Xbox 2 in 2005 - Revolution in 2006.

[Zackman]

being easy to develop for isn't all positive, because it means that it
will more likely hit its graphical ceiling before the one that's hard
to develop for, since there's a higher learning curve for developers
would only be using a portion of its capabilities at the beginning.

Given a choice, I'd rather have a console with games that are maxing out its
power from day one than have early games that are only using 50% of the
console's capabilities. It would be like buying a DVD player that starts out
playing movies at VHS quality and only achieves DVD quality after you've
owned it for three years.

And besides, the Xbox is accepted to be much easier to code for than the PS2
and so should have theoritically hit its ceiling already, and yet the PS2 is
nearly at the end of its life cycle and its games still don't look any
better than Xbox games. If PS2 developers have all the machine's secrets
well in hand now, then Killzone should look at least as good as Halo 2, if
not better. (Well, it looks good in static screens. The framerates are
pretty brutal though.)

depends then on the subjective definition of "competative". Would you
consider the PS2, which came out over 1 year before the XBOX to have
"competative" graphics to XBOX?

Good question. Competitive, yes, but not superior. The PS2's only real
advantage is its library, period -- despite processors which are
theoretically more powerful than the Xbox's off the shelf Pentium 3 and
GeForce 3, the PS2 still can't overtake the Xbox graphically (and that's not
even taking into consideration that most Xbox games are 480P, while most PS2
games are not.) Which is why I'm not convinced the theoretically more
powerful Cell processors will result in a real-world advantage over the
Xbox's PowerPC and ATI chips. Have to wait and see.

But I'm also not convinced that launching first will ensure the Xbox 2 has a
better library than the PS3, ultimately. The Playstation brand is just too
powerful for developers to ignore, and Sony is too smart to be outfoxed by a
competitor that tips its hand too early.

-Z-

 

[Zackman]

My opinion is that the Xbox will die as quickly as the N64 did if the
Xbox 2 can't play Xbox 1 games.

So then you're saying the Gamecube is dead because it can't play N64 games?
What about the SNES not playing NES games? Did that hurt it? Your opinion
means about as much as a platypus fart I'm afraid.

Once a new console has a year's worth of solid titles under its belt,
backwards compatibility is a practically non-issue. Take a straw poll of PS2
owners and you'd be hard pressed to find a single one who has played a PSX
game on his machine any time in the last three years.

Sony and Nintendo also has the advanteage of having access to 3 large
markets to Microsoft's 2.

Except even though the Xbox is doing terribly in Japan, Microsoft is still
ahead of the more inexpensive GameCube in global installed base. And given
Nintendo's comments about how gamers don't care about graphics or online
play, they're going to lock themselves into a dwindling niche market in the
next generation if the Revolution doesn't live up to its name and actually
try something different. Sony can survive launching their next console after
the Xbox 2, but I really don't know if Nintendo can.

No matter how good the system goes in the
US, it still won't get any serious support from Japanese developers

No matter how well the next Nintendo system does in Japan, it still won't
increase its audience in the US or Europe if it keeps sticking to the same
formula (and it will still continue to get killed in sales by the PS2 in its
own country too.) Gamecube has the oh-so-important support of Japanese
developers, so what's your excuse for why it isn't clobbering -- or even
leading -- the Xbox in worldwide sales?

-Z-

 

[Sebastian Kinnaird]

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Sebastian Kinnaird


Metal Gear Solid 2. The promise of this game alone helped drive PS2 sales
early on even when its released library really wasn't all that great. I
can
remember SSX being one of the best games for the console almost a year
after
it was released...

So in that paragraph alone you've stated two games. IMO, neither of which
'made' or 'broke' the PS2 - spurred sales, yes, but that's not quite the
same thing.

Then again, Sega was already on the ropes even before they released the
DC. They'd already burned their customers with the Sega Saturn - which
I would argue was a better platform AND had some killer games for it even
with its short time on the market.

Yeah, it was a shame it was short-lived but as Sega now makes games for PS2,
Xbox and GC it's made a lot more people happy which is always good.

Seb

 

[Eiji Hayashi]

Eiji Hayashi wrote:

Given a choice, I'd rather have a console with games that are maxing out its
power from day one than have early games that are only using 50% of the
console's capabilities. It would be like buying a DVD player that starts out
playing movies at VHS quality and only achieves DVD quality after you've
owned it for three years.

If it is that extreme then I will agree. but what I said was if they
both launched at the same time and have comparable level quality
initially, the one that is hard to develop for will likely surpass the
other one

And besides, the Xbox is accepted to be much easier to code for than the PS2
and so should have theoritically hit its ceiling already, and yet the PS2 is
nearly at the end of its life cycle and its games still don't look any
better than Xbox games. If PS2 developers have all the machine's secrets
well in hand now, then Killzone should look at least as good as Halo 2, if
not better. (Well, it looks good in static screens. The framerates are
pretty brutal though.)

