Yes, and I can count the number of native Linux games that I would rather play on an X-Box than on my PC on one hand, or maybe that's one finger. =)
Again, my point is not that it is not feasible to play games on the X-Box or port software to it. Heck, we have people porting stuff to PS2 Linux and its doing well considering the differences between x86 hardware and PS2. However, I'm talking about, who would develop a game commercially for X-Box and release it so that it works "best on X-Box" without getting a license? I'm not talking about freeware or pre-existing software that is ported, but those that would develop a game like the original poster said and release it commercially without MS's license. No one is going to mess around with MS and release an unlicensed game that sells for money. That would be a disaster for MS, and MS will fight back.
Actually consoles sell at a loss in the beginning, and then they make money up in the end if the price cuts weren't too big. Imagine this, if MS keeps the X-Box for 4-5 years (considering that's the normal pace of the industry to release the next generation), how much will that GeForce 3/motherboard/hard drive/CPU be worth? I'm thinking a heck of a lot less than $299.
And as for MS never making money, the thing is that they will. Probably not on the X-Box, but like I said, they're thinking long term here as well as what Sony thought in the beginning. This is a great growth area, and literally, it is the last few places that PCs themselves grow too for the average user (multimedia/games are one of the few reasons left for your average person to buy a new computer or new parts anymore). MS can't control the licensing on PCs, so why not just make consoles and control it there?
And consoles are going to be much more than just gaming machines in the future. I think people like the idea of specialized devices that still do lots of things very well (DVD player + console is a great idea IMO and the number of people who bought the PS2 for its DVD functionality without buying games shows). Those PCs in your living room deal are starting to take form in consoles and Tivo units.
Also, I want to point out again, that I think MS has a lot of work cut out for them if they wish to dominant, but thinking that "Oh, I'm going to hurt MS by buying a console that MS is losing money on", isn't exactly hurting them either even if they are losing money. Remember, they can take a hit and keep on running (with billions in the bank and in stocks). It's not like Nintendo where this is their core business.
One last thing, I do think that MS entering the arena has got Sony and Nintendo thinking more aggressively and are starting to beef up their offerings in the future which is good. Whether or not splitting the consoles into 3 very fractured markets with quicker hardware releases (you have to assume that Sony is thinking about releasing the PS3 earlier due to the latest reports, plus that could cause MS/Nintendo to also release earlier), I don't think is such a good idea for gamers.
Of course, there is the argument that we're just throwing money back into the devils pocket. Actually though, we're not. MS is taking about $100's loss per unit. With Linux running on it, it would give game developers an alternative to MS licensing on the XBox. You see, every game company that want's to make a game for any console system has to pay the console maker a royaltee on every game they make. So if we get the Xbox figured out, we could really start fucking with MS's head.
First, not only are you throwing money back into the "devil"'s pocket, you're also creating publicity and support for it. I don't care if MS is taking a $100 loss, but imagine this. Their first console into the market beats out the PS2 and GameCube (incumbant console makers). Wouldn't that be the best thing in the world for them? Think about the advertising, consumer mindshare, etc. And who do you think would own the next generation then and control the next console and set prices accordingly? They certainly are not betting on sweeping out the console market by just using the X-Box. They would be stupid to think so, and much as a few people think, not everyone in MS is a dummy;. They're thinking in the long term when they can add more functions to X-Box 2, 3, 4, and they can control the living room, content side, and everything else.
Second, do you honestly believe an established multimillion dollar game publisher is going to risk MS's wrath by publishing games that run on the X-Box but are unlicensed? Not to mention the legal ramifications if a publisher decides to skip on the royalties. Sure, I expect the X-Box to be hacked, and yes, we might get PC games to run on it and all of our other software, but I seriously doubt any of the big publishers (e.g. EA, THQ) has the balls to stand up to MS and release unlicensed games designed for the X-Box but not anywhere else and just release it as is. I'm sure that the publishers have some competent developers around that could reverse engineer the consoles, but there's a reason they just don't release unlicensed games.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I'm not saying that MS's move into consoles is necesarily bad, but this is just a broader strategy to increase their goals of dominating new areas and increase their growth. I also personally do not believe MS has a chance against Sony, and from the looks of things, maybe not even GameCube. Their hardware does look very nice, but I don't know if they can hold out for the long haul without itching to build a new device too quickly.
