PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: RichG on April 07, 2002, 02:29:43 AM
-
Are Sony too much of a monopoly on the gaming industry? Like Microsoft is on the PC market.
I think they deserved there success back in 1995 when the PS1 was launched. With good marketing skills they seemed to hammer the Sega Saturn, Sega Dreamcast and N64. They even made a name for gaming. Pretty good considering it was Sony\'s first attempt in the console world.
However now when the PS2 was launched was it all that great? I know i\'ve said it time and time again but you see it in gaming magazines, web sites, gaming tv shows, most people were disapointed with the PS2. I mean lets face it with all the sell outs, console problems, and games which look just above PS1 games and they had slowdown it wasn\'t too much of a great launch!
However it seems it sold bucket loads of hype alone and Sony\'s powerful brand.
Now I would say that the PS2 is a good console, now developers have gotten to grips with the development side of things and can produce nice looking games which run smooth like ICO and Gran Turismo 3.
Its just that if you talk to people nowadays, the general public that is, most people know what PS2 is, prehaps they own a playstation or playstation 2. If you say you have an X-Box they would be like "You shouldn\'t have bought that its crap". However these people have never layed eyes on the machine. This is the response my brother got when telling some people he knew that he owned an X-Box and guess what they were all 25 so its not like they were chatting on the playground.
Unfortunatly its these people which buy the machines. The X-Box and Gamecube are now the superier machines to PS2 and it would be a shame if like the Dreamcast they died without a looking just because people wernt willing to buy a none Sony brand.
Is it helpful for the scene? I personnally think its not.
What do you lot think?
-
I didn\'t really read what you put, I just read the title and decided to say that Sony isn\'t a monopoly.. They still have a fair amount of competition..
-
not yeat
read this
Tokyo, April 5 (Bloomberg) -- Sony Corp., buoyed by Japan sales of more than 4 million PlayStation 2 game machines in the fiscal year ended Sunday, held almost two thirds of the country\'s game console market in the period, a video-game researcher said.
Microsoft Corp., the world\'s largest software maker, sold 190,000 units of its Xbox console after releasing the game machine on Feb. 22, taking a 3 percent market share, researcher Enterbrain Inc. said. The researcher is also publisher of ``Famitsu,\'\' the country\'s most influential video-game magazine.
Microsoft\'s attempt to topple Sony in Japan was hampered after the Redmond, Washington-based company was forced to repair or replace defective versions of the Xbox when customers complained the machine damaged some game disks.
Nintendo Co., the world\'s second-largest game console maker, took one fifth of the Japanese game machine market last fiscal year, selling about 1.3 million of its GameCube machines in the six months since its September debut, according to Enterbrain.
The sales figures are based on Enterbrain\'s nationwide survey of video-game retailers and video-rental stores.
At present, Sony\'s PlayStation 2 is sold at 29,800 yen ($226) in Japan after cutting its retail price three times over the last two years. Microsoft sells its Xbox console at 34,800 yen, while Nintendo offers its GameCube machine at 25,000 yen.
In the hand-held game player market, Nintendo, the maker of Pokemon and Mario game software, dominated the Japanese market, grabbing almost 90 percent with more than 4 million unit sales of its Game Boy Advance player. Game Boy Advance debuted in Japan a year ago. Bandai Co., Nintendo\'s nearest competitor in the hand- held market, sold just 217,000 of its WonderSwan hand-helds.
By software maker, Nintendo ranked top in the year, selling more than seven million game copies for its consoles and portable players. Tokyo-based Konami Corp. was second with sales of 3.6 million copies sold, the researcher said. Third-placed Sony sold 3.3 million software units in the fiscal year just ended.
thats japan!:eek: Sony is doing good, very good but they still aren\'t yet a monopoly, but if everything is going as it now is, tye will be in say 5 years time
-
you cant compare the two
m$ controls the PC market thru brute force and they still release products that contain 10\'s of thousands of KNOWN bugs
sony puts out a great product for developers to put out great games
-
Sony doesn\'t have a monopoly - or not just yet anyway. You pointed out something about the PS2 launch, which you say was disappointing to a lot of people. True. But that disappointment has nothing to do with monopoly or Sony bringing out an infiriour product. Sony was the one that went the other way when they designed the PS2 architecture and they decided to make something challenging, yet very powerful if used right by the developers. This decision was quite risky as the launch of PS2 showed: due to very little libraries, short development time and a very challenging hardware, PS2 games had a lot of flaws at the time. This could have made the PS2 fail if it wasn\'t for the hype that surrounded it.
Now lets assume Sony would have had a monopoly. Would they have made the PS2 as it is (innovative/challenging) - or would they have gone the Microsoft way and build a console with PC components? I\'d probably go with the latter since Microsoft\'s attempt is less expensive and less risky. Easy monney if they succed. But who knows, maybe if Sony had a monopoly, they maybe would have done things the same. Maybe because Sony has a lot of big plans of the future - and we do know what Kataragi\'s visions about networking is...
So just to answer question: my answer would be a clear no.
-
I fail to see how the archetecture of the PS2 has any relevance in a discussion about monopolies? It makes no rational sense at all. It was arrogance that lead to the design, well, arrogance and bad engineers.
-
When a company has a monopoly, they tend to try to make money the easy way. Microsoft has also showed very well what a monopoly can lead to: faulty and buggy products.
Sony did something very innovative with PS2 - wich maybe the result of them not having a monopoly. And I was just replying to RichG, who made some points about PS2\'s launch which I cleared up.
It was arrogance that lead to the design, well, arrogance and bad engineers.
Behind what reasoning?
-
Firstly, it is clear your knowledge of monopolies starts and stops with MS. The formula for monopolies isn\'t nearly as simple as you provide, and certainly doesn\'t hinge on innovation. You insist and rely solely on your own brand of home-grown "common sense" and then apply it to fields and disciplines that you obviously know nothing about.
Pick up a business 101 textbook give it a read, challenge your assumptions and preconcieved notions. I could then ship you an "Economics in a Frigid Marketplace" and then perhaps a solid discussion of economics and business could be had. I realize that this would completely shatter your world view: God (aka Sony), man, woman, animals, insects, rocks, xbox/MS, but it\'d do you a world of good.
The answers to all questions found in the world cannot be found within the confines of your head, Seven. There are others out there that have expertise and knowledge that eclipses your own in their chosen disciplines.
Knowledge will set you free (and give me less headaches).
-
MM: IMO, the PSX/PS2 hardware is some of the worst you can use.
Outside of the controller, it\'s horrible; PSX = many shortcomings, PS2 = not developer friendly.
Sony isn\'t really too much of a monopoly right now.. at least, not comparable to MS in the computer software industry. Nintendo has a 100% stake in the handheld market in America, and that\'s a big part of the industry that Sony hasn\'t touched. Also, MS/Nintendo continue to chip away the fabric of Sony\'s appeal.. 3rd-parties.. with more easy/powerful hardware and other improvements. Now that MS is in the console market, and Nintendo is delivering the goods to developers.. I don\'t think that Sony will be kicking as much ass next generation as they do now.
-
WTF? What are you trying to say in your above post that has anything to do with the topic? Either respond to my post, but don\'t get personal and give me this crap about that I have no idea or at least make some valid points. These posts of yours are the ones we don\'t need at the forum.
So Watchie, I am still waiting. I asked you a direct question, where\'s the answer?
-
Seven, if you didn\'t get my point the last time, I\'ll really hit it home for you. You are far too stubborn and ignorant to ever concede a point even if it completely eclipses your knowledge base. You will argue on for pages on end without the slightest clue of what you are talking about.
Just your theory that monopolistic companies don\'t have innovation is compeltely and utterly ridiculous. If this is your starting point in a discussion about economics and business then I want no part of it because we can\'t have a discussion. I wouldn\'t presume to argue about molecular biology with my ex-roommate because I don\'t know the first thing about it.
You however never get caught up in the finer details and jump in head first (or should I say PS2 first?).
You don\'t know the first thing about monopolies (besides that MS holds one) yet you are completely willing to debate about it. You are just so eager to put down MS and promote Sony that you don\'t give a second thought about what the topic is. Only you would say that Sony can grow better potatos than MS and would ramble on at great length about fertilizer mix, greenhousing and growth capacity.
Everytime a reliable, credible and verifiable source is quoted that contradicts one of your points you dig deeply into your own personal knowledge base, give your opinion, and declare the source material as invalid and bias.
There is no arguing with you Seven, and I\'m not even going to try.
-
Well I don\'t know much about monopoly\'s myself. I know Microsoft is one and Sony is definatly heading that way. Surely a gaming monopoly can\'t be a good thing. Competition brings with it variation in the market place along with cheaper prices for the consumer. The way its heading in the next generation we could only have the choice of PS3 and PS3. :(
-
The term "monopoly" means a situation in which a business enterprise, in a particular market, is in a competition-free environment or enjoys overwhelming domination to exclude competition.
So much for a quick definition of monopoly (which I obviously have no idea about. :rolleyes: )
Just your theory that monopolistic companies don\'t have innovation is compeltely and utterly ridiculous. If this is your starting point in a discussion about economics and business then I want no part of it because we can\'t have a discussion. I wouldn\'t presume to argue about molecular biology with my ex-roommate because I don\'t know the first thing about it.
This is pathetic. All I said was;
"When a company has a monopoly, they tend to try to make money the easy way. Microsoft has also showed very well what a monopoly can lead to: faulty and buggy products."
This is absolutely correct. If you don\'t share my opinion, feel free to debate it. Competition is what drives the market for the better. When companies are in direct competition, they will try to make their product better. You don\'t have to hold a degree in economics for that - it\'s commonsense.
There is no arguing with you Seven, and I\'m not even going to try.
Ah, a true classic excuse when one doesn\'t know what to reply...
Now, you do a really good job by changing topics and twisting arguements, but getting back to the thread, I asked you a question, which you have failed to answer. I\'ll requote:
You said:
It was arrogance that lead to the design, well, arrogance and bad engineers.
Behind what reasoning?
-
No Sony does not have a monopoly..
There are two strong competetors out there, Microsoft and Nintendo.
And Im against monopoly (look what the OS market has become!!)
It was arrogance that lead to the design, well, arrogance and bad engineers.
:rolleyes:
-
Okay, once again, I\'ve been sucked into an argument I really don\'t care for (like the H.G. Wells one a few days ago).
Firstly, the arrogance question. How many here know who developed the EE? The usual suspects include Intel, 3Dfx, Nvidia, ATi, but it wasn\'t any of these, it was Toshiba (with help from Sony and IBM). Strange but true.
I, and many others, wouldn\'t pick Toshiba and Sony to design high-end chips (both are competent chip makers, but not amoung the elite)--IBM yes--but Sony decided to give the lead to Toshiba. You don\'t see Nintendo or MS helping their chip makers.
Anyway, Sony could have went with trusted archetecture, known designs and proven quality, but they went with Tosh\'s EE. An virtual unknown and a radical chip design. This infuriated developers, but Sony didn\'t care. Where else would they go? The N64 or DC? Sony knew they could do whatever they wanted and devs would come, they\'d have to.
It wasn\'t the performance of the chip or the specs, it was the idea of it, the pure confounding nature of it that attracted Sony. If Sony would have went to press with a Nvidia chip and said "This is the Emotion Engine, it can create vast, detailed, populated worlds where each individual has his/her own unique emotions and desires!" People would have pointed and laughed and said, it\'s a Nvidia chip, not unlike the one I have on my desktop, sure it\'s more powerful, but it\'s not all that hype.
With Tosh\'s design, people took so long to figure it out, that there was no time for a dissenting viewpoint because the hype machine was in full swing and everyone was obsessed with Sony. If they wanted to please developers and customers they would have went with known archetecture and not alienated their developers. It wouldn\'t have taken almost 2 years for the machine\'s potencial to be realized. But Sony didn\'t care because they knew the devs and the public would come because where else would they go? This is arrogance (and burgeoning on monopoly).
Now about the whole monopoly thing. People are free to choose, competition isn\'t impossible, Sony isn\'t a monopoly.
