Xbox 2

Do you think Xbox 2 should come out, or are we fine with Xbox? I personally think we are fine with the first one.

That's not really how the business works. You're gonna be just fine with the Xbox... until the Xbox 2 comes out. Technology improves, playerbase stagnates. MS can't keep making money off you if you play the Xbox until you get bored with it and stop playing games on the beast. If that were a good business model, we would all be playng the Atari 2600.

The question I posted was actually a question in the Official Xbox Magazine and since I wasn't able to answer, but had strong views, I thought I'd start up this forum.

Okay. So share your strong views. :)

Well, in my honest opinion, I don't think they should release another xbox. PC's are wonderful, but they fall short when it comes to gaming. When you have a top notch computer, you can play any game, but one month behind, and you need to spend another x-amount of dollars updating your computer. Xbox has all the goods. Great game selection, and just like any other console game, games released for xbox were made for xbox, no better system, no worse. Now, if Xbox 2 is released, all the best games will come out on that system, and you will have to spend another 3-400 dollars or whatever buying it when there is already a great system out. Xbox has been gradually lowering its price in order to have the best gaming experience affordable to a greater audience. When Xbox 2 comes out, it will be another year before that reduces its price and then the next big gaming system will be coming out. I just think they should keep xbox around for a little bit longer without upgrading to xbox 2.

But it's just a continuation of the cycle. Microsoft could say "Yeah, the Xbox kicks ass, so we're just gonna stick with that", but you can be damned sure Sony is still gonna release the PS3, with its upgraded hardware. Microsoft cannot, on it's best day, compete with Sony by doing that. No matter how good the Xbox looks now, it's going to be obsolete eventually. Technology doesn't stop when mankind has reached the pinnacle of "a pretty decent gaming system".

I really like my Saturn (the car. I'm making an analogy. A bad one.), and I bet most Saturn owners like their Saturns. But that doesn't mean Saturn is just gonna stop making cars. The Xbox is a nice system. MS can do a lot to make it an even nicer system. And people will buy it. Make Xbox 2, make a pile of money; Don't make Xbox 2, don't make that pile of money. That's a pretty simple decision to make.

I stopped reading gaming trade mags because they have too many tempting ads for games and I haven't finished any of the ones I have already. I think that the PS3 is already in development. I'm a happy PS customer, so I'll probably get one if it's backward compatible to the PS1 and PS2.

Despite the whoo hoo graphics on the Xbox, I'm still not impressed enough by it, or it's game library to want one in the house.

One of my friends has one, and I have played it often enough to know that I'm much happier with the PlayStation family of products.

If you asked me to explain why I like the Xbox over the PS2, the only even remotely compelling reason is the graphics. I just cannot explain it further than that.

But yeah, Sony nailed it with backwards compatibility. I cannot imagine that they wouldn't do the same with the PS3 and MS would be fucking nuts not to do it with the Xbox 2.

Great game selection, and just like any other console game, games released for xbox were made for xbox, no better system, no worse.

You're actually wrong about that. Most games have to sell on more than one platform to be profitable, and that means simultaneously developing for the different requirements of at least two if not three consoles. In an ideal world that would mean three different games that each live up to their maximum potential on their respective machines; in reality you usually end up with one game that can be tweaked to work on all three.

Now granted, they've been thoroughly tested on the Xbox, so you're not going to have the problem of "not enough memory" or whatever to run a certain game. But just because it's released on the Xbox doesn't mean it wasn't designed for a worse system. :)

Xbox has been gradually lowering its price in order to have the best gaming experience affordable to a greater audience.

:lol: Microsoft has been gradually lowering its Xbox price because Sony's always kicked their ass in the sales department. Believe me, it has absolutely nothing to do with some altruistic goal of giving the best game experience to everyone who wants it. Incidentally, the reason Sony's been kicking Microsoft's ass is because their PS2 came out over a year before the Xbox. Microsoft is hoping to reverse that on this next round of consoles, that's why they're desperate to get the Xbox 2 out faster than the PS3.