I think the original poster meant that the launch developers were "rushed" to get their titles out, so they weren't able to make all the tweaks that later developers can do. Usually the difference between "generations" of games is fairly vast. Look at the PS1 (yes PSOne) launch titles and look at the ones being released now. The developers have learned in the ins and outs of the system, what it is good at, what it is not good at. They have developed libraries of code to reuse. This is what developers can do with a machine that remains constant for over 5 years.
On the other hand, since X-Box is basically a PC, I don't know if the differences will be that great after the second generation games. From what I hear, PS2 was hard to program for because of its multiprocessor design, so the differences between the launch titles and today's games are fairly vast since the developers have gotten a handle of things now.
I was leaning towards component video cables that are a good length (Monster brand and all which is pretty much the only brand that stores like Best Buy place prominently next to the game consoles See this link for PS2 cables prices.). Plus those needing that 5.1 surround sound or whatever you have to get digital audio cables for the sound, so $50 for all of your cables isn't that bad.
Really, my point was that someone talking about the GameCube/PS2/X-Box only costing $199/$299/$299 respectively isn't covering all the costs. Sure that's what you get with one controller, but I don't think there are too many gamers that go without a memory card for instance, and for all those preaching the high quality and resolution video of the X-Box/GC, getting component video connections is a pretty big deal.
BTW, I do agree with you that gaming shouldn't be about economic arguments and I'm looking forward to the next Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda games, but felt the need to clarify my post.
Not to be stingy since I think the GameCube is a great buy considering the current and upcoming games, but it really is about $250+ just for the GameCube itself. Figure in a memory card ($20), S-Video/component cables ($50), extra controller ($30), taxes, and you're already up to $300. Then again, X-Box is around $450 for everything too (memory card, cables, extra controller, DVD remote to unlock a feature). PS2 is around $400 for everything now since there are cheaper memory cards and cables available. There are many hidden costs associated with just buying the console if you want its basic advertised capabilities.
About the X-Boxes still being on the shelves, I imagine that is region specific. Considering that GameCubes are selling out in some places and they had 2x the number of shipments (700,000 GameCubes and roughly 300,000-400,000 X-Boxes), I would think that the X-Box would have similiar experiences. Plus, I hear most retailers only got 2 or 3 X-Boxes in some places. If they aren't selling out, then there is something seriously wrong with MS's marketing campaign.
More likely that NVIDIA has some patented code or code that does not belong to them and they don't want to or just plain can't release that code. BTW, I don't believe that you have to implement the whole OpenGL API in drivers. You can choose what functions you want to implement (ala 3dfx's miniGL drivers), but it's better for everyone if every function is implemented.
Hmmm....so you took a very limited sample all sharing similiar backgrounds in a very limited envirornment, and generalized that for the rest of the 7th grade world? Wonderful...
Re:From the "Reminds me of this classic prose" guy
on
Review: Harry Potter
·
· Score: 1
Are the Harry Potter books getting kids to read books or are they getting kids to read Harry Potter ? One is great, the other is a fad. One will last them a lifetime, one will die shortly after the last book comes out. (I also submit that it is probably too early to tell the long lasting effects.)
Better to try something than nothing. Would you rather have kids not reading books at all or at least reading something for a short period of time?
Although my eyes aren't that good, but ATI's 2D visual quality is suppose to be leap and bounds above Nvidias. Plus, having dual-monitor support (TV/DVI/CRT) on their latest cards is definitely a plus versus Nvidia's approach which is to only release TwinView on their MX brand line so far.
Re:The console wars...
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 1
Again, that's why I put best in quotation marks. However, regarding why I chose to use the word 'best', I have yet to find any future title in the X-Box lineup that has matched the hype that Halo, Oddworld, and DOA3 were given 6 months ago. Look at it this way, people knew the following games were coming out later for PS2 (meaning past 6 months of initial launch): Gran Turismo 3, GTA3, THPS3, FFX, Metal Gear Solid 2, surely FFXI, etc. Those are the heavy hitters that have been spread out over the past 6 months and looking forward in the next few months. These are the megatitles that are practically guranteed to sell in the multimillion range. There's also the next few in-house development titles like Jak and Dexter which are going to be alright. What am I suppose to look forward to on the X-Box? Through all the hype of the X-Box, I haven't seen one game in the future past Christmas that has been hyped at all.
