And as another poster pointed out, certain games are having saves too big to transfer via memory cards for the Xbox. The game known, so far, is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. It's save is more than 8 MB in size. If more games start using bigger saves than 8 MB, well, the mainly useless memory cards for the Xbox become even more useless.
Not saying it isn't. But it's hardly doing as well as MS originally hoped.
As for total people subscribed, worldwide figures put it about 500k easily (as you said). They say the goal is 1 million subscribed by June 04...
After the initial good launch of XBL in North America, MS said they expected 1 million subscribers by November 2003, worldwide. Then sales started falling on XBL, and by May 2003, they only had 500k, worldwide, after a nearly 250k intital burst in November-December 2002, they only got another 250k in the next 5 months. So, they revised it to June 2004 instead of November 2003. Not surprising, as they've revised forecasts on the Xbox hardware multiple times to make it look like they've met projections...
but I wouldn't be surprised if it hits that mark months ahead of schedule.
It's December 2003. In late April 2003 they said 500k subscribers. Nearly 8 months have gone by and they haven't even been able to say 550k or some such to make it appear that XBL sales are still going. Now they're giving away XBL to try and get subscriptions. I'll be very surprised if they hit that number before June, and keep it. Trying to use the free 2 month people who may not keep going doesn't count, you know. And who knows how many people didn't re-sign up in November? I almost didn't. If it wasn't for Crimson Skies, I would have called up MS and cancelled until Halo 2 came out.
Finally, let's not forget stuff like XSN. While the current incarnation of the sports network is inclusive to MS games, if it includes 3rd party game someday it could be one of the best ideas console gaming has ever seen.
Good idea? Yes. Good sports games? Hardly. The only two I've heard good things about are Links and Top Spin. All their other major sports games are almost as bad as the 989 Sports titles, and the ONLY selling point they really have for their MS Sports titles is online play. If I was a sports game player, I think I would rather forget about XSN. I'd rather go with Sega Sports' offerings than Microsoft's first party sports titles.
I often enough find that people who say online gaming isn't that great are the ones who are in denial just because they see no use in it.
While I'm home stuck in bed with this blood clot, I see very much a use for online gaming on my consoles....but I'm not fooled like you are into thinking in straw man arguments. In fact, I'm still playing more offline games, especially RPGs, while I am stuck in bed.
Just because 50% of the consoles owners aren't online doesn't mean they wouldn't like to be.
Like to be and are are two entirely different things. I'd like to be banging Rebecca Romijn Stamos all the time, but I'm not. I'd like to not have a blood clot taking up a good chunk of my leg, but the reality is that I have one. I'm sure more people want to be online with their consoles, but the reality is they aren't. Wants and reality are two seperate things.
And, if we add up the 60+ million PS2s, and the 10+ Million Xboxes and then figure out the percentage of them online... well it's more like 98.28% of the PS2 and Xbox console users aren't online; not just 50%. Hey, just for fun let's add in the 10+ million GCs and the probably 100k online adapters they've sold and see how much it is! Wow! A whopping 1.725%, or less, of all the current gen consoles out there are online! That's still 98.275%, or more, of all the current gen console owners not going online with their consoles.
That's slightly more than the 50% you seem to think are online now.
Hell, MS claims that 50% of all Xbox owners could get online with XBL... so why are there only 5.5% of the Xbox owners online? Most PS2 online games support dial up, which I'm sure a vast majority of PS2 owners have....so why is the total PS2 online userbase at less than 1.5%?
I don't doubt it. McDonalds isn't known for selling video games and devices.
Whats the point, if you have a gameboy, why buy a part that lets you play them on your TV.
Or you could be like me, and not own a GBA or GBASP. I happen to find my GBPlayer works just fine for letting me play GBA games when I don't own a GBA.
At 39.99, people dont see the point. I guess that is why the gameboy player for the SNES sold so well.
I'm sure you have the numbers for the Super GameBoy to back up your claim.
And at 179.99 You get more bang for your buck out of the Xbox because it just does more, and does it better.
Really? The Xbox plays Nintendo first party games? It plays GC exclusive third party games like Viewtiful Joe? It plays GBA games on it? Wow! I never knew! Why did I waste my time buying both an Xbox and a GC? Damn my foolisheness!
You go on to claim that there are benfits for portable memory cards, but state none.
Remember that the next time you have to lug around a 9 pound Xbox console to a friend's place to use your saved game.
And you label me a troll?
Somone did, but the shoe does seem to fit. Oh, and here's a hint, he couldn't mod you down and respond to you under the same username, jackass.
Kthxdrivethru
I see you have a lot of experience with that statement. Now, if only you could spell it correctly....
Except that it isn't the number one priority, really. And I play online on my Xbox and PS2 all the time. But I'm not fooled into thinking online is the big thing in console gaming right now.
Look at the facts.
Sony only sold 780k online adapters before launching the new online bundle for the PS2. Out of, what, 60+ million units? That's less than 1.5% of the total PS2 userbase that bought the online adapter. Sony isn't making any money off of their online abilities.
Microsoft has touted 500k Xbox Live subscribers as the number since before E3. 500k is around 5.5% of the total Xbox userbase. It hasn't gone up signifigantly since then, or beleive me MS would definitely toot their own horn. Now they're giving away 2 free months of XBL with every single Xbox sold, in order to try and get people to subscribe. Notice that in order to get new subscribers they're resorting to giving away two months of something they want you to subscribe to. Yeah, seems like XBL sales have more than flatlined over the months.
Sorry, friend, but online is not the big thing. Not right now, anyway.
Microsoft is losing millions of dollars per quarter on Xbox Live; and for what, a measly $25 million per year in subscription revenue? They lose more than four times that on the Xbox every single quarter, so $25 million a year in subscriptions isn't doing jack shit for them.
Sony is losing money on the hardware they bundle with the PS2, and they don't get a whole lot in return.
Nintendo can easily see this. And Nintendo is all about profits.
Microsoft is willing to throw money at the Xbox to make it suceed; but they have Office and Windows to fall back on (at least for now, who knows what the shareholders might say after seeing the quarterly loss of the Xbox this Xmas season... it's going to be a huge sum of money lost).
Nintendo doesn't have the luxury of having a product that brings in twice its operational costs in profit each quarter *cough*Windows*cough*ripoff*cough* like Microsoft does. Nintendo can't afford to try and do what MS is doing with Xbox Live, and then not make any money from it; or at least not lose too much money from it. They don't have overpriced operating systems and office suites to make up for every other money losing division within their company, like Microsoft does.
And Nintendo knows this. Nintendo needs to show a profit each year to keep going. Trying to make a huge deal of online gaming, when the numbers clearly show it is a niche market in the console world, is not conductive to profits.
Microsoft could never turn a profit on the Xbox and never care; because their Windows and Office divisions will subsidise every single money losing venture they delve into. And trust me, XBL isn't making any money any time soon.
7. Sony posted a net loss of over 1 billion dollars last fiscal year. MS lost money, as well. Nintendo posted a profit. Who's in bad condition, here?