DISCLAIMER: I am no expert on economics, anone who is feel free to correct me.
Why is it that business and economics majors always, at some point, study MS? Why is it that most introductory B&E courses start with MS? Because they are a smart company that has made wise decisions and conducted business in a way that makes complete (business) sense. MS is not unlike Time Warner, Viacom, United Airlines or Central Pacific (well CP was a coercive monopoly, aided by government sanctions, so they\'re not the same type of monopoly as the others).
When Viacom absorbed CBS (making it the biggest in the industry), no one said a word. When MS bought Bungie--everyone cried bloody foul, forgetting the fact that Bungie approached MS to be bought. Forgot about that didn\'t you?
We live in a capitalistic society and MS (exactly like the companies above) is only playing by the rules of our society. The market will regulate itself. Netscape was out first and was offered free to anyone. IE was introduced later and was also free, but was vastly inferior. Then NS started to charge $20 bucks for the browser and an email client. MS bundled IE with Windows, then improved IE. NS started to lose its mindshare and quickly dropped its price to zero, and filed a lawsuit stating that MS was using unfair pricing tactics. It seems to me that NS tried to exploit its marketshare by charging $20, and MS released a superior product, charged nothing and won marketshare. The market chose the best deal for them. The OS market is no different. Apple was out first, MS though they had a good idea, tailored it, improved it and offered a deal to OEMs to distrubute their OS. OEMs looked at the prices on the market and went with MS.
Seems like good business to me. A capitalistic society allows anyone the freedom to make as much money as he/she can and price whatever, he/she wants. Linex is out there, it\'s basically free, but it\'s not generating a market share outside of server admins. Why? Probably marketing and MS\'s mindshare. Why is Sony selling 30 million PS2s? Probably marketing and mindshare.
MS is not unlike IBM years ago. MS can be toppled, but it\'ll take a keen company and some luck--it took Intel and MS to dethrone IBM.
If you take business or economics courses, you will hear about Central Pacific, a coercive monopoly that allowed for no competition. You\'ll also learn that MS, Time Warner and Disney aren\'t coercive or in the same category as CP. CP was not built on smart business practises, sound decisions and free economy--they were built on a mixed economy model. They had legislative leverage, that being government aid in terms of legislations/sanctions, that allowed for absolutely no competition.
MS can be beaten--Sun and Oracle proove that (and NS too until they changed tactics)--and MS doesn\'t stop competition, actually Apple and Corel wouldn\'t even be around if not for MS financial aid. The problem is that most people think immediately that monopolies are evil--coercive monopolies are--but standard monopolies like Time Warner, Viacom and MS are merely examples of the economic market working well, by smart people.
All this antitrust and monopoly started with "The Wealth of Nations" published some 200 years ago. And if you read that book you\'ll realize that today, the term monopoly, is a misnomer. coined the term monopoly to mean a business running with government assistence and exclusivity (CP). Today, it\'s any successful company, usually MS.
Legislators often quote this guy (damn I wish I could remember his name!) in support of anti-trust laws, but he was very much against them. Infact, if not for politicians, who have no clue about anything let alone economics, the anti-trust laws would be long gone. As it is, anti-trust laws are open to interpretation, so much so that, almost any successful company can be accused of anti-trust violations. Everyone agrees, that ammendments are needed, even those strongly in support of anti-trust legislation. As it is now, successful, smart and rich comapnies are being rallied again because of these very qualities under the flag of anti-trust. This is not what anti-trust is about, not when it was concieved years ago. It\'s only become this recently.
Whew! So is MS a monopoly? Yes, but under the rules of a capitalist society, MS is playing fairly. The only hitch people have is that they play the game much better than anyone else right now. Another OS can come out, people can shose to buy it if they want and MS can do nothing about it. Hell, Linux is free!
Is Sony a monopoly in the console world? In a word, no, but it\'s not far off.
-
It was arrogance that lead to the design, well, arrogance and bad engineers.
Arrogance perhaps, bad engineers, I disagree. All because they made something different doesn\'t necessarily mean it was bad engineering. The PS2 is a technical marvel and ever since developers have learned how to use it, there have been quite a few graphical gems released for it. I agree with you though, that has nothing to do with a monopoly.
When a company has a monopoly, they tend to try to make money the easy way. Microsoft has also showed very well what a monopoly can lead to: faulty and buggy products.
No, they do not. When a company has a monopoly, they observe the innovations of the possible competition and integrate it into their own products for an even better product and call it their own. Just take Microsoft as an example. Take a look at Macintosh and the Mac OSX. Now take a look at WinXP. There are more then a few GLARING similarities between the two and yet XP still maintains that same plug and play mindset and user friendly enviornment.
However, this doesn\'t happen just with companies who are monopolizing a medium though and you should know this by now. It happens with everyone. Nintendo makes something new or Sega makes something new and it is innovative and it sells well, then expect everyone to follow suit in some similar way. I won\'t argue about who was first with what, but each company saw advantages in particular things and those things were redesigned, refined, and improved upon exponentially over the years. Just take a look at controllers and the mediums we use for our games or how many controller ports we have on our systems or the types of buttons on our controllers. It\'s just evolution over time to make a better product, but companies do not solely make the same crap over and over again to turn a quick sell.
So long as there is that type of competition, then Sony can not be a monopoly.
-
I agree with everything Ryu said. And I\'ll ammend my comment to say misguided engineers.
-
Fair enough. I\'ll agree with that. :)
-
Watchdog, you are the ultimate spindoctor, you need to submit a resume to M$ ASAP beacuse they need your help in spinning the horrible sales in europe and japan
I, and many others, wouldn\'t pick Toshiba and Sony to design high-end chips--IBM yes--but Sony decided to give the lead to Toshiba. You don\'t see Nintendo or MS helping their chip makers.
Whats wrong with Toshiba and Sony desiging chips? Both are huge companies, both have lots of resources.
Anyway, Sony could have went with trusted archetecture, known designs and proven quality, but they went with Tosh\'s EE.
Yes, they could have.. but we would be stuck with black and white TV if everybody thought like MS and only went with whats availible never looking at the horizon. If people don\'t think outside the box the human race will never expand. Its a known fact the PC is not very efficent at producing graphics, sony and toshiba wanted to change that by creating a radical system that would be efficent.
An virtual unknown and a radical chip design. This infuriated developers, but Sony didn\'t care. Where else would they go? The N64 or DC? Sony knew they could do whatever they wanted and devs would come, they\'d have to.
It really pissed of developers? which ones? The ones like oddworld who were handed money by MS?
It wasn\'t the performance of the chip or the specs, it was the idea of it, the pure confounding nature of it that attracted Sony. If Sony would have went to press with a Nvidia chip and said "This is the Emotion Engine, it can create vast, detailed, populated worlds where each individual has his/her own unique emotions and desires!" People would have pointed and laughed and said, it\'s a Nvidia chip, not unlike the one I have on my desktop, sure it\'s more powerful, but it\'s not all that hype.
Let me get this straight, your saying the only reason sony went with the new idea and archatecture in the building of the ps2 is just so they can say "the Emotion Engine, it can create vast, detailed, populated worlds where each individual has his/her own unique emotions and desires!"
You gotta be kidding me, if thats the case then why did M$ with Nivida go and hype up the xbox even more then the ps2 claiming it was 4x (or was it more) powerfull then the ps2. By your logic people would have "pointed and laughed and said, it\'s a Nvidia chip, not unlike the one I have on my desktop, sure it\'s more powerful, but it\'s not all that hype.
How can you base an argument and not have it effect both sides?
With Tosh\'s design, people took so long to figure it out, that there was no time for a dissenting viewpoint because the hype machine was in full swing and everyone was obsessed with Sony.
I won\'t even comment on this, its just too pathetic
If they wanted to please developers and customers they would have went with known archetecture and not alienated their developers.
Once again, your the type of person who would be happy with a black and white TV, unwilling to expand and look at new ideas. If it were not for companies such as Sony we would never advance. MS on the other hand is content with copying everyone else and using whats avaible instead of trying something new and, god forbid, spending money on building new technology. For as you know Sony spent a small fourtune buliding the EE and the ps2 technology, while MS spent basically nothing.
It wouldn\'t have taken almost 2 years for the machine\'s potencial to be realized. But Sony didn\'t care because they knew the devs and the public would come because where else would they go? This is arrogance (and burgeoning on monopoly).
This is not even close to a monolopy..
A monolopy would never think of trying something new an innovative, they would just release something close to the original and call it new.. something that would cost the company virtually nothing yet people would still buy with cause they had no other choice.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
Firstly, the arrogance question. How many here know who developed the EE? The usual suspects include Intel, 3Dfx, Nvidia, ATi, but it wasn\'t any of these, it was Toshiba (with help from Sony and IBM). Strange but true.
I, and many others, wouldn\'t pick Toshiba and Sony to design high-end chips--IBM yes--but Sony decided to give the lead to Toshiba. You don\'t see Nintendo or MS helping their chip makers.
Anyway, Sony could have went with trusted archetecture, known designs and proven quality, but they went with Tosh\'s EE. An virtual unknown and a radical chip design. This infuriated developers, but Sony didn\'t care. Where else would they go? The N64 or DC? Sony knew they could do whatever they wanted and devs would come, they\'d have to.
[/b]Sigh. Watchdog, I remember the days when you weren\'t a fanboy... or at least, you weren\'t just an anti-fanboy for the sake of it. Your opinion is just that, an opinion, and one, that I think is in the minority. My opinion on this matter is that sony went with a radical design because they didn\'t want a games dedicated PC sitting in front of the TV, they wanted a console that will provide things different than a PC. I think they succeded.
It wasn\'t the performance of the chip or the specs, it was the idea of it, the pure confounding nature of it that attracted Sony. If Sony would have went to press with a Nvidia chip and said "This is the Emotion Engine, it can create vast, detailed, populated worlds where each individual has his/her own unique emotions and desires!" People would have pointed and laughed and said, it\'s a Nvidia chip, not unlike the one I have on my desktop, sure it\'s more powerful, but it\'s not all that hype.
With Tosh\'s design, people took so long to figure it out, that there was no time for a dissenting viewpoint because the hype machine was in full swing and everyone was obsessed with Sony. If they wanted to please developers and customers they would have went with known archetecture and not alienated their developers. It wouldn\'t have taken almost 2 years for the machine\'s potencial to be realized. But Sony didn\'t care because they knew the devs and the public would come because where else would they go? This is arrogance (and burgeoning on monopoly).
Now about the whole monopoly thing. People are free to choose, competition isn\'t impossible, Sony isn\'t a monopoly.
DISCLAIMER: I am no expert on economics, anone who is feel free to correct me.
[/b]This is not arrogance or monopoly. The devs did have the simple choice of going to other consoles. Having \'no choice\' because Sony is a well known name and they know people will want the system is not the same as having \'no choice\' because Sony is the only console maker out there. Unless you are now willing to concede that the Xbox is defeated, and the NGC is going nowhere (both of which aren\'t true), you can\'t say Sony has a monopoly, or is burgeoning on monopoly.
Why is it that business and economics majors always, at some point, study MS? Why is it that most introductory B&E courses start with MS? Because they are a smart company that has made wise decisions and conducted business in a way that makes complete (business) sense. MS is not unlike Time Warner, Viacom, United Airlines or Central Pacific (well CP was a coercive monopoly, aided by government sanctions, so they\'re not the same type of monopoly as the others).
When Viacom absorbed CBS (making it the biggest in the industry), no one said a word. When MS bought Bungie--everyone cried bloody foul, forgetting the fact that Bungie approached MS to be bought. Forgot about that didn\'t you?
[/b]Yeah, Bill Gates definitely made some good business moves at the begining. Backstabbing leech that he is. Unfortunately, honor and ethics have little to do with moden succesfull business. Bill Gates was just knew that sooner than his cohorts. They may teach the beginings of MS to students, but they don\'t teach MS over the last four years... because eventually MS is going to pay dearly for it\'s anti-competetive practices.
