# The X-Box 360



## RangerWickett (May 13, 2005)

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/factsheet.htm

Find specs there.  It was apparently announced just yesterday.  The thing that stuns me is the three 3.2 GHz processors.  I honestly don't understand a lot of the rest of terminology, but that's just an impressive number.


----------



## KenM (May 13, 2005)

I'm a little surpised they are only going with 512 of RAM, most gamers run a gig of RAM these days. More memory is always good.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 13, 2005)

Don't know too much about the system. Could it possibly be used as a PC?


----------



## Enforcer (May 13, 2005)

No mention of backwards compatibility that I saw.


----------



## kingpaul (May 13, 2005)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> No mention of backwards compatibility that I saw.



I didn't either. I hope that it is backwards.


----------



## spider_minion (May 13, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Don't know too much about the system. Could it possibly be used as a PC?




I've heard that people have modded their (normal) XBOXs and installed Linux on them.  It's a lot cheaper than buying a normal PC, if you know what you're doing.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 13, 2005)

spider_minion said:
			
		

> I've heard that people have modded their (normal) XBOXs and installed Linux on them.  It's a lot cheaper than buying a normal PC, if you know what you're doing.



Unfortunately I am one of the people that would not know how to do it. I have thought about having a friend that is tech and computer savvy build me an NES PC.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 13, 2005)

Does anyone know the streetdate and price on this badboy?


----------



## drothgery (May 13, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Don't know too much about the system. Could it possibly be used as a PC?




Not in any conventional fashion. The CPU is a custom PowerPC variant designed for Xbox 360; at least right now, the only operating system that runs on it is the one Microsoft built for the system. It's probably sufficiently powerful to emulate a PIII-class PC (which is how they'll get backward compatibility, if it happens), but emulating another architecture is always slow.

Really, I'm not a big fan of the Cell or the Xbox 360 CPU; current game programmers don't know how to deal with highly parallel systems, and in most applications (including games) paralellization has diminishing returns (each additional core adds less value). The Xbox 360's three symetric cores are probably easier to deal with than the Cell's 1 primary core/8 secondary (and very specialized) cores, but it's going to be a difficult transition. If Nintendo decides to buck trends and go with a single or dual-core CPU, expect the Revolution to have better games for the first year or two.

Other notes - 512 MB of RAM is more than enough for a console, and is almost certainly more than PS3 and Revolution will have next year. When you have almost no operating system overhead (because only one configuration has to be supported, and you're never running more than one app at a time), you can get by with far less RAM. The current Xbox has 64 MB; the GameCube ~40 MB; and the PS2 only 16 MB.


----------



## LrdApoc (May 13, 2005)

There is no streetdate or price yet.. the MTV thing was not meant to reveal this.. someof the detailes were saved for E3 next week. 

Current speculation:
Wireless adaptor is optional for networking
Backwards compatibility is not confirmed at this point
Release should be around November with a $300-$400 price
There is no indication other than the Samsung TV bundle that the camera or DVD remote will be included with the system, and right now it looks like just a 20GB removable HD and one wireless controller.


----------



## freebfrost (May 13, 2005)

KenM said:
			
		

> I'm a little surpised they are only going with 512 of RAM, most gamers run a gig of RAM these days. More memory is always good.




But you also have to worry about the OS overhead for computers, which takes up a bunch of memory.

For a dedicated console build only for games, that's good.


----------



## freebfrost (May 13, 2005)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> No mention of backwards compatibility that I saw.




There is some nice commentary on this on IGN from their Xbox 360 FAQ.


----------



## drothgery (May 13, 2005)

freebfrost said:
			
		

> There is some nice commentary on this on IGN from their Xbox 360 FAQ.




Err... it's kind of brain-dead commentary, actually. It's a lot easier for a new ATi GPU to emulate a GeForce 3.5 (especially when all the calls are coming from a specialized version of DirectX) than it is for a PowerPC to emulate a Pentium III.


----------



## DonTadow (May 13, 2005)

I'm not a ps2 head, but I am more excited about the new Cell techonology that the ps3 is going to use.  I don't really see anything with the new xbox that a sooped up computer can't do.  I do likea free online network though.


----------



## drothgery (May 13, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'm not a ps2 head, but I am more excited about the new Cell techonology that the ps3 is going to use.  I don't really see anything with the new xbox that a sooped up computer can't do.  I do likea free online network though.




Why is one medium-sized core and eight little cores with an nVidia GPU any more exciting than three big cores with an ATi GPU?


----------



## DonTadow (May 13, 2005)

It's not just any big core.  Thsi technology is light years above what is coming in the xbox.  This is going to have further implications to other uses of our lives.  

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12523


----------



## drothgery (May 13, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> It's not just any big core.  Thsi technology is light years above what is coming in the xbox.  This is going to have further implications to other uses of our lives.
> 
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12523




Note that the article you're linking to is two years old.

That's just Sony hype. You do remember what they said about the Emotion Engine, right? The Cell is the same kind of chip, except that the main core is a stripped-down PPC instead of a stripped-down Toshiba RISC chip, and it's got 8 little cores instead of 4.

The Cell's main core is just a stripped-down PPC, and it's less powerful than the one that's going in Xbox 360 (or the one that's in Macs as the G5, for that matter); the Xbox 360 cores are SMT-enabled (like the Pentium 4, and some of IBM's PPC variants that they use for mainframes and high-end workstation), and the Cell's is not.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 13, 2005)

Interesting news, but ultimately meaningless. Console specs are general hogwash, and we won't know much about capabilities until the games are fully playable.

Because it's all about the games.

(Though it is nice to see that the controllers are wireless out of the box, and that it supports 4 of 'em.)


> and is almost certainly more than PS3 and Revolution will have next year.



Oh?


----------



## drothgery (May 13, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Oh?




That's just a wild guess, but since the original Xbox had by far the most RAM of its generation,  and then they put 8 times as much in the Xbox 360, it seems likely. Microsoft, being run by software people, tends to favor throwing more memory at problems.


----------



## DonTadow (May 13, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Interesting news, but ultimately meaningless. Console specs are general hogwash, and we won't know much about capabilities until the games are fully playable.
> 
> Because it's all about the games.
> 
> ...



I'd have to agree with taht as well, and though Xbox had the more powerful system, I dont think until this year that I've seen other great games (other meaning other than Halo- which for me, a pc user, is just an overrated first person shooteres that doesnt reach the levels of the stuff being produced for the PCs) 

Microsoft needs to get agressive and buy some big franchises away from sony.  that is what sony did when they released the ps and they bought the square franchise final fantasy.  the new microsoft is going ot need more than halo, and though fable, kotor I and II and Jade Empire are strong franchises they can build (also Level 5's new MMORPG) they are going to need to get some name brand action stuff such as the GTAs, Devil may crys, resident evils ect .


----------



## KenM (May 13, 2005)

My guess on the price is $299.99. Thats what the PS, PS2, Xbox was on first launch.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 13, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Other notes - 512 MB of RAM is more than enough for a console, and is almost certainly more than PS3 and Revolution will have next year. When you have almost no operating system overhead (because only one configuration has to be supported, and you're never running more than one app at a time), you can get by with far less RAM. The current Xbox has 64 MB; the GameCube ~40 MB; and the PS2 only 16 MB.




The PS2 has 32, the Dreamcast had 16.

And the Xbox had more ram (and better specs) mostly because it was the last of that generation to launched, by a year. 

In this case, the Xbox will be the first of the generation. Just like the Dreamcast was. (Even actually looks like the Dreamcast. Same color and basic shape, though a bit more melted looking)

I would guess it will be $299, plus another $100 or so for the hard drive.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 13, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> If Nintendo decides to buck trends and go with a single or dual-core CPU, expect the Revolution to have better games for the first year or two.



Pardon me but I have not been able to watch Tech TV since it has been relocated to a different tier with my cable company. Is the Revoultion Nintendos next console platform?


----------



## trancejeremy (May 13, 2005)

I do suspect that the hype about Cell is pretty much the same as the "Emotion Engine", but it's doubtful that Sony would ship a console a year later that is less powerful.


----------



## DonTadow (May 13, 2005)

KenM said:
			
		

> My guess on the price is $299.99. Thats what the PS, PS2, Xbox was on first launch.



Oh I severely doubt that.  The PSP was 300 dollars and that is without all thegadgets.  As the videogame generation matures so does the hardware and these next ones are going to be able to do more stuff than ever.  Look for 500 dollar machines, maybe 450.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 13, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Pardon me but I have not been able to watch Tech TV since it has been relocated to a different tier with my cable company. Is the Revoultion Nintendos next console platform?




Yes. It's due to be released in mid 2006, apparently. 

Also, the hardware apparently is actually similar to that of the 360 (Power PC based, ATI graphics), but presumably more powerful, since it's about a year newer.  It will apparently also have built in wireless support and some sort of really wacky controller

Here's a story about the date (and also claims to have specs, but I dunno about the latter).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/12/nintendo_revolution_release_date/


----------



## trancejeremy (May 13, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Oh I severely doubt that.  The PSP was 300 dollars and that is without all thegadgets.  As the videogame generation matures so does the hardware and these next ones are going to be able to do more stuff than ever.  Look for 500 dollar machines, maybe 450.




Well, the PSP was actually only $250 in the US, and $50 of that was due to the "value pack" you had to buy. The price in Japan was actually only around $175


----------



## Lobo Lurker (May 13, 2005)

That's a lot of high-end hardware MS is putting into the X-Box 360. The ATI card alone would likley retail (if it were separately available for a pc) for around $500. I have a sneaky suspicion that this console is going to cost around $750. Hopefully I'm wrong it it comes in for around $360 (which ties in nicely with it's name).

The package (unless MS sees fit to change it at E3) is:
The XBox 360 console
One wireless controller
One 20GB removable hard drive

As has been noted, without a massive OS and numerous different componants to support, 512MB is a lot. Keep in mind that the GPU (graphics card) will be monopolizing some/most of that.

I find it highly doubtful that any games will come out that fully utilize the six threads that the multi-core CPU can use for at least 2 or 3 years (at least, in any meaningful way).

It is doubtful that you will be able to use the XBox 360 as a computer. It will support audio and video calling/conferencing and even accept streaming media from your pc. But if you mod the XBox, you won't be able to use it for XBox Live... and MS has mandated that all games must use in some fashion XBox Live.

Supposedly there will be a wireless networking card available in the near future; making the box completely wireless (except for the monitor/hdtv/audio connections).

I wouldn't be surprised if MS forgoes backwards compatablility. It's not really needed unless the software available at launch isn't very good.

Gamespot.com has a nice writeup on the XBox 360 that's a pretty interesting read.

As far as the CELL goes... I think programmers are going to have a heck-of-a-time writing for that monstrosity. And while it can do a whole heck of a lot at once, it's not a very advanced chip (not that it needs to be for a console). I think that, given AMD & Intel's demonstrations of dual-core CPUs recently, the XBox 360 will be the most powerful system on the market. 

Time to pick up an HDTV, I think.


----------



## Lobo Lurker (May 13, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Well, the PSP was actually only $250 in the US, and $50 of that was due to the "value pack" you had to buy. The price in Japan was actually only around $175




Do a little research (google maybe). The PSP is speculated to cost about $500 to manufacture. Sony is hoping to recoup that cost with thier licensing fees.

If you don't know, this is the standard business model for console providers (Microsoft, Sony, & Nintendo).  They sell thier product at a hefty loss in order to get it into as many homes as possible. They make thier money back each time you purchase a game 'cuase a % of that purchase gets paid to them by the game developers/publishers in exchange for the right to develop & sell games using that platform (does that make sense to you? Ever since becoming semi-proficient with Spanish, my English skills have deteriorated and I find that I don't explain things as clearly as I would like).


----------



## drothgery (May 13, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> The PS2 has 32, the Dreamcast had 16.
> 
> And the Xbox had more ram (and better specs) mostly because it was the last of that generation to launched, by a year.




Err, the Cube launched at the same time (at least in the US), with quite a bit less memory.


----------



## drothgery (May 13, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Also, the hardware apparently is actually similar to that of the 360 (Power PC based, ATI graphics), but presumably more powerful, since it's about a year newer.




Since Nintendo has no interest in losing even a little bit of money on hardware (never has, never will), and has traditionally aimed for lower price points (the Cube launced at $199 against the $299 Xbox), it's likely that the Revolution will not be more powerful than the Xbox 360.


----------



## John Crichton (May 14, 2005)

Anyone who thinks that any of these manufacturers will release a console with a basic price point over $400 is nuts.  Matter of fact, I'd be surprised if it released for more than $299.  That is the sweet spot for a console price launch.  Yeah, the actual purchase ends up being higher after buying extra controllers and games but the basic unit itself won't be more than $300.

And I'll wait to see the games before commenting on the console itself.  None of the A-list titles or sequels are coming out on the Next Gen systems as of yet.


----------



## ohGr (May 14, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> If you don't know, this is the standard business model for console providers (Microsoft, Sony, & Nintendo).  They sell thier product at a hefty loss in order to get it into as many homes as possible.




As drothgery mentioned, Nintendo has _never_ lost money on any of its consoles; every Nintendo console has sold for profit from day 1.  It's a major reason why Ninty is still around and kicking after coming in dead last in two consecutive console generations.  (The primary reason being their vice-like stranglehold on the handheld market.)

EDIT:  Hell, from 1998-2004, Nintendo has been the most profitable of the three.  (Comparing to only the game divisions of Sony and Microsoft, of course.)
http://www.playmoreconsoles.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=5592


----------



## drothgery (May 15, 2005)

ohGr said:
			
		

> EDIT:  Hell, from 1998-2004, Nintendo has been the most profitable of the three.  (Comparing to only the game divisions of Sony and Microsoft, of course.)
> http://www.playmoreconsoles.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=5592




It's probably worth noting, though, that at least in the PlayStation era, the game division of Sony was a very major profit center for them (when the PS2 was new and therefore not especially profitable, Sony's profits were down by quite a bit; I don't know what's happened since then with Sony's bottom line); Microsoft pulls in enormous profits from Windows, Office, and server software, while Xbox/home entertainment is not a big deal on their balance sheet.


----------



## John Crichton (May 15, 2005)

ohGr said:
			
		

> As drothgery mentioned, Nintendo has _never_ lost money on any of its consoles; every Nintendo console has sold for profit from day 1. It's a major reason why Ninty is still around and kicking after coming in dead last in two consecutive console generations. (The primary reason being their vice-like stranglehold on the handheld market.)



Yeah, The Big N has stuck around because of Pokemon & Gameboy.  But if they don't hurry up and start making some better DS games they are going to get killed by the Sony's PSP.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 15, 2005)

I for one am looking forward to the 360. If nothing else the machine just looks wicked cool.


----------



## ohGr (May 15, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> It's probably worth noting, though, that at least in the PlayStation era, the game division of Sony was a very major profit center for them (when the PS2 was new and therefore not especially profitable, Sony's profits were down by quite a bit; I don't know what's happened since then with Sony's bottom line);



Yeah, IIRC, for a while there, Sony's game division was actually the most profitable division in the entire company.  They must have taken a real bath on the PS2 to be behind now.



> ...Microsoft pulls in enormous profits from Windows, Office, and server software, while Xbox/home entertainment is not a big deal on their balance sheet.



That's why the article only compared profit margins for the game divisions of Sony and MS.  Comparing li'l ol' Nintendo's profits to the total profits of megacorps like Sony and MS, instead of just that of their game divisions, would give a seriously skewed view of the videogame industry.


----------



## Welverin (May 17, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> (Even actually looks like the Dreamcast. Same color and basic shape, though a bit more melted looking)




Like hell, they look absolutely nothing alike.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 17, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'm not a ps2 head, but I am more excited about the new Cell techonology that the ps3 is going to use.  I don't really see anything with the new xbox that a sooped up computer can't do.  I do likea free online network though.




To my knowledge, the online network isn't going to be free. I think Microsoft plans on using the same XBox Live pay-to-play model that they currently are using.


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 17, 2005)

There is going to be a free Live service (Live Silver, I believe) and the standard pay service we have now (Live Gold), not as seperate entities but overlapping..  I believe Marketplace is going to be on Silver, and for a lot of people I suspect that's all they'll use.  I know my only real interest in Live is for downloadable content.


----------



## Lobo Lurker (May 17, 2005)

Halo 3 & Quake 4 have been announced as launch titles for the XBox 360. While that's really cool for Microsoft that means nothing to me as I don't particularly like that style of game. 

It should be noted that while XBox Live (Silver) is free, a broadband internet connection is required in order to use it (which isn't so free).


----------



## Allanon (May 17, 2005)

Although the nintendo revolution is still not officially revealed from the rumors surrounding it and the facts from the unveilings of both the Xbox360 and the PS3 it's safe to say the Xbox 360 will be the weakest (in pure power) of the three consoles with the PS3 the most likely candidate for the top position. But then the Xbox360 will be released almost a year earlier than the other two which could give it a significant lead if it can ship with some stellar games.


----------



## Michael Morris (May 17, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Oh I severely doubt that.  The PSP was 300 dollars and that is without all thegadgets.  As the videogame generation matures so does the hardware and these next ones are going to be able to do more stuff than ever.  Look for 500 dollar machines, maybe 450.




$300 debuts are a tradition in the video game industry stretching all the way back to the Atari 2600 (yes, in 1978 it too debuted at $299, and back then $299 was worth a lot more  ) I doubt it's a trend likely to change

(Only a few systems have bucked the trend - notably Neo Geo and the Nintendo NES, debuting at $1000 and $200 respectively).


----------



## Allanon (May 17, 2005)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> $300 debuts are a tradition in the video game industry stretching all the way back to the Atari 2600 (yes, in 1978 it too debuted at $299, and back then $299 was worth a lot more  ) I doubt it's a trend likely to change
> 
> (Only a few systems have bucked the trend - notably Neo Geo and the Nintendo NES, debuting at $1000 and $200 respectively).



 I agree with Michael here, even if one of the three would opt for a higher starting price the other two would then quickly capitalize on that and price their respective offerings below that price. All three know that for the budget minded mother or father (which remain one of the largest buyer groups out there) price is everything.


----------



## drothgery (May 17, 2005)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> (Only a few systems have bucked the trend - notably Neo Geo and the Nintendo NES, debuting at $1000 and $200 respectively).




The GameCube (and the SNES, IIRC) debuted at $199. The Saturn debuted at $399. The N64 launched at $249.


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 17, 2005)

Lobo Lurker said:
			
		

> Halo 3 & Quake 4 have been announced as launch titles for the XBox 360. While that's really cool for Microsoft that means nothing to me as I don't particularly like that style of game.




I'm not sure about Quake 4, but Halo 3 isn't an Xbox 360 launch title ("launch title" means within three months of release; expected 360 release is November).  The plan they're going with is to release Halo 3 when the PS3 releases in Spring '06 (guessing that means a release around May).


----------



## Mystery Man (May 17, 2005)

I say I'm not going to rush out and buy one when it first comes out but I know I will. I'm weak.


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 17, 2005)

Allanon said:
			
		

> Although the nintendo revolution is still not officially revealed from the rumors surrounding it and the facts from the unveilings of both the Xbox360 and the PS3 it's safe to say the Xbox 360 will be the weakest (in pure power) of the three consoles with the PS3 the most likely candidate for the top position. But then the Xbox360 will be released almost a year earlier than the other two which could give it a significant lead if it can ship with some stellar games.




While I don't know about the Revolution (ironic that the 360 is based around a "revolution" marketing scheme, isn't it?), I'd say that's probably true.  I think the Xbox 360 won't have more than a 6 month head start on the PS3, but getting in at the holiday season, and the ambush of Halo 3 at PS3's release, should give Microsoft a much stronger position.  

Will not being top-dog graphically mean Microsoft loses its footing?  Having the most advanced system didn't topple the PS2.  I have little doubt that Sony will continue to dominate the console market.  I do think, though, we're going to see more and more of its user base eroded by Microsoft.  The Xbox is really hanging in there, and making steps forward.  I was watching the E3 videos of both Sony and Microsoft unveiling the new systems earlier, and it's pretty shocking how much Sony is relying on the "we're the most power system now" crutch, with very dry and lengthy dialogue accompanying charts and graphs.  Not to get into a consolewar type attitude, but that seems like a bad idea to me.  Microsoft's demonstration was far more engaging and entertaining.

I'm personally going to get a 360 if the price at release isn't insane.  It's simply the console that makes games I want to play, at this point.  I purchased a PS2 out of a sense of obligation long ago, because it was the "gamer's console" and because of my fondness for having played RE1 on the PS1 so long ago, and quickly discovered I couldn't stand most of its current top line-up.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 17, 2005)

Allanon said:
			
		

> But then the Xbox360 will be released almost a year earlier than the other two which could give it a significant lead if it can ship with some stellar games.




Actually the PS3 will be coming out in spring of 2006, that's only four months, I doubt it will be faster than the Xbox...  IMHO Sony seems scared in this fight...  Their releasing information quicker than they planned to and I think they just bumped up their initial release date in the hopes of delaying Xbox 360's  momentum.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/video_game_expo


----------



## trancejeremy (May 17, 2005)

Well, actually, Sony always planned to release the PS3 info now at E3.  It was MS that moved up releasing details on the Xbox 360 in that stupid MTV special before E3 to avoid a conflict with Sony.

I really doubt Sony is scared. If anything, they are probably too dismissive of MS.

Anyway, the specs of the PS3 are very impressive. On paper, about twice as powerful as the Xbox 360 and seemingly does everything the Xbox 360 does but does it better. It also seems to have more software already running on it. 

People say that all you need is a head start, but that never worked for Sega. They had a head start with both the Saturn and the Dreamcast. And to say the power of the Xbox isn't an advantage isn't true - for multiplatform games, usually the Xbox version sells better,  presumably because they look better. (Just this week, Star Wars for the Xbox outsold Star Wars for the PS2.)

I think in order to have made a lot of inroads MS would have had to be first and be more powerful. MS seems to be relying more on marketing this time around - MTV, soft drinks, trying to be hip & cool. Which could work, but ultimately is going to be shallow.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 17, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Well, actually, Sony always planned to release the PS3 info now at E3.  It was MS that moved up releasing details on the Xbox 360 in that stupid MTV special to avoid a conflict with Sony.




Sony, actually released the specs before E3 Today...  Maybe it was in error but I heard about it on the radio on my way to work today...  Of course you can't link to a radio transmission so you can either believe more or not Sony released the new early.

And you of course can have your own opinion as to why they did it also.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 17, 2005)

Well, apparently both Sony & MS had originally planned to release the specs on their new consoles on the same day before E3 (which would be monday) - it's something of a tradition to release info just before E3.  But when MS learned of those plans by Sony to have it on the same day, they moved the Xbox 360 debut to that MTV special.


http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=7919


----------



## driver8 (May 17, 2005)

Well Ive seen the Xbox 360, specs for the PS3, and seen pics and general info of the Revolution. I must be getting jaded, since Im not that excited. I keep hearing about online play, wireless networking, high def, and the other buzzwords of this generation of tech, but I keep getting the feeling that the companies-MS especially- are trying to make the uber tv top box that does a whole lot of things..the digital hub thingee.

Me I want games..I want a box that does games well. And I want innovation. All that memory and high def means zilch if all we get is updates of franchises. At least the Nintendo DS offers new ways to interact and view games..and I want all this new hardware to do the same for consoles.

I had all 3 consoles this generation but I played relatively few games. There were sone killer games, original ones as well, but so much was just the same ole thing prettied up. Maybe I am getting jaded.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 17, 2005)

driver8 said:
			
		

> I had all 3 consoles this generation but I played relatively few games. There were sone killer games, original ones as well, but so much was just the same ole thing prettied up. Maybe I am getting jaded.





Maybe it ways you are...  Success mimics success.  Both GFA and KotoR have spawned successors that have been alot like the ones before them but they have all sold very, very well.  While I think Bioware and, oh I forgot there name, should be able to reap this and reward themselves, and the players, with more of the same thing but other companies are trying to copy that successes also…

But really except for few things, mostly do to an increase in performance, games haven’t really changed all that much.

Note: I know that last line is very board and I'm not trying to say its the end all of be all of things so don’t hate me for it.


----------



## Kri8or (May 17, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about Quake 4, but Halo 3 isn't an Xbox 360 launch title ("launch title" means within three months of release; expected 360 release is November).  The plan they're going with is to release Halo 3 when the PS3 releases in Spring '06 (guessing that means a release around May).




Elder Scrolls IV is also going to be released for the 360. I don't know if it's a "launch title," but the ES4 promo sheet just has PC and XBox 360 listed on it.


----------



## Gilwen (May 17, 2005)

I think that the 360 is more flexible as it is made to be a home entertianment center piece and the PS3 is more advanced at specfic things and designed more to be a console. In practice I think overall the two machines are well matched and will deliver a great deal of performance. The real fight and issue isn't whose machine is the most technically greater but whose system is easy to develop for, having uber hardware and crappy software tools means mediocore performance and games that do not utilize that uber hardware. I am sure both companies are addressing this issue but ultimately the game publishers will decide which console is better by the quality of the games and how well the games they pump out utilize the hardware. I think MS has and edge in this area, like MS or not they do have some really good tools. I think MS console market share will catch up to sony's this time around. One industry analyst predicts MS's share growing to 38% with Sony's dropping to 32%, while I don't think it'll grow that much I do think that Sony and MS will be more evenly distributed. One thing is for sure, it will be one helluva fight and I am gonna watch it blow by blow!

Gilwen


----------



## Lazybones (May 18, 2005)

I'd love to see the market share distributed 35/35/30 between MS, Sony, and Nintendo. More competition = better choices for gamers, and I think that the revelations thus far on the nextgen consoles from e3 bears this out. 

I skipped the last generation of consoles entirely, but I was already thinking Xbox360 before e3. Now I'm thinking I may wait until the PS3 is released, but either way, my chances of getting one of the nextgen consoles is pretty good. 

The things I like about my PC: graphics, online multiplayer gaming, wireless networking, multimedia... I am pleased to see more of this in the next generation of consoles.  I'm not going to give up my PC gaming anytime soon, but I miss having a living room system where friends can kick back and play games. 

Now, to begin the campaign of spouse-persuasion...


----------



## Truth Seeker (May 18, 2005)

As it stands, after seeing it in print *check the SCI FI news section* and checking at the XBox site, itself *just finished viewing E3 press release for Microsoft & XB 360*, certain best seller games for the Original XBox, will be backward compatible. No list has been provided as of yet. but you can research within your stock, and count which games are considered high sellers, that will be making the transition to XB 360.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 18, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> As it stands, after seeing it in print *check the SCI FI news section*




The what?  (aka got a link?)


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 18, 2005)

I'm betting this "top rated games" qualifier to backwards compatibility is just to cover the fact that, inevitably, some games don't work on new systems.  It happened on the PS2 as well, from what I read.  I'd be really surprised if they had decided "okay only Halo, Fable, and KotoR will be playable on the 360".


----------



## Lazybones (May 18, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> I'm betting this "top rated games" qualifier to backwards compatibility is just to cover the fact that, inevitably, some games don't work on new systems.  It happened on the PS2 as well, from what I read.  I'd be really surprised if they had decided "okay only Halo, Fable, and KotoR will be playable on the 360".



Oh, and Jade Empire... I haven't seen any word on a PC port of that one; add it to the list.


----------



## John Crichton (May 18, 2005)

While I am excited to hear more and more about these Next Gen consoles I still haven't seen any games that I just gotta have yet.  I'm sure I will but in order to take advantage of their head-start the Xbox360 better have some gamepower to back it up.  Not having Halo 3 for launch hurts.  If there are games that I need to have for the 360, I'll buy it launch day.  If not, I'll wait.

Microsoft will never overtake Sony's consoles if they continue to get less exclusive support.  They need the Square-Enix/Rockstar/Capcom/Konami's of the world to give them support of their games rather than Sony.  Until that happens, Sony will always be the console of choice.  Selection makes all the difference.

Side note:  I am really excited about the PS3.    Blue-ray.  Oh yeah.


----------



## Truth Seeker (May 18, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> The what? (aka got a link?)




*Link* Provided.


----------



## Branduil (May 18, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Yeah, The Big N has stuck around because of Pokemon & Gameboy.  But if they don't hurry up and start making some better DS games they are going to get killed by the Sony's PSP.




Eh, the DS is outselling the PSP by more than 2:1 worldwide right now. I don't think they're worried, especially with Nintenddogs, online Mario Kart, a new 2D Mario, and online Animal Crossing coming out.

Personally I'm really excited about the Revolution. Just the thought of being able to download Nintendo games from the past 20 years is enough to sway me.


----------



## Allanon (May 18, 2005)

After seeing pictures of all three consoles
Playstation 3









Nintendo Revolution





Which one do you find most 'attractive'? I for one like the design of the Xbox360, clean, sleek.


----------



## stevelabny (May 18, 2005)

design wise? 
the gamecube wins. i want a big SCREEN to play on, but the smaller the other electronics, the better.

that ps3 boomerang controller is scary.

everyone keeps babbling ps3 vs xbox and isnt taking two things into account.
if the nintendo library is free or cheap, that is a HUGE draw. 
and when mario kart/tennis/golf/party etc go online? forget about it. 

EVERYONE and their brother (and sister and mother and children and you get the idea) will have mario kart online.


----------



## Allanon (May 18, 2005)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> everyone keeps babbling ps3 vs xbox and isnt taking two things into account.
> if the nintendo library is free or cheap, that is a HUGE draw.



Is it? How much value (besides sentimental) does a prehistoric game like Metroid, Kid Icarus or Zelda really have for the normal teenager out there? I don't think they'll be all that hyped up about being able to play Bionic Commando after all these years. Or interested in trying their hand at the original Metal Gear. 

Face it, with all the emulators out there I already can play most if not all of the old Nintendo games library. It's a nice add-on for those of us old enough to remember the Cuba Crisis but since the buying public will greatly consist of hormonally imbalanced teens I foresee a greater future for the kick-ass graphics of new games than for the innovative game play or endless replay value of the old Nintendo library.

_Allanon who still plays Metroid, Castlevania, Zelda and MegaMan on occasion._


----------



## trancejeremy (May 18, 2005)

Sheesh, they're all pretty ugly, aren't they? Sort of combining the Art deco look with the melted plastic look. 

And what's the deal with all of them being upright? Does anyone ever actually use it that way? Seems very prone to having a cat or dog or sibling or offspring knock it over. 

And the boomerang controller for the PS3? Yikes. Someone could put an eye out with those.

Anyway, like past consoles, it really comes down to games more than anything else. I'll  eventually be buying a PS3 for GT5 (or whatever they call it) and Japanese RPGs and Strategy games. And an Xbox 360 for Forza 2 and DOA:Beach Volleyball 2 and KOTOR3 (if it comes out and is an exclusive).  And millions will buy the Nintendo one for Mario games and Pokemon


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 18, 2005)

None of the new console designs really interests me.  I do like how tiny the Nintendo systems have been of late.  They just really need bigger controllers; the GameCube one nearly crippled me to play Metroid Prime.  Maybe the Revolution will correct that, but I doubt it.

The Xbox looks again too much like a PC (now a melted tower), and the Playstation is too much like my modem.

Being able to download all previous Nintendo games for the Revolution is simply one of the best uses of online capability put into a machine, imo.  It caters far more to people, like myself, who have no interest in online competition, but still want to get use out of an online connection.  They really hit on a great idea with that.  Not everyone likes or feels comfortable using emulation on a PC, if they know how to do it at all.  Being able to play Nintendo games from any era on a Nintendo console is really a stroke of innovation on their part.  It almost makes up for the DS....almost.  

Like before, Nintendo has managed to make a system that actually interests me enough to buy it along with one of the bigger two.  I won't buy it at release, but I'm pretty sure, like the Gamecube, I'll get one eventually.  I suspect a lot of Nintendo's buyers will fall into that same category.  While it may not be their glory days, at least they're adding variety in a consolewar which is boiling down to "the same, but better".


----------



## James Heard (May 18, 2005)

I think they're all too silver, need more LED/lightshow/geekbling than anyone would ever really want in actual practice, that the Nintendo looks too much like an XBox, and all of them would be improved by looking like something really "different". I dunno, maybe if they showed me how it would hang on my wall like a weird piece of art or something. Are all the controllers wireless by default now? That would be something nice - I don't know how many times I've limped for a week from tripping over controllers and doing a backflip.


----------



## Allanon (May 18, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> I think they're all too silver, need more LED/lightshow/geekbling than anyone would ever really want in actual practice, that the Nintendo looks too much like an XBox, and all of them would be improved by looking like something really "different". I dunno, maybe if they showed me how it would hang on my wall like a weird piece of art or something. Are all the controllers wireless by default now? That would be something nice - I don't know how many times I've limped for a week from tripping over controllers and doing a backflip.



 For the moment all of them announced that their controllers would be wireless. The PS3 can accomodate 7 controller through bluetooth. The Xbox360 has room for 4 controllers. And I have no idea about the revolution.


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 18, 2005)

James Heard said:
			
		

> the Nintendo looks too much like an XBox




How is that?  It's a tiny gray box!  And that slot for the DVDs/CDs...snazzy!  My only real complaint against the Revolution is that it has a stand.


----------



## Digital M@ (May 18, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Oh I severely doubt that.  The PSP was 300 dollars and that is without all thegadgets.  As the videogame generation matures so does the hardware and these next ones are going to be able to do more stuff than ever.  Look for 500 dollar machines, maybe 450.





I disagree that the market will support that cost.  Even the $299 boxes quickly lowered their prices.  It may start high and take the high margins on the "hard core" gamers who feel a need to own the newest system, but within a year there will be a significant price drop.  I could be wrong, if no competition hits the street until after a year, there probably will be no change in price.


----------



## Gilwen (May 18, 2005)

I am looking for the entry price to stick pretty close to $299. Also, I am looking for there to be bundles on release day that exceed $500. They don't have to make money on the consoles because that is not where the money is, the money is in the software and licensing fees for the games and online services. MS has a really solid business model for their online service and incorpating the marketplace into it is about the single best thing they have done with the xbox franchise (at least on paper,hopefully it bears fruit), the xbl spectator mode is kinda cool too. This takes advantage of a huge opportunity not only for MS but for their game publishers and business partners as well. And as for support how does 25 - 40 titles at launch sound? Final Fantasy XI, Ghost Recon 3, EA games has 6 titles being released at luanch that look awesome and there are 160 titles in development. If you haven't seen the trailers for the games on any platform you should because the year of the console is upon us  hehe.


----------



## WizarDru (May 18, 2005)

Allanon said:
			
		

> Is it? How much value (besides sentimental) does a prehistoric game like Metroid, Kid Icarus or Zelda really have for the normal teenager out there? I don't think they'll be all that hyped up about being able to play Bionic Commando after all these years. Or interested in trying their hand at the original Metal Gear.




Sales of the GBA versions of these games and collections of Sonic and Megaman would seem to indicate otherwise.  I can assure you, my son thinks the old Megaman games are awesome, for example.  It's all a matter of pricepoints, really: if you could pay $2.50 to play a copy of Majora's Mask on your Revolution, would you do it?  I think most folks would.  Imagine if they decide to release games never seen on US shores, too.  I think this is a real potential win for Nintendo.

As for the console race, here's an e-mail I sent to my gaming group yesterday:

*Backwards compatability:*  All three will have it, but Xbox 360 prolly won't have complete out of the box, and I expect it will require an upgrade post-launch.  MS is talking it up now, but even last week, they were still sort of shaky about it.  PS3 should prolly be a no-brainer.  Nintendo, however, has upped the ante considerably with the download capability of the Revolution.  Plus, I suspect from veiled comments they made yesterday, the Revolution will probably be more like a cube 1.5, and hence much easier to develop for (hopefully generating RE4-quality games right out of the gate, this time).  Nintendo is the clear winner here, I think.

*Performance:*  All three boxes are Titans...ON PAPER.  The 360 probably has the edge here, since Sony's tech is vague ("Cell processing", the "Emotion Engine"?), probably still being nailed down and further out.  We have no idea what Nintendo's using, yet, but consider that the cube is on a par with the Xbox and Nintendo has a tendency to downplay their capabilities at launch.  Nintendo is saying only about 3x as powerful than the cube, while Sony is saying 30x more powerful.  I'm less inclined to believe Sony, here (Anyone remember when we were told the PS/2 would be so powerful it could render Toy Story in real time?) The debate is more about architecture, but I think it's safe to say that all three will push the pixels.

*Graphics:* Two consoles using ATI, one using Nvidia (Sony).  Sony may be the winner here, but it's hard to tell what's real and what's fake in the demo movies.  Killzone's trailer is astounding...but I don't think it's real, so much as a cutscene.  On the other hand, MGS2 was just as astounding as its demo, so who knows?  MS had less to show, but we've certainly got little reason to believe they can't push the pixels.  Nintendo is acting as if they're above the 'bigger, better' aspect of the competition, but I suspect they'll do admirably, if not necessarily in the same class as the other two.

*Wireless/Internet:* So far, Xbox is the clear leader.  Live Silver is free on the box, upgrqadeable to Live Gold.  All three will be wireless, have wireless controllers and (I think it's safe to assume) be internet-ready. Only the Nintendo and Sony will have connections directly to their handheld devices, though, and I expect to see some fancy integration with the PSP and DS and the new consoles.  MS has an advantage though, in having a service that is in second-generation, and the first iteration was the best out there, compared to Sony's half-assed and half-hearted attempt and Nintendo's total no-show (one f'ing game, and it was a dreamcast redux?).  All three are talking the talk for wireless and internet...but let's see how they actuall walk the walk.

*Convergence:* Yesterday, I would have said that Xbox 360 was the clear winner...today?  Maybe not.  The Sony looks to be aiming for the living room appliance, just like the Xbox....but Sony has a sucky, sucky history with this.  I have a word for you: ATRAC.  Sony makes great hardware, but as you PSP owners know, the software can have some glaring design irritations in them. Plus, Sony tends to shoot themselves in the foot.  Microsoft is pushing integration with the iPod...pretty smart on their part, since 83% of the market uses 'em.  Will Sony bite the bullet and work with their chief competitor in that market, or will they put on their blinders and try and force another proprietary format?  MS has already talked about hooking a Rio player directly into the Xbox 360 and transferring straight to it...will Sony pony up to their biggest competitor in that space?  Nintendo, of course, isn't even in this competition.  No DVD support without an attachment?  I mean, I don't ever intend to use it for such, but still, how expensive a feature could that have been, guys?  Nintendo has USB ports and an SD-flash card slot...but they haven't done more than slyly alude to its use.

*Home Theater:* Tough Call, here.  The Sony will feature a Blu-Ray disc...which is a gamble.  The PS/2 sold massively because, at the time, it was a dirt-cheap DVD player that also happened to be a kick-ass game console.  That's smart thinking, if it works.  Sony claims they'll support up to 1080p (not that any current TVs do), but historically, their support for HDTV formats has been the suck...precious few PS/2 games are more than standard-def...whereas many Xbox games are and most Nintendo games are.  The
question is how well Sony will support the HT concept.  The Blu-Ray drive will support SACD, DVD-Audio and Blu-Ray discs....but will Sony's DRM make it useless?  Both are talking about streaming media: whosoever    makes it so I can play Doctor Who MPEGs directly on the TV through their device wins, IMHO.  Nintendo is staying clear of the whole HT concept; they're making a games machine, pure and simple.

*Controllers:* Hmmm.  The Xbox looks like a funky controller S.  That's good.  Sony's new controller...looks like a Bang & Olufsen Boomerang, really.  No idea how it feels in the hand.  Could be good, could be bad.  Nintendo obviously thinks they've got something awesome going on in their controller design...but what?  Could be the next wavebird...could be the next powerglove. 

*Games:* Sony traditionally has won the category for most games, but Xbox has gotten the best PC Translations.  Half Life 2 is coming to the Xbox (orig.) and it looks pretty darned good.  Doom 3 is already on the Xbox, and looks just about the same as the PC version.  Sony gets all the best exclusives from Japanese developers...but Billy G.'s no fool, and he's been using lush cash to lure Squre/Enix and other prized Japanese developers to the 360. Sony better put up their dukes, or become the next Nintendo.  This is where
Sony traditionally has been very strong, so I think they'll continue.  MS has to come to the table with more than just Halo 3.  Nintendo has always had good games, but they need more third-party support.  They need more Resident Evil 4s, more Killer 7s, more exclusives of any kind.  Games are ultimately what sell the console, not features on paper: people buy PS/2s for God of War, not for a processor chip.  Zelda is a killer app, but it can't bear all the weight.

*Connectivity*: All of them appear to support lots of formats and devices, and I think they've all learned from the changing marketplace.  All of them have slots to support different memory cards, USB and ethernet connections.  The real issue is what you can use them for; at this point, no real leader, IMHO.

*Price*: We don't know on this one, of course.  Microsoft has an advantage/disadvantage that, as first to market, they set the tone.  Regardless of what Kaz may say, they'll react to the Xbox 360's price when they release the PS3.  Nintendo will probably be in a vaccuum, but Nintendo is also very much likely to come in as the least expensive...which will probably sell more of their consoles for that reason alone.

Personally, I'm not sure what to think.  I think the game is still Sony's to lose, but it's going to be quite a fight for first place, and Sony's showing up real late to the party, this time.  The question is: is MS early or Sony late?  And will Nintendo's cagey strategy work for them, or bite them on the butt, again?  Why are they shooting themselves in the foot? Again?!?


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 18, 2005)

Not exactly news on the 360, but news on the price front in general, courtesy of Gamespot:


QUOTE:
"Given that the console's Nvidia-tech-based RSX "Reality Synthesizer" graphics chip is more powerful than two GeForce 6800 Ultra video cards, which retail for around $1,000 by themselves, many suspected the console cost as least as much as a medium-end gaming PC. However, Sony will have to be competitively priced or risk being undercut by the Microsoft Xbox 360 or Nintendo Revolution. 

It now appears that Sony may opt for a compromise price-wise, according to the Mainichi Daily News. An article which ran on the Japanese newspaper's Web site the PlayStation 3 could potentially sell for under $500. "The new machine, which will have a higher performance capacity than personal computers and provide sophisticated movie-quality images, will be priced at less than 50,000 yen each, according to [Sony] officials," said the paper. 

At today's exchange rate, 50,000 yen is $465.58--more than the $299 many expect the Xbox 360 to sell for, but less than the $699 to $799 PS3 price tag many had feared. If Sony follows the pattern it set which the PSP, which sells for around $190 in Japan and $249 in the US, the console will likely be slightly costlier stateside. 

As of press time, Sony officials were unavailable for comment on the Mainichi Daily News article. "


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 18, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> At today's exchange rate, 50,000 yen is $465.58--more than the $299 many expect the Xbox 360 to sell for, but less than the $699 to $799 PS3 price tag many had feared.




I've own pretty much every game system since the NES, I can only think of the TG16 and the NEO GEO that I didn't/don't own, but even I think I would bulk at the price tag of 450-500 dollars when the Xbox 360 is sitting at 299...


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 18, 2005)

We don't know for sure yet what the 360 will be priced.  I wonder if that wasn't the plan behind why Microsoft went with lower specs than Sony, to massively undercut them on price.


----------



## Gilwen (May 18, 2005)

I do think that that MS is cutting cost's by not supporting the new DVD HD format and not including blueray drives and both ethernet and wireless networking. which would only drive up the prices. To me the storage capacity of the disk isn't an issue...you won't get better performance just because you disk is bigger and just because you can cram a whole crap load of stuff on the blueray disrc's doesn't mean  your machine can process that info any faster. One cool thing about the PS3 is it has two video outs that can be used to create a panoramic view with two HD 16:9 tv's side by side to create a 32:9 extra wide screen, cool but then who has two 16:9 screens sitting around?
The article didn't say if you could use the two outs for separate displays for multiplayer games, now that would rock 7 ppl playing on two screen off the same box!

Gil


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 18, 2005)

Their not supporting HD-DVD is pretty strange, considering their whole presentation on Monday started off talking about this being the "HD age".


----------



## Gilwen (May 18, 2005)

I thought so too. The article I saw had MS stating that they didn't think that the format would be widely adopted or something like that. If I find the article I"ll post a link.

Gil


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 18, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Their not supporting HD-DVD is pretty strange, considering their whole presentation on Monday started off talking about this being the "HD age".




MS is taking sides in the Blue Ray HD-DVD format wars that going to be on the ugly side of VCR Beta wars of long ago.  (There's is no set standard yet.)


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 18, 2005)

Right, I think most people expected MS to back HD-DVD, since Sony was doing Blu-Ray.  That they decided to skip the new DVD formats all together, while selling the Xbox 360 as part of the "HD Age" doesn't make any sense to me.  If the 360 is to become a centerpiece in our entertainment centers, you really need it to play the new dvds.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 18, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> Right, I think most people expected MS to back HD-DVD, since Sony was doing Blu-Ray.  That they decided to skip the new DVD formats all together, while selling the Xbox 360 as part of the "HD Age" doesn't make any sense to me.  If the 360 is to become a centerpiece in our entertainment centers, you really need it to play the new dvds.




Its still some time away...  When is this new format going to become the new standard? (5-7 years?)

And the dive could be replaced, etc...  To me it makes no sense to support the unknown right now...  

Sony sees it the other way around cause Blue Ray is there creation.


----------



## Allanon (May 18, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Sales of the GBA versions of these games and collections of Sonic and Megaman would seem to indicate otherwise.  I can assure you, my son thinks the old Megaman games are awesome, for example.  It's all a matter of pricepoints, really: if you could pay $2.50 to play a copy of Majora's Mask on your Revolution, would you do it?  I think most folks would.  Imagine if they decide to release games never seen on US shores, too.  I think this is a real potential win for Nintendo.




Sure your example sounds alluring... it's also baseless speculating. Sure $2,50 sounds great for a great game like Majora's Mask (you do know which game to pick for your example), but what if it's $5,00 for something like Cobra Triangle, or Paperboy? Doesn't look that alluring to me.

Also the fact that something sells on the GBA, a completely different platform from the revolution isn't that good of an argument. For the moment the possibility of downloading games from the Nintendo Nes/Snes library is a good feature for the Revolution but it's hardly a killer deal.


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 18, 2005)

Gilwen said:
			
		

> I thought so too. The article I saw had MS stating that they didn't think that the format would be widely adopted or something like that. If I find the article I"ll post a link.
> 
> Gil




I read something where it said the new DVD format drives were too new, and too high cost.


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 18, 2005)

My main problem is still the Router thing. Why can't MS put a pass-through (like modems have for phone lines) in the system?


----------



## drothgery (May 18, 2005)

Couple things to note here (obRepeatedDisclaimer: I'm in the Xbox camp with the current generation, though I own all three consoles, and really think going down the massively parallel CPU route was a dumb move for both Sony and Microsoft; if I had a handy few hundred million dollars, I think I'd launch the DaveBox -- a bit less capable than the PS3 and Xbox 360, but with a much more normal architecture, so developers will be up to speed on the thing before 2008)...

1) Apparently, if you figure things the same way for both consoles, the capabilities of the two systems are very close (in terms of CPU and GPU). The Xbox 360 is much better at integer math; the PS3 is better at floating point.

2) Microsoft went with standard DVDs as the storage media for Xbox 360 because there certainly won't be a winner in the next-gen format wars by this fall, they can't use Blu-Ray without paying royalties to Sony (and unlike Sony, have no real interest in promoting the format), and very few Xbox games used more than 3GB (about 1/3rd of a single-sided, double-layer DVD). It's likely that any game that needs more storage could simply be put on multiple DVDs; multi-CD games weren't really a problem on the PlayStation (or on the PC, in the time window where installing a 5-CD game to your hard drive was impractical).

In recent interviews, Microsoft higher-ups have said there's a good chance that they'll do a version with next-gen (HD-DVD or Blu-Ray) playback capability later (once it's clear they won't be doing the equivalent of including a Beta VCR), though games will still be standard DVDs.

3) Sony's PS3 demos at E3 are mostly pre-rendered (even if they're trying to imply otherwise); Microsoft's Xbox 360 demos are mostly actual games running on alpha dev kits (modified dual-G5 Power Macs with Radeon X850XT cards, which are roughly 1/3rd the performance -- for gaming -- of a real Xbox 360).


----------



## Allanon (May 19, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> 1) Apparently, if you figure things the same way for both consoles, the capabilities of the two systems are very close (in terms of CPU and GPU). The Xbox 360 is much better at integer math; the PS3 is better at floating point.



Mmm, from what piece of evidence is this conclusion drawn? I'm not saying it's false, but taking into account the facts about the cell posted on Anandtech and a boatload of other techsites I'm not sure this statement is true. The GPU part at the least isn't, from the released information of both parties the PS3's GPU is more powerfull than the Xbox 360's.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> 3) Sony's PS3 demos at E3 are mostly pre-rendered (even if they're trying to imply otherwise); Microsoft's Xbox 360 demos are mostly actual games running on alpha dev kits (modified dual-G5 Power Macs with Radeon X850XT cards, which are roughly 1/3rd the performance -- for gaming -- of a real Xbox 360).



Then again the running demo's from the presentation were run on actual Xbox360 hardware. It's the demo's running at the Xbox360 stands which are 1/3rd performance. The developers even admitted in tuning down their games (for example no Anti-Aliasing) for those demo's. So in the end, it's the normal smoke and mirrors from both sides of the fence. Actual performance will remain shrouded in mystery as long as real working consoles aren't available.


----------



## drothgery (May 19, 2005)

Allanon said:
			
		

> Mmm, from what piece of evidence is this conclusion drawn? I'm not saying it's false, but taking into account the facts about the cell posted on Anandtech and a boatload of other techsites I'm not sure this statement is true. The GPU part at the least isn't, from the released information of both parties the PS3's GPU is more powerfull than the Xbox 360's.




The big thing here is that Sony's adding pixel and vertex shaders when they get their "2 teraflop" number, and so producing numbers that aren't reasonably comprable to the Xbox 360's unified shader architecture.

It's also true that Sony's announced some completely useless features (Really, who would ever game on two 16:9 displays? Even if you could afford it, wouldn't you just buy one bigger TV instead? And since virtually no 1080p TVs exist, supporting 1080p seems kind of silly.).


----------



## WizarDru (May 19, 2005)

Allanon said:
			
		

> Sure your example sounds alluring... it's also baseless speculating. Sure $2,50 sounds great for a great game like Majora's Mask (you do know which game to pick for your example), but what if it's $5,00 for something like Cobra Triangle, or Paperboy? Doesn't look that alluring to me.
> 
> Also the fact that something sells on the GBA, a completely different platform from the revolution isn't that good of an argument. For the moment the possibility of downloading games from the Nintendo Nes/Snes library is a good feature for the Revolution but it's hardly a killer deal.




I didn't mean to imply that it was.  The question was raised "is being able to download older games a draw?", and IMHO it is one.  It's not a killer feature, but it could be a tipping point, and Nintendo knows it.  We're already gettting announcements by companies that their older catalogs are going to be available through Nintendo's service, so the broader the support, the more popular it will be.  More importantly, it opens a whole new avenue for game and content distribution...if successful, it could have wide-reaching implications.

My point with the GBA games was that everyone commonly assumed that Nintendo was nuts for releasing $20 GBA versions of NES games...and they sold like hotcakes.  When you consider that Nintendo has a very loyal fanbase, you can extrapolate outwards to the consoles.  Nintendo is clearly trying to position themselves in a horizontal move away from Sony and MS.  Whether that will succeed or fail remains to be seen...but Nintendo hasn't lost money on a console, yet, even if they haven't won the number one spot.

Right now, Sony and MS are locked in a tight battle for number one.  If I believed Killzone was real, I'd say Sony was winning.  If Microsoft hadn't just admitted that 'backwards-compatible' apparently doesn't mean the same thing to them that it does to US, I'd say they were winning.  Not that it really matters much.

Me, I just want to play more games.  Right now, I'd really like to go play some more "God of War"...if not for this stupid "work" thing.


----------



## mojo1701 (May 19, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to imply that it was.  The question was raised "is being able to download older games a draw?", and IMHO it is one.  It's not a killer feature, but it could be a tipping point, and Nintendo knows it.  We're already gettting announcements by companies that their older catalogs are going to be available through Nintendo's service, so the broader the support, the more popular it will be.  More importantly, it opens a whole new avenue for game and content distribution...if successful, it could have wide-reaching implications.




So true. I've been wanting to play "GoldenEye," or hoping that it comes out for Cube like Zeldas: Ocarina of Time Masterquest and Majora's Mask came out for Cube, either through pre-ordering or something (impossible, I know, since Rare developed GoldenEye, and they aren't with Nintendo...).


----------



## WizarDru (May 19, 2005)

Maybe it is, and maybe it's not.  I mean, it would require a new agreement, but I'd bet that many companies would be willing to revisit those old partnerships if it essentially meant new revenue with virtually no outlay of cash.  Remember, Nintendo's licensing was pretty stringent...they may have the rights to do it already, though I bet it's a grey area.

Masterquest already did come out on the 'cube with the Windwaker preview CD that had Ocarina of Time.  I have no doubt Majora's Mask will be available on the new service.


----------



## ohGr (May 19, 2005)

You _might_ be able to get Goldeneye and other Rare games through this service.  IIRC, throughout the Snes, N64 and early-GC era, Rare was a second-party developer, with Nintendo publishing most of their games.  At one point, Ninty held as much as 49% of Rare's stock.  While i certainly don't know the specifics of the publishing and license deals, there's a good chance that Nintendo is the one who has say in how Rare's older games get used.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 19, 2005)

So the Xbox 360 isn't backwards compatible? That sucks.  I really should have bought all those retro game compilations for the PS2 instead....


----------



## drothgery (May 19, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> So the Xbox 360 isn't backwards compatible? That sucks.  I really should have bought all those retro game compilations for the PS2 instead....




Not exactly. They've explicitly said that certain top-selling games will be backward compatible. This is yet another reason why I don't like the Xbox 360 architecture (I'd be building a 100% backward compatible, dual-core x86 box with an nVidia GPU, and I'd be launching it in 2006, because if it were the DaveBox, Halo 3, KotOR 3, and DOA4 would be launch games).

What that means is that they're achieving backward compatibility via emulation (the PS2 was backward compatible because it had a PS1 CPU onboard, which was used for audio in PS2 games). Doing things this way means different games will expose different things that need to be emulated. So they're not going to guarantee that everything will work out of the box, or that everything ever will. On the other hand, emulation that works for Halo 2 will get a lot of games to work as well.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 19, 2005)

So far I'm pretty uninterested in all three, but in the end, I'll go (first) wherever the RPGs are (originally the NES/SNES, and now Sony).

I think Microsoft _vastly_ overestimated how "teh awsum" online is, and if too many games rely on it, it will continue to hold them back. It's still too niche for games, and will be so in the forseeable future. If they're looking for massive sales - online gaming ain't it. And online gaming _with additional subscription costs_ sure as hell ain't even close.


----------



## WizarDru (May 19, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> So far I'm pretty uninterested in all three, but in the end, I'll go (first) wherever the RPGs are (originally the NES/SNES, and now Sony).
> 
> I think Microsoft _vastly_ overestimated how "teh awsum" online is, and if too many games rely on it, it will continue to hold them back. It's still too niche for games, and will be so in the forseeable future. If they're looking for massive sales - online gaming ain't it. And online gaming _with additional subscription costs_ sure as hell ain't even close.




I'm not sure I'd agree with that.  The PS/2, which has a very half-hearted online presence, has good online numbers.  Look at Final Fantasy XI: it currently has over 500,000 subscribers.  Xbox-Live has over 1.5 million subscribers, at least.  Nintendo was constantly criticized for it's lack of an online presence.  When Socom II came out for the PS/2, within 48 hours there were 22,000 people playing online.  

I'm sure there are plenty of folks who don't care about online options, at all.  But I think many gamers like to have the option...giving Xbox-Silver out for free is good candy.  More and more games of the current generation support some form of online play...I think MS and Nintendo are correctly reading the potential for the service better than Sony currently is.  Sony traditionally fears or dislikes any system they can't control, and that's the very definition of the 'net.

As for Microsoft's backwards-compatability, all we know so far is this:
Two weeks ago, Microsoft wasn't sure that the X-box would be backwards compatible.
Last week, J. Allard said it sure would be, at least for some of them.
This week, at E3, the story has broken that games will most likely need to be recompiled to run on the Xbox-360.  They are being very vague about it...but I'm assuming some sort of compiler will run on the 360 itself...because if they think I'm buying another copy of an existing game to play on my current Xbox..._they've got another think coming_.  

Right now, it sounds like MS is working really, really hard to get some sort of emulator compatability working, but they don't know if they'll have it ready in time for launch, and are afraid to say so.  This is the disadvantage of their rush to be first.  No one doubts for a minute that the PS/3 will be backwards compatible, nor the Nintendo for that matter.

I think the Xbox-360 will support some games out of the gate (especially the biggest names) and then they'll release updates periodically to fix more games as they go, leveraging Xbox-Live as well.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 19, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Not exactly. They've explicitly said that certain top-selling games will be backward compatible. This is yet another reason why I don't like the Xbox 360 architecture (I'd be building a 100% backward compatible, dual-core x86 box with an nVidia GPU, and I'd be launching it in 2006, because if it were the DaveBox, Halo 3, KotOR 3, and DOA4 would be launch games).
> 
> What that means is that they're achieving backward compatibility via emulation (the PS2 was backward compatible because it had a PS1 CPU onboard, which was used for audio in PS2 games). Doing things this way means different games will expose different things that need to be emulated. So they're not going to guarantee that everything will work out of the box, or that everything ever will. On the other hand, emulation that works for Halo 2 will get a lot of games to work as well.




Ah, see, I thought that was going to be the case, they would have to emulate the Xbox and tweak for the various games (much like Bleem for the Dreamcast, which only got as far as Gran Turismo, I think). But what caused me to write what I said was a report from a website that it's not so much an emulator, but the fact that the software will have to be re-compiled (or possibly re-written) for the 360.  Which seems like a lot more work than just an emulator and thus probably won't be done for anything but the really big games like Halo & Halo 2 & Forza (and maybe not anything not from MS).

Kinda like Doom and Marathon were re-written for Windows - they used the same assets and such, but different .exe

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=8996

"Current-gen Xbox games to be "recompiled" for Xbox 360

Following earlier indications that the Xbox 360 will only be backwards compatible with some Xbox games, Microsoft has admitted that existing software will need to be recompiled before it can be run on the new console.

The problem, it says, is down to hardware incompatibility - since the current Xbox uses an Intel processor, but the 360 will use IBM's PowerPC architecture, while NVIDIA's graphics solution is being replaced with an ATI one.

As many commentators have pointed out over the last few months, this means backwards compatibility problems. The solution Microsoft has reached is apparently to recompiled current-gen Xbox games so that they can be played on the 360. First on the list, it says, are the best-selling Halo titles. "


----------



## trancejeremy (May 19, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'd agree with that.  The PS/2, which has a very half-hearted online presence, has good online numbers.  Look at Final Fantasy XI: it currently has over 500,000 subscribers.  Xbox-Live has over 1.5 million subscribers, at least.  Nintendo was constantly criticized for it's lack of an online presence.  When Socom II came out for the PS/2, within 48 hours there were 22,000 people playing online.
> 
> I'm sure there are plenty of folks who don't care about online options, at all.  But I think many gamers like to have the option...giving Xbox-Silver out for free is good candy.  More and more games of the current generation support some form of online play...I think MS and Nintendo are correctly reading the potential for the service better than Sony currently is.  Sony traditionally fears or dislikes any system they can't control, and that's the very definition of the 'net.




Well, I do think online play is nice, but while Xbox Live might have 1.5 million subscribers, there are something like 20 million Xboxes sold.  So under 10% of the people with an Xbox are playing it online.

Similarly, 22,000 people playing Socom 2 is pretty good, but pales in comparison to the number of copies of the game sold. (Again, probably around the 10% mark)

Sony's problem with online play, at least according to a guy at Sony, is that not all that many people have broadband yet, as it's not available in all areas (I still can't get it where I live) and it's still expensive. And I agree with him - until it's cheap (say $15-20 a month) and available everywhere, online gaming isn't going to take off.


----------



## drothgery (May 19, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Sony's problem with online play, at least according to a guy at Sony, is that not all that many people have broadband yet, as it's not available in all areas (I still can't get it where I live) and it's still expensive.




Bah. Broadband is very widely available today (many cities quite a bit smaller than St. Louis have widely available cable and/or DSL; I had cable five years ago in Rochester, NY, and have it now in San Diego -- and SBC tries to sell me DSL about once a week). And I'm spending $45/mo on a cell phone I use a lot less than the cable modem that costs me the same amount of money.


----------



## WizarDru (May 19, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Well, I do think online play is nice, but while Xbox Live might have 1.5 million subscribers, there are something like 20 million Xboxes sold. So under 10% of the people with an Xbox are playing it online.
> 
> Similarly, 22,000 people playing Socom 2 is pretty good, but pales in comparison to the number of copies of the game sold. (Again, probably around the 10% mark)
> 
> Sony's problem with online play, at least according to a guy at Sony, is that not all that many people have broadband yet, as it's not available in all areas (I still can't get it where I live) and it's still expensive. And I agree with him - until it's cheap (say $15-20 a month) and available everywhere, online gaming isn't going to take off.




True 'dat.  But I would point out that broadband is rapidly overtaking dial-up, and inside of two or three years, it will be in the lead.  And the thing to consider about that 22,000 number is that it was _simultaneous_.  Actual online players would have been much more, just for that title alone.  If every Everquests or WoW subscriber was one at one time....WoW would be just about as slow as always.   That, and you have to consider that Socom was just one game; start adding games like Tony Hawk Underground, ATV offroad fury and so forth, and you start to get some big numbers.  How big, we can only guess.  Yeah, they're still a fraction of the whole, but that number is constantly growing.  Six years ago, no one cared that the PS/2 could do HD...now, many people care...A LOT.  I know I jumped for joy when I found out that "God of War" was in 480p with 16:9 and Surround support.  The consoles have to plan for future capacity...that's why Sony has 1080p listed as a feature, even virtually no one in the whole world has a set capable of that resolution.


----------



## Jeremy (May 20, 2005)

1080p..   *dreams happily*


----------



## Arnwyn (May 20, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'd agree with that.  The PS/2, which has a very half-hearted online presence, has good online numbers.  Look at Final Fantasy XI: it currently has over 500,000 subscribers.  Xbox-Live has over 1.5 million subscribers, at least.  Nintendo was constantly criticized for it's lack of an online presence.  When Socom II came out for the PS/2, within 48 hours there were 22,000 people playing online.



You don't need to agree with that - but the numbers speak for themselves. Your "good online numbers" are, in fact, bad online numbers if the goal is for massive online penetration. And "criticized" for it's lack of online presence? We are all quite aware who did the criticizing in those cases.

The online subscribers for Xbox Live are running under 10% (WizarDru and trancejeremy indeed have the correct numbers), and certainly so for the PS2 - that's not good. Not even 1 out of every 10 people owning the console playing online is, as I stated above, too niche.

_Of course_ it's growing - no one's disputing that. But mainstream and massive numbers? As I stated in my first post: not going to happen. Add subscription costs on top of your ISP costs + console costs + game costs = really not going to happen.


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 20, 2005)

While I'll agree that Xbox Live isn't as popular as Microsoft hypes it, I'm having trouble with claims it's a niche market.  2 million people use it, iirc.  1 million buyers of a game make that a huge success, don't they?

I also don't believe that the monthly charge is such a big hurdle.  Back when I looked into Live, the monthly fee was something like $5.  That's not going to stop people from subscribing.  The thing that kept me out was the need of a router (and the fact that, to begin with, I'm not very keen on PvP; but this was back during the Ninja Gaiden tournament, which had a different setup, a style I hope they'll continue).  I was really hoping they'd just go ahead integrate a pass-through connection on the 360, to eliminate the need of a router.  I think that would have gone the extra mile in helping people feel comfortable using their 360s as an entertainment hub.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 20, 2005)

TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> While I'll agree that Xbox Live isn't as popular as Microsoft hypes it, I'm having trouble with claims it's a niche market.  2 million people use it, iirc.  1 million buyers of a game make that a huge success, don't they?



It is too niche if they're banking too much of the console itself on its use. As I said above, if Microsoft is expecting _massive sales_ (their questionable marketing wankers made them say "1 billion owners" during their E3 conference... WTF?), too much hyping of online isn't going to do it; and if too many games rely on online it'll hold them back. Nobody likes a product that costs _additional_ monthly cash outlays on top of their original purchase to get the full use out of the product.

Now, we obviously have no idea if Microsoft truly will rely on online overmuch for the Xbox 360 (and truthfully, I'm guessing not, if they want to achieve decent sales figures over time). But it is worth noting (which is all I did in my original post).


----------



## drothgery (May 21, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> The consoles have to plan for future capacity...that's why Sony has 1080p listed as a feature, even virtually no one in the whole world has a set capable of that resolution.




Err, not really. Sony picked up some features from nVidia's PC GPUs (the PS3 GPU is a lightly tweaked G70 aka GeForce 7xxx) when they gave up on the idea of using 3 or 4 Cells with no dedicated GPU (which was their original plan). Since it's a PC GPU, it can do PC resolutions and can do dual outputs. If they'd contracted with nVidia earlier in the PS3's development, they'd've had a GPU specifically designed for consoles, and wouldn't support either (because there's no spec for 1080p yet, and nobody is going to hook up their PS3 to two televisions).


----------



## Welverin (May 22, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> People say that all you need is a head start, but that never worked for Sega. They had a head start with both the Saturn and the Dreamcast.




Didn't work to well for the Genesis and Turbograffix 16 either, the SNES ended up about equal with the Genesis in the end.

The power of systems has a long history of not be significant as well, what always seems to have a major impact however is consumer and developer confidence/support, and Final Fantasy (in Japan). The PS2 won the current round because it's the system that got the most (significant) support, and that support existed before much of anything was known about it or anything about the Xbox and Gamcube.

Belief is a powerful thing.


----------



## Welverin (May 22, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I'm sure I will but in order to take advantage of their head-start the Xbox360 better have some gamepower to back it up.  Not having Halo 3 for launch hurts.




Problem is, there's just not enough time. They only released H2 last fall, and fall of next year is pushing it badly as it is. I'll be amazed if they can pull it off at all, it's a new platform after all which means they have to start from the ground up.



> Microsoft will never overtake Sony's consoles if they continue to get less exclusive support.  They need the Square-Enix/Rockstar/Capcom/Konami's of the world to give them support of their games rather than Sony.  Until that happens, Sony will always be the console of choice.  Selection makes all the difference.




One thing would guarantee success, Final Fantasy. It made the PS top dog it would work for MS.



			
				stevelabny said:
			
		

> EVERYONE and their brother (and sister and mother and children and you get the idea) will have mario kart online.




I can guarantee I won't. Or Mario party/tennis/whatever.



			
				mojo1701 said:
			
		

> So true. I've been wanting to play "GoldenEye,"




Licensing issues could very well prevent this (EA now has the Bond rights).



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'd agree with that.  The PS/2, which has a very half-hearted online presence, has good online numbers.  Look at Final Fantasy XI: it currently has over 500,000 subscribers.  Xbox-Live has over 1.5 million subscribers, at least.  Nintendo was constantly criticized for it's lack of an online presence.  When Socom II came out for the PS/2, within 48 hours there were 22,000 people playing online.




Top selling games sell _millions_ of copies, 500,000 isn't a lot in comparison, and 22,000 is downright pathetic. So those two may be good for online games, but compared to the video game market in general they don't merit making online gaming a significant focus of your system. Right now online play is closer to being moreof a buzz word than a central feature.



			
				TwistedBishop said:
			
		

> While I'll agree that Xbox Live isn't as popular as Microsoft hypes it, I'm having trouble with claims it's a niche market.  2 million people use it, iirc.  1 million buyers of a game make that a huge success, don't they?




Two million sounds like a lot, but when you compare it to the total number of system it is a small percentage.

Say you have twenty friends and two of them played D&D, would you say a lot of your friends play D&D?


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 22, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> I can guarantee I won't. Or Mario party/tennis/whatever.




That's possibly the most depressing thing I've heard in weeks.  
Those games are pure entertainment.





			
				Welverin said:
			
		

> Two million sounds like a lot, but when you compare it to the total number of system it is a small percentage.
> 
> Say you have twenty friends and two of them played D&D, would you say a lot of your friends play D&D?





No, but out of the 30 or so people I know that have an XBox 25 or so of them play XBox Live.


----------



## drothgery (May 22, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> The power of systems has a long history of not be significant as well, what always seems to have a major impact however is consumer and developer confidence/support, and Final Fantasy (in Japan). The PS2 won the current round because it's the system that got the most (significant) support, and that support existed before much of anything was known about it or anything about the Xbox and Gamcube.




Heck, the Dreamcast's time advantage probably hurt Sega. If both cosoles had launched at the same time, there would have been scores of articles out there saying "Hey, wait a second, why do the Dreamcast games all look better than the PS2 games?".

It's another reason why, though I'm definitely in Microsoft's camp (I'll get a PS3 eventually, unless by some odd chance FFXIII is awful or isn't a PS3 exclusive), I've got serious questions about their strategy with the 360.

Rushing to be the first to market in the next generation seems like a waste of effort; being the first mover was never decisive in the console wars -- especially when they were the last (well, the US launches of the Xbox and GameCube were within days of each other) of the current generation. I'm a major skeptic when it comes to the CPU designs both Sony and Microsoft are using (less so with Microsoft, but I still don't like it). 100% backward compatibility out of the box matters more than most people think. If Microsoft's not spinning things too much, they're outselling the PS2 in North America now, and have a stronger lineup of games to sell this year. Halo 3 can't be ready for a 2005 launch.

Fortunately Sony's being even more irrational. They're making a mad dash to launch as soon as possible, but Spring 2006 will likely turn out to mean May, and in Japan only, even though their past experience -- and Nintendo's with the SNES -- should have shown them that being a year late to the party is fine. Which means they ended with a PC GPU instead of a console GPU, as nVidia didn't have time to design one, and that's going to cost them money in the long run (ask Microsoft about this). The Cell is even wackier than a triple-core in-order PPC. 

I don't get it. How did we go from two relatively cleanly designed machines (the Xbox and GameCube), albeit one of them not especially profitable (Xbox), to the frankenboxes that are the PS3 and Xbox 360 (and quite possibly the Revolution as well)?


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 22, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I don't get it. How did we go from two relatively cleanly designed machines (the Xbox and GameCube), albeit one of them not especially profitable (Xbox), to the frankenboxes that are the PS3 and Xbox 360 (and quite possibly the Revolution as well)?





Because they believe, either correctly or incorrectly that in today's electronic age "kewl t3ch" will sell consoles.


----------



## TwistedBishop (May 22, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Two million sounds like a lot, but when you compare it to the total number of system it is a small percentage.
> 
> Say you have twenty friends and two of them played D&D, would you say a lot of your friends play D&D?





True enough.  However, it's a service that's very new to consoles.  That it's captured 10% of its user base in how many years, two?, makes the future look bright for it.  How many people played video games in 1985?  How many play them now?  Markets do take time to saturate.

I've always seen three things going against Live on Xbox1:

-You had to go out of your way to get it.  A problem solved by the 360.  (The automatic Silver service reminds me a lot of the way AOL flooded every portion of your life with installation discs and pre-installations. Probably not the best association, but it's hard to deny how well it has worked.)

-The need of a router.  They missed the ball on this one.  How hard would it have been to give the 360 pass-through connections?

-A limited scope of play.  Honestly when I think online play, I think of mostly one thing: tournaments.  You're never going to hook a huge percentage of the gaming demographic on free-for-all fragfests long-term.  But prize-based competition, that's gaming gold.  (I'm into a lot of Magic Online, where people pay vastly larger sums than $5 a month to compete.)  Live has been taking steps in the right direction with this lately.  Last summer they held a Ninja Gaiden championship, and at the press conference they mentioned holding more such events.  There's also the more universal market of downloadable content, which I can see drawing a lot of people in.  They've been smart to push that lately, and I'm sure it will only increase with the 360.

These are two worlds colliding, online gaming and console games.  I don't think it will be an easy road for Microsoft, and certainly that 1 billion users in a year thing isn't going to happen.  But to write the whole thing off as a niche market, because it didn't capture half the playerbase immediately, seems shortsighted.  

Of course, if this sounds like a lot of fanboy raving from a Live player, I should mention that I don't even use the service currently.  It was always more trouble than it seemed worth to get it, especially when I hated Quake-ish fragfests.  The fact is, the 360 is looking like it will solve all my problems with the Live service, aside from the router.  If it's doing that for me, it's going to do it for a huge percentage of the player base not interested in Live at the moment.  Technically all 360 owners will be Live-enabled, but as far as actually plugging your box into a broadband connection, I'd be very surprised if at least 75% don't hook up to it.


----------



## John Crichton (May 23, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Problem is, there's just not enough time. They only released H2 last fall, and fall of next year is pushing it badly as it is. I'll be amazed if they can pull it off at all, it's a new platform after all which means they have to start from the ground up.



Agreed.  Halo has been their Ace in the Hole.  Without some kind of killer ap besides EA's offerings (which aren't system sellers if other systems have the same games) I can't see how the 360's head start will do it much good.  Looks like we agree here.



			
				Welverin said:
			
		

> One thing would guarantee success, Final Fantasy. It made the PS top dog it would work for MS.



It would certainly help.  It would have to be an exclusive.  Other franchises that would help would be Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil or Metal Gear.

Overall, it won't matter to me because I want the system to do well.  If they continue to get stuff like KotOR than I will be picking the system up.  But not until then.  At the moment the PS3 is the system that I am looking forward to the most.


----------



## John Crichton (May 23, 2005)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> design wise?
> the gamecube wins. i want a big SCREEN to play on, but the smaller the other electronics, the better.



Meh, I don't really care what the system looks like or how big it is.  I can make the room if the games rock.


			
				stevelabny said:
			
		

> everyone keeps babbling ps3 vs xbox and isnt taking two things into account.
> if the nintendo library is free or cheap, that is a HUGE draw.



I'll believe it when I see it.  And if it works you'll see Sony and Microsoft follow suit.  Not that they have the classics available to them that the other companies do but they could always make a deal with other publishers like Sega to get their classic library of games.



			
				stevelabny said:
			
		

> and when mario kart/tennis/golf/party etc go online? forget about it.



I love playing Mario Kart but I'd rather have Super Smash Bros 1 & 2.  



			
				stevelabny said:
			
		

> EVERYONE and their brother (and sister and mother and children and you get the idea) will have mario kart online.



If I'm online gaming I'll be playing football or baseball, not Mario Kart.  It will be a nice feature if they can get it to run flawlessly, tho.  But half the fun of MK, for me, is all the trash talking and ribbing in the room.  A headset just isn't the same as being able to wing the controller at someone or punching them in the arm.


----------



## John Crichton (May 23, 2005)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> 1080p..   *dreams happily*



 Oh yeah.

I like the fact that it will be supported.  Not that I'll have a TV that can use it anytime soon.  I like that the 360 will have all their games support widescreen and custom soundtracks as that is a huge draw for me.  I hope the other companies do the same thing.


----------



## WizarDru (May 23, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Top selling games sell _millions_ of copies, 500,000 isn't a lot in comparison, and 22,000 is downright pathetic. So those two may be good for online games, but compared to the video game market in general they don't merit making online gaming a significant focus of your system. Right now online play is closer to being moreof a buzz word than a central feature.




If I had meant that it only sold 22,000 copies, then it would be.  But what I was pointing out was that, of the copies sold in the first 48 hours post-release, 22,000 people immediately went online to play simultaneously.  In point of fact, Socom II sold over 1 million copies, and more than 30% of the people who purchased it played it online regularly.  And that's just one game on the PS/2.  That's not factoring in the people who played it multiplayer in their living rooms, either.  When you consider these are console users, not PC users, that number becomes more impressive, IMHO.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> (because there's no spec for 1080p yet, and nobody is going to hook up their PS3 to two televisions)




Huh?  ATSC standards covers 2 1080p formats, AFAIK, for 24fps and 30fps, allowing for both NTSC and PAL standards.

But you're right, hooking up two HDTVs...that's a feature looking for an audience.


----------



## John Crichton (May 23, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Huh? ATSC standards covers 2 1080p formats, AFAIK, for 24fps and 30fps, allowing for both NTSC and PAL standards.



I think you are thinking of 1080i.  I could be wrong, tho...


----------



## Gilwen (May 23, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Now, we obviously have no idea if Microsoft truly will rely on online overmuch for the Xbox 360 (and truthfully, I'm guessing not, if they want to achieve decent sales figures over time). But it is worth noting (which is all I did in my original post).




From what I have read and the interviews I have seen MS is definitely marketing everythign with xbox live in mind. I've read that all the 360 games must incoporate live and are strongly encouraged to provide downloadable content (that wasn't from microsoft adn I haven't been able to verify that one from a MS source). They are upgrading the Live network to include such things as spectator mode, online tournaments and other competitions, and a online marketplace that would be used for more than just downloading free content but exclusive content among other things that can be purchased.  


Online gaming is growing and MS  is seeing this as an opportunity, as with any opportunity in business it'll be costly in the beginning but I htink that is outweighed by the fact that it is growing quickly and eventually it will be come as mainstream as modem play became for the PC, which incidentally had the same arguements of costing to much and couldn't get the full benefit of the game with out an ISP and more hardware, now that isn't even given a second thought. I personally like playing online, it is much better than playing againist the compter and I usually don't even consider a game unless it can be played online. With these new consoles I can see more hardcore PC gamers coming over especially if the consoles will support KB and mouse. I think MS's will have success because the time to grab an opportunity is in the beginning not after everyone and his brother is doing it. MS is setting up XBL to be THE online gaming experience and so far they have done that IMO and will continue to do so. If sony keeps letting XBL dominate that market they'll find that the barriers to entry have grown and it'll cost just that much more money to get into it, niche or not online gamers probably tend to have more disposable cash (using everyones arguement that it costs alot to get the equipment and services that are required), companies are always wanting to get more of the cash sent their way so it makes sense for them to invest in online gaming. For example from Tom's Hardware "Microsoft had obtained 150,000 users in the first week that played 5,000,000 games that first week, and logged over 1,000,000 hours of game play within the first week as well."
150,000 users is nothing to laugh at especially in the first week and in the short time that the service has been available it has grown to over 1 million subscribers, in the grand scheme of things it is a niche but a big niche with disposable cash available.

Gil


----------



## WizarDru (May 23, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I think you are thinking of 1080i.  I could be wrong, tho...




Here's what I've got, so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

From HDTV - An Introduction
 	"B.  The basic standard



  The Grand Alliance standard differs from all existing TV standards in three major ways.   First, it is all digital standard -- to be broadcast with a packet transmission.   Second, it supports multiple formats.   Third, it is designed to be primarily compatible with computers rather than existing NTSC televisions.



  Summarizing the various formats[12]. 



 active lines    active          aspect ratio                   frame rate in    
                horizontal                                     Hz*              
                pixels                                                          
720             1280            16/9           progressive     24, 30 or 60     
1080            1920            16/9           interlaced      60               
1080            1920            16/9           progressive     24, 30           "

 * Spectrum reports that "all the formats are supported with NTSC frame rates, 59.94Hz, 23.97 Hz, and 29.97 Hz."

The standard has since been extended with a 1080i and 720p framerate of 25/20, to be compatible with PAL signals.


----------