Um, I can't say for sure about Sony because I've never really looked at their financials, overall....but Microsoft didn't lose money last fiscal year overall. The Home and Entertainment Division, which does hold the Xbox Division bled money left and right (anyone still in denial on this needs to be shot, the Xbox is not making any money for Microsoft, and the Xbox is the single biggest money loser to date for the company); but thanks to the subsidies from the Windows and Office divisions, Microsoft still made a few billion dollars in profits overall
But that's the key. If you mentioned Microsoft's Xbox Division as losing money, then you'd be absolutely correct (probably over a billion dollars since launch and climbing by the hundreds of millions per quarter); but Microsoft as a whole doesn't lose money because they make so much profit from Office and Windows to make up for all the other divisions which bleed money.
Not really. The problem is gamers expecting motion capture animations, life-life textures, life-like physics etc - without wanting to pay for the amount of person-time that has to be put into such a project.
While that may be true in North America and most of Europe, to say the same thing in China is a bit absurd.
If you try to sell a game in China for US $50 (the equivalent is 413.850 Cinese Yuan Renminbi), you won't make a single sale. Most Chinese people, especially those not in places like Hong Kong or Singapore, make less than US $1 (less than 8.27700 Chinese Yuan Renminbi) a day.
And don't think that Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft are giving discounts to their Chinese workers, either. All three companies have manufacturing plants in China to keep costs lower on their consoles.
Pirated games come out to be around US $3-$5 a piece in China, or only a few days pay. No one in China is going to pay 50 days worth of pay just for a video game, when they can get it for 3 days worth of pay from a pirate.
MS to OEMs: "You can't uninstall IE to put Netscape on the computers you sell anymore!"
OEMs: "But our customers ask for Netscape."
MS: "I don't care! I make Windows, and I say no more uninstalling my IE for Netscape!"
OEMs: "Well, our customers ask for it, so we're going to do it for them."
MS: "Well...well... If you uninstall IE from any more machines you sell, I'll take away your Windows licenses! Then you won't be able to sell any computers at all!"
OEMs: "um..."
MS: "And just to show you guys, every version of Windows that comes out from 98 on will have IE integrated into the OS, so you CAN'T uninstall it, even if you want to!" *sticks out tongue, stamps foot and turns head away*
Not exactly the way the conversations went down, but the general feeling is the same as what happened. MS was spurned by the fact that OEMs were uninstalling IE to put Netscape on the machines, so MS threatened to revoke their Windows licenses to make the stop doing that. Then, just to make sure the OEMs couldn't do it at a later date, they integrated IE into Windows so tightly that normal users can't get rid of it.
So has Super Smash Bros. Melee. Your point is, what? That Halo is the only consitently selling title for the Xbox?
And please list the PS2 & Nintendo million sellers.
I can't list all the PS2 million plus sellers, since I don't know them all. Yes, some EA Sports games are in there, but that doesn't mean their selling a million plus is any less relevant because you feel so. It's still a million or more units of a game moved.
But I can remember FFX, MGS2, GT3, GTA3, GTAVC, SOCOM US Navy Seals, and the original Devil May Cry have all sold over 1 million units, worldwide, as well as some EA Sports games like the Madden series. There are others, but I don't know them all, and some are Japanese only titles.
As for the GC:
Luigi's Mansion
Super Mario Sunshine
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
Metroid Prime
Animal Crossing
Resident Evil (Remake)
Resident Evil 0
Super Smash Bros. Melee
That's the 8 games I remember off the top of my head that have sold a million units or more, worldwide. There's definitely one more for it, but I can't remember the title right now. And none of them are EA Sports games.
Now it is only one of two million sellers on the Xbox...
Actually, the Xbox has 4 confirmed million plus selling games, worldwide, on it.
Halo (launch)
Dead or Alive 3 (launch)
Project Gotham Racing (launch)
Splinter Cell (released November 2002)
Still, for all the talk about how much software is sold for the Xbox, you'd figure there's be more than 4 titles which have sold over a million units worldwide; 3 of which are launch titles, and the fourth released a year ago.
The GC has been out for the same time in North America, and has something like 8-10 million plus selling titles (worldwide), and the PS2 has to be pushing 2 dozen or so million plus sellers (worldwide) since it's launch by now, if not more.
Maybe fighting games, maybe some sports games. Not 9 out of 10 multiplatform games, though!
Sports, racing, and fighting games tend to be the largets percentage of multi-platform games, you know.
The better D-pad on the Xbox controller
You're joking, right? The Xbox D-pad sucks, especially on that monstrous controller (though the Controller-S has a better D-pad than the original). The GC D-pad is only in the bad category because it is too small for most games; but both the PS2 and GC D-pads are far more accurate than the Xbox's D-pad.
Both the Xbox and GC have better left analog sticks than the PS2, both in placement and in control (and the Xbox has a better right analog stick than both the GC and PS2, since the C-Stick on the GC is too stubby to be effectively used in games that require it used often, like FPS games). But the Xbox has the worst D-pad, since it isn't accurate at all, and doesn't feel right in the least when being used.
combined with some clever default button configuration (using both triggers simultaneously for a spine transfer simply feels a lot more intuitive than the dedicated button of the PS2 versions, IMO) negate pretty much any controller advantage
Maybe it feels more natural to you, but I'd rather have one button instead of two to do both the spine transfers and the reverts (both the GC and the Xbox also require both shoulder buttons to be hit to do the revert as well). Hitting one button is easier than hitting two, especially since you know that the button is for specific purposes, instead of the multi-purpose shoulder buttons on the Xbox and GC which spin you as well as do spine transfers and reverts. I generally can score 2-3x higher on the PS2 versions of the THPS games than I can on either the GC or Xbox versions; with comobos ranging into the 2-3 million point range on the PS2 versions, and maybe a million points on the GC and Xbox versions.
and for people with reasonably average hand sizes makes the Xbox version probably superior for controls.
About the only games I find the Xbox controller vastly superior for are FPS games. I'm not huge into sports games, but it also worked exceptionally well for Sega Sports' NHL 2K3. I also hear it works well for racing games, but I'm not into racing games. Other than that, I find it adequate, but not superior to the other consoles' controllers.
I can't believe games like Ikaruga or Soul Calibur II are ported to the GC...
Ikaruga works fine on the GC. Left stick moves, A button fires, B button switches polarity, and the R button fires your special weapon. Ikarguga has such simple controls, and it would work well on any console.
I bought SCII on the GC for Link, I admit it freely. But, the control scheme actually works well on the GC. It took me all of 5 minutes to get used to the controls, plus they are customizable as well, so if the default controls don't work for someone, they can change them. Honestly, I think the game probably controls about equally on all the consoles, but I have only played the GC version. And I have yet to use the D-pad in SCII, the analog stick works fine.
Now, games like Capcom Vs. SNK 2 EO or Mortal Kombat? I'd say they would control the best on the PS2, adequately on the Xbox (I have Capcom Vs. SNK 2 EO on the Xbox, and find it controls adequately, but the inaccurate D-Pad still messes it up now and then), and probably the hardest on the GC with the button layout and tiny D-pad.