[QUOTE=Clodfobble]You're actually wrong about that. Most games have to sell on more than one platform to be profitable, and that means simultaneously developing for the different requirements of at least two if not three consoles. In an ideal world that would mean three different games that each live up to their maximum potential on their respective machines; in reality you usually end up with one game that can be tweaked to work on all three.

Then what about the games that say ONLY ON XBOX? I get your point about the fact that its competition the reason that xbox lowered its price, but some sub-reason is that they wanted the best game console to be affordable to more people. Even if that wasn't the main plan, that's what happened.

crossfire wrote:

I get your point about the fact that its competition the reason that xbox lowered its price, but some sub-reason is that they wanted the best game console to be affordable to more people.

No, they wanted their console to be affordable to more people, which is the same thing as saying that they lowered their price to compete with the PS2. We could argue "best" all day long and while I may be convinced, you'll never get Wolf or VSP (whom I'm sure will weigh in at some point) to buy that.

perth wrote:

No, they wanted their console to be affordable to more people, which is the same thing as saying that they lowered their price to compete with the PS2.

I feel i have dumbed everybody down by suggesting a difference between lowering their price to get more people's interest and compete with PS2. Sorry all

Don't be like that, Crossfire. We're all friends here, mostly. :)

perth wrote:

We could argue "best" all day long and while I may be convinced, you'll never get Wolf or VSP (whom I'm sure will weigh in at some point) to buy that.

I appear to have been invoked.

I can't comment much on the Xbox 2, even taking my oft-quoted disdain for Xbox 1 into account, because I don't know anything about THE SINGLE MOST CRUCIAL VARIABLE concerning it:

What games will be available for it?

That's what it comes down to for me. A console can have super-sharp graphics and incredible sound and Blast Processing and Tint Control and a 5.48172E+12 bit processor and a thousand other technical advantages over its competitors, but if the _software_ isn't there, if the _developers_ aren't there, then it might as well be a shiny black plastic box with the guts of a Bally Astrocade tucked inside.

At this point, it's far too early to speculate as to who'll be developing what for the Xbox 2 or PS3, what will be cross-platform and what will be exclusive, whether either or both consoles will be backwards-compatible, and similar concerns.

Why do I dislike the Xbox? Yes, it's slightly graphically superior to the PS2, but it doesn't have the RPGs I want to play. It gets sloppy seconds months after the fact for the GTA series. It doesn't get the oddball niche titles like Katamari Damacy, which is a goddamned work of art that everyone should play at least once. To my untrained eye, the PS2 versions of cross-platform games (such as the ESPN sports titles) are _close enough_ to their Xbox counterparts to not cause me to rush out and buy another console. (It's not as if Xbox is a GeForce 4 and PS2 is a ColecoVision; both can produce satisfactory graphics.) The games that are majorly hyped for it (Halo, KOTOR, Xbox Live, Project Gotham 2, etc.) don't appeal to me all that much, and the handful that I am interested in (Panzer Dragoon Orta, Deathrow, maybe Fable, we'll see how Jade Empire turns out) aren't strong enough provocations to get me to buy the console.

Yeah, I can mod an Xbox and do tricks with it. I also have an Athlon 1300. What PC stuff, emulators, etc. can I run on an Xbox that I can't on my PC?

When the next generation of software comes along, I'll revise my opinions accordingly.

I understood most of what you said, but in answer to your question about the games, are we forgetting Halo, Ninja Gaiden, KOTOR, Halo 2, Doom 3, and others. Well, to each his own.

crossfire wrote:

I understood most of what you said, but in answer to your question about the games, are we forgetting Halo, Ninja Gaiden, KOTOR, Halo 2, Doom 3, and others. Well, to each his own.