We live in a capitalistic society and MS (exactly like the companies above) is only playing by the rules of our society. The market will regulate itself. Netscape was out first and was offered free to anyone. IE was introduced later and was also free, but was vastly inferior. Then NS started to charge $20 bucks for the browser and an email client. MS bundled IE with Windows, then improved IE. NS started to lose its mindshare and quickly dropped its price to zero, and filed a lawsuit stating that MS was using unfair pricing tactics. It seems to me that NS tried to exploit its marketshare by charging $20, and MS released a superior product, charged nothing and won marketshare. The market chose the best deal for them. The OS market is no different. Apple was out first, MS though they had a good idea, tailored it, improved it and offered a deal to OEMs to distrubute their OS. OEMs looked at the prices on the market and went with MS.
[/b]Actually, the problem was that at the time, MS\'s OS had such a market share, that in most defenitions, they were a monopoly on the market. By bundling their explorer, their explorer won the battle easily (we won\'t get into the fact that netscape started having magical crashes apear when you ran it on MS OSs). At the time, netscape was the far superior product, but they couldn\'t fight explorer and Windows as one (now of course, netscape sucks).
Seems like good business to me. A capitalistic society allows anyone the freedom to make as much money as he/she can and price whatever, he/she wants. Linux is out there, it\'s basically free, but it\'s not generating a market share outside of server admins. Why? Probably marketing and MS\'s mindshare. Why is Sony selling 30 million PS2s? Probably marketing and mindshare.
MS is not unlike IBM years ago. MS can be toppled, but it\'ll take a keen company and some luck--it took Intel and MS to dethrone IBM.
If you take business or economics courses, you will hear about Central Pacific, a coercive monopoly that allowed for no competition. You\'ll also learn that MS, Time Warner and Disney aren\'t coercive or in the same category as CP. CP was not built on smart business practises, sound decisions and free economy--they were built on a mixed economy model. They had legislative leverage, that being government aid in terms of legislations/sanctions, that allowed for absolutely no competition.
MS can be beaten--Sun and Oracle proove that (and NS too until they changed tactics)--and MS doesn\'t stop competition, actually Apple and Corel wouldn\'t even be around if not for MS financial aid. The problem is that most people think immediately that monopolies are evil--coercive monopolies are--but standard monopolies like Time Warner, Viacom and MS are merely examples of the economic market working well, by smart people.
All this antitrust and monopoly started with "The Wealth of Nations" published some 200 years ago. And if you read that book you\'ll realize that today, the term monopoly, is a misnomer. {Author} coined the term monopoly to mean a business running with government assistence and exclusivity (CP). Today, it\'s any successful company, usually MS.
[/b]That\'s probably true, I won\'t check your source, but 200 years ago, they weren\'t dealing with companies that had resources greater than many small countries. Resources in MSs case that they use often to buy or put out of business the competitors which begin to show the least bit of market grabbing innovation. Therein lies the antitrust cases, and the problem with allowing any one corporation to dominate utterly.
Legislators often quote this guy in support of anti-trust laws, but he was very much against them. Infact, if not for politicians, who have no clue about anything let alone economics, the anti-trust laws would be long gone.
[/b]Again, 200 years ago, the problems of allowing even big companies to try and dominate were small scale. Welcome to 2002. Read a moden textbook.
Whew! So is MS a monopoly? Yes, but under the rules of a capitalist society, MS is playing fairly. The only hitch people have is that they play the game much better than anyone else right now. Another OS can come out, people can shose to buy it if they want and MS can do nothing about it. Hell, Linux is free!
Is Sony a monopoly in the console world? In a word, no, but it\'s not far off.
It\'s not a monopoly yet, and hopefully will never be one. MS is not playing fairly, they use their money in ways which no company can realistically get around.
"Offer. Oh you refuse to sell? Millions will be put into destroying you then. Ok, I thought you would see it our way."
Linux is never going to be the \'windows\' killer, it is a superior product in many ways, based on Unix, it\'s faster, more secure, and more stable. Unfortunately, like Unix, it is also difficult to master, and hard to learn - so 95% of the computer world isn\'t interested. If the software and drivers began supporting linux, it still couldn\'t dominate, because it is just not easy to use. Sure, everyone who \'knows\' computers would switch, but it would still amount to probably around 10% -> just like the mac world. Because of MS\'s clout, money, and practices, the only way their OS is going to be removed is if some other, huge multinational decides to write a simple, but better OS, and takes them head on... something I don\'t think anyone will do anytime soon. MS is not going to be destroyed like IBM was, by a few guys writing a \'DOS\' system... remember, DOS was 2 floppys worth of coding... A modern Windows killer would be many millions of lines, not something 9 guys can write alone.
-
Firstly, the arrogance question. How many here know who developed the EE? The usual suspects include Intel, 3Dfx, Nvidia, ATi, but it wasn\'t any of these, it was Toshiba (with help from Sony and IBM). Strange but true.
I, and many others, wouldn\'t pick Toshiba and Sony to design high-end chips--IBM yes--but Sony decided to give the lead to Toshiba. You don\'t see Nintendo or MS helping their chip makers.
Anyway, Sony could have went with trusted archetecture, known designs and proven quality, but they went with Tosh\'s EE. An virtual unknown and a radical chip design. This infuriated developers, but Sony didn\'t care. Where else would they go? The N64 or DC? Sony knew they could do whatever they wanted and devs would come, they\'d have to.
So, If I follow your logic, just because Toshiba isn\'t known by the casual consumer in chip-design, Sony is arrogantic for choosing them? Sorry, but I don\'t follow your logic and I won\'t even speculate why Toshiba got the lead for the Emotion Engine chip-design. Fact is though, Toshiba and Sony made something that is obviously well accepted. Just because it\'s not a chip by Nvidia, IBM or ATI doesn\'t mean it\'s infiriour.
It wasn\'t the performance of the chip or the specs, it was the idea of it, the pure confounding nature of it that attracted Sony. If Sony would have went to press with a Nvidia chip and said "This is the Emotion Engine, it can create vast, detailed, populated worlds where each individual has his/her own unique emotions and desires!" People would have pointed and laughed and said, it\'s a Nvidia chip, not unlike the one I have on my desktop, sure it\'s more powerful, but it\'s not all that hype.
With Tosh\'s design, people took so long to figure it out, that there was no time for a dissenting viewpoint because the hype machine was in full swing and everyone was obsessed with Sony. If they wanted to please developers and customers they would have went with known archetecture and not alienated their developers. It wouldn\'t have taken almost 2 years for the machine\'s potencial to be realized. But Sony didn\'t care because they knew the devs and the public would come because where else would they go? This is arrogance (and burgeoning on monopoly).
Now about the whole monopoly thing. People are free to choose, competition isn\'t impossible, Sony isn\'t a monopoly.
It\'s funny how you talk for developers, yet you complete forget the fact that a lot of them wanted a design that let them to code on the metal during the PSX days. You make it as it\'s all Sony who forced their hardware on all developers. Yeah, lets blame Sony. Sony actually did a good thing and as PC enthusiastic sites show over the net, the PS2 hardware has been well received by those developers. Developers actually like the PS2 hardware due to its nature giving freedom and letting developers really explore the metal. And where would we be today if everyone chose to stay on the x86 architecture? It is clear that as a software engineer you have to always learn new technologies, new programming language and new hardware.
Now you also mentioned bad engineers. Yeah sure, so just because it\'s hard means the chip design of the EE was crafted by bad engineers. :rolleyes: See above, developers actually like challenges. You give them (and me) way to little credit for what they do.
Now about the whole monopoly thing. People are free to choose, competition isn\'t impossible, Sony isn\'t a monopoly.
Correct, so what are you trying to prove above? You just underlined what I said above in my posts: Sony does not have a monopoly. If Sony had a monopoly, they wouldn\'t have invested so much of money into a new technology for 3d processing. Get my point?
*******************************************************************************
Watchdog, no one asked for a lesson on how Microsoft stands as a monopoly and if their decisions are fair or not. Hell, this thread had little to do with Microsoft until you came in hear and felt the need to defend them.
Whew! So is MS a monopoly? Yes, but under the rules of a capitalist society, MS is playing fairly. The only hitch people have is that they play the game much better than anyone else right now. Another OS can come out, people can shose to buy it if they want and MS can do nothing about it. Hell, Linux is free!
Anyone knows that for the casual consumer and worker, Linux is no option. Sad but true. While Linux is very good competitor as a OS, it has no chance to compete because there isn\'t any big backing by software companies. Microsoft and fair? Yeah, if you think it\'s fair for a company to release a very buggy OS and then release some updates (which aren\'t cheap) to resolve their well known bugs.. Yeah, then you might be right. :rolleyes:
No, they do not.
Ryu,
I disagree. Having a monopoly means no real competition. That also means that a Company doesn\'t necesserally have to invest loads of money in future technologies or innovations since their position isn\'t at cost. Instead, they can bring out product after product with very little enhancements. Windows95 to Windows 98? Sure wasn\'t that big of a difference there. Win98 to WinME? Even to a lesser degree. If Microsoft or anyother company in a monopoly had competition, they wouldn\'t be able to do that. They would have to invest in those innovations and future technologies to make a better product. That\'s how technology progresses and monopoly simply doesn\'t encourage that. Therefore in a monopoly, a company can afford to make those cheap shots (make money the easy way). I never said that monopoly == no innovations, but sinply less.
-
So by your definition, MS is a monopoly, and they merely mimmiced the Mac OS X for fun right? Also, don\'t forget that winME didn\'t sell well at all and for very good reason. Why all of a sudden do they have a complete overhaul in WinXP? Why the change? If they are so monopolistic, they can release winME 2002 and call it a full on upgrade and yet they didn\'t and streamlined their OS to WinXP and made it look very similar to a competitor who had plenty of hype behind its OS. Do you think that just happened by coincidence? There are reasons for change and every company from time to time knows it.
-
sorry Ryu, I didn\'t disagree with your whole post, just about you not agreeing with my comment. I just backed it up in my last post. As I already said, monopoly doesn\'t mean no technological progression/innovations, but certainly less. XP might be an exception, I wasn\'t debating that.
-
Well, it\'s either they do it because they don\'t want to change or it costs too much to change... Or they do it because the average customer prefers what\'s going for them. People do not adjust well to drastic changes afterall.
Just imagine the embolisms people would get if they used windows for the pat 8 years and were suddenly forced to use a Mac.
-
Actually I was talking about the technological progression in windows. I, as a consumer, don\'t want a nicer looking windows etc; what I want is a unfaulty, stable and fast product. It\'s quite sad that in the past, the last update of each Windows was the only one worth paying for (take out 95). What I also want as a consumer is that if I already have to upgrade to a new version of windows, that the changes are enough to justify the price. So far it hasn\'t in my eyes. You could also ask yourself if ME was really necessary. They could have skipped that and made a "real" upgrade that is actually worth getting. Cost? Easy money? You tell me.
You also mention it above, cost could also be a factor. Again underlines that a company with a monopoly can afford more of those cheap shots because there is no competition to take\'em down.
-
^
|
|
|
| thats alots of typing up there, phew!
|
|
|
-
Sigh, this is why I tried to avoid this debate, bacause most of you have no idea.
_______
Watchdog, you are the ultimate spindoctor, you need to submit a resume to M$ ASAP beacuse they need your help in spinning the horrible sales in europe and japan
_______
I don\'t even know what this means or how it is relevant. Bravo Chrono.
Disney is a huge company and I wouldn\'t want them to develop chips. Why not go with the industry leaders? Why not go with the best chip makers on the market?
What does B&W tvs have to do with anything? And MS does look on the horizon, if all they did is copy, then would always be one step behind. They\'re not. They\'re leading the industry and are one of the biggest and richest companies in the world. You don\'t do that by shipping inferior products that are merely copies of existing materials. You do that by assessing the market place, making determinations, and giving consumers what they want.
________
It really pissed of developers? which ones? The ones like oddworld who were handed money by MS?
________
Which ones? Have you read interviews from 3rd parties? The only ones who "like" it are the ones who are handed money by Sony. I\'m sorry, where\'s you point again?