I don't think anyone is expecting PS2 to be dethroned in this generation of the console wars. Yes, they will lose lots of fans, but you always do when you have one powerful system launching a year or more later. With all honesty, just by the hard number of hardware sales, PS2 will have the bigger number of owners in the end. It's a very tough enviornment now (whether that be economically because of the lack of consumer confidence or competitively with 3 titans battling for mindshare) for either MS or Nintendo even with Sony's previous mistakes.
And you expect this to survive any better than a computer...how?
Re:Oh yeah, I expect Salon to be unbiased with MS.
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 1
The X-Box should also be seen as MS's way of trying to get into a multibillion dollar industry at any cost (either by outright purchasing development teams or by offering multimillion dollar exclusive contracts). Is that a good thing?
Furthermore, if you believe that having an open box will permit more creative developers to come forth, I think there are many more barriers of entry that are far greater than simply having a box that is slightly easier to develop for than say the GameCube. In an industry which can no longer bet on small shop developers, titles require multimillion dollar budgets over the course of years. Don't expect MS to hand out a X-Box game license to any developer. Furthermore, there's a reason why there are only a few Sid Meirs, John Romeros (a good thing? =), Sim's developers, Warren Spectors, etc. It doesn't matter what tools you are given, there are very few good game designers.
What I worry is that the X-Box makes it too easy for PC developers to cross to console development making for mediocore games. How many innovative PC titles have you seen recently? Halo (another FPS), DOA3 (this is really just upgraded graphics), THPS2x, etc. are hardly creative except for their latest additions in the graphics department.
Yes, the box is powerful, however, if you expect innovation to come forth, don't get your hopes too high.
Re:Salon's biased look at innovative games...
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 1
Actually, many people will also be importing Shenmue 2 from overseas (UK, Japan) since their original save games have the possibility of working with the sequel and DC is the native platform plus Shenmue 2 would be available sooner that way. If people are still sticking to DC and are willing to forgive Sega's backstabbing, you have to expect them to go to many lengths to get the sequel. Why pay ~$450 (memory card, cables, game, console) for a game that will import and have better features for the current DC owners for less than $75?
Also AFAIK, there is no exclusive requirement for Shenmue 2 on X-Box. Sega would be stupid to become a one-console developer. They know that they can't afford to put all their eggs in one basket anymore and hope to be ok. And also I would argue Sega has closer times with Nintendo with rumors of sharing development teams, Sonic Team working on GameCube, and the fact that Phantasy Star Online is going to Nintendo first (which I view as a more important title in the long haul for them as this is the first step for console MMORPG).
Re:The console wars...
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 1
20 million consoles versus 300,000 units....hmmm...Or if you look at launch dates, PS2 had over 500,000 units sale on their launch date. X-Box has a total of 300,000 units *available* by the latest estimates (granted, I expect them to be sold out too but that's 5:3 ratio on launch day and PS2 didn't even have good games while X-Box is showing their 'best' stuff now). What's to say that Sony isn't owning X-Box?
Sony doesn't have to do anything for this console war, and they know it. They've already won just be the sheer hype of PS2 and the ensuing 2 years of good economic times. MS faces an uphill battle against an entrenched incumbant who already exceeds most sales estimates that finanical analysts are predicting for its product in its lifetime.
BTW, MS isn't aiming t win this console war. They're aiming to win the next one by building up fans for this generation.
I can't understand how anyone can deal with using a television for anything.. especially games.
So you don't watch TV shows or movies?
And as far as the splitscreen multiplayer, I never said it was good, but it is doable whereas you kindly noted that computer games don't usually do splitscreen multiplayer (which in addition to it sucking, controls would be pretty impossible without 2 keyboards/mice and I don't think even a GeForce 3 can render 2 screens of Quake 3 in high resolution).
