Slashdot Mirror
Comparing Xbox Launches
IGN is running a piece taking a look at the launch of the Xbox 360, and comparing it to the launch of the original Xbox. From the article: "What we now have is some good old fashioned perspective, and since Sony's PlayStation 3 has yet to launch, what better system to compare the Xbox 360 to than its little brother, the Xbox. Our focus will be the launch of each Microsoft system. Specifically, we'll be answering these questions: How do the games that launched with the Xbox and Xbox 360 compare? What were the big issues surrounding each launch? What worked, what didn't? And which launch was ultimately better?"
was I was able to buy an Xbox at launch vs. the 360. I am beginning to think it was a good thing though with scratched discs, blown out power supplies and over heating issues. Not that I think Sony's Blu-Ray strategy is going to work for them either. I am certain we're not going to see the PS3 this spring in either Japan or America as inevitable delays will push everything back to a fall or winter release.
Just me 2 cents.
The problem when you do a sequel is that you are trying to please the people who liked the original version. Because of this, your target demographic gets older (all the existing customers have gotten older, and you need really a lot of young customers to offset this), this means usually people with more money, but more conservative tastes.
In this sense, a given system is linked to a certain "generation", that largely stays with a system they know. I suspect that the really new games will come out on consoles for younger people, either cheaper or more portable systems.
First, there was a huge shortage of consoles (at least in North America), so you had to either wait outside a store all night or somehow get lucky by knowing when a shipment was going to arrive. Add to this you either have to spend $400 for the "good" console or even more than that to purchase the things that don't come with the Core version. You also need an HD set to really see the graphical improvements. And then you have to pay for Live, which means you're also paying for broadband.
Sorry, but the only people I see enjoying this launch are fanboys (MS fanboys? WTF?), braindead games journalists, and rich idiots who think shiny toys make them "hip" or something.
The 360 doesn't give me a single reason to purchase the system. 3-4 "good" titles in my book doesn't want to make me spend $400 for a box that I know will just sit around and collect dust until the day a game comes out that I won't be able to put down.
The original Xbox had this, Halo. I don't buy consoles to invest in a hopeful future of amazing games.
So they determined that even though the original xbox launch had more selection and better games, the xbox 360 wins because it's technically superior? WTF? Why bother even comparing the two then? I should certainly hope that it's technically superior to the original after 5 years.
If that's their criteria for determining the winner, then all it sounds like is a paid advertisement.
I currently have a xbox, ps2 and gamecube.. but there's no way I'm going to buy either of the new offerings until they are all out and can make an informed decision myself, not from someone _telling me_ what I _should_ buy.
Why should I give a fuck about Microsoft's finances?
I'll buy the console which 1. Does a better job with the big-market games on both platforms, and 2. Has better exclusive games.
And since the only "exclusive" games to Sony that I care about (the GTA series) always get ported to the X-Box, Sony really doesn't have a lot to hold up and make me chose them over the X-Box 360, do they?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I just played through Half Life 2 on the original XBox, and it was pretty darn near photorealistic. The game looked fantastic. Many other games on the XBox look great, including Halo 2 and the original Halo. They're already at the point where they look like real life; how much better can graphics really get?
Answer: a lot better. You think they look like real life now, but two or three years down the line, you'll think today's games look like crap.
How do I know this? Simple: I've been there. Look, I can remember looking at Doom and thinking, this is it, there is no way Quake could possibly be more realistic. And then Quake came out, and it looked like a jerky version of real life itself. Back then.
Look at Half-Life 2 with a critical eye. Compare it to movies or TV, if you find it too difficult to compare a 2D screen with 3D reality itself. Blockiness, jaggy edges, unrealistic motion, flat lighting... it's nowhere near reality. It's nothing like. But your brain is very, very good at error-correction... for as long as it's the best you've seen.
To put this in perspective, I recently tried out a WWII game on the XBox 360 in a Gamestop store, and really, I couldn't see any big difference between that and Half Life II's graphics.
You're comparing a mature XBox title with a first-generation 360 title - one that was written by people who didn't know how to get the best out of the new system.
I think basically you don't understand what "next generation" means. It's not a quantised thing: you don't step up a generation and everything looks so much better and stays looking the same for the next five years. A generation is a period of growth, during which things continue to improve. And next-generation hardware is about enabling the improvement to continue, not about causing that improvement in and of itself. In other words, XBox games look as good as they ever will, but 360 games have a lot of scope for improvement.