More than the other three consoles, Xbox has the most to gain from multiplatform releases since, besides the political issue of online capability (see EA and others), multiplatform releases can look and play better on the Xbox due to its superior hardware.
I'll give you the look part, most of the time. I'll say the sound better part is there, even though you didn't mention it. But play better? I would say that is false. Most multi-platform games are designed with the PS2 in mind, and the PS2's controller as well. With the Xbox not having as many shoulder buttons as the PS2, it automatically loses functionality for games designed around the PS2 controller. Same with the GC.
A perfect example is the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series. The GC and Xbox versions look much better than the PS2 version; but the game was designed around the PS2 controller, so it PLAYS the best on the PS2.
This is true of 9 out of 10 multi-platform titles. They'll look better on the GC and Xbox, but generally be easier to use on the PS2, meaning they play better on the PS2. Graphics don't determine playability, nor does superior hardware, but the control interface the game was designed for.
The only real exception I can think of is Splinter Cell, which was designed for the Xbox first, and then ported to the other 2 consoles. Thus, it most likely plays better on the Xbox than the other 2.
In general this is 7 days of continuous testing by a QA team, and not a single crash or major gameplay bug is allowed or the title will fail and have to be fixed before it is allowed on the shelves. In general you will not find bugs in console titles - and if you do, they will be rare. The brands are too tightly controlled, very strict quality control is at work here.
However, the online components are not tested as thoroughly as the single player components. Nor can they be, since there will not be enough QA people to simulate large game loads and other things that can only be found AFTER a game has been released and is used online. An example is the original Ghost Recon for Xbox Live: the lobbies had a bug wherin, in many cases, people would see very few to no games being played/available to be joined, even if there were hundreds of games going on (to my knoweldge, this bug was never fixed through a patch for the original Ghost Recon, but may have been fixed with the Island Thunder upgrade disk). This sort of bug might not appear in a limited QA test, but does in the wild.
Yes, gameplay bugs *can* be fixed, but the patching is really all about downloadable content. New maps, new characters, new items, new quests. "Value-added" I believe is the term that applies. Some games (eg: Splinter Cell) even have support for downloadable content through Live even though they're not multiplayer titles.
Of course, there are also reports that Microsoft is using such 'content download enabled' games to spy on their customers, as the games supposedly contact XBL without the users' knowledge or permission. But I cannot verify this as fact, myself, since all my Live games are games to be played online.
However, the newest upgrade of XBL DOES automatically connect to XBL when you start the Xbox up, so long as you have it connected to be able to go online. If you start the Xbox up with no game in it, or the tray open, you will be on the Xbox Live screen automatically if you are hooked into the Net on your Xbox.
So long as your Xbox is hooked into the Net, Microsoft knows when it is on, it seems.
So far the only online executable patching that I've seen (and I have quite a few Live-enabled games) was to patch Xbox Live itself - adding new features like being able to see and talk to your buddies from the Xbox start screen without even loading a game.
You must not have Unreal Championship or Capcom Vs. SNK EO 2 for the Xbox, then. Both games have had actual patches to fix actual bugs in the games. Bugs that, again, apparently did not appear in the limited QA time period. The CvSEO2 patch fixes a sound bug in the game, and the UC patch helps fix rank cheating abilities as well as the ability to get outside of levels in the game.
Supposedly, some games also patch without letting you think they are patching, by telling you "There is an Xbox Live update available, this update is necessary before you will be allowed to connect to Xbox Live." Remember, Microsoft promised no real patches, but only content downloading. It is possible they now hide the patches since the Capcom Vs. SNK 2 EO and Unreal Championship patches were well known (and a slight PR belemish, as well as fodder to be used against XBL by PS2 and GameCube fanbois).
You really can't comment on Xbox (especially the Live service) if you've not tried it. You might even like it.
I do have Live, and I do enjoy it...but only in short spurts, it seems. No game has really held my attnention online for very long on the service (in fact, no Xbox game can hold my attention for long, either, as I have gone as long as 3 months without even having it plugged in). I can only play so many FPS games, don't play racing games, etc. However, Crimson Skies has me pretty addicited right now; but it remains to be seen if it keeps me hooked on playing online for a while, or if this too will pass in but a few weeks.
But, MS had better release a patch to fix the "slots reserved for friends
EA is threatening to charge 10 bucks a month per game (someting MS won't allow, which is why EA has refused to develop games for xbox live, by the way)....
BZZZZZZT!
Oh, I'm sorry, but that answer is incorrect.
The truth is that Microsoft DOES allow third party publishers to charge money ON TOP OF the Xbox Live fee, if they so wish. Sega already does for PSO Ep I&II, at $8.95/month, which is ON TOP OF the $50/year Xbox Live subscription cost. Expect games like True Fantasy Live Online to charge extra to play online (made by Microsoft, but a MMORPG).
Most games should remain free, but certain games, especially MMORPGs or other games with persistent worlds and 24 hour servers, will charge extra on top of the Xbox Live fee.
The most likely reason that EA and Microsoft butt heads over Xbox Live is the fact that Microsoft will have complete access to EA's customer database if their games were Live enabled (Microsoft will know which customers bought EA's titles and when they are playing them online). Companies, especially when they make competing products (MS does have their own Xbox sports titles), do not like to share customer information and/or knowledge.
But, you do get our consolation prize: a post on/.!
What gets me is that even if you only speak English, your signs and advertising still have to have French in it.
I'm not sure about all of Canada, but at least in Quebec I beleive the laws for signs are they must be both French and English (or another language, like Chinese for the large Chinese population in the region, but with the French more prominent) or only in French.
I could be wrong, but I beleive this is how it is, at least in Quebec.
Last I remember, most of GameSpot's editors are actually employed by GameSpot (C|Net), and thus are not part of the "...typically volunteer reviewers that are submitting otherwise unprofessional works to outlets..." that you mention.
I'm not sure about the employment status of IGN's or GameSpy's editors.
As for other sites which rely on advertising to pay their bills and use volunteers, well, I can't say what they do or don't do. We don't rely on our 2 advertisers to pay our bills (in fact, I paid our server costs the last time they were due, out of my own pocket), and while we are all volunteers, we are official staff of the site; not anyone can post a review/news piece/editorial on the site.
Your original post stated "I have to say, from the game reviewer's standpoint, that it's hard to give a game a bad rating." And "1) You have advertisers. Typically, these people keep your site alive. They're expecting you to review their game."
Even GameSpot has advertisers. Yet, they have no problem giving a game a low score if it deserves it. But they have C|Net to back them up.
The site I work for has no game company advertisers, and we also have no problem giving a game a low score if it deserves it. And we have no corporation to fall back on if advertising doesn't work.
What I'd like to see from you, then, is a site (or more) which is completely advertiser supported with no paid editors. All editors are complete volunteers and get no monetary compensation for any work they do; but they will give scores higher than the games deserve because of their advertisers. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but it sounds like you can.
I write reviews for a site as well. As well as do some news when time permits, and editorials.
