xbox. The only game that doesn't follow this pattern so far is, of course, Phantasy Star Online.

Unless a company is looking to charge their own fee for matchmaking, it's just plain dumb to stay off Xbox Live. Why? Because Microsoft is providing the framework with their time and money, saving the developers from having to do it (providing matchmaking servers, keeping track of accounts, creating voice capability, etc.) themselves.

I haven't even read FAINT complaining about Xbox Live coming out of development circles (except for EA which has made no secret of the fact that they want to charge people money to play online and so have a fundamental problem with Xbox Live in that they would have to justify a second fee for their games when you can play MS and Sega games online for one) - in fact, every developer comment I've read about Xbox Live has been nothing but positive.

Why?

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

There are like, MILLIONS of twelve year olds out there...

Tim

You are a funny guy

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

You just said that PCs have *less* variety in games than consoles. What a joker!

Tim

I completely agree

[swat_r2]

I think they should start putting a strip of stale bubble gum in each console game to cater to those little bastards, and maybe a menthol cig in every Vice City for those wanna be tough kids ;)

HL2's minimum specification...

[CmdrJameson]

GamingNEXT - With the outstanding graphics that HL2 is using, what should gamers have, minimally, to run this game?

Gabe Newell - An 800 MHz P-III and a DX6 level hardware accelerator (e.g. TNT).

- GamingNEXT Interview, May 2003

Re:HL2's minimum specification...

[Soulslayer]

Interesting. Last I heard hardware T&L was required. That would eliminate anything older than a GF2.

I wonder how accurate Newell's stated minimum spec is. (he has been known to goof on technical aspects of their products in the past)

Nice troll...

[Hogwash McFly]

but you fail to realise that the way that Microsoft is doing it is the more logical and efficient way.

I want to play games on Xbox Live. I pay for a years subscription and get a headset and two games. Basically the subscription is free at that kinda price point. then a buy a game I want to play online. I pop it in the tray and bam, full broadband only multiplayer with matchmaking, friends lists and voice chat and virtually no cheating(with the opportunity to go straight to MS when exploits etc. arrive). All for virtually nothing.

I want to play online for the PS2. I buy all the stuff I need, headset, adapter, memory cards etc. I buy some games I want to play online. I then subscribe to some or all of these game companies to play online. Now I have various monthly outgoings to several companies. I depend on each game publisher to provide decent, fast servers.

Damn that's a tough choice!

Re:Half-Life is a 3D Video Game SDK - and a game t

[PainKilleR-CE]

That's not why it sold well initially. The reason it was immediately successful (and it was) was that it was an excellent single-player game.

It also received a significant sales boost because Valve bought the team that created the most popular Quake mod, Team Fortress (which surpassed QuakeDM in players long before Half-life came around, and surpassed many (if not most) of Quake2's multiplayer mods), and they had announced that TF2 would be either a mod or an expansion for Half-life. In the long run it didn't account for nearly as many sales as Counterstrike, but it certainly accounted for a significant number of the pre-orders and initial sales of the game. While many people liked the single player portion of Half-life, I did not, even though I own 3 copies of the game (pre-order, the 'everyone loves the single player I cant wait for the pre-order to get here even though its already shipped' purchase, and the one I got from Sierra for moderating their HL boards). It had some interesting elements to it, but overall was a simplistic puzzler with a first-person perspective. The story-line was definitely better than Quake, but the gameplay was mediocre.

Over time it has had longevity beyond that of most single-player first-person shooters because of modifications, but it would have been successful even if there had never been a single mod.

We'll never really know, because Valve hyped it from day one as a mod platform AND a strong single-player game. If it hadn't been hyped as a mod platform, we can't really say if it would've sold well or not. I certainly know that many people were severely pissed about the game's multiplayer performance upon release, and that for them the only thing that redeemed the game were the eventual patches to fix the multiplayer code (and I'm not talking about the much later releases that changed the network code significantly after TFC and CS had already been released).

It will come out. Probably

[pancakegeels]

As far as I am aware, no half life release has been carried out in house at Valve. I suspect they will let other people handle the conversion. Jast as happened before. It was years before the dreamcast version (didn't) appear[ed].

you're wrong

[Ender Ryan]

HL2 could easily be made to play and look great on the Xbox. Have you seen footage of Halo 2? It's quite impressive, not quite HL2, but not far away. A lot of what makes HL2 look so good also has nothing to do with the graphics per say.