Halo = an above-average FPS, currently available on PC if I really want to play it that badly.
Ninja Gaiden = a hard-as-hell action game. Not my favorite genre, and one well represented on PS2 (the Jak games, the Sly games, Prince of Persia, Ape Escape 2, many more), but if they ported to PS2 I might rent it.
KOTOR = a Star Wars RPG. I would rather eat a broom than play a Star Wars RPG.
Halo 2 = NOT OUT YET ON XBOX. Thus, it is quite difficult to determine how good the finished product will be, how it will compare to the original, or if it'll be visibly banging its head against the hardware limitations of the Xbox. Twenty-five years of gaming experience have taught me never to write off a game as a buy-the-system-for-this masterpiece before it ships; I still hear echoes of my Atari 2600-owning friends in my heads, mocking me for owning an Intellivision in 1981 because "Atari's getting PAC-MAN and you're not and it's going to be AWESOME!"
Doom 3 = SEE ABOVE, and playable on PC (as soon as I break down and get Windows XP, anyway).

I'm looking at the Xbox's Release Dates page on IGN right now, and here's what catches my eye at all between now and the end of the year:

* The Bard's Tale - also on PS2, I'll get it there.
* OutRun 2 - vague curiosity, saw it in a shore arcade. A rental.
* Pinball Hall of Fame - also on PS2, I'll get it there.
* Doom 3 - I own a PC, I'd get it there.
* KOTOR 2 - Bleah.
* Prince of Persia 2 - also on PS2, haven't played the first one yet.

Which means I'm balancing OutRun 2 against GTA: San Andreas, a handful of promising RPGs, Gran Turismo 4 if I get in a driving-game mood, and oddballs like Rumble Roses. ADVANTAGE: PS2. And the NEXT Xbox game that looks interesting (Jade Empire) isn't out until March, is more of a "hey, that's a great concept" thing than a sure-fire success, and release dates that far in advance are always overoptimistic.

I'm not saying that the Xbox is an oversized lump of green-and-black shit with nothing going for it; there are some games for it that are interesting. I'm saying that as a PS2 and PC owner, there were no visible reasons at launch for me to buy an Xbox -- and here, a couple of years later, there STILL aren't. Only the N64 is lower on my contemporary-consoles-to-buy list.

Doom 3 is out on pc, but the specs are way too high. Honestly, Doom 3 is the reason I bought Xbox. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan and I really did not like KOTOR because of the lack of action and the lack of control you have to choose how you complete the missions. I love RPGs, but i need a lot of action, and that's why i love action rpgs, like the new X-men. Xbox 2, will definitely blow PS3 out of the water, or else it should. We'll see what happens with Halo 2. At my EBgames, over 17,000 copies have been pre ordered.

My system is not what I would call a speed-demon, but Doom 3 runs surprisingly well. I think all the "Doom 3 will bring your PC to it's knees!" bullshit was simply designed to sell more copies of the game.

VSP makes compelling arguments to stay away from the Xbox, and I guess the only reasons I can cite for preferring the Xbox are:

1. The graphics. I know it's a subtle difference, but the PS2 just looks grainier to me.
2. The controller. To hear people discuss the PS2 controller, you would think they're talking about the second coming. I was one of the few people who liked the DC controllers, and I really like the Xbox controllers, they fit better in my hands.
3. The Xbox ships with a hard drive. Is that a stupid argument for the Xbox over the PS2? Yeah. But it's still cool to be able to save games right out of the box without buying a memory card.

I *know* the PS2 is a better buy for the money, and I kind of think the GC is a bigger bang for the buck than the PS2, but for some reason, I just really love the Xbox.

crossfire wrote:

Doom 3 is out on pc, but the specs are way too high. Honestly, Doom 3 is the reason I bought Xbox.

So that you can play Doom 3 on a system with an under-800MHz processor?

