Slashdot Mirror


How Important is Gears of War for Microsoft?

In todays Opposable Thumbs column at Ars Technica, Ben Kuchera wonders out loud on the importance Microsoft is placing on Gears of War . Despite assurances that 360 games will look better, it's still a toss-up over whether Microsoft or Sony will emerge as the graphical powerhouse of the seventh generation. With ad copy flying fast and only a few weeks until the game's launch, this is Microsoft's last chance to persuade any on-the-fence PS3 fans. From the article: "The question is: does Sony need to beat it? It's not important right now--Sony is delivering what amounts to a paper launch this year; a few people will get systems but the vast majority will be waiting until supplies get a little heavier. It is clear that Sony is going to have to show those early adopters something strong and at least as good as Gears of War in terms of graphics: even thought it's a second generation game against first generation titles, the $200 price difference means people want to see better than 360 quality, and unless we get it now there will be some grumbly early adopters."

5 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Especially Interesting by pdbaby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's especially interesting is that this, the first game on the Unreal Engine 3 (an engine that supports OS X, Linux, Windows, Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3), is only available for the Xbox 360. I wonder how much that cost Microsoft!

    --
    Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
  2. Look better, but at what performance price? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OK, don't get me wrong I like my XBox 360. I've decided to primarily game on my 360 and my eventual Nintendo Wii. The 360 is a decent piece of hardware and some of the games are quite fun.

    But I've noticed some slowdown and tearing in certain parts of some games; most noticeably certain dark sections of "Dead Rising" and some portions of the new "Test Drive" game, not to mention multiplayer Full Auto. This is running at 720p.

    Now, my problem is, if the developers already hitting the limits on this, how much further can they go? Sure, as time goes on they learn to optimize their code for the 360 better, but this is still pretty early. How can they expect to make games "look much better" down the line without killing the performance?

    1. Re:Look better, but at what performance price? by MojoBox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm a little curious myself, it seems back with last gen, we saw games start out at 60fps and work down to sub 30fps range by the end of the consoles life (trying to push more and more graphical effects). Same thing seems to have happened every previous generation too.

      What happens when all the games are chugging right from the start?

    2. Re:Look better, but at what performance price? by powerlord · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've especially been wondering about this. MicroSoft abandoned the XBox after a relatively short life, bringing out the XBox360. If they do that again, shortenting the lifespan of the console, in favor of a 'new and improved' version, versus Sony and Nintendo sticking closer to the '10 year lifespan', are they likely to tick off developers who have to redevelop toolchains to handle the new platform?

      Since the toolchains are a sunk cost, you'd think they're more likely to favor longer life platforms (given a choice), with a higher install base.

      Are owners also likely to be swayed more by a console with 'lasting power', instead of jumping to the next generation?

      That said, the PS3 seems like it has more growing room (in terms of hardware capabilities), than the XBox360 (with the Wii taking an orthogonal approach to a different 'hardware experience' :) ).

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  3. Isn't the console war over ? by alexhs · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I think the console war is essentially over. Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are targeting different markets :

    • Microsoft : "hardcore gamer" market, for people playing in solo, mainly teenagers and young adults. Lots of FPSes.
    • Nintendo : "social gamer", smaller console you can carry around easily (like the gamecube), for people playing with friends or family on more diverse game genres, mainly kids and teenagers.
    • Sony : it's not a console it's a media center, to put under the familial (HD)TV set. Targeted more towards adults. I feel more adventure games, interactive films.


    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.