There is a huge difference with having players next to you rather than over an Internet connection as has been noted by other posters. Unless you're in a LAN game type situation, this is not possible, and believe it or not, not everyone gathers for a weekly/daily LAN party, but I can assure you that those who play multiplayer console games can easily play a few good games quickly and have a lot of fun whereas it takes roughly 20 minutes to just setup your computers/monitors/network/ensure everyone has the same version/etc. (assuming that you BYOB).
Finally, as far as squinting into tiny screens, there are TVs bigger than 15", and for those that have the luxury of widescreen TVs (16:9 aspect), most games that support this mode (Gran Turismo 3 for instance), can have essentially a split screen horizontally so you have 2 4:3 screen aspect screens. Since most widescreen TVs are on the order of greater than 50", this is usually just as big as two individual 25" screens if not more. And for those that don't have the luxury of widescreen TVs, it is still perfectly playable.
First, off I don't see the big hype in ethernet/storage for this generation of consoles as I have yet to see any game that takes advantage of either in a big way. Using a hard drive as a memory swap or to store save games isn't my idea of enhancing the gaming experience. Furthermore, consoles are specific devices to play games, and it should not matter that the console has X video card, Y processor, etc, as long as the experience is fun (whether that be gameplay, graphically, etc.) and transparent with an easy to use interface.
In any case, here's what you're missing:
Exclusive titles that are native only to consoles (FF, Zelda, Mario, Gran Turismo)
No worries about upgrading.
Guranteed compatibility. If the game works on console 'A', it should work on all console As.
Multiplayer in front of a TV (meaning you can play with 2+ friends without having to buy another box).
Ease of use. I can start playing a game instantly instead of having to a) install, b) make sure I got the correct version of DirectX, c) adjust settings and the like, then d) play.
Also, since it seems you are concerned about your kids (mentioning kid's games so I'm assuming that your kids are fairly young), I think popping in a CD and having a standard dedicated controller would be more intuitive than launching a program and playing with a keyboard/mouse.
Also, I don't recall the PC having more titles than consoles especially if you combine all the console games together versus all the PC games. Plus, I've never heard of too many PC games selling in the millions of copies while the hit console games usually do (see the exclusive games list).
As far as the cheaper titles, I don't really know. $50 for a console game (pretty much standard now) is what I see on most PC games when they are not on sale. And with specials like the Amazon deal (buy 2 PS2 games, get 1 free), it really becomes a more moot point.
As far as the downloadable demos, I've seen plenty of kiosks at retailers for console games. When was the last time you saw a PC game running available for you to play at your local retailer (Walmart, Target, etc.)?
Oh yeah, I haven't checked it out, but I heard that Shrek was going to X-Box. Maybe that qualifies as a kiddy game?
Re:How are the PS2's A/V capabilities "Just enough
on
First Review of Halo
·
· Score: 1
First off, I don't see any real features lacking as a DVD player on the PS2 except for the high quality outputs. It can do slow motion, A->B playing, etc with the remote. You can do most of these things also via the menu with just the upgraded 2.10 drivers (that only come with the remote, but people say that it might come with games later). The only annoying thing I have against the PS2 is that you can't turn it off/put on standby with a remote.
Second, the Panasonic Gamecube is known as the 'Q', but apparently, it won't be coming to the US, or at least not officially yet (probably don't want to announce it to hurt next week's sales). This was announced on GameSpot, cube.ign.com, etc. a few days ago.
Anyway, enough of this off-topic post...
Seems that that little slip exposes a great deal of anti-M$ bias. Not good for a supposed "news source".
Okay, seriously what news source did you think you were reading? Bias is nothing new on Slashdot.:/ How 'bout that Borg icon, eh? Also, don't expect MS to be praising Linux on any of its webpages any time soon...
A quick side note, but the public release of the HD/Ethernet port has been pushed into Spring 2002 as the rumors go. Definitely the hard drive in the United States is delayed till Spring, and from the official manual of Tony Hawk 3 and a few other sources, it appears that the ethernet hardware has also been delayed till Spring 2002. You can check this out at GameSpot.com, PS2.IGN.com, PlanetPS2, or wherever you get your console news.