Besides, HL2 will run at 640x480, possibly 800x600?, on the Xbox, so it doesn't need quite as much power.

Doom 3 is coming to the Xbox, and I have heard nothing about it being "horribly neutered". However, as that will have a native Linux client, I will be purchasing the PC version.

Don't get me wrong, I hate Microsoft, and I wish Bill G just as much pain and misery as the next guy does, but you're just plain wrong.

Xbox is a child now compared to even middle-end PC's.

That is simply not true. Most gamers are still running sub-1Ghz machines with a Geforce 2 or 3. Furthermore, when the specs of every machine are the same, you can do a lot more tweaking to get it running well.

Re:you're wrong

[analog_line]

Most gamers are still running sub-1Ghz machines with a Geforce 2 or 3. Furthermore, when the specs of every machine are the same, you can do a lot more tweaking to get it running well.

Uh, I don't know who you consider "most gamers", but the majority of people who game seriously (where 'seriously' is not little kids games, and anything other than the Sims) likely have higher than 1Ghz machines, seeing as prices for 1.8Ghz and below processors and PC133 memory are so low nowadays, it's ridiculous. Pocket money will get you an X86-compatible processor higher than 1Ghz. The cheapass systems from Dell/Gateway/HPaq will have at least a 1.5 Ghz Celeron under the hood.

Of course, most people who game don't bother with PC gaming anymore, and stick to consoles, which 9 out of 10 times will be a far more quality experience than a PC game. Console games are generally playable the day they are released. If they aren't, NO ONE will buy them. PC games are generally unplayable until 2 months worth of patches have been released, even after huge delays of months or years (Daikatana, Master of Orion 3, and Pool of Radiance 2, anyone?). Daily I get closer to never buying a PC game ever again and staying with the games that actually work.

David Hufford

[cgenman]

David Hufford, a product manager in Microsoft's Xbox group, said the Media Center PC remains the central digital entertainment hub of the home, at least to Microsoft's thinking. ... Hufford said it's easier for Microsoft to innovate its console with new add-ons like Music Mixer because the Xbox has a built-in hard drive that easily stores new digital entertainment applications.

We have a product manager who actually believes in the "Media PC," who believes a karoke software product is an original add-on which will sell a videogame, and who refers to "innovating [the] console" by writing software.

Obviously, Mr. Hufford could use a tighter grasp on reality. For example, here is an interview snippet ripped from Gamespy.

David Hufford: My name is David Hufford and I work on the Marketing team at Xbox, so my primary job is to market all things Xbox, including this new game controller.

GameSpy: What are you calling this new controller?

David Hufford: We're calling it Xbox Controller S.

GameSpy: What does the S stand for?

David Hufford: Well, there's not a lot of science behind it, it's more of an art thing. I think we were all in a room and thought it would be a cool name, so we just came up with it.

Sounds brilliant, doesn't he?

Actually, that one is taken a bit out of context. He doesn't flub the rest of the interview, and he doesn't flub the other interviews available for googling (though he does use the phrases "super-hot" and "kicks butt" too often for someone in a professional communications position). So he does sound like he is qualified to talk about whether or not Half-Life 2 will make the console, although he's equally likely to be one of the people who described Microsoft BOB as a "totally awesome innovation, dude."

After all of that tortureous and unnecessary deconstruction of the messenger, it isn't that surprising that Half-Life 2 wouldn't make the big X. The bare minimum specs have always hovered around the XBox level: 700 Mhz CPU with a good DX6 card. And, sadly, the minimum specs for computer games are generally set at what will actually physically play the game, albeit at 320x240 and 5 frames per second. If the XBox is at the minimum specs for the game, the XBox will be too slow to play it satisfactorily.

Re:Half-Life is a 3D Video Game SDK - and a game t

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why did they release HL for PS2?

HL2 on xbox offical

[idvah]

Its offical, http://www.gamespydaily.com/news/fullstory.asp?id= 5138 its on the xbox.

Re:Anything to do with MS's X-Box Live Server mono

[SuiteSisterMary]

And it's nice that ANY multiplayer game will support the same voice chat, the same buddy list, the same messaging capabilities, the same ability to call up your friend playing a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT game and invite him to play with you, and so on...

Xbox Live is a WONDERFUL idea.