However, we don't get a whole lot of PR treatment from companies. We all either buy or rent the games we review, ourselves, over 9 out of 10 times (rarely do we get a review copy sent to us, but it does happen every now and then). We don't get wined and dined by PR comapnies. And, most importantly, we have very little advertising on the site, except from our association with Amazon.com and Ebay (and even these advertisements are non-intrusive).
We do have PR contacts in gaming companies, and our readership is pretty large for a non-corporate site like GameSpot or IGN. But our PR contacts (or lack thereof in certain comapnies) do not dictate how we review games.
Never has our EIC ever said to change a score or to try and put a positive spin on the review. We decide how our reviews will be, and we post them.
Not all gaming sites get the treatment that IGN, GameSpot, or GameSpy get, you know.
While I'm at a loss to explain just why GameRankings users score the way they do, it is interesting that their opinions of games are consistently lower than the average of all game review sites recorded on GameRankings. Furthermore, the Xbox is by no means alone in this respect; GameRankings users are similarly critical of the top twenty games on the PS2 and GameCube.
It should be noted that the user scores from GameRankings are going to be well below the average for all platforms. As as avid user on GR, I know how fanbois attempt to affect the user rating on games on the systems they do not like with the user voting system (and, conversely, attempt to raise the user rating on even shit games on their system of choice by voting "10" on every game). Many of the votes are from second and third accounts used just to vote against games on the other systems and for games on their system of choice.
For example, I'll show the top game from each system and how many total votes vs how many of those votes were for a "1".
GameCube:
Metroid Prime (User Avg. 8.3)
Total votes: 1969
Total "1" votes: 241 (12.2% of total votes)
PS2:
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (User Avg. 8.6)
Total votes: 1573
Total "1" votes: 73 (4.6% of total votes)
Xbox:
Halo (User Avg. 8.7)
Total votes: 2350
Total "1" votes: 186 (7.9% of total votes)
Notice that the PS2 game actually had the lowest percentage of "1" votes (4.6%), while the GC game had the highest (12.2%), even though the GC game had less total votes than the Xbox game it still had a higher percentage of "1" votes. This trend seems to fluxuate between the GC and the Xbox for the highest "1" vote percentage on games.
One of the things those of us on the message board wanted to do was only make votes count towards user average if a review went with it, in order to keep fanboi votes to a minimum effect on the total user average....but that never happened. And now that Scott sold GR to C|Net, we doubt it will ever happen.
Hooked up my 3 game consoles and DVD player to it. There isn't an atenna/cable TV line hooked into it at all, nor do I think there ever really will be.
I rarely watch TV anymore, and haven't for years.
Granted, I'm a few years out of the demographic they're saying is just now stopping watching TV (I'm 29), but I think I was around 24 or 25 when I just stopped watching TV pretty much all together.
I think another thing people are missing in their arguments about not supporting Xbox Live is the fact that Neversoft and GameSpy have been working on getting the THPS netcode working better and better with each version.
There were some hiccups in THPS3's networking that could affect gameplay, but many of those were ironed out for THPS4. It's probably safe to assume THUG has ironed out some of the bugs from THPS4's netcode as well (I haven't taken it online yet, going through story mode first).
Also, as you mentioned before, there's the fact that Microsoft is very strict about no game being allowed to be truly online on the Xbox without going through Xbox Live. So even if Neversoft had wanted to just put it in there, and go through GameSpy, Microsoft would not allow the game to be released on the Xbox like that, and would demand that if it went online it would go through Xbox Live.
I can understand not having it online on the GameCube, because of so few adapters sold for it; but since Sony and Nintendo basically have the same hands off approach, techically it shouldn't be too hard to put online capabilities into the GC version. It's not like Nintendo would say no to it...but they probably wouldn't advertise the online aspect very much themselves, and force Activision to advertise the online part all by themselves.
While I have all 3 consoles, I always get THPS on the PlayStation consoles, since it was really designed around that controller. I also like the online play on my PS2, but the biggest thing is control, you know; and niether the Xbox or GC controller really control the THPS games as accurately as the PS controllers do.
Thursdae
(somewhat) Part of the Delphi Crew under another name.
But if you dislike XBL, it's only because you haven't seen it in action.
I have seen it in action. Many times. I won't say I dislike it, per say, but I will say I grow bored of it rather quickly. Supposedly Crimson Skies is real good on Live, though, so I'll try and rent it next week and see.
It's heads and tails above anything the PS2 can do, and in many ways is revolutionary for what it has accomplished.
Revolutionary? Stat tracking and VOIP is revolutionary? Hardly, been done for a good long while on the PC. Hell, the Dreamcast had VOIP in a dial-up game as well I forget the name of the title). The universal friends list is nice, but hardly much different than having some sort of IM client installed and getting friends together on the PC.
It's not as if Sony is some mom and pop shop like Nintendo.
So a company that's been around over 100 years and has billions in the bank is a mom and pop shop? I'd hate to see your thoughts on a startup company.
Because now the people who didn't own it on the PS2 or PC, and own an Xbox, can see it.
It's not like these things weren't plastered all over the Internet when Vice City was first released, though. But, remember "n0w i7'5 0n Xb0X!!!! P52 5uXX0rZ!!!!" will be heard througout the halls of gamedom as the diehard Xbox fanbois flock to the game they all said was a pice of shit when it was on the PS2.
I have GTAIII and VC for my PS2. I have an Xbox, but see no reason to re-buy the games for it just for the improved graphics and custom tracks... it isn't like they added tons of missions to do, or the mod ability of the PC versions, or anything like that to really make it worthwile to those of us who already played through the games a year and two years ago.
Honestly, most of the people who wanted to play these games, already have. Remember, MGS2: Substance didn't see healthy sales on the Xbox, either, with it being released a year after MGS2: SoL. Expect more of the same from this.
Another important reason to shy away from it is not all HDTV displays support 1080i, so you would be abandoning that (large, by HDTV standards) market.
My HDTV doesn't support 720p, just 480i, 480p, and 1080i. Granted, it's a smaller HDTV (27", normal screen ratio), and isn't widescreen, but more of the smaller HDTV's I've looked at seem to skip supporting 720p, rather than skipping 1080i.
From my upcomming editorial on online gaming at GAF:
"With 780,000 network adapters sold, and an installed base of around 50+ million, we see that the PS2 network adapter's market penetration among PS2 owners is only at around 1.5%, or less. With 500,000 Xbox Live subscribers, and a user base of around 9 million Xboxes, we can see that the market penetration of Xbox Live among Xbox owners is only at around 5.5%, or less. And without adequate figures for Nintendo's adapters, we can only speculate on the market penetration, but it is well under 10% of GameCube owners, possibly even lower than Sony's 1.5% penetration."
Thursdae
But I really want a game I can sit down and play for 20 hours with replayability!
Metroid Prime. I beat it in 18 hours the first time through, but only had 83% of all the upgrades.
Eternal Darkness. It only takes about 10 hours to beat each story branch, but it has 3 distinct story branches, and the true ending is only had after beating all 3.