However, the Linux distro would include keyboard, mouse, hard drive, ethernet adapter, and the Linux CD if the distro package is anything like the Japanese one. So for those that do want to make server farms and whatnot (not that I particularly see a great purpose in doing so), you can do it if you insist.
As far as PSO goes - it has also been announced for Xbox, and possibly PS2. Among the broadband community, it looks like Xbox has the best online strategy. For those who want to use only modems, its a toss up between PS2 and GC.
What is the difference in broadband strategies for X-Box versus PS2? Both parent companies have not announced anything substantial besides "Oh, we're going to have the best online platform", etc., etc.. Only thing is that you're going to have to buy a ethernet adapter/modem for PS2 versus one included for X-Box as far as I know.
Personally, I wouldn't put too much faith in this console generation's ability to do online games. The lack of experience by all 3 companies for an online console makes this generation a testing ground only. Also, I believe new games have to be invented that take advantage of online capabilities becaues the current games such as Bond, SSX, Tony Hawk, etc. are mainly aimed for live interaction when your other player is next to you. Plus, most console games rely on lots of timing (sports games, fighting games), so with lag of up to 100ms or quite possibly greater, it will be hard to grasp how the current games will cope with these issues.
Feature-wise, probably not much now, but it is a brand name that people follow. Nevermind the debate over its closed-source nature, many other businesses (multimedia oriented in this case) will at least look into what the biggest companies do and see what their business plan is like.
In any case, the better question should be what is there to lose in having another MP3 player? If it eventually does a better job than XMMS, FreeAmp, etc., and it spurs new innovcation, better features in MP3 players, that's what competition is for, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and I can count the number of native Linux games that I would rather play on an X-Box than on my PC on one hand, or maybe that's one finger. =)
Again, my point is not that it is not feasible to play games on the X-Box or port software to it. Heck, we have people porting stuff to PS2 Linux and its doing well considering the differences between x86 hardware and PS2. However, I'm talking about, who would develop a game commercially for X-Box and release it so that it works "best on X-Box" without getting a license? I'm not talking about freeware or pre-existing software that is ported, but those that would develop a game like the original poster said and release it commercially without MS's license. No one is going to mess around with MS and release an unlicensed game that sells for money. That would be a disaster for MS, and MS will fight back.
Actually consoles sell at a loss in the beginning, and then they make money up in the end if the price cuts weren't too big. Imagine this, if MS keeps the X-Box for 4-5 years (considering that's the normal pace of the industry to release the next generation), how much will that GeForce 3/motherboard/hard drive/CPU be worth? I'm thinking a heck of a lot less than $299.
And as for MS never making money, the thing is that they will. Probably not on the X-Box, but like I said, they're thinking long term here as well as what Sony thought in the beginning. This is a great growth area, and literally, it is the last few places that PCs themselves grow too for the average user (multimedia/games are one of the few reasons left for your average person to buy a new computer or new parts anymore). MS can't control the licensing on PCs, so why not just make consoles and control it there?
And consoles are going to be much more than just gaming machines in the future. I think people like the idea of specialized devices that still do lots of things very well (DVD player + console is a great idea IMO and the number of people who bought the PS2 for its DVD functionality without buying games shows). Those PCs in your living room deal are starting to take form in consoles and Tivo units.
Also, I want to point out again, that I think MS has a lot of work cut out for them if they wish to dominant, but thinking that "Oh, I'm going to hurt MS by buying a console that MS is losing money on", isn't exactly hurting them either even if they are losing money. Remember, they can take a hit and keep on running (with billions in the bank and in stocks). It's not like Nintendo where this is their core business.
One last thing, I do think that MS entering the arena has got Sony and Nintendo thinking more aggressively and are starting to beef up their offerings in the future which is good. Whether or not splitting the consoles into 3 very fractured markets with quicker hardware releases (you have to assume that Sony is thinking about releasing the PS3 earlier due to the latest reports, plus that could cause MS/Nintendo to also release earlier), I don't think is such a good idea for gamers.