For starters, the PS2 came out over one year before the XBOX, not the
same time, so even though it can compensate through developers gaining
knowledge of the hardware, it started off at a much lower level. If
you go back and look at some first generation PS2 titles they look
absolutely brutal, a little better than PS1 titles, compare to present
day PS2 titles. I think the gap in the quality between present and
launch is much more significant than XBOX titles. Even though the
quality has improved through developer familiarity, the one year tech
difference is a bit too much to accomodate for, that's why the best
looking PS2 titles will never look as good as the best looking XBOX
titles.

Good question. Competitive, yes, but not superior. The PS2's only real
advantage is its library, period -- despite processors which are
theoretically more powerful than the Xbox's off the shelf Pentium 3 and
GeForce 3, the PS2 still can't overtake the Xbox graphically (and that's not
even taking into consideration that most Xbox games are 480P, while most PS2
games are not.) Which is why I'm not convinced the theoretically more
powerful Cell processors will result in a real-world advantage over the
Xbox's PowerPC and ATI chips. Have to wait and see.

I don't think I've seen any tech spec which suggest that the PS2 EE is
more powerful than XBOX's Nvidia. Different yes.. but I certainly
havn't read any tech reviews which says its more powerful.

Regardless.. the question that should be asked is not whether or not
the PS2 is technically comparable to XBOX. That is already
established, its not, and that is not the fault of Sony but just a
factor of the progress of technology. The question that SHOULD be
asked is.. is the technology gap between PS2 and XBOX appropriate
considering the launch time difference of over 1 year. Another way
that the question can be asked is, if the situation is reversed in the
next generation, ie: XBOX 2 launch over 1 year before PS3, will the
gap in graphics capability between the two consoles be MORE or LESS
than the gap between PS2 and XBOX. There is no evidence right now to
answer this question one way or the other.

But I'm also not convinced that launching first will ensure the Xbox 2 has a
better library than the PS3, ultimately. The Playstation brand is just too
powerful for developers to ignore, and Sony is too smart to be outfoxed by a
competitor that tips its hand too early.

As you've said yourself, the same thing was said about Nintendo.
Nothing is certain. But this question you're asking is the right
question. If the situation is reversed for the next generation, will
other aspects also reverse.. ie: will MS sell 80 million XBOX2 by year
2010. Will it have the same library advantage that the PS2 currently
enjoys over the XBOX. Will it own nearly 70% of the global hardware
market? Will the software and hardware sales be merely mirror images
of the market today. These, along with the question I raised in the
last paragraph, is the real questions, and anybody that says they have
a definitive answer, I'd like to see their certificate from the Global
Clairvoyant Society.

 

[finndo]

I for one played more PSX games on my PS2 than PS2 games. I only liked
about 7 PS2 Games that were not also available for my X-Box. (including all
the Dynasty Warriors 2 and 3 and Dynasty Tactics, Xenogears and FF X,
something else too, can't remember) I spent most of my PS2 time playing the
PSX RPG's of which I owned 40-60. (I no longer have a PS2 nor most of my
games). So um.. don't press too hard...

 

[Xenon]

Wonder how the new nintendo will stack up to PS3 and Xbox2. Gamecube was a
flop but mabye with a way different look and a better system nintendo might
be back in the race.

well it should be interesting. Nintendo's new system, which Nintendo says
will be BC with Gamecube games, is coming sometime *after* Xbox 2.
therefore the new Nintendo *could* end up slightly or modestly more
powerful, since it *may* have a slightly newer ATI gfx chip than the one
going into Xbox 2.

not to mention more inovative. hense the 'Revolution' codename. I hope
Nintendo keeps its word and shows something of it at E3 as they said this
past E3.

PS3 though, is shaping up to be a BEAST as far as raw performance goes. but
that does not mean better, obviously.

 

[Derek]

Wonder how the new nintendo will stack up to PS3 and Xbox2. Gamecube was a
flop but mabye with a way different look and a better system nintendo might
be back in the race.

 

[John W]

I actually believe with the increases in technology in recent years that
after 4 years the box is getting long in the tooth & ready for an upgrade.
Yes people will buy Xbox 2! Innovation drives the gaming marketplace.

 

[Christo]

I actually believe with the increases in technology in recent years that
after 4 years the box is getting long in the tooth & ready for an upgrade.
Yes people will buy Xbox 2! Innovation drives the gaming marketplace.

they would be better off releasing an official emulator for a PC with some
cables/controller etc, then say giving it sys requirements then selling it
then allowing people to buy the games/download-buy them from an official
website and play them, good idea i think that, then it isnt a console in
essence but a pc