That\'s exactly why they chose it Toshiba\'s design and a lot of people did point and laugh at MS and said exactly that. Do you ever make valid points?
___________
This is not even close to a monolopy..
A monolopy would never think of trying something new an innovative, they would just release something close to the original and call it new.. something that would cost the company virtually nothing yet people would still buy with cause they had no other choice.
____________
Sigh, see. I told you that would happen. I\'ll give you a hint, monopoly isn\'t ONLY a board game. You have no clue.
_____________
Sigh. Watchdog, I remember the days when you weren\'t a fanboy... or at least, you weren\'t just an anti-fanboy for the sake of it. blah blah blah
_______________
Tell you the truth I don\'t even know who you are, FatalXception so you can imagine what your assessment of me means to me. I don\'t care what they wanted, I wanted a system that could deliver from day one, we didn\'t get that. Yes, you are right, it certainly is different from a PC...
_______________
This is not arrogance or monopoly. The devs did have the simple choice of going to other consoles.
_______________
The devs had about as much choice as consumers do with MS OSs. So if that\'s you stance then you really need to rethink your entire post.
_______________
Yeah, Bill Gates definitely made some good business moves at the begining. Backstabbing leech that he is. Unfortunately, honor and ethics blah blah blah
________________
Backstabbing? Whatever, the business world isn\'t a friendly place. They others didn\'t have what it took. Gates did. And if you read my post, nothing they have done is anti-competitive, they follow the rules of a free market. I\'d be very surprised if MS pays dearly for anything. It\'s only really the hapless masses and disgruntled companies that are crying foul. You sound like an xbox fanboy: "just wait till E3". What about Boarder\'s/Chapters\'s book stores that are putting Mom and Pop operations out of business because they can\'t cope with the prices and selection the bigger chains provide are these establishments evil too?
_______________
Actually, the problem was that at the time, MS\'s OS had such a market share, that in most defenitions, they were a monopoly on the market. By bundling their explorer, blah blah blah
________________
Again, that\'s not a problem. That\'s smart business. That NS crashing in windows was brought up in court and it was thrown out because it was never proven. The fact is that IE was proven to crash just as often. What about car companies putting stereos into cars? Hey that\'s not fair!, you\'d say. Man, it must be some kind of freedom to be able to speak from such a vast pool of ignorance. Posting seems so easy and carefree for you.
______________
That\'s probably true, I won\'t check your source, but 200 years ago, they weren\'t dealing with companies that had resources greater than many small countries.
______________
That\'s the whole point, the precidence for these anti-trust alegations are being sourced from a 200 year old text. Worse still, is that if these people actually read the source text (and not some modern annotation of it) they would see that it speaks out directly again anti-trust cases in a free market environment. This is MS\'s case and is why nothing is likely to happen.
__________
Again, 200 years ago, the problems of allowing even big companies to try and dominate were small scale. Welcome to 2002. Read a moden textbook.
__________
See above, and before you fill up my read queue with "modern" texts, perhaps you should read any text, just plain read. It\'ll do wonders for your comprehension skills and knowledge about this subject that you would like to think you know so much about. And besides that. Railroads, coal , etc were big business back before the technological explosion (relatively speaking) so even that point completely nullifies any credibility you are so desperately vying for.
___________
It\'s not a monopoly yet, and hopefully will never be one. MS is not playing fairly, they use their money in ways which no company can realistically get around.
____________
Why is this not fair? MS is supposed to handicap themselves? Truly, did you read anything I wrote? You clearly don\'t understand economics, business or a capitalistic society. Linux is free, and no one wants it. It doesn\'t matter how much money MS has, MS can do nothing else.
____________
Linux is never going to be the \'windows\' killer, it is a superior product in many ways, based on Unix, it\'s faster, more secure, and more stable. Unfortunately, like Unix, it is also difficult to master, and hard to learn
_______________
Have you used a GUI OS in linux? It\'s almost exactly like Windows, even looks and works like windows. It has some really nice features. Again, what was it I said about ignorance... If anything is a Windows killer it is Linux.
______________
So, If I follow your logic, just because Toshiba isn\'t known by the casual consumer in chip-design, Sony is arrogantic for choosing them? Sorry, but I don\'t follow your logic and I won\'t even speculate why Toshiba got the lead for the Emotion Engine chip-design. Fact is though, Toshiba and Sony made something that is obviously well accepted. Just because it\'s not a chip by Nvidia, IBM or ATI doesn\'t mean it\'s infiriour.
______________
It is inferior. Toshiba isn\'t known to the casual or the professional as a high-powered chip designer. Still searching for a point here. Even if it isn\'t inferior it isn\'t any more powerful, but it\'s a hell of a lot harder to code for. Do you really thing Sony would make the same decision if they had a chance to do it over again?
______________
It\'s funny how you talk for developers, yet you complete forget the fact that a lot of them wanted a design that let them to code on the metal during the PSX days.
______________
I think it\'s funny how you make things up. You can code to the metal for the xbox, only it is far easier. You tell me what devs want, then if you post what I know you will, let\'s quote some devs and see how many actually prefer the PS2 archetecture to the xbox\'s. I\'ll save us both some time, the answer is none. Like I said above, the xbox is old archetecture, but it still kicks ass. Why revent the wheel?
_____________
Correct, so what are you trying to prove above? You just underlined what I said above in my posts: Sony does not have a monopoly. If Sony had a monopoly, they wouldn\'t have invested so much of money into a new technology for 3d processing. Get my point?
______________
I never said Sony was a monopoly. And again, your lack of any knowledge comes shining through. Do you know how much MS spends on R&D? Millions upon millions. It has NOTHING to do with a company being a monopoly. So no I do not get your point, because what you are saying makes nothing valid.
_________________
Watchdog, no one asked for a lesson on how Microsoft stands as a monopoly blah blah blah
____________________
No one asked for a lesson, but you do need one. How can someone argue a topic without any knowledge about the topic. I don\'t know either, but watch Seven, he does it all the time. My "lesson" wasn\'t about MS, it was about monopolies, which is what this topic is about and is what you know nothing about. Do you get my point?
________________
Anyone knows that for the casual consumer and worker, Linux is no option. Sad but true. While Linux is very good competitor as a OS, it has no chance to compete because there isn\'t any big backing by software companies. Microsoft and fair? Yeah, if you think it\'s fair for a company to release a very buggy OS and then release some updates (which aren\'t cheap) to resolve their well known bugs.. Yeah, then you might be right.
___________________
Windows 2000 is rock steady. Of course it\'s fair. People buy it. That\'s the bottom line with capitalism. There is no backing because it is an inferior product (including all aspects, not just the actual OS which is better as a stripped down windows clone). If the product was superior, people would buy it. That\'s capitalism at work.
My whole point is that the majority of the people that call MS\'s practises unfair are either disgruntled competitors or people that do not understand the first rule of the game of capitalism: making money. If you don\'t understand the rule of cricket you can\'t call a "leg bye", similarly, if you don\'t understnd economics you can\'t call MS evil let alone debate about it.
-
Watchdog, you seem pretty intelligent to me, and certainly have a lot of fine points (that you keep making over and over :)), but I do disagree with this one thing:
if you don\'t understnd economics you can\'t call MS evil let alone debate about it.
That\'s not true, there are plenty of other reasons people hate MS. Take the web development community, for example, Front Page is more headache than it\'s worth for a real developer. There are even programs to clean up the trash that Microsoft adds to its web files.
For me, I don\'t like how MS links its programs together and tries to default everything on my system to MS apps. I closed MSN for a reason. No, I don\'t want to open MIE. That kind of thing. And that\'s just the tip of the iceberg for some people, still without having anything to do with economics.
-Eik
-
Point taken Eik, can\'t say I disagree or that I can argue with that--I really meant that people can\'t argue about monopolies and that being the reason is evil. The windows operating system, pisses me off too, the tie ins (besides the IE and notepad ones, I really like them) bother me too.
BTW, I\'m sure you can see why I have to keep bringing up the same points. I swear some of these people can\'t even read at a grade 6 level.
-
all I can say is
man you guys have too much time on your hands
haven\'t you noticed, the sun is out
-
Ddaryl, since when did you become the gospel of life? You don\'t post for what seems like a month and then all of a sudden you come back telling us what to do... What\'s the deal?
-
what do you mean ???
you have a post with a sticky next to it with a rant about name calling and all of sudden I\'m the "gospel of life"
I think anyone who wastes there time reading this thread and replying to it in a 10 paragraph rebuttle needs a long hard reality break
there is nothing here worth debating about. Just play the games have fun and try not to make it seem like its a vital part of ones existence
oh and RYU
sorry you have a problem with that, but its the truth
-
So long as we\'re arguing about little things like that, let\'s not forget who has roughly 3000 more posts then any other member. Besides, you are abcent T for months and you judge me for what I am doing with this board? You don\'t even have a clue as to what happened. That\'s ok though, all is well when you\'re "outside in the sun" or whatever. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ryu
Ddaryl, since when did you become the gospel of life? You don\'t post for what seems like a month and then all of a sudden you come back telling us what to do... What\'s the deal?
He\'s been working in his garden again. When he\'s in his garden, he forgets all about how people who love video games and love talking about the industry come here to talk about it. I don\'t want to start the whole video games VS gardens argument again, but ddaryl remember what we told you last time: To each his own!
-
Disney is a huge company and I wouldn\'t want them to develop chips. Why not go with the industry leaders? Why not go with the best chip makers on the market?
It is inferior. Toshiba isn\'t known to the casual or the professional as a high-powered chip designer. Still searching for a point here.
Chrono has a good point there. Toshiba is a big company just like Sony too and they have lots of resources in different divisions. Just because you, or the casual consumer never heard of Toshiba not making chips doesn\'t mean they\'re bad or anything. Very strange logic there. So for you, everything has to be IBM/NVidia/ATI for it to "good" - just because their the big brands in that field. :rolleyes:
Did Nvidia, IBM or ATI design the original PSX chip? Following your logic too, Sony who can also be called a "no-name" in that field in those days was also a infiriour product. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
Well I tell you something. Since \'the Cell\' is the next big thing to happen soon, I wonder why Toshiba is still apart of it. Maybe their not that bad afterall. Again, why should I believe your logic? You have absolutely no idea, yet you speculate about a company (which you have no idea about what\'s) and acuse them of having bad engineers. Please let people judge who really understand what their talking about.
It\'s funny how you critisize the chip design of the EE, yet a lot of pc enthusiastic sites rave on about it. I wonder who I would believe? Watchdog, a nobody in this area or some guys who actually understand what their raving on about.
Even if it isn\'t inferior it isn\'t any more powerful, but it\'s a hell of a lot harder to code for. Do you really thing Sony would make the same decision if they had a chance to do it over again?
I don\'t know. But do you know what, we\'ll see in a few years if it was a good decision. Being the judge of it now, it was: if they had taken it the normal way (as MS is doing), you would have ended up with a PC with a Nvidia Geforce 1. Well, obviously this wouldn\'t have been the way to go, since the PS2 is still up there with Xbox graphics.
I think it\'s funny how you make things up. You can code to the metal for the xbox, only it is far easier. You tell me what devs want, then if you post what I know you will, let\'s quote some devs and see how many actually prefer the PS2 archetecture to the xbox\'s. I\'ll save us both some time, the answer is none. Like I said above, the xbox is old archetecture, but it still kicks ass. Why revent the wheel?
Typical Watchdog. If I say something that you\'ve never heard of, it\'s made up. :rolleyes:
You have no idea buddy. Read some interviews back a few years, and I am certainly not the one that is going to dig those up. But to lay things down to ya (since you have no idea), the Xbox does let you code the metal (to that extend as any system), but PS2 takes that a step further. Instead of copy/paste Nvidia test code into the machine, PS2 developers have to think about every single step of a graphics-engine. There are very little effects supported, but the power and performance ensures that developers can get the same results if the talent is there. The big positive side? Freedom of development. The reason why we\'re suddenly seing games on PS2 that support DTS ingame, progressive output and more will follow. PS2 developers will have to program their effects - something that is obviously harder, but much more rewarding in the end. Do you know with what tools Xbox developers are coding? Well, look into some PC game developer devision and you\'ll know. PS2 developers are however using next so standard C/C++, also Vector Microcode and Assembler at a daily basis to get anywhere near to what Xbox games are looking like. Is this good? It\'s challenging, for sure, hard aswell, but will be rewarding in the end. It\'s the nature of this system. Trust me, as a software engineer, I should know what I\'m speaking of.
