Slashdot Mirror
The Next-Gen Odd Couple
1up.com is running a lengthy piece talking to Microsoft VP J. Allard and Sony Computers of America President Kaz Hirai about what exactly the 'next generation' of consoles are about. The article is informative and varied, with talk about Xbox Live, the launch of the Xbox and PSX, and what past efforts from Sony and Microsoft will mean as the newest front in the console war heats up. From the article: "OPM: What are the benefits of being first to market, much like the Dreamcast was? What are the pitfalls? JA: Good question. I'd say one of the pitfalls from a competitive point of view is that you don't know what the other guys are doing, and to be frank, the guys over at Sony have been very good at not telling anyone what they're doing. It's tough to tell where they're going with the PS3. The other tough thing is that you're under the microscope [when you're first]. [Sony] shows two movies and a product that you can't touch behind a piece of glass, and that's what you get to write about on them."
I think we should really be looking at the third player in the next gen of consoles. Sure XBox 360 and PS3 look to have really fast hardware, and look really pretty, but the Revolution actually looks like it will be doing something new and interesting. After reading about how the new King Kong game being put down by it's own developers for being not so good on the 360 unless you have a flashy new TV, as few people do, It's beginning to become apparent that maybe graphics won't matter all that much in the next generation. With the last 7 generations of consoles, we've seen graphics get noticable better every time. I'm not sure people will notice or care that much about the graphics this time. Most people still have a standard TV, and probably won't be able to tell the difference. Instead, I see many people, looking for something fun, which Nintendo has always provided. Not to mention that the Revo will be around 1/2 the price of the PS3 or the Xbox 360.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I haven't noticed anything revolutionary with this new xbox 360. If anything you might call it evolutionary with enhanced graphics but aside from that the games don't appear to be any different from the long line of games that preceded them.
True. But 90% of the US does not have an HDTV. And I'm sure even less have one that supports 720p (my 4:3 ratio HDTV only has support for 480p and 1080i). It's in the way that it's promoted where everything breaks down. The stores make it seem, and likely tell consumers, it will look that good on any TV.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
I am sorry? Exactly when was did MS get involved with flight simulator (first a non-ms game but now firmly owned by ms) vs Sony involvement with games? I spot it as MS being almost a full decade earlier. In 1982 MS licensed the program from sublogic to be released on the IBM-PC (before it had been on all the other platforms of the day but NOT that new fangled thingy). The playstation doesn't make an entry until 1994. (Oh and it even seems that MS flight simulator as it would become known was no fluke but actually commisioned by Bill Gates himself wich would explain why such an odd product would keep being developed)
Or do PC games not count as video games? When an article doesn't even do basic research how worthy can the rest of it be?
So for your info. MS has for a very long time had a game division for its operating platform and continues to do so. Sony wich became a game player much later in live also has a big PC division, almost all of its MMO titles for one. MS of course already had experience with the ancestor of live, MSN chat and similar software. Sony of course did not. MS was late to the internet and the whole online idea but not as late as sony so it is no wonder that the x-box was the first console to have a large online component.
Argh I am bored with this. Game journalists should be shot.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"But in the end, I think XBox360 will make as much losses as XBox1. I seriously doubt that XBox360 will ever make money for Microsoft."
360 is currently averaging 3.9 games/console sold. Add in the monthly revenue from Xbox Live and the controllers and you have a great business going.
Microsoft is an industry leader for a reason, they know how to sell a product. The Xbox1 was just a last ditch attempt to gain some market penetration setting up the 360.
Incremental improvements in graphics and storage, or steps toward immersion. I have a 360, and thus far I am pretty impressed.
Take Call of Duty. Just looking at it, at first glance, it doesn't seem a whole lot better (Toshiba 27" standard def set circa 2003) than say Brothers in Arms on the original Xbox. Then when you actually play it, it has something most other WWII games lack, a sense of immersion. The particle effects really help with this. The battlefield is chaotic, grenades and bullets kick up snow, dirt, mud, and the smoke grenades are wonderful. The friendly NPC's talk, constantly. Sometimes everything else is just so loud, you can't really make out what they are saying. The surround sound is used to great effect to bring you onto the battlefield. It feels like a battle, not a group of polygons shooting at some other polygons.
There are also tons of characters on screen. I remember a Medal of Honor for the Xbox, the opening was a very well done and immersive D-Day invasion, with stuff going on all around you. Hardly any enemies, and only lasted a minute or two. Call of Duty feels like that all the way through, except while the enviroment is active with particle effects and explosions, there are also 15-30 enemies in front of you, and a bunch of Allies fighting beside you. In most WWII games it has inevitably felt like you were one man taking on the entire German army. Call of Duty has you pinned as a member of a unit.
A friend of mine came over after I got my 360 to check it out. We've been playing games together since the NES. Fired up Call of Duty, he took the first level. The vehicle he was in was attacked, he looks, and over the hill in front of him comes, I'd say 35 or so enemies, in formation. His response, holy shit, it's the whole German army. Throws a grenade, then attempts to shoot all of them with his rifle. He's dead a few seconds later. Eventually he realized he should throw a smoke grenade, then retreat to where the rest of the friendlies are and fight from cover. In short, a hell of a lot more immersive than the last generation.
This generation should be about parallel processing are way toward immersion. Hopefully some developer will come along and realize that graphically, this generation should be an incremental upgrade (whatever you can do with that fancy new GPU). The focus should be on using these multi-core processors to up the ante in physics and AI processing, and adding a bunch of characters to the screen. GTA isn't much of a city with 4 cars and 6 people on the streets. Multiply both of those numbers by 20-40 and we may start to have something truly next generation.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill