[supersloth]

If you has asked me 6 months ago, I think I would have been firmly of the belief that X-Box had a real serious shot. After talking to publishers, other developers and journalists, I'm beginning to think that X-Box has a pretty grim future. I may venture out far enough on a limb to say that X-Box is flat out going to fail in the marketplace.

X-Box aficionados point to its high powered graphics chipset, hard drive, broadband and other nice technical goodies as evidence of its superiority, but much like the AMD vs. Intel battles, who is "best" doesn't necessarily determine who wins.

The problem is that the vast majority of console gamers don't buy a console for the hardware, they buy it for the software. Remember that consoles are consumer devices: maybe 1/10 of 1% (if that) of PSX owners can tell you the CPU that powers it. They just don't care.

The key factors for a console's success are:

- availability of software
- degree of exclusivity to the platform
- cost of the platform (hardware and games)

Right now I'm gonna have to say that PS2 owns the most killer apps in the console space. GameCube is going to be a distant, but strong, number two. X-Box has what? Gotham Racer and HALO? While these may be good games, are they really in the same class as Metal Gear Solid 2, Twisted Metal Black and GT3? I don't think so. Are they even in the same class as some of the titles coming out for Nintendo? I still don't think so.

The phrase that keeps coming back to haunt the X-Box is "retarget". How many times have you heard a PC developer say they're going to "retarget for the X-Box". This means taking a PC game and making it run on the X-Box. PC developers love this because it's easy and theoretically opens up a huge market. Unfortunately, most PC developers don't understand console games very well -- they think of it is as limited PC, instead of as a completely different platform. Instead of architecting with the controller, they architect against the controller.

So we're looking at three classes of games available for the X-Box: ported PC titles (which historically suck on consoles), ported console titles (which are already available on other consoles), and second/third-tier X-Box "exclusives" by developers that have little or no successful console experience. Add the lack of a modem, no built in DVD capability and higher overall cost -- not to mention it's abso-fricking huge ass size and general ugliness -- and I just don't see why anyone would want to buy it.

Maybe hardcore PC players that don't like consoles will buy it, but in general, if you don't have a console already, are you really going to pick an X-Box over GameCube or PS2? Not unless you just hate every popular console game made -- which probably means you're not much of a console player then.

I guess everyone knows where I stand on X-Box now =)

As for GameCube, I think it's incredibly underrated. It has a pretty good RISC processor, an interesting split memory architecture ("superfast" and "superslow" memory), and an interesting graphics corer.

While the NV2A has some aspects that I think will help some games (primarily destination alpha and stencil buffer), the GameCube has other tricks up its sleeve. It's also small, cheap and will have Nintendo branded games available for it. Throw in the GBA connection and you have a pretty killer setup. Nintendo's only real problem is that they've historically been a royal pain in the ass to deal with for developers.

The PS2 has a really obtuse programming architecture because of its multiple processors (Saturn anyone?), and as such it's a pain in the ass to develop for. Graphically, its way behind the X-Box and GC feature set (which makes sense given when it shipped). That said, it has critical mass going for it and some very important exclusives. While there aren't as many high quality titles for it as there should be, there are still enough key ones to keep people happy. Toss in the DVD and PSX compatibility, and once again you have a pretty kicking little system.

So the way I score it, PS2 is going to have a good lead, GC will take #2, and X-Box is going to evaporate within two years. Microsoft's problem is that they just didn't successfully court the key Japanese developers that really define much of the console experience. This isn't entirely their fault, but I do get a sense that Microsoft focused too much on the technology and the hype instead of on getting very high quality games.

And games are what count in this war.
http://www.voodooext...skgrand....oles

[b]sloth couldnt have said it any better himself

[supersloth]

bump, everyone read. this man speaks the truth.

[blutrane]

Can I quote you on that, good sir? your speaking the truth that is. how is runtime error doing, sloth? i know i have not been on at all since may but i am here now so talk to me

[supersloth]

im talking about the man whos talking in the link i gave, i didnt write that in anyway, i got it from that site and agree with all of it. and also, who are you that you know me?

[blutrane]

yea i sorta agree but i am not an expert in that area

(Edited by blutrane at 8:29 pm on July 13, 2001)

[supersloth]

Coming into this year it was already clear that the competition between console companies, or the "console wars" as we are melodramatically inclined to call it, was going to be fierce, but I never expected it to heat up like this.

First was the little issue of timing. As you are probably more than aware of, Microsoft and Nintendo will release their respective next-gen consoles within three days of one another (November 8 and November 5). It's debatable whether it's important that people who had considered purchasing both systems now have to pick one over the other. What is significant is that both companies' approximately 躔 million marketing campaigns are going to culminate simultaneously and could cause massive oversaturation. Probably the biggest anxiety is that we in the gaming press have no chance of sleeping after Halloween.