Second, do you honestly believe an established multimillion dollar game publisher is going to risk MS's wrath by publishing games that run on the X-Box but are unlicensed? Not to mention the legal ramifications if a publisher decides to skip on the royalties. Sure, I expect the X-Box to be hacked, and yes, we might get PC games to run on it and all of our other software, but I seriously doubt any of the big publishers (e.g. EA, THQ) has the balls to stand up to MS and release unlicensed games designed for the X-Box but not anywhere else and just release it as is. I'm sure that the publishers have some competent developers around that could reverse engineer the consoles, but there's a reason they just don't release unlicensed games.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I'm not saying that MS's move into consoles is necesarily bad, but this is just a broader strategy to increase their goals of dominating new areas and increase their growth. I also personally do not believe MS has a chance against Sony, and from the looks of things, maybe not even GameCube. Their hardware does look very nice, but I don't know if they can hold out for the long haul without itching to build a new device too quickly.
I think the original poster meant that the launch developers were "rushed" to get their titles out, so they weren't able to make all the tweaks that later developers can do. Usually the difference between "generations" of games is fairly vast. Look at the PS1 (yes PSOne) launch titles and look at the ones being released now. The developers have learned in the ins and outs of the system, what it is good at, what it is not good at. They have developed libraries of code to reuse. This is what developers can do with a machine that remains constant for over 5 years.
On the other hand, since X-Box is basically a PC, I don't know if the differences will be that great after the second generation games. From what I hear, PS2 was hard to program for because of its multiprocessor design, so the differences between the launch titles and today's games are fairly vast since the developers have gotten a handle of things now.
I was leaning towards component video cables that are a good length (Monster brand and all which is pretty much the only brand that stores like Best Buy place prominently next to the game consoles See this link for PS2 cables prices.). Plus those needing that 5.1 surround sound or whatever you have to get digital audio cables for the sound, so $50 for all of your cables isn't that bad.
Really, my point was that someone talking about the GameCube/PS2/X-Box only costing $199/$299/$299 respectively isn't covering all the costs. Sure that's what you get with one controller, but I don't think there are too many gamers that go without a memory card for instance, and for all those preaching the high quality and resolution video of the X-Box/GC, getting component video connections is a pretty big deal.
BTW, I do agree with you that gaming shouldn't be about economic arguments and I'm looking forward to the next Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda games, but felt the need to clarify my post.
Not to be stingy since I think the GameCube is a great buy considering the current and upcoming games, but it really is about $250+ just for the GameCube itself. Figure in a memory card ($20), S-Video/component cables ($50), extra controller ($30), taxes, and you're already up to $300. Then again, X-Box is around $450 for everything too (memory card, cables, extra controller, DVD remote to unlock a feature). PS2 is around $400 for everything now since there are cheaper memory cards and cables available. There are many hidden costs associated with just buying the console if you want its basic advertised capabilities.
About the X-Boxes still being on the shelves, I imagine that is region specific. Considering that GameCubes are selling out in some places and they had 2x the number of shipments (700,000 GameCubes and roughly 300,000-400,000 X-Boxes), I would think that the X-Box would have similiar experiences. Plus, I hear most retailers only got 2 or 3 X-Boxes in some places. If they aren't selling out, then there is something seriously wrong with MS's marketing campaign.
More likely that NVIDIA has some patented code or code that does not belong to them and they don't want to or just plain can't release that code. BTW, I don't believe that you have to implement the whole OpenGL API in drivers. You can choose what functions you want to implement (ala 3dfx's miniGL drivers), but it's better for everyone if every function is implemented.
Hmmm....so you took a very limited sample all sharing similiar backgrounds in a very limited envirornment, and generalized that for the rest of the 7th grade world? Wonderful...
Although my eyes aren't that good, but ATI's 2D visual quality is suppose to be leap and bounds above Nvidias. Plus, having dual-monitor support (TV/DVI/CRT) on their latest cards is definitely a plus versus Nvidia's approach which is to only release TwinView on their MX brand line so far.