Skies of Arcadia Legends. Damn, if you spend the time to find EVERYTHING in this game, it can take you well over 60 hours to complete. And it's a damn fun Japanese style RPG, to boot.
Star Wars: Rogue Leader, Rogue Squadron II. Sure, you can beat all the main missions in about 10 hours....but getting gold medals on all of them to unlock everything....well, that's a lot more time.
Super Smash Bros. Melee. Good single player game will keep you going by yourself, and the multiplayer aspect has unlimited replay value.
Super Monkey Ball 1&2. Monkeys in plastic balls. Party game features. Insane multiplayer games. Nuff said.
Zelda: The Wind Waker will take around 20 hours to beat the first time through, but that won't include all the hearts/items; with a second quest after that.
Get a GameBoy Player and be able to play all your GB, GBC, and GBA games on your TV.
Slashdot Mirror
And as another poster pointed out, certain games are having saves too big to transfer via memory cards for the Xbox. The game known, so far, is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. It's save is more than 8 MB in size. If more games start using bigger saves than 8 MB, well, the mainly useless memory cards for the Xbox become even more useless.
Not saying it isn't. But it's hardly doing as well as MS originally hoped.
As for total people subscribed, worldwide figures put it about 500k easily (as you said). They say the goal is 1 million subscribed by June 04...
After the initial good launch of XBL in North America, MS said they expected 1 million subscribers by November 2003, worldwide. Then sales started falling on XBL, and by May 2003, they only had 500k, worldwide, after a nearly 250k intital burst in November-December 2002, they only got another 250k in the next 5 months. So, they revised it to June 2004 instead of November 2003. Not surprising, as they've revised forecasts on the Xbox hardware multiple times to make it look like they've met projections...
but I wouldn't be surprised if it hits that mark months ahead of schedule.
It's December 2003. In late April 2003 they said 500k subscribers. Nearly 8 months have gone by and they haven't even been able to say 550k or some such to make it appear that XBL sales are still going. Now they're giving away XBL to try and get subscriptions. I'll be very surprised if they hit that number before June, and keep it. Trying to use the free 2 month people who may not keep going doesn't count, you know. And who knows how many people didn't re-sign up in November? I almost didn't. If it wasn't for Crimson Skies, I would have called up MS and cancelled until Halo 2 came out.
Finally, let's not forget stuff like XSN. While the current incarnation of the sports network is inclusive to MS games, if it includes 3rd party game someday it could be one of the best ideas console gaming has ever seen.
Good idea? Yes. Good sports games? Hardly. The only two I've heard good things about are Links and Top Spin. All their other major sports games are almost as bad as the 989 Sports titles, and the ONLY selling point they really have for their MS Sports titles is online play. If I was a sports game player, I think I would rather forget about XSN. I'd rather go with Sega Sports' offerings than Microsoft's first party sports titles.
I often enough find that people who say online gaming isn't that great are the ones who are in denial just because they see no use in it.
While I'm home stuck in bed with this blood clot, I see very much a use for online gaming on my consoles....but I'm not fooled like you are into thinking in straw man arguments. In fact, I'm still playing more offline games, especially RPGs, while I am stuck in bed.
Just because 50% of the consoles owners aren't online doesn't mean they wouldn't like to be.
Like to be and are are two entirely different things. I'd like to be banging Rebecca Romijn Stamos all the time, but I'm not. I'd like to not have a blood clot taking up a good chunk of my leg, but the reality is that I have one. I'm sure more people want to be online with their consoles, but the reality is they aren't. Wants and reality are two seperate things.
And, if we add up the 60+ million PS2s, and the 10+ Million Xboxes and then figure out the percentage of them online... well it's more like 98.28% of the PS2 and Xbox console users aren't online; not just 50%. Hey, just for fun let's add in the 10+ million GCs and the probably 100k online adapters they've sold and see how much it is! Wow! A whopping 1.725%, or less, of all the current gen consoles out there are online! That's still 98.275%, or more, of all the current gen console owners not going online with their consoles.
That's slightly more than the 50% you seem to think are online now.
Hell, MS claims that 50% of all Xbox owners could get online with XBL... so why are there only 5.5% of the Xbox owners online? Most PS2 online games support dial up, which I'm sure a vast majority of PS2 owners have....so why is the total PS2 online userbase at less than 1.5%?
Online console gaming is beyond a niche now.
I don't doubt it. McDonalds isn't known for selling video games and devices.
Whats the point, if you have a gameboy, why buy a part that lets you play them on your TV.
Or you could be like me, and not own a GBA or GBASP. I happen to find my GBPlayer works just fine for letting me play GBA games when I don't own a GBA.
At 39.99, people dont see the point. I guess that is why the gameboy player for the SNES sold so well.
I'm sure you have the numbers for the Super GameBoy to back up your claim.
And at 179.99 You get more bang for your buck out of the Xbox because it just does more, and does it better.
Really? The Xbox plays Nintendo first party games? It plays GC exclusive third party games like Viewtiful Joe? It plays GBA games on it? Wow! I never knew! Why did I waste my time buying both an Xbox and a GC? Damn my foolisheness!
You go on to claim that there are benfits for portable memory cards, but state none.
Remember that the next time you have to lug around a 9 pound Xbox console to a friend's place to use your saved game.
And you label me a troll?
Somone did, but the shoe does seem to fit. Oh, and here's a hint, he couldn't mod you down and respond to you under the same username, jackass.
Kthxdrivethru
I see you have a lot of experience with that statement. Now, if only you could spell it correctly....
Thursdae
Except that it isn't the number one priority, really. And I play online on my Xbox and PS2 all the time. But I'm not fooled into thinking online is the big thing in console gaming right now.
Look at the facts.
Sony only sold 780k online adapters before launching the new online bundle for the PS2. Out of, what, 60+ million units? That's less than 1.5% of the total PS2 userbase that bought the online adapter. Sony isn't making any money off of their online abilities.
Microsoft has touted 500k Xbox Live subscribers as the number since before E3. 500k is around 5.5% of the total Xbox userbase. It hasn't gone up signifigantly since then, or beleive me MS would definitely toot their own horn. Now they're giving away 2 free months of XBL with every single Xbox sold, in order to try and get people to subscribe. Notice that in order to get new subscribers they're resorting to giving away two months of something they want you to subscribe to. Yeah, seems like XBL sales have more than flatlined over the months.
Sorry, friend, but online is not the big thing. Not right now, anyway.
Microsoft is losing millions of dollars per quarter on Xbox Live; and for what, a measly $25 million per year in subscription revenue? They lose more than four times that on the Xbox every single quarter, so $25 million a year in subscriptions isn't doing jack shit for them.
Sony is losing money on the hardware they bundle with the PS2, and they don't get a whole lot in return.
Nintendo can easily see this. And Nintendo is all about profits.
Microsoft is willing to throw money at the Xbox to make it suceed; but they have Office and Windows to fall back on (at least for now, who knows what the shareholders might say after seeing the quarterly loss of the Xbox this Xmas season... it's going to be a huge sum of money lost).
