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."

Comments

Especially Interesting

[pdbaby]

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!

Yes

[Cadallin]

Sony needs to do so for a variety of reasons. They need to justify their high pricetag. They need to justify their hype. Perhaps most importantly they need to justify their architecture. I think, and I'm not alone, that Cell is going to turn out to be a dog just like the Emotion Engine, Holding back a performance starved architecture. They may be able to cover up for it a bit by having ditched the Cell in favor of an Nvidia graphics chip, so what they have will probably look alright, but I'm not convinced they'll be able to deliver immersive environments capable of competeing with later gen 360 titles due to performance starved physics processing.

Look better, but at what performance price?

[kannibal_klown]

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?

Re:Look better, but at what performance price?

[cybrthng]

They're not hitting the limits of the hardware by any means just not coding to the hardware because the maturity of the developers, sdk and frameworks haven't been there. That is why "2nd/3rd" gen games always rock and first gen games have the symptoms you notice.

Re:Look better, but at what performance price?

[powerlord]

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' :) ).

Nope

[Erwos]

Sony doesn't need to beat Gears of War.

They've got to beat Gears of War, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Forza Motorsport 2, and Blue Dragon. Sony _wishes_ all they had to do was compete against Gears of War. Microsoft is obviously pulling out their AAA game on all fronts (including Japan - they've got a bunch of slick-looking JRPGs coming out), and Sony can't afford to ignore that.

I don't think _Microsoft_ is relying on Gears of War per se - they've got a lot of good stuff in the pipeline. Whether Microsoft needs to beat Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid is a better question...

Last Chance? No.

[bateleur]

this is Microsoft's last chance to persuade any on-the-fence PS3 fans

Absolute rubbish. That implies that the release of the PS3 will remove all inclination to purchase an XBox 360. In reality, the opposite is true. I didn't like the Xbox much at all, so wasn't expecting to like the 360. As things stand, it looks somewhat better for my gaming needs than I expected. I did expect to want a PS3 (since I love my PS2), but right now it's worrying me more than enthusing me.

There's no way I'm buying an XBox 360 before the PS3 comes out, but once it is out it has to start proving itself worthwhile. If it doesn't then that's when I'll be looking to the 360.

This isn't Microsoft's last chance at anything.