You tell me what devs want, then if you post what I know you will, let\'s quote some devs and see how many actually prefer the PS2 archetecture to the xbox\'s.
People who prefer the PS2 hardware over a x86 architecture certainly know why. There are a lot of developers out there that are loosing the motivation of being "cracks" - Sad but true. It\'s a trend lately and the game developers are no exception. There are a lot of Developers that prefer to be creative rather than cracks. This isn\'t necessarely bad, but just a different mentality. You have a lot of them that love the Xbox for what it is: a easy and cheap way to make good graphics. A PS2 systems requires more headaches, but as I said, can be more rewarding in the end due to the nature of its hardware. A trend has already began; that a lot of developing companies (finance sectors and others) are training their software engineers to code in Java instead of the usual C/C++. Why? Because it\'s easy and cheap to do quite complex stuff. Is it better? No. Sad but true and that\'s how it stands.
No one asked for a lesson, but you do need one. How can someone argue a topic without any knowledge about the topic. I don\'t know either, but watch Seven, he does it all the time. My "lesson" wasn\'t about MS, it was about monopolies, which is what this topic is about and is what you know nothing about. Do you get my point?
Then I\'m sorry, but you completely wasted your time then because I don\'t need a lesson and certainly not from you. However, I think you should be a bit open minded, especially about the above topic about development. Your lack of knowledge shines through too.
Windows 2000 is rock steady. Of course it\'s fair. People buy it. That\'s the bottom line with capitalism. There is no backing because it is an inferior product (including all aspects, not just the actual OS which is better as a stripped down windows clone). If the product was superior, people would buy it. That\'s capitalism at work.
I do use Windows 2000 on a daily basis. And with \'Windows\', I was specifically talking about the windows that the casual consumer buys. They don\'t have NT4 or Win2k at home (Win2k is the NT4 successor) - they have Win95/98/Me. And no, as Fatal pointed out, Linux is no option for the casual consumer. It\'s superiour, but unfortunately it\'s not getting any backing by the software companies. So even though there is a better OS, what good is that for me if the software support for it is underwhellming?
-
I think Sony is almost at a monopoly status for people 20+
I don´t know the numbers of gamers that is over 20 that have a GC but I don´t think they are many.
Here in Sweden is Sony very big. They totally dominates the sales of TV:s, portable audio, headphones a.s.o and the gamingindustry here.
You can find the Playstation logo almost everywhere.
The thing with Sony is that they do know very well the trends amongst 10-30 years old people. Just like Nokia they know that design and other factors are just as important as performance.
A Nokia phone is not better than a Ericsson phone but still they sell tons more. They know what people wants. Sony knows that too.
If you want a minidisc or other portable soundgadget you choose Sony. If I could choose between a Sony MD or a Panasonic MD I choose the Sony MD, why?? I don´t know Sony has managed to grab me and million of others.
Nobody belives Sony has a monopoly on portables cd-players and MD, but in practise they have. They totally dominates the portable industry of audio.
Sony is well known of their inovation, they put around 5% of all money into R&D, not many companies does that.
They have tons of patents.
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
If you want a minidisc or other portable soundgadget you choose Sony. If I could choose between a Sony MD or a Panasonic MD I choose the Sony MD, why?? I don´t know Sony has managed to grab me and million of others.
Plus the little moneyhat on the side helps :p ;)
-
I rule for making this thread. :D
Keep the debating going. Its good!
-
_____________
It\'s funny how you critisize the chip design of the EE, yet a lot of pc enthusiastic sites rave on about it. I wonder who I would believe? Watchdog, a nobody in this area or some guys who actually understand what their raving on about.
_______________
Who raves about it? You? My point is that just because you are a big company with a lot pf resources doesn\'t mean you can make anything you want. The fact of the matter is that Nvidea, ATi etc are industry leaders for a reason. If Sony/Tosh could make chips better than anyone else, why don\'t they? Because they can\'t. I would never buy a TV from MS just because they are a big company with lots of resources.
Had Sony contracted Nvidea, they would have got a custom GF2 and that could do some pretty amazing things. Hell my GF2 runs any PC game I put in at at least a constant 30fps. That\'s at least on par with anything the PS2 can do right now.
____________
Typical Watchdog. If I say something that you\'ve never heard of, it\'s made up.
You have no idea buddy. Read some interviews back a few years, and I am certainly not the one that is going to dig those up.
____________
Uh-huh. I remember a thread where you were the one to dig them up and all you could find were confessionals from Sony, Square, Naughty Dog and other 1st and 2nd party devs. I rebutted with 3RD PARTY interviews and quotes and you then called those 3RD PARTY devs biased and uninformed and continued to quote yourself. This is typical Seven.
When anyone praises the xbox over the PS2 (even on these boards--remember Bioware, Digital Illusions or Epic?) you always come back with they have been bought or they don\'t know what they are talking about. Why is that Seven? You repeatedly call into question the knowledge and expertise of PROFFESSIONAL designers who work for 3RD party devs, all the while asking everyone here to believe your thoughts and views over theirs. How does this make sense to you, because I\'d really like to know?
But perhaps my favourite Seven quote of all time has to be (and I believe this is in rebuttal to one of those infamous discussions): "I just finished a conversation with someone who works at Square and they said..." LOL, that is classic.
______________
PS2 developers have to think about every single step of a graphics-engine. There are very little effects supported, but the power and performance ensures that developers can get the same results if the talent is there. The big positive side? Freedom of development.
_______________
The big negative side--it NEEDLESSLY forces devs to work that much harder, that much longer, forcing a longer dev cycle, causing them to lose money and generally pisses them off. The xbox gives devs the choice--they can use the preexisting stuff and maximize their dev cycle, or they can throw those away and write their own. Sometimes there is no need to code everything from scratch, scrutinizing the code, optimizing endlessly, but the PS2 forces them to do it anyway.
This is what I\'ve always said--you always take the PS2 in the most optimistic, the most favourable light, then compare that to the most pessimistic scenario for the xbox and make judgement.
_______________
PS2 developers are however using next so standard C/C++, also Vector Microcode and Assembler at a daily basis to get anywhere near to what Xbox games are looking like. Is this good? It\'s challenging, for sure, hard aswell, but will be rewarding in the end. It\'s the nature of this system. Trust me, as a software engineer, I should know what I\'m speaking of.
_______________
But why force them? The only thing that is ultimately rewarding is a paycheck and if given a choice those devs would rather work less hard, less hours to get the same results. If you have a quote from some who doesn\'t recieve paychecks from Sony, then I\'d love to hear a dev say that working on the PS2 is better than the xbox, that I\'d love to see. Unless you are a complete masochist, you want to express yourself and get your vision on screen. You don\'t want to wrestle with the machine to get a simple effect out of it. I have a question, how do you type and hug your PS2 at the same time?
_____________
Then I\'m sorry, but you completely wasted your time then because I don\'t need a lesson and certainly not from you. However, I think you should be a bit open minded, especially about the above topic about development. Your lack of knowledge shines through too.
_______________
I always waste my time when talking with you Seven, I\'m used to it. You prefer to argue with ignorance, I think I\'ve proven that. I have the same degree you have pal, I talk sense, you talk out of your ass.
Win2000 is a home client and so is WinXp, both are very solid. That\'s beyond the point, we were talking about monopoly (Well, I was talking about monopoly in a corporate sense, you, in the board game sense. We met in the middle.)
This is why I didn\'t want to get into this with you: you obviously don\'t know the first thing about economics, and you don\'t care. Your ideology is so rigid that it allows for no knowledge, alteration or compromise. You truly must believe that the answers to all question reside in your head, that everyone here are infedels and you are the keeper of all truth. Your idea of a monopoly: a company that exercises no innovation and spends no money on research and development (aka MS). Your idea of proof that the PS2 is a great peice of archetecture: quotes from Sony or their employees.
-
I have the same degree you have pal, I talk sense, you talk out of your ass.
lol, now thats pretty funny
watchdog, you talk outta your ass more then most people in this forum
Your like my little brother, thinks he knows everything, is better then everyone else, and is never wrong.
Had Sony contracted Nvidea, they would have got a custom GF2 and that could do some pretty amazing things. Hell my GF2 runs any PC game I put in at at least a constant 30fps.
No, Nvida went with MS simply beacuse it cost them virtually nothing, the card would appear on the PC market soon enough.. its pretty easy to put a graphics card in a PC.. oops, I mean Xbox
Working with sony would have forced them to rethink their whole card to work with the ps2 processor and various chips.. thats just too much work.
Uh-huh. I remember a thread where you were the one to dig them up and all you could find were confessionals from Sony, Square, Naughty Dog and other 1st and 2nd party devs.
Square.. a 2nd party! when did that happen?
But why force them?
Nobody is forcing developers to create their own code and effects (which are fully custimizeable and allow for a more lifelike game.. unlike the xboxes manufactered effects0
Every month it seems there is another 3rd party product aimed at helping developers, especially smaller ones, make games for the ps2. While at the same time allowing for freedom. Once again this is why Sony created this archtexture.
I rebutted with 3RD PARTY interviews and quotes and you then called those 3RD PARTY devs biased and uninformed and continued to quote yourself. This is typical Seven.
For every 3rd party comment you come across, I can come across a postive 3rd party comment. Your point is moot
Also, my final comment
You attacked Seven quite personally, much more then Seven attacked you. People use such tactic, especcially to the extent at which you used them, he or she has nothing else to use. Seven aparently won this debate.
-
Originally posted by IronFist
He\'s been working in his garden again. When he\'s in his garden, he forgets all about how people who love video games and love talking about the industry come here to talk about it. I don\'t want to start the whole video games VS gardens argument again, but ddaryl remember what we told you last time: To each his own!
Originally posted by Ryu
So long as we\'re arguing about little things like that, let\'s not forget who has roughly 3000 more posts then any other member. Besides, you are abcent T for months and you judge me for what I am doing with this board? You don\'t even have a clue as to what happened. That\'s ok though, all is well when you\'re "outside in the sun" or whatever. :rolleyes:
LMAO
sorry lads
these debates are lame, and those who participate in them on a constant basis are on par with it.
I\'ll just enjoy laughing at ya\'s
and for the last time... about 6700 of my post were made while I was making $30.00 and hour at my job. Since I\'m a maintenance man I only work on equip that is down, and most of the time the machines are running. Therefore I spend some of my time between jobs posting here.
I don\'t post in my freetime, got way to much other things going on
-
these debates are lame, and those who participate in them on a constant basis are on par with it.
I\'ll just enjoy laughing at ya\'s
Then why even bother visiting these boards if we\'re all so lame? What even keeps you here in the first place? If talking about games and debating about them is so god awful (according to you, discussing them is "laughable") then why even bother looking to see what it is we are talking about? Pointless. You insult us for doing it and we insult you for viewing it at all. Why bother? It\'s like talking to a brick wall.
If you really have nothing nice to say about how we spend our free time, then maybe you shouldn\'t say anything at all and sideline yourself like you have been for months.
-
I must say this is one of the more impressive debates...and one I don\'t care to get in to.
Starting out, both Watchdog and Seven made some very valid points and I didn\'t know who to side with. But as usual, Watchdog comes through. Seven, it seems you are losing ground on which to stand on...
Chrono...it\'s always fun to see your 2 cents. :clown:
Ddaryl, why did you even bother posting in here then?
-
Impressive thread, I am surprised as I didn\'t expect this thread to take off. I am just going to make a list of what I think about the thread, instead of qouting and giving a remark to every one deserved (and there is a lot.)