Nintendo doesn't have the luxury of having a product that brings in twice its operational costs in profit each quarter *cough*Windows*cough*ripoff*cough* like Microsoft does. Nintendo can't afford to try and do what MS is doing with Xbox Live, and then not make any money from it; or at least not lose too much money from it. They don't have overpriced operating systems and office suites to make up for every other money losing division within their company, like Microsoft does.
And Nintendo knows this. Nintendo needs to show a profit each year to keep going. Trying to make a huge deal of online gaming, when the numbers clearly show it is a niche market in the console world, is not conductive to profits.
Microsoft could never turn a profit on the Xbox and never care; because their Windows and Office divisions will subsidise every single money losing venture they delve into. And trust me, XBL isn't making any money any time soon.
Thursdae
Um, I can't say for sure about Sony because I've never really looked at their financials, overall....but Microsoft didn't lose money last fiscal year overall. The Home and Entertainment Division, which does hold the Xbox Division bled money left and right (anyone still in denial on this needs to be shot, the Xbox is not making any money for Microsoft, and the Xbox is the single biggest money loser to date for the company); but thanks to the subsidies from the Windows and Office divisions, Microsoft still made a few billion dollars in profits overall
But that's the key. If you mentioned Microsoft's Xbox Division as losing money, then you'd be absolutely correct (probably over a billion dollars since launch and climbing by the hundreds of millions per quarter); but Microsoft as a whole doesn't lose money because they make so much profit from Office and Windows to make up for all the other divisions which bleed money.
Thursdae
While that may be true in North America and most of Europe, to say the same thing in China is a bit absurd.
If you try to sell a game in China for US $50 (the equivalent is 413.850 Cinese Yuan Renminbi), you won't make a single sale. Most Chinese people, especially those not in places like Hong Kong or Singapore, make less than US $1 (less than 8.27700 Chinese Yuan Renminbi) a day.
And don't think that Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft are giving discounts to their Chinese workers, either. All three companies have manufacturing plants in China to keep costs lower on their consoles.
Pirated games come out to be around US $3-$5 a piece in China, or only a few days pay. No one in China is going to pay 50 days worth of pay just for a video game, when they can get it for 3 days worth of pay from a pirate.
Thursdae
MS to OEMs: "You can't uninstall IE to put Netscape on the computers you sell anymore!"
OEMs: "But our customers ask for Netscape."
MS: "I don't care! I make Windows, and I say no more uninstalling my IE for Netscape!"
OEMs: "Well, our customers ask for it, so we're going to do it for them."
MS: "Well...well... If you uninstall IE from any more machines you sell, I'll take away your Windows licenses! Then you won't be able to sell any computers at all!"
OEMs: "um..."
MS: "And just to show you guys, every version of Windows that comes out from 98 on will have IE integrated into the OS, so you CAN'T uninstall it, even if you want to!" *sticks out tongue, stamps foot and turns head away*
Not exactly the way the conversations went down, but the general feeling is the same as what happened. MS was spurned by the fact that OEMs were uninstalling IE to put Netscape on the machines, so MS threatened to revoke their Windows licenses to make the stop doing that. Then, just to make sure the OEMs couldn't do it at a later date, they integrated IE into Windows so tightly that normal users can't get rid of it.
So has Super Smash Bros. Melee. Your point is, what? That Halo is the only consitently selling title for the Xbox?
And please list the PS2 & Nintendo million sellers.
I can't list all the PS2 million plus sellers, since I don't know them all. Yes, some EA Sports games are in there, but that doesn't mean their selling a million plus is any less relevant because you feel so. It's still a million or more units of a game moved.
But I can remember FFX, MGS2, GT3, GTA3, GTAVC, SOCOM US Navy Seals, and the original Devil May Cry have all sold over 1 million units, worldwide, as well as some EA Sports games like the Madden series. There are others, but I don't know them all, and some are Japanese only titles.
As for the GC:
Luigi's Mansion
Super Mario Sunshine
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
Metroid Prime
Animal Crossing
Resident Evil (Remake)
Resident Evil 0
Super Smash Bros. Melee
That's the 8 games I remember off the top of my head that have sold a million units or more, worldwide. There's definitely one more for it, but I can't remember the title right now. And none of them are EA Sports games.
Thursdae
Actually, the Xbox has 4 confirmed million plus selling games, worldwide, on it.
Halo (launch)
Dead or Alive 3 (launch)
Project Gotham Racing (launch)
Splinter Cell (released November 2002)
Still, for all the talk about how much software is sold for the Xbox, you'd figure there's be more than 4 titles which have sold over a million units worldwide; 3 of which are launch titles, and the fourth released a year ago.
The GC has been out for the same time in North America, and has something like 8-10 million plus selling titles (worldwide), and the PS2 has to be pushing 2 dozen or so million plus sellers (worldwide) since it's launch by now, if not more.
Thursdae
Sports, racing, and fighting games tend to be the largets percentage of multi-platform games, you know.
The better D-pad on the Xbox controller
You're joking, right? The Xbox D-pad sucks, especially on that monstrous controller (though the Controller-S has a better D-pad than the original). The GC D-pad is only in the bad category because it is too small for most games; but both the PS2 and GC D-pads are far more accurate than the Xbox's D-pad.
Both the Xbox and GC have better left analog sticks than the PS2, both in placement and in control (and the Xbox has a better right analog stick than both the GC and PS2, since the C-Stick on the GC is too stubby to be effectively used in games that require it used often, like FPS games). But the Xbox has the worst D-pad, since it isn't accurate at all, and doesn't feel right in the least when being used.
combined with some clever default button configuration (using both triggers simultaneously for a spine transfer simply feels a lot more intuitive than the dedicated button of the PS2 versions, IMO) negate pretty much any controller advantage
Maybe it feels more natural to you, but I'd rather have one button instead of two to do both the spine transfers and the reverts (both the GC and the Xbox also require both shoulder buttons to be hit to do the revert as well). Hitting one button is easier than hitting two, especially since you know that the button is for specific purposes, instead of the multi-purpose shoulder buttons on the Xbox and GC which spin you as well as do spine transfers and reverts. I generally can score 2-3x higher on the PS2 versions of the THPS games than I can on either the GC or Xbox versions; with comobos ranging into the 2-3 million point range on the PS2 versions, and maybe a million points on the GC and Xbox versions.
and for people with reasonably average hand sizes makes the Xbox version probably superior for controls.
About the only games I find the Xbox controller vastly superior for are FPS games. I'm not huge into sports games, but it also worked exceptionally well for Sega Sports' NHL 2K3. I also hear it works well for racing games, but I'm not into racing games. Other than that, I find it adequate, but not superior to the other consoles' controllers.
I can't believe games like Ikaruga or Soul Calibur II are ported to the GC...
Ikaruga works fine on the GC. Left stick moves, A button fires, B button switches polarity, and the R button fires your special weapon. Ikarguga has such simple controls, and it would work well on any console.