Again, that's why I put best in quotation marks. However, regarding why I chose to use the word 'best', I have yet to find any future title in the X-Box lineup that has matched the hype that Halo, Oddworld, and DOA3 were given 6 months ago. Look at it this way, people knew the following games were coming out later for PS2 (meaning past 6 months of initial launch): Gran Turismo 3, GTA3, THPS3, FFX, Metal Gear Solid 2, surely FFXI, etc. Those are the heavy hitters that have been spread out over the past 6 months and looking forward in the next few months. These are the megatitles that are practically guranteed to sell in the multimillion range. There's also the next few in-house development titles like Jak and Dexter which are going to be alright. What am I suppose to look forward to on the X-Box? Through all the hype of the X-Box, I haven't seen one game in the future past Christmas that has been hyped at all.
I don't think anyone is expecting PS2 to be dethroned in this generation of the console wars. Yes, they will lose lots of fans, but you always do when you have one powerful system launching a year or more later. With all honesty, just by the hard number of hardware sales, PS2 will have the bigger number of owners in the end. It's a very tough enviornment now (whether that be economically because of the lack of consumer confidence or competitively with 3 titans battling for mindshare) for either MS or Nintendo even with Sony's previous mistakes.
And you expect this to survive any better than a computer...how?
The X-Box should also be seen as MS's way of trying to get into a multibillion dollar industry at any cost (either by outright purchasing development teams or by offering multimillion dollar exclusive contracts). Is that a good thing?
Furthermore, if you believe that having an open box will permit more creative developers to come forth, I think there are many more barriers of entry that are far greater than simply having a box that is slightly easier to develop for than say the GameCube. In an industry which can no longer bet on small shop developers, titles require multimillion dollar budgets over the course of years. Don't expect MS to hand out a X-Box game license to any developer. Furthermore, there's a reason why there are only a few Sid Meirs, John Romeros (a good thing? =), Sim's developers, Warren Spectors, etc. It doesn't matter what tools you are given, there are very few good game designers.
What I worry is that the X-Box makes it too easy for PC developers to cross to console development making for mediocore games. How many innovative PC titles have you seen recently? Halo (another FPS), DOA3 (this is really just upgraded graphics), THPS2x, etc. are hardly creative except for their latest additions in the graphics department.
Yes, the box is powerful, however, if you expect innovation to come forth, don't get your hopes too high.
Estimates are more like in the 40 billion dollar range if you include stocks and whatnot that the company holds.
Except it isn't progressive which kinda defeats the whole comparision.
Actually, many people will also be importing Shenmue 2 from overseas (UK, Japan) since their original save games have the possibility of working with the sequel and DC is the native platform plus Shenmue 2 would be available sooner that way. If people are still sticking to DC and are willing to forgive Sega's backstabbing, you have to expect them to go to many lengths to get the sequel. Why pay ~$450 (memory card, cables, game, console) for a game that will import and have better features for the current DC owners for less than $75?
Also AFAIK, there is no exclusive requirement for Shenmue 2 on X-Box. Sega would be stupid to become a one-console developer. They know that they can't afford to put all their eggs in one basket anymore and hope to be ok. And also I would argue Sega has closer times with Nintendo with rumors of sharing development teams, Sonic Team working on GameCube, and the fact that Phantasy Star Online is going to Nintendo first (which I view as a more important title in the long haul for them as this is the first step for console MMORPG).
20 million consoles versus 300,000 units....hmmm...Or if you look at launch dates, PS2 had over 500,000 units sale on their launch date. X-Box has a total of 300,000 units *available* by the latest estimates (granted, I expect them to be sold out too but that's 5:3 ratio on launch day and PS2 didn't even have good games while X-Box is showing their 'best' stuff now). What's to say that Sony isn't owning X-Box?
Sony doesn't have to do anything for this console war, and they know it. They've already won just be the sheer hype of PS2 and the ensuing 2 years of good economic times. MS faces an uphill battle against an entrenched incumbant who already exceeds most sales estimates that finanical analysts are predicting for its product in its lifetime.
BTW, MS isn't aiming t win this console war. They're aiming to win the next one by building up fans for this generation.
And as far as the splitscreen multiplayer, I never said it was good, but it is doable whereas you kindly noted that computer games don't usually do splitscreen multiplayer (which in addition to it sucking, controls would be pretty impossible without 2 keyboards/mice and I don't think even a GeForce 3 can render 2 screens of Quake 3 in high resolution).