Also, coming out of E3 it is clear that Nintendo is a serious competitor. Its games impressed and the system has surpassed the graphical shackles of the N64. What remains to be seen is if it can recapture the casual gamer. Hard-core gamers have always known of Nintendo's stature, but without titles that aim to appeal to a broader range of players Nintendo's new GameCube could still end up like the Dreamcast, the greatest system that not enough people bought. It's the Dreamcast's failure that could be the best thing for Nintendo, since it shows Nintendo the business model it shouldn't follow. Now it's a question of its ability to maintain its current momentum and resist its legendary mercurial nature.

The Xbox, on the other hand, has taken a serious beating, which I think is unjustified. Sony Computer Entertainment President Ken Kutaragi's statement that the Xbox "was finished before it ever began" is tainted with more venom than most Nintendo statements about Square. Then there are reports in the Financial Times that the heads of both Infogrames and Electronic Arts (EA) are speaking openly about delays in the final Xbox development kit. EA CEO Larry Probst said that Microsoft "[is] on a death march right now." The heat is on Microsoft in a big way, but what's feeding this frenzy? The general shoulder shrug surrounding the Xbox booth was in part the result of the excitement generated by Nintendo. There were quite a few attractive titles, especially "Blood Wake" and the surprisingly strong "Mad Dash," although it's "Munch's Oddsyee" that looks to be carrying the majority of the promotional push. The biggest disappointment for me was "Halo." The game, which originally promised to be something much grander, now looks destined to be just a strong shooter, especially if online play is not included. That said, the console is new, it has a lot of titles, and several developers are looking to make games for the system once they finish their current PS2 titles because they see it as a much easier platform to create for. In my eyes Microsoft is in a stronger position with the Xbox than Sony was with the original PlayStation at this stage of development. The console shouldn't be expected to come into its own for a couple of years. Forecasting failure now seems arrogantly inappropriate.

Sony seems to have the most to lose and the most to gain. Right now the console world is all Sony's and its games looked solid and varied at the show. This year's Christmas will be the first one where its console is readily available but it has to hold its own against the new kids on the block. The real test is if the PS2 can mature into a networked system without hitches and if the alleged development problems with the PS2 don't drive American developers to the Xbox.

Last is the issue of price. With Nintendo's GameCube costing 贄 less than the Xbox and the PS2 (whose price is expected to drop โ by Thanksgiving), one wonders if we're heading toward a two-console world. It's possible that people will buy the GameCube and then decide between the Xbox and the PS2 for a second system. Then again, our economy isn't as bountiful as it was two years ago, so that may be a pipe dream. All of this exists in the land of speculation and anticipation.

One thing is for certain: There's going to be no shortage of rambling monologues like this one from here until New Year's.

http://www.techtv.co...xtgen...3329519,00.html

[LeprechauN]

Ontop of this issue myself, I'm not going to support Microsoft in there attempt to take over another indrustry, they pretty much control computers as it is, little billy goats are getting greedy.

[supersloth]

yes, that evil nerd is trying to take over. i wont support them anyway either, but even if you dont look at that, i still wouldnt get for all the stuff mentioned above. plus the xbox would probably crash every few minutes.

(Edited by supersloth at 6:35 pm on July 14, 2001)

[blutrane]

i don't mean to be crass or rude but will all these new consoles mean better/more creative games now?
yes, granted, resolution/graphics are going to get more sophisticated, but this is a given

[supersloth]

thats all up to the developers and also one of the problems with a consumer driven market. they know what we buy, and therefore shove out lots of really crappy sequels(tomb raider anyone) but im happy to see that it is not total crap. games like metal gear solid 2, twisted metal blace and gran turismo 3 show how sequels should be done right. devil may cry, onimusha, and zone of the enders and some great original games for the ps2, and on nintendos side, you know theyll never screw up mario or zelda, but they also start new series like kameo and pikmin. so as far as i see it, the other systems offer new and exciting stuff, while xbox is crappy ports.

[rustyTHErat]

has anyone noticed that the old, old old console games were a lot harder, i was playing (believe it or not!)
tennage mutant ninja turtles, it took me forever to move up in the stages

[supersloth]

way harder, the teenage mutant ninja turtles are classic examples, bionic commando is another one of those games too. hard as ####. also, even the original legend of zelda. just finding the dungeons is pretty hard, let alone beating them.

[rustyTHErat]

i feel sorry for the younger kids now
they will never know what a really challenging game is like
i think all the companies are selling graphics because we are lazy enough to buy them

[supersloth]

yea, one of the problems of a consumer driven market, we buy it, so they keep putting it out. thank god for emulators though.

[rustyTHErat]

i hear ya brother, i hear ya