I bought SCII on the GC for Link, I admit it freely. But, the control scheme actually works well on the GC. It took me all of 5 minutes to get used to the controls, plus they are customizable as well, so if the default controls don't work for someone, they can change them. Honestly, I think the game probably controls about equally on all the consoles, but I have only played the GC version. And I have yet to use the D-pad in SCII, the analog stick works fine.
Now, games like Capcom Vs. SNK 2 EO or Mortal Kombat? I'd say they would control the best on the PS2, adequately on the Xbox (I have Capcom Vs. SNK 2 EO on the Xbox, and find it controls adequately, but the inaccurate D-Pad still messes it up now and then), and probably the hardest on the GC with the button layout and tiny D-pad.
Thursdae
I'll give you the look part, most of the time. I'll say the sound better part is there, even though you didn't mention it. But play better? I would say that is false. Most multi-platform games are designed with the PS2 in mind, and the PS2's controller as well. With the Xbox not having as many shoulder buttons as the PS2, it automatically loses functionality for games designed around the PS2 controller. Same with the GC.
A perfect example is the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series. The GC and Xbox versions look much better than the PS2 version; but the game was designed around the PS2 controller, so it PLAYS the best on the PS2.
This is true of 9 out of 10 multi-platform titles. They'll look better on the GC and Xbox, but generally be easier to use on the PS2, meaning they play better on the PS2. Graphics don't determine playability, nor does superior hardware, but the control interface the game was designed for.
The only real exception I can think of is Splinter Cell, which was designed for the Xbox first, and then ported to the other 2 consoles. Thus, it most likely plays better on the Xbox than the other 2.
Thursdae
However, the online components are not tested as thoroughly as the single player components. Nor can they be, since there will not be enough QA people to simulate large game loads and other things that can only be found AFTER a game has been released and is used online. An example is the original Ghost Recon for Xbox Live: the lobbies had a bug wherin, in many cases, people would see very few to no games being played/available to be joined, even if there were hundreds of games going on (to my knoweldge, this bug was never fixed through a patch for the original Ghost Recon, but may have been fixed with the Island Thunder upgrade disk). This sort of bug might not appear in a limited QA test, but does in the wild.
Yes, gameplay bugs *can* be fixed, but the patching is really all about downloadable content. New maps, new characters, new items, new quests. "Value-added" I believe is the term that applies. Some games (eg: Splinter Cell) even have support for downloadable content through Live even though they're not multiplayer titles.
Of course, there are also reports that Microsoft is using such 'content download enabled' games to spy on their customers, as the games supposedly contact XBL without the users' knowledge or permission. But I cannot verify this as fact, myself, since all my Live games are games to be played online.
However, the newest upgrade of XBL DOES automatically connect to XBL when you start the Xbox up, so long as you have it connected to be able to go online. If you start the Xbox up with no game in it, or the tray open, you will be on the Xbox Live screen automatically if you are hooked into the Net on your Xbox.
So long as your Xbox is hooked into the Net, Microsoft knows when it is on, it seems.
So far the only online executable patching that I've seen (and I have quite a few Live-enabled games) was to patch Xbox Live itself - adding new features like being able to see and talk to your buddies from the Xbox start screen without even loading a game.
You must not have Unreal Championship or Capcom Vs. SNK EO 2 for the Xbox, then. Both games have had actual patches to fix actual bugs in the games. Bugs that, again, apparently did not appear in the limited QA time period. The CvSEO2 patch fixes a sound bug in the game, and the UC patch helps fix rank cheating abilities as well as the ability to get outside of levels in the game. Supposedly, some games also patch without letting you think they are patching, by telling you "There is an Xbox Live update available, this update is necessary before you will be allowed to connect to Xbox Live." Remember, Microsoft promised no real patches, but only content downloading. It is possible they now hide the patches since the Capcom Vs. SNK 2 EO and Unreal Championship patches were well known (and a slight PR belemish, as well as fodder to be used against XBL by PS2 and GameCube fanbois).
You really can't comment on Xbox (especially the Live service) if you've not tried it. You might even like it.
I do have Live, and I do enjoy it...but only in short spurts, it seems. No game has really held my attnention online for very long on the service (in fact, no Xbox game can hold my attention for long, either, as I have gone as long as 3 months without even having it plugged in). I can only play so many FPS games, don't play racing games, etc. However, Crimson Skies has me pretty addicited right now; but it remains to be seen if it keeps me hooked on playing online for a while, or if this too will pass in but a few weeks.
But, MS had better release a patch to fix the "slots reserved for friends
BZZZZZZT!
Oh, I'm sorry, but that answer is incorrect.
The truth is that Microsoft DOES allow third party publishers to charge money ON TOP OF the Xbox Live fee, if they so wish. Sega already does for PSO Ep I&II, at $8.95/month, which is ON TOP OF the $50/year Xbox Live subscription cost. Expect games like True Fantasy Live Online to charge extra to play online (made by Microsoft, but a MMORPG).
Most games should remain free, but certain games, especially MMORPGs or other games with persistent worlds and 24 hour servers, will charge extra on top of the Xbox Live fee.
The most likely reason that EA and Microsoft butt heads over Xbox Live is the fact that Microsoft will have complete access to EA's customer database if their games were Live enabled (Microsoft will know which customers bought EA's titles and when they are playing them online). Companies, especially when they make competing products (MS does have their own Xbox sports titles), do not like to share customer information and/or knowledge.
But, you do get our consolation prize: a post on /.!
I'm not sure about all of Canada, but at least in Quebec I beleive the laws for signs are they must be both French and English (or another language, like Chinese for the large Chinese population in the region, but with the French more prominent) or only in French.
I could be wrong, but I beleive this is how it is, at least in Quebec.
Thursdae
I'm not sure about the employment status of IGN's or GameSpy's editors.
As for other sites which rely on advertising to pay their bills and use volunteers, well, I can't say what they do or don't do. We don't rely on our 2 advertisers to pay our bills (in fact, I paid our server costs the last time they were due, out of my own pocket), and while we are all volunteers, we are official staff of the site; not anyone can post a review/news piece/editorial on the site.
Your original post stated "I have to say, from the game reviewer's standpoint, that it's hard to give a game a bad rating." And "1) You have advertisers. Typically, these people keep your site alive. They're expecting you to review their game."
Even GameSpot has advertisers. Yet, they have no problem giving a game a low score if it deserves it. But they have C|Net to back them up.
The site I work for has no game company advertisers, and we also have no problem giving a game a low score if it deserves it. And we have no corporation to fall back on if advertising doesn't work.
What I'd like to see from you, then, is a site (or more) which is completely advertiser supported with no paid editors. All editors are complete volunteers and get no monetary compensation for any work they do; but they will give scores higher than the games deserve because of their advertisers. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but it sounds like you can.
Thursdae
Don't worry, I'm sure you'll eventually grow out of it.
Thursdae
However, we don't get a whole lot of PR treatment from companies. We all either buy or rent the games we review, ourselves, over 9 out of 10 times (rarely do we get a review copy sent to us, but it does happen every now and then). We don't get wined and dined by PR comapnies. And, most importantly, we have very little advertising on the site, except from our association with Amazon.com and Ebay (and even these advertisements are non-intrusive).