- Sony does not have a monoply of the electronic entertainment industry. You cannot confuse great sells with a company doing illegal practices or havin a complete monopoly over the industry. Microsoft had some questionable tactics in the computer industry that earned them their reputation. Not to mention there is still healthy competition for Sony. Now, if Nintendo ever went third party and MS drops out (as I expect them to next generation, unless something drastic happens), then Sony would have complete control over the industry and a monopoly over it. This would be the death of gaming, in my opinion. Anytime one company has control over an industry, quality control takes a step back and the flood of bad games and what not would kill the market within a year\'s time.
- Microsoft earned their reputation with the hardcore computer community due to their business tactics. The general idea was it killed progress for certain things and it did to a certain degree. At the same time, it did help the community in some ways. Bill Gates was one of the first people to speak up and say that software should be paid for it should not be given away on diskettes, like they was at the time. Later on, Microsoft earned a bad reputation with the casual users due to buggy OS\'s and constant problems. There was nothing more infuritating than getting BSoD (blue screen of death) all the time. To further that point, I\'ll point out WinME, a diaster in all manner.
This is not to say that Microsoft has not put out some quality products. Certain service packs for Win NT were stable and great. Then there is Win2K and now even WINXP, which is a stable and quality OS. The problem is, their bad reputation is large enough with everyone now that it overshadows any enhancements and moves forward made by the company. It is a shame actually.
I personally do not believe MS is the nasty evil boogieman. I do disagree with certain things they have done in the market, at the same time I do understand the point of it. As Bill Gates himself said in an interview for A&E (I believe), he uses any information to his own advantage. He is first and foremost a business man. To be a succesful business man, you have to make questionable business choices, but at the end of the day, if you are at the top of the market, that is all that matters.
- I\'m not quite sure what your problem is Ddaryl. You\'ve posted in two threads now trying to enforce your opinion on how no one around here has a life , because of these debates, yet I recall you throwing a fit over in the Tribal Dragon\'s forum, because of the name being changed. You went practicaly beserk over in that forum over a simple name change for an online PS2 clan.. So, where exactly do you get off on pointing out and making fun of other people for having a healthy debate about the industry they enjoy?
Choice qoute\'s from that thread.
Why cause you don\'t like it
Cry me a ****ing river
WHaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
the other is just pure communism, but according to you and a few others your method was the correct way to handle it
I have to say its just ****ed up how this all of a sudden happened
I think the name should be placed back and if yuo want to have a re-vote then suggest it to the regulars and will re-vote
un-****ing-believable
There is many more of you acting like a five year old who did not get his way, because of a PS2 ONLINE CLAN .
My point? Before you sit back and post this crap over here and judge everyone for taking this serious, look at yourself and serious you\'re taking trivial things.
Furthermore, for what it is worth, I think Ryu has taken a great step to getting this forum back on track. And even if you disagree with him, at least he is trying to do something, instead of just sit back and watch it go to hell, unlike some people. What I don\'t get is the fact you don\'t even post in console debating, yet you come over here just to nitpick and point stuff out.
If you don\'t like how things are being ran around here (and you obviously don\'t, with your constant complaining as of late) than either 1) do something about it, constructive wise, 2) quit posting here and as Ryu said "go back to the sidelines" or 3) go enjoy some more of that "real life" that you are always talking about.
The only thing I can say I agree with that you posted , is when you said...
Just play the games have fun
- Kudos to Rich for making this thread!. ;)
-
In a way sony is a monopoly they have to have at least 80% of the console market world wide. I mean as far as consoles goes they own the market. MS and Nintendo don\'t even compare.
They have all the fans and all the developers seems like a monopoly to me. The console industry is all sony rite now.
AND ddaryl why did you post here if you where going to be so negative? Makes no sense to even post.
-
I didn\'t attack him personally. Calling someone ignorant isn\'t an insult . I\'m ignorant in the field of biochemistry. See, Chrono, dictionaries are a wonderful thing.
Anyway, the only one here that pisses me off is ddaryl. You certainly have no purpose here. I also find it odd that you make judgements about us having a debate. The fact that you post here at all is a small irony, but that you come in here simply to look down upon us with your nose in the air is what troubles me.
I could look down upon you for being a maintainance man who enjoys gardening. I could ask all sorts of questions as to how you screwed up your life up so badly as to find yourself toting a wrench and wearing a tool belt for the rest of your life earning a measly hourly wage (who comes in here to brag about it no less). I could analyse said sad life and come to the conclusion that you feel so insecure about your life that you need to come here and feign superiority because it\'s the only thing that can begin to repair the fractures in your frail ego.
I could do all of these things, but like you and your choice not to post in lame threads, I\'m better than that.
Note to Chrono: while you have that dictionary handy, check and see if that was a personal attack.
-
The main thing that bothered me about your post Watchdog was how much of your post was spent looking at past posts about Seven. Seven in his post did not spend paragraphs talking about your posts in the past did he?
-
It\'s all fair game so long as it\'s relevant to the argument.
-
Originally posted by Ryu
Then why even bother visiting these boards if we\'re all so lame? What even keeps you here in the first place? If talking about games and debating about them is so god awful (according to you, discussing them is "laughable") then why even bother looking to see what it is we are talking about? Pointless. You insult us for doing it and we insult you for viewing it at all. Why bother? It\'s like talking to a brick wall.
If you really have nothing nice to say about how we spend our free time, then maybe you shouldn\'t say anything at all and sideline yourself like you have been for months.
its the same thing over and over and over and over and over again
I usually come to debate to catch the Xbox news from the Xbox lads
I also usually ignore the debates here, but figuresd I\'d ruffle some feathers by speaking my opinion on those who think its worthwhile to debate this crap
I have no problems discussing games, but there are maybe 1/2 dozen new posts on the main forium in regards to games every day. Not many peopel discussing games and gameplay
what so many of you are more interested in is sales charts, and who\'s got a monopoly and who is better. If i see one more sales chart I\'ll puke.
just play the friggin games
but hey I just thought I point out how laughable it is to see the same people arguing the same points for the past year
I find it strange that a few of you do not see how incredibly redudndant it is.
hey go back to your debate about the completely uselss topics of who\'s better, who has a monopoly or why system Y is so much better. I\'m sure the 100 time you\'ve debated it everyone will align and agree.
I just can\'t help but get a chuckle out of it, especially when some of the replys here are college essays in length
-
I also usually ignore the debates here, but figuresd I\'d ruffle some feathers by speaking my opinion on those who think its worthwhile to debate this crap
We had a name for this... what was it again? Oh yah...
TROLLING
That just about sums that up.
-
Who raves about it? You? My point is that just because you are a big company with a lot pf resources doesn\'t mean you can make anything you want. The fact of the matter is that Nvidea, ATi etc are industry leaders for a reason. If Sony/Tosh could make chips better than anyone else, why don\'t they? Because they can\'t. I would never buy a TV from MS just because they are a big company with lots of resources.
Arstechnica being one of those and along with them a few others as well. You\'ll even have Fireingsquad pointing out the potential of the hardware - it seems to me you\'re the only one who accuses Sony for making bad chips. Someone who has no experience with designing chips what so ever. Ain\'t that funny?
And comparing the EE as a chip against something from ATi or Nvidia is moot. The PS2 architecture was designed for graphics processing, something Nvidia and ATi are limited through a PC architecture. So it\'s really pathetic to discuss who makes the better chips, because they\'re so different. Both companies make the best in their field: Nvidia/Ati for making a x86 architecture push some nice graphics and Sony/Toshiba for designing a chipset that is dedicated 100% to graphic processing. BTW: did you know that the PS2 board was rated among the fastest supercomputers in rendering? This however doesn\'t prove if it\'s a good chipset, but should be enough evidence that the PS2 does not have a bad designed chip.
Had Sony contracted Nvidea, they would have got a custom GF2 and that could do some pretty amazing things. Hell my GF2 runs any PC game I put in at at least a constant 30fps. That\'s at least on par with anything the PS2 can do right now.
If you say so... :rolleyes:
Yeah, okay - since PS2 are Xbox more or less up to par (one might argue again, but the differences aren\'t far apart enough), I\'m really shocked to hear that Xbox is said to have a customized GF3 in there. Point is, Sony went the right way and the PS2 isn\'t maxed out yet. But PS2 certainly is pushing out some stuff I\'ve never seen on a GF2. Nice try Watchdog. :rolleyes:
Uh-huh. I remember a thread where you were the one to dig them up and all you could find were confessionals from Sony, Square, Naughty Dog and other 1st and 2nd party devs. I rebutted with 3RD PARTY interviews and quotes and you then called those 3RD PARTY devs biased and uninformed and continued to quote yourself. This is typical Seven.
Gosh, you have a really bad memory. That discussion was about what developers thought of PS2 hardware - not PSX days. Get your facts staight.
When anyone praises the xbox over the PS2 (even on these boards--remember Bioware, Digital Illusions or Epic?) you always come back with they have been bought or they don\'t know what they are talking about. Why is that Seven? You repeatedly call into question the knowledge and expertise of PROFFESSIONAL designers who work for 3RD party devs, all the while asking everyone here to believe your thoughts and views over theirs. How does this make sense to you, because I\'d really like to know?
As Chrono said, find me one and I\'ll get you one too. Your point is moot. Even if we get all those "facts", it proves nothing. This debate is about if the chipdesign of the PS2 is good, remember? As I already said above (which you obviously ignored) - People who prefer the PS2 design over a typicall x86 architecture certainly know why. Just like people who prefer Linux to Window (of course most people who rave on about Windows have absolutely no idea, yet someone like you would take that as facts).
Developers enjoy the Xbox for what it is: a easy way to get good graphics. Developers who like PS2 better certainly no why too: Freedom of development. (Damn, why do I have to repeat myself with you?) Just because X developer says one is better than the other doesn\'t mean it is - it\'s personal preference and 2 completely different mentalities.
But perhaps my favourite Seven quote of all time has to be (and I believe this is in rebuttal to one of those infamous discussions): "I just finished a conversation with someone who works at Square and they said..." LOL, that is classic.
I and some other members at the board actually have contact with PS2 developers/developers out there. Just because you don\'t believe it isn\'t my problem. However, this has nothing to do with the ongoing debate. Good job changing topics again. :rolleyes:
The big negative side--it NEEDLESSLY forces devs to work that much harder, that much longer, forcing a longer dev cycle, causing them to lose money and generally pisses them off. The xbox gives devs the choice--they can use the preexisting stuff and maximize their dev cycle, or they can throw those away and write their own. Sometimes there is no need to code everything from scratch, scrutinizing the code, optimizing endlessly, but the PS2 forces them to do it anyway.
You\'re complaining for the developers? Please let them do so themselves. As I said, both enjoy different postive aspect of both systems: XBox of being easy to make good graphics - PS2 for it\'s potential and freedom of development. It\'s not as if "one system is evil and the other one is better in all aspects". You sound like a little kid defending his system.
But why force them? The only thing that is ultimately rewarding is a paycheck and if given a choice those devs would rather work less hard, less hours to get the same results. If you have a quote from some who doesn\'t recieve paychecks from Sony, then I\'d love to hear a dev say that working on the PS2 is better than the xbox, that I\'d love to see. Unless you are a complete masochist, you want to express yourself and get your vision on screen. You don\'t want to wrestle with the machine to get a simple effect out of it. I have a question, how do you type and hug your PS2 at the same time?
If they don\'t want to, then they either should quit their job or move to Xbox. As simple as that. PS2 gives them both ways too, thanks to Sony. Newer libraries, better documentations, 3d rendering platforms - it\'s all there for developers to use. I don\'t know what your point is. Now for the third time (probably 4th): you have to types of developers, the ones that enjoy being creative with a system that want a system that\'s easy to tap performance from and others that want freedom.
This is why I didn\'t want to get into this with you: you obviously don\'t know the first thing about economics, and you don\'t care.
I think one member already said I brought up some good points. It\'s fine by me if yo want to crisize my knowledge and debate about "How I see the world", but honestly, what do you hope to prove? Damage my credibility? :rolleyes:
EDIT: Sorry for the typos. I\'m at work, so I didn\'t have too much time for this reply. ;)
-
_________
I usually come to debate to catch the Xbox news from the Xbox lads
_________
Go to Teamxbox or xbox.IGN. No need to come here, no one missed you.