There is a huge difference with having players next to you rather than over an Internet connection as has been noted by other posters. Unless you're in a LAN game type situation, this is not possible, and believe it or not, not everyone gathers for a weekly/daily LAN party, but I can assure you that those who play multiplayer console games can easily play a few good games quickly and have a lot of fun whereas it takes roughly 20 minutes to just setup your computers/monitors/network/ensure everyone has the same version/etc. (assuming that you BYOB).
Finally, as far as squinting into tiny screens, there are TVs bigger than 15", and for those that have the luxury of widescreen TVs (16:9 aspect), most games that support this mode (Gran Turismo 3 for instance), can have essentially a split screen horizontally so you have 2 4:3 screen aspect screens. Since most widescreen TVs are on the order of greater than 50", this is usually just as big as two individual 25" screens if not more. And for those that don't have the luxury of widescreen TVs, it is still perfectly playable.
In any case, here's what you're missing:
- Exclusive titles that are native only to consoles (FF, Zelda, Mario, Gran Turismo)
- No worries about upgrading.
- Guranteed compatibility. If the game works on console 'A', it should work on all console As.
- Multiplayer in front of a TV (meaning you can play with 2+ friends without having to buy another box).
- Ease of use. I can start playing a game instantly instead of having to a) install, b) make sure I got the correct version of DirectX, c) adjust settings and the like, then d) play.
- Also, since it seems you are concerned about your kids (mentioning kid's games so I'm assuming that your kids are fairly young), I think popping in a CD and having a standard dedicated controller would be more intuitive than launching a program and playing with a keyboard/mouse.
Also, I don't recall the PC having more titles than consoles especially if you combine all the console games together versus all the PC games. Plus, I've never heard of too many PC games selling in the millions of copies while the hit console games usually do (see the exclusive games list).As far as the cheaper titles, I don't really know. $50 for a console game (pretty much standard now) is what I see on most PC games when they are not on sale. And with specials like the Amazon deal (buy 2 PS2 games, get 1 free), it really becomes a more moot point.
As far as the downloadable demos, I've seen plenty of kiosks at retailers for console games. When was the last time you saw a PC game running available for you to play at your local retailer (Walmart, Target, etc.)?
Oh yeah, I haven't checked it out, but I heard that Shrek was going to X-Box. Maybe that qualifies as a kiddy game?
First off, I don't see any real features lacking as a DVD player on the PS2 except for the high quality outputs. It can do slow motion, A->B playing, etc with the remote. You can do most of these things also via the menu with just the upgraded 2.10 drivers (that only come with the remote, but people say that it might come with games later). The only annoying thing I have against the PS2 is that you can't turn it off/put on standby with a remote.
Second, the Panasonic Gamecube is known as the 'Q', but apparently, it won't be coming to the US, or at least not officially yet (probably don't want to announce it to hurt next week's sales). This was announced on GameSpot, cube.ign.com, etc. a few days ago. Anyway, enough of this off-topic post...
A quick side note, but the public release of the HD/Ethernet port has been pushed into Spring 2002 as the rumors go. Definitely the hard drive in the United States is delayed till Spring, and from the official manual of Tony Hawk 3 and a few other sources, it appears that the ethernet hardware has also been delayed till Spring 2002. You can check this out at GameSpot.com, PS2.IGN.com, PlanetPS2, or wherever you get your console news.
However, the Linux distro would include keyboard, mouse, hard drive, ethernet adapter, and the Linux CD if the distro package is anything like the Japanese one. So for those that do want to make server farms and whatnot (not that I particularly see a great purpose in doing so), you can do it if you insist.
Feature-wise, probably not much now, but it is a brand name that people follow. Nevermind the debate over its closed-source nature, many other businesses (multimedia oriented in this case) will at least look into what the biggest companies do and see what their business plan is like.
In any case, the better question should be what is there to lose in having another MP3 player? If it eventually does a better job than XMMS, FreeAmp, etc., and it spurs new innovcation, better features in MP3 players, that's what competition is for, right?