We do have PR contacts in gaming companies, and our readership is pretty large for a non-corporate site like GameSpot or IGN. But our PR contacts (or lack thereof in certain comapnies) do not dictate how we review games.
Never has our EIC ever said to change a score or to try and put a positive spin on the review. We decide how our reviews will be, and we post them.
Not all gaming sites get the treatment that IGN, GameSpot, or GameSpy get, you know.
Thursdae
While I'm at a loss to explain just why GameRankings users score the way they do, it is interesting that their opinions of games are consistently lower than the average of all game review sites recorded on GameRankings. Furthermore, the Xbox is by no means alone in this respect; GameRankings users are similarly critical of the top twenty games on the PS2 and GameCube.
It should be noted that the user scores from GameRankings are going to be well below the average for all platforms. As as avid user on GR, I know how fanbois attempt to affect the user rating on games on the systems they do not like with the user voting system (and, conversely, attempt to raise the user rating on even shit games on their system of choice by voting "10" on every game). Many of the votes are from second and third accounts used just to vote against games on the other systems and for games on their system of choice.
For example, I'll show the top game from each system and how many total votes vs how many of those votes were for a "1".
GameCube:
Metroid Prime (User Avg. 8.3)
Total votes: 1969
Total "1" votes: 241 (12.2% of total votes)
PS2:
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (User Avg. 8.6)
Total votes: 1573
Total "1" votes: 73 (4.6% of total votes)
Xbox:
Halo (User Avg. 8.7)
Total votes: 2350
Total "1" votes: 186 (7.9% of total votes)
Notice that the PS2 game actually had the lowest percentage of "1" votes (4.6%), while the GC game had the highest (12.2%), even though the GC game had less total votes than the Xbox game it still had a higher percentage of "1" votes. This trend seems to fluxuate between the GC and the Xbox for the highest "1" vote percentage on games.
One of the things those of us on the message board wanted to do was only make votes count towards user average if a review went with it, in order to keep fanboi votes to a minimum effect on the total user average....but that never happened. And now that Scott sold GR to C|Net, we doubt it will ever happen.
Thursdae
I rarely watch TV anymore, and haven't for years.
Granted, I'm a few years out of the demographic they're saying is just now stopping watching TV (I'm 29), but I think I was around 24 or 25 when I just stopped watching TV pretty much all together.
I guess I'm just ahead of my time.
Thursdae
There were some hiccups in THPS3's networking that could affect gameplay, but many of those were ironed out for THPS4. It's probably safe to assume THUG has ironed out some of the bugs from THPS4's netcode as well (I haven't taken it online yet, going through story mode first).
Also, as you mentioned before, there's the fact that Microsoft is very strict about no game being allowed to be truly online on the Xbox without going through Xbox Live. So even if Neversoft had wanted to just put it in there, and go through GameSpy, Microsoft would not allow the game to be released on the Xbox like that, and would demand that if it went online it would go through Xbox Live.
I can understand not having it online on the GameCube, because of so few adapters sold for it; but since Sony and Nintendo basically have the same hands off approach, techically it shouldn't be too hard to put online capabilities into the GC version. It's not like Nintendo would say no to it...but they probably wouldn't advertise the online aspect very much themselves, and force Activision to advertise the online part all by themselves.
While I have all 3 consoles, I always get THPS on the PlayStation consoles, since it was really designed around that controller. I also like the online play on my PS2, but the biggest thing is control, you know; and niether the Xbox or GC controller really control the THPS games as accurately as the PS controllers do.
Thursdae
(somewhat) Part of the Delphi Crew under another name.
I have seen it in action. Many times. I won't say I dislike it, per say, but I will say I grow bored of it rather quickly. Supposedly Crimson Skies is real good on Live, though, so I'll try and rent it next week and see.
It's heads and tails above anything the PS2 can do, and in many ways is revolutionary for what it has accomplished.
Revolutionary? Stat tracking and VOIP is revolutionary? Hardly, been done for a good long while on the PC. Hell, the Dreamcast had VOIP in a dial-up game as well I forget the name of the title). The universal friends list is nice, but hardly much different than having some sort of IM client installed and getting friends together on the PC.
It's not as if Sony is some mom and pop shop like Nintendo.
So a company that's been around over 100 years and has billions in the bank is a mom and pop shop? I'd hate to see your thoughts on a startup company.
Thursdae
It's not like these things weren't plastered all over the Internet when Vice City was first released, though. But, remember "n0w i7'5 0n Xb0X!!!! P52 5uXX0rZ!!!!" will be heard througout the halls of gamedom as the diehard Xbox fanbois flock to the game they all said was a pice of shit when it was on the PS2.
I have GTAIII and VC for my PS2. I have an Xbox, but see no reason to re-buy the games for it just for the improved graphics and custom tracks... it isn't like they added tons of missions to do, or the mod ability of the PC versions, or anything like that to really make it worthwile to those of us who already played through the games a year and two years ago.
Honestly, most of the people who wanted to play these games, already have. Remember, MGS2: Substance didn't see healthy sales on the Xbox, either, with it being released a year after MGS2: SoL. Expect more of the same from this.
Thursdae
My HDTV doesn't support 720p, just 480i, 480p, and 1080i. Granted, it's a smaller HDTV (27", normal screen ratio), and isn't widescreen, but more of the smaller HDTV's I've looked at seem to skip supporting 720p, rather than skipping 1080i.
Thursdae
"With 780,000 network adapters sold, and an installed base of around 50+ million, we see that the PS2 network adapter's market penetration among PS2 owners is only at around 1.5%, or less. With 500,000 Xbox Live subscribers, and a user base of around 9 million Xboxes, we can see that the market penetration of Xbox Live among Xbox owners is only at around 5.5%, or less. And without adequate figures for Nintendo's adapters, we can only speculate on the market penetration, but it is well under 10% of GameCube owners, possibly even lower than Sony's 1.5% penetration." Thursdae
Metroid Prime. I beat it in 18 hours the first time through, but only had 83% of all the upgrades.
Eternal Darkness. It only takes about 10 hours to beat each story branch, but it has 3 distinct story branches, and the true ending is only had after beating all 3.
Skies of Arcadia Legends. Damn, if you spend the time to find EVERYTHING in this game, it can take you well over 60 hours to complete. And it's a damn fun Japanese style RPG, to boot.
Star Wars: Rogue Leader, Rogue Squadron II. Sure, you can beat all the main missions in about 10 hours....but getting gold medals on all of them to unlock everything....well, that's a lot more time.
Super Smash Bros. Melee. Good single player game will keep you going by yourself, and the multiplayer aspect has unlimited replay value.
Super Monkey Ball 1&2. Monkeys in plastic balls. Party game features. Insane multiplayer games. Nuff said.
Zelda: The Wind Waker will take around 20 hours to beat the first time through, but that won't include all the hearts/items; with a second quest after that.
Get a GameBoy Player and be able to play all your GB, GBC, and GBA games on your TV.
There's more as well. Thursdae