________
I also usually ignore the debates here, but figuresd I\'d ruffle some feathers by speaking my opinion on those who think its worthwhile to debate this crap
________
I usually ignore people like you as I pass them on my way to my office. Speaking of crap, isn\'t there a leaky toilet you could be
fixing? See I like to ruffle feathers too.
__________
I have no problems discussing games, but there are maybe 1/2 dozen new posts on the main forium in regards to games every day. Not many peopel discussing games and gameplay
___________
Then again, stop coming or make a post that is suitable for a man of your stature and esteem.
____________
but hey I just thought I point out how laughable it is to see the same people arguing the same points for the past year
____________
I\'ve never seen a Sony=monopoly thread before.
__________
I find it strange that a few of you do not see how incredibly redudndant it is.
____________
I find it strange that you don\'t see how incredibly redundant you are. I also find it strange that you are debating about the validity of debating in this thread. You have a strange way of making points.
_____________
hey go back to your debate about the completely uselss topics of who\'s better, who has a monopoly or why system Y is so much better. I\'m sure the 100 time you\'ve debated it everyone will align and agree.
______________
Hey go back to your toilets and flowers and continue to spin your wheels in life. Like I said, no one missed you.
____________
I just can\'t help but get a chuckle out of it, especially when some of the replys here are college essays in length
____________
Glad we amuse you. You sadden me and reinforce why I went to school. I\'m being antisocial and abrasive, but with trolls like you it\'s seems like the right thing to do.
Now on to Seven:
Firing Squad MUCH prefered the xbox.
PS2 and xbox are not on par.
Who\'s talking about PSX?
And no this discussion was about monopolies originally, then you in your illogical ways said Sony was not a monopoly because they innovated with the PS2--lol. I said innovation has nothing to do with monopolies, it was arrogance and bad engineers. Ryu then said they weren\'t bad engineers, I agreed and ammended my comment to say misguided engineers--we both agreed. You of course argued. I explained what a monopoly really is. You of course argued and continue to do so.
Devs who like PS2 archetecture = Sony\'s employees and devs they have stock in. Devs who prefer xbox = everyone else. Theres some pattern there I\'m sure of it, but I can\'t figure it out.
Hey Seven, next time you are at Square HQ, tell Tomoyuki Takechi I say hi. We\'re old friends. I was his best man. LOL!
________
You\'re complaining for the developers? Please let them do so themselves. As I said, both enjoy different postive aspect of both systems: XBox of being easy to make good graphics - PS2 for it\'s potential and freedom of development. It\'s not as if "one system is evil and the other one is better in all aspects".
________
I\'ve been through this a hundred times, read carefully this time: the xbox also allows for freedom of development. The xbox gives devs the choice--and you saying you can\'t be creative with the xbox hardware is completely ridiculous--what degree did you say you had and where did you get it, because your theories sound like like they originated at Sony HQ in the file called PS2 propaganda.
With the PS2 the devs choices are--using libraries that are still developing (and this is still not easy, only easier) or pull their hair out doing it the "creative method" (or what normal people call the pain in the ass, throw my debug kit out the window method).
With xbox, you can code your own--friendly and familiar or you can use libraries that have been developed for years.
And you tell me this is about on par. Give your head a shake and make sure nothing is loose up there.
And even with new libraries, the xbox is still much easier to develop for. You have absolutely no argument here, yet you manage to write on at length about it. I never said one system is evil, you\'re the one that NEVER has anything good to say about xbox, you tell me who\'s the kid defending his system. In fact, outside of "debates" with you and Chrono, I say more good things about PS2 than xbox.
__________
I think one member already said I brought up some good points. It\'s fine by me if yo want to crisize my knowledge and debate about "How I see the world", but honestly, what do you hope to prove? Damage my credibility?
__________
You want to bring up support? Okay.... and that member was Chrono--lol, no wonder you didn\'t mention his name. Ginko went on to say "you are losing ground on which to stand on". A pretty apt statement. Ryu disagreed with you. This is also a PS2 board, wouldn\'t you think there\'d be more people willing to take your side here? There certainly are many people here who dislike the xbox. What if we went to an xbox board, how much support do you imagine you\'d find there? And me? Uh-huh.
The fact of the matter is that you are arguing against points that RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE people know to be true.
Xbox is more powerful.
Xbox is MUCH easier to program for.
The VAST MAJORITY of 3rd party devs prefer programming for the xbox.
PS2 is a technical nightmare no matter how innovative it might be.
Frankly, I don\'t know how you can even argue these points. I consider myself able to argue just about anything fairly convincingly, but with those points I don\'t know where I\'d begin.
-
If you say so...
Yeah, okay - since PS2 are Xbox more or less up to par (one might argue again, but the differences aren\'t far apart enough), I\'m really shocked to hear that Xbox is said to have a customized GF3 in there. Point is, Sony went the right way and the PS2 isn\'t maxed out yet. But PS2 certainly is pushing out some stuff I\'ve never seen on a GF2. Nice try Watchdog.
Nope,XBox is far more powerful than PS2 and easier to develop for...every unbiased dev know that...
second...the NV2a is not a customized GF3...it is based on the next generation of geforce3 architecture, but is far more powerful - it incorporates technology that is in development for the next generation beyond geforce3.
For example,geometry processing performance is 2-3x that of geforce3...it\'s not just a Geforce3 with an extra vertex shader. It is actually based on the NV25 but also has elements from the next generation beyond it. (Presumably the NV30).
It\'s a customized GF4...and if you take Mhz to Mhz,the NV2a is more powerful in processing polys than the GF4 Ti4600 !
I\'ve been through this a hundred times, read carefully this time: the xbox also allows for freedom of development. The xbox gives devs the choice--and you saying you can\'t be creative with the xbox hardware is completely ridiculous--what degree did you say you had and where did you get it, because your theories sound like like they originated at Sony HQ in the file called PS2 propaganda.
With the PS2 the devs choices are--using libraries that are still developing (and this is still not easy, only easier) or pull their hair out doing it the "creative method" (or what normal people call the pain in the ass, throw my debug kit out the window method).
With xbox, you can code your own--friendly and familiar or you can use libraries that have been developed for years.
And you tell me this is about on par. Give your head a shake and make sure nothing is loose up there.
And even with new libraries, the xbox is still much easier to develop for. You have absolutely no argument here, yet you manage to write on at length about it. I never said one system is evil, you\'re the one that NEVER has anything good to say about xbox, you tell me who\'s the kid defending his system. In fact, outside of "debates" with you and Chrono, I say more good things about PS2 than xbox.
100% agreed with Watchdog...one of the few honest and intelligent members in this boring and dying forum...
If only people opened their eyes,used their own brains and stop believing each bull**** from Sony devs. and Sony whores(ND?)
Freedom in development? Let\'s see...fighting with the hardware to achieve only good graphics,old game-play,no fresh elements,short games...and why? After 2 years we have J&D(old game-play and short),Soul R2(old game-play and short),Ico(very good,but short),DMC(good but too easy and short)...
But you have freedom in development :rolleyes: ...in what sense?
You wanna use both Vu0 and Vu1 to process polys with lighting,shading and other effects? you can do it...but still you can\'t match the NV2a in this department and under the "same" conditions...and you have ridiculous physics,collision-system,animations and AI like side effects...
You wanna use all the power of Vu0 to do physics and AI and a percentage of the power of Vu1 to do extra sound effects? you can do it...but you\'re sacrificing power for graphics and the XBox is still far superior in the sound department...so...where\'s the freedom?
...can you create your personal bump-mapping engine via software? what a freedom :rolleyes: ...a waste of time and resources...more usefull to devote to game-play and longevity...and and? what\'s the result? we\'ll see when Doom3 on the XBox will be available...(when talented dev will create great games on the X)...
...I want freedom to spend most of time on game-play and longevity rather than to create my personal bump-mapping engine with a crappy result in comparison...
...it\'s so clear when you look at PS2 games...after 2 years we have,overall,easy and short games with old game play and good graphics(and the quality of the images inferior to DC...shame to Sony!...the ToyStory graphics machine:rolleyes: )
You want to bring up support? Okay.... and that member was Chrono--lol, no wonder you didn\'t mention his name. Ginko went on to say "you are losing ground on which to stand on". A pretty apt statement. Ryu disagreed with you. This is also a PS2 board, wouldn\'t you think there\'d be more people willing to take your side here? There certainly are many people here who dislike the xbox. What if we went to an xbox board, how much support do you imagine you\'d find there? And me? Uh-huh.
The fact of the matter is that you are arguing against points that RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE people know to be true.
Xbox is more powerful.
Xbox is MUCH easier to program for.
The VAST MAJORITY of 3rd party devs prefer programming for the xbox.
PS2 is a technical nightmare no matter how innovative it might be.
It\'s obvious Wacthdog:)...
...he\'s not credibility in a PS2 forum...and I\'ve seen and I\'m seeing people like him on XBox boards mocked and mocked again(Aradin=Bossieman)...when speaking about the arguments"PS2 and XBox almost on par" and "the freedom? of development"...
...End of the Story!
-
hey Bozzo is back !
what ever happened to "don\'t bother banning me as this will be the last time i post here !"
ah well i supose that now your back ill just pass onto mm what you said about me and my Family in Italian !
-
Originally posted by ooseven
hey Bozzo is back !
what ever happened to "don\'t bother banning me as this will be the last time i post here !"
ah well i supose that now your back ill just pass onto mm what you said about me and my Family in Italian !
well...I read Ryu\'s thread and I\'ve decided to do something positive for this console debating!
Try to do the same;)
Bozzo? what? I\'m cool,nice and handsome...and I do not care about your insults...it\'s a videogame forum,let\'s debate about videogames,ok?
and mm knows I did it to capture\'s someone attention...I never insulted a "mod" before...and I will never!
Ryu did what me and Whatchdog were asking...
...and now I apologize to mm and Ryu! I know I was wrong...and I did it only for the reason mm knows!
ps: ooseven,don\'t cry at mm like a little girl...stop to be a pimp(the reason why you\'re a """mod""")...and start to act like a real mod...please...
-
Freedom in development? Let\'s see...fighting with the hardware to achieve only good graphics,old game-play,no fresh elements,short games...and why? After 2 years we have J&D(old game-play and short),Soul R2(old game-play and short),Ico(very good,but short),DMC(good but too easy and short)...
You were off to a good start until you said that. One thing (development) has nothing to do with the other (game length). Since when did games have to be over 25 hours? Think about the games you mentioned and the way they are played. Just how different can platform games be done? I guess we\'ll see when the more powerful system actually gets some good ones right? Not only that, but imagine playing those games you mentioned for 25 hours... DMC? 25 hours long? That would never get boring for you? Ico being 25 hours would never be too long for you? Let\'s not forget sequals are games that add on to the original, not redefine the genre as well...
However, since you see these games as downfalls of the hardware, name me the Xbox games that are super long and are not tired and old gameplay wise. The top three selling games on the system (Halo, DOA3, and Project Gotham) have all been done before in some way. An FPS is still an FPS, DOA2 is still very similar to DOA3, and peoject gotham shares plenty of similarities with it\'s early Sega counterpart. You blame developers for making those "unsatisfactory" games for the PS2 and yet no one has done any better on the Xbox even after you herald it as the greatest system of all.
It\'s just funny people complain about game length and yet never did back in the days of SNES and NES. If you played those games nowadays, you\'d zip through them as fast as you do PS2 games. It\'s like all because gaming is mainstream, the games should be 40+ hours with more extras then even I can count, but that isn\'t how it\'s been done and it\'s never been done that way before. As for original gameplay, well, when was the last time we saw original gameplay ideas? I think it was around the Dreamcast\'s launch...
-
ive been offline for a few days and missed out on so much :(
and bozzo is back?? egads! what is the world coming too..
id just like to say sony has no monopoly on the gaming industry and it never will..
and how can you have too much of a monopoly..? you either have a monopoly or you dont. Its not like therer are varying degrees..