(Not that that necessarily matters. For example, the PS1 was roughly equivalent to a Pentium-90 in terms of processor speed, according to a developer with whom I've corresponded in the past, but its dedicated-gaming-platform nature allowed it to do tricks that a general P-90 couldn't. I'm just noting that I've read my share of Doom 3 reviews that said "it really shines when you crank the resolution way way up," and I'm not sure what kind of resolution an Xbox version will be able to support.)

crossfire wrote:

Xbox 2, will definitely blow PS3 out of the water, or else it should.

Until Microsoft and Sony release the specs for the systems and lists of launch titles, is there much point in speculating about this?

Beyond that, it always takes at least a year or so after release to truly see how consoles compare -- allow the developers time to get the second wave of games and beyond on the shelves, learn some newer coding tricks, and use more of the consoles' potential.

crossfire wrote:

We'll see what happens with Halo 2. At my EBgames, over 17,000 copies have been pre ordered.

Wait, 17,000 copies at one EBGames? Remind me to go somewhere less crowded on release night.

Don't get me wrong, Bungie doesn't misfire often; I expect that Halo 2 will be a state-of-the-art bang-bang, especially considering that Halo was the _only_ reason to buy an Xbox for its first year or so, and MS thus has a huge interest in helping ensure that Halo 2 also sells systems. But $200 is a lot for one game ($150 console + $50 disc) if I'm not crazy about anything else for the system.

See the thing is, if you're some 16 year old kid and want to play doom III or Halo 2, would you rather spend $150 on a consol that can run it perfectly or God knows how much on a computer that in the end would also run it perfectly, but at a much greater end expense. Consols have always, and will continue to be, a source of CHEAPER video gaming for the recreational gamer.

Hey, I'm not debating that, as I rarely use my PC for intensive gaming. (Morrowind's about as hard as I've pushed my Ti4200, and the newest FPS I have on it is Serious Sam.) I buy 98% of my games on consoles.

The question is whether the Xbox can run Doom 3 "perfectly," or merely adequately. Time will tell on that. (Not to mention that I suspect that mods will be easier to implement on PC than on Xbox, and the modding community is half the reason that the Doom series was such a roaring success in the first place.)

perth wrote:

I *know* the PS2 is a better buy for the money, and I kind of think the GC is a bigger bang for the buck than the PS2, but for some reason, I just really love the Xbox.

I honestly disagree. PS2 and Xbox both have advantages and disadvantages, but in my opinion, Xbox is better because it has great games, better graphics, most of the time, and stores the memory on the hard disk which means more memory stores. Also, FYI, I BELIEVE the production of GameCubes has been discontinued. Another question, do you think this should have happened, or keep GC in production, especially with DS coming out. But then again, one is portable, one isn't. And how is PSP going to do with PS3 coming out. Again, part of it is the different forms, one being portable, one having better graphics. Well, to each his own.

The GameCube is currently as irrelevant in America as the Xbox is in Japan. There are exclusive games coming for the Cube that are interesting -- Metroid Prime 2, Baten Kaitos, Resident Evil 4, perhaps Geist -- but very little in the way of cross-platform games coming its way. Those who enjoy the big N's franchises will get more mileage out of it.

The portables will have little to no impact on the consoles, and vice versa. Nintendo has a long and storied history of destroying all competition in the portable world, despite the GB's and GBC's decade-long technical inferiority to their major competitors (Game Gear, Lynx, Nomad, TurboExpress, NGPC). That certainly hasn't helped the Cube, even with GC-GBA tie-in games available.

The DS will hit American shelves first, will be cheaper, and will have the first-party Nintendo franchises; game, set and match. The PSP has potential and a much nicer screen, but it will be arriving post-Christmas, won't have Nintendo's killer apps at launch, will likely be more expensive, and will have a shorter battery life. None of those are killer flaws, but they are handicaps when going up against a 9000-pound gorilla like a Nintendo portable. Sony needs a _killer_ game library of third-party titles at or very soon after launch to make the PSP viable.