:p
-
Firing Squad MUCH prefered the xbox.
PS2 and xbox are not on par.
May I remind you that this isn\'t a PS2 vs Xbox debate? I remember you making a "very" intelligent remark about how "arrogance that lead to the design and bad engineers (later to be changed by you to misguided engineers)." I fail to see what this has anything to do about which console is better, holds more power or what ever. Me bringing up firingsquad, Arstechnica and those few articles had nothing do with any comparasments, but just to prove that there are sites that rave about the PS2\'s architecture or see its potential. It\'s funny how you drift of to this lame comparasment topic again... nice job, again, for changing/twisting topics.
Who\'s talking about PSX?
Bad memory, huh? Let me requote some stuff out of your post from page #1 that got us to PSX:
With Tosh\'s design, people took so long to figure it out, that there was no time for a dissenting viewpoint because the hype machine was in full swing and everyone was obsessed with Sony. If they wanted to please developers and customers they would have went with known archetecture and not alienated their developers. It wouldn\'t have taken almost 2 years for the machine\'s potencial to be realized. But Sony didn\'t care because they knew the devs and the public would come because where else would they go? This is arrogance (and burgeoning on monopoly).
I replied:
It\'s funny how you talk for developers, yet you complete forget the fact that a lot of them wanted a design that let them to code on the metal during the PSX days. You make it as it\'s all Sony who forced their hardware on all developers. Yeah, lets blame Sony. Sony actually did a good thing and as PC enthusiastic sites show over the net, the PS2 hardware has been well received by those developers. Developers actually like the PS2 hardware due to its nature giving freedom and letting developers really explore the metal. And where would we be today if everyone chose to stay on the x86 architecture? It is clear that as a software engineer you have to always learn new technologies, new programming language and new hardware.
You of course replied in the typical maner by saying:
I think it\'s funny how you make things up. (..)
I replied saying that I wasn\'t going to dig up articles that are a few years old. You then brought in our last debate (one of our first) where you said something about some interviews and articles that I brought up. That debate was specifically on PS2 vs Xbox. The debate however above, had nothing to do with PS2 though - but all about how PSX devs wanted more freedom and challenges which Sony took into consideration when designing the PS2\'s core. That proves enough that Sony did not force their hard and "evil" architecture on the developers. And even if you don\'t change your mind: every game-company has the choice which system to develop for. Bashing on PS2 behind this reasoning is pathetic.
And no this discussion was about monopolies originally, then you in your illogical ways said Sony was not a monopoly because they innovated with the PS2--lol. I said innovation has nothing to do with monopolies, it was arrogance and bad engineers. Ryu then said they weren\'t bad engineers, I agreed and ammended my comment to say misguided engineers--we both agreed. You of course argued. I explained what a monopoly really is. You of course argued and continue to do so.
Have we been following the same arguement? I don\'t think so. As I explained above already once, I just replied to RichG who said that Sony has a monopoly and made some "flawed" assumption to why he thinks so and what the PS2 launch had to do with it. My quote about the innovatice architecture was just a reply to prove otherwise. Has this got to do anything with monopoly? I don\'t think it\'s far from it - I still stand behind my original reasoning: a company who has a monopoly will spend less cash on "innovation" simply because it\'s not necessary due to no competition. If Sony had a monopoly, I very much doubt they would invest those big bucks for a innovative and expensive chip design for their console.
Devs who like PS2 archetecture = Sony\'s employees and devs they have stock in. Devs who prefer xbox = everyone else. Theres some pattern there I\'m sure of it, but I can\'t figure it out.
Let me amend your comment:
"Devs who like Xbox architecture = Microsoft employees and pc-devs they have stock in. Devs who prefer PS2 = everyone else. Theres some pattern there I\'m sure of it, but I can\'t figure it out."
Strange how I can twist this arguement, isn\'t it? But wait, maybe that\'s because there\'s 2 sides of how you choose to look at things? I personally think my arguement was better about how both sides enjoy different positive aspects. But you of course, have to debate to a point where one is absolutely "evil" and the other one is "supiriour". :rolleyes:
I\'ve been through this a hundred times, read carefully this time: the xbox also allows for freedom of development. The xbox gives devs the choice--and you saying you can\'t be creative with the xbox hardware is completely ridiculous--what degree did you say you had and where did you get it, because your theories sound like like they originated at Sony HQ in the file called PS2 propaganda.
I didn\'t say you can\'t be creative with Xbox - to be quite precise, it was the other way around: Xbox developers can be more creative than PS2 devs. Why? Because on Xbox devs have more libraries, a architecture that isn\'t new, friendlier developmentkit and tools. As I also said (which you probably "magically" missed), is that PS2 developers have to rethink every single step of their 3d engine (if self-coded). They need to tap the VUs power and that is only by using prewritten rendering tools, or (you guessed it) Assembler, VU Microcode. No libraries they can use and no "friendly" development that ensures easy development if they write their engines on their own. Now why should this hold more freedom? Simple, instead of using libraries others wrote, you write your own that can be customized accoardingly to your 3d engine. Thanks to this way of coding (down to the level where you directly access the CPU cores), you can customize everything to your games. Hence this "freedom" PS2 developers are doing things that weren\'t thought of being possible: DTS ingame, progressive video output, no loading times, good quality textures, good image quality, AA and bump mapping. It\'s a bit like comparing Java to C/C++. Java might be easier to do more complex stuff, but if you know your way around in C/C++, you can go much deeper into your program and the results are much more impressive. Make no mistake about it though, I\'m not saying that PS2 will look "better", but the results devs might get out of a 2 year older system will be more impressive if the talent is there.
Now before you argue again that Sony gives headaches and other crap like that, let me continue: Once developers get that "learning curve" behind them and start to know the architecture by heart, they will start to play around with the system experimenting the pro\'s and con\'s of the system. For the small developers who don\'t have the resources or nerves to get that deep into that system, you still have the tools from Sony that will make development easier: Performance Analizer 2, Renderwares, C/C++ for the VU\'s etc. It\'s not as if Sony is forcing their platform on to anyone: everyone has a choice. If their not happy they either chose the wrong job or wrong company. This is simply no excuse.
And you tell me this is about on par. Give your head a shake and make sure nothing is loose up there.
PS2 and Xbox are "graphically" up to par at the moment. One might argue that \'X\' game looks better than \'Y\' game, but the differences aren\'t too much apart to really make a clear judgement. To the casual they are up to par at the moment.
And even with new libraries, the xbox is still much easier to develop for. You have absolutely no argument here, yet you manage to write on at length about it.
Where did I say that with new libraries PS2 is easier? I don\'t recall me saying anything like this? Good job twsisting arguements again. :rolleyes:
I was just backing the PS2\'s "complicated" architecture against your arguement of Sony forcing their "hard to develop for" system onto developers.
Quote by you (for the above arguement):
But why force them? The only thing that is ultimately rewarding is a paycheck and if given a choice those devs would rather work less hard, less hours to get the same results.
-
You want to bring up support? Okay.... and that member was Chrono--lol, no wonder you didn\'t mention his name. Ginko went on to say "you are losing ground on which to stand on". A pretty apt statement. Ryu disagreed with you. This is also a PS2 board, wouldn\'t you think there\'d be more people willing to take your side here? There certainly are many people here who dislike the xbox. What if we went to an xbox board, how much support do you imagine you\'d find there? And me? Uh-huh.
I don\'t really care what the members think and I am certainly not going to back down from my opinion. Yes, Ryu disagreed with me on 1 point, which I backed up. He hasn\'t responded to my last post directed to him, so I take it that it\'s been sorted out. So to cut this short, I could care less how much support I get in here. Just because someone at the forum thinks I or You are wrong, doesn\'t mean that you\'ve won the debate. I could very well bring in uncle bob and get some backup. Wouldn\'t have much impact on the debate would it? :rolleyes: So, WHO CARES?
Xbox is more powerful.
Since when are we debating which system is more powerful? Or, when did I say otherwise in THIS thread or debate?
Xbox is MUCH easier to program for.
WHen did I say PS2 is much easier? Is THIS necessary?
The VAST MAJORITY of 3rd party devs prefer programming for the xbox.
They prefer Xbox for what it is: easy and cheap way to make good graphics while being creative. Developers like PS2 for what it is too: powerful technology that holds lots of freedom to achieve new things that weren\'t thought possible. I could make this real lame and ask you to get me some interviews where developers quote this, i.e: "I prefer Xbox programming because..." but, I think there\'s no need to stept down to that level. After all it\'s self explained that this arguement is resolved by what I said a few lines further up (highlighted in green).
PS2 is a technical nightmare no matter how innovative it might be.
Quote by Watchdog, some lonely person who holds absolutely no experience in PS2 development. (I\'ll let people judge this "credible" statement of yours)
Frankly, I don\'t know how you can even argue these points. I consider myself able to argue just about anything fairly convincingly, but with those points I don\'t know where I\'d begin.
Franky, I don\'t remember argueing about half those points you listed. :rolleyes: ... LOL.
It\'s strange though, seems to me you\'re much more passionate about upholding the name Xbox and Microsoft than you are about games...
-
Yeah, seeing as you have no ground with which to argue on, you resort to pointing out how I went astray with my tactics. Seeing that you don\'t have any support here, you say it doesn\'t matter anyway. Nice post.
-
Oh he has support all right..
But I dont feel like arguing with no-lifes right now.
I got more important things to do.
Maybe later.
-
Originally posted by Ryu
You were off to a good start until you said that. One thing (development) has nothing to do with the other (game length). Since when did games have to be over 25 hours? Think about the games you mentioned and the way they are played. Just how different can platform games be done? I guess we\'ll see when the more powerful system actually gets some good ones right? Not only that, but imagine playing those games you mentioned for 25 hours... DMC? 25 hours long? That would never get boring for you? Ico being 25 hours would never be too long for you? Let\'s not forget sequals are games that add on to the original, not redefine the genre as well...
well,development on a hypothetical hardware affect the game itself,game-play(new and fresh elements),longevity,its lenght...and how? people\'re wondering...
Developers have a certain budget and a deadline,and if you "waste" money and time only to understand how to push polys,how to do good textures,how to implement,for example,a bump mapping engine,you have less money and time for more important things=innovative game-play,longevity,lenght...it\'s my point...
You said..."imagine playing those games you mentioned for 25 hours..."...I have not to finish them in a single day:)...I finished J&D in 3 days...I\'ve been waiting for it almost 2 years...I think you may understand my disappointment...
However, since you see these games as downfalls of the hardware, name me the Xbox games that are super long and are not tired and old gameplay wise. The top three selling games on the system (Halo, DOA3, and Project Gotham) have all been done before in some way. An FPS is still an FPS, DOA2 is still very similar to DOA3, and peoject gotham shares plenty of similarities with it\'s early Sega counterpart.
Ryu...I don\'t bash a console for what I see in the first 3-4 months...I give a console the time it needs...at least 2 years...
...Halo is great,but not "revolutionary",you\'re right...but it\'s a launch game,and I\'m impressed...I\'ll wait for Doom3,Project Ego,Brute Force,Ninja Gaiden,etc etc before delivering a substantial judgement on the XBox...I\'ll give this console and even GC the time they need...and then,in case,I\'ll "bash" them!
You blame developers for making those "unsatisfactory" games for the PS2 and yet no one has done any better on the Xbox even after you herald it as the greatest system of all.
I\'ve just answered you...great games need great dev and a lot of time...they\'re not self-programmed!
It\'s just funny people complain about game length and yet never did back in the days of SNES and NES. If you played those games nowadays, you\'d zip through them as fast as you do PS2 games. It\'s like all because gaming is mainstream, the games should be 40+ hours with more extras then even I can count, but that isn\'t how it\'s been done and it\'s never been done that way before. As for original gameplay, well, when was the last time we saw original gameplay ideas? I think it was around the Dreamcast\'s launch...
...about the DC,it\'s the only one console which has lived up to my expectations...and now are Microsoft and Nintendo on duty!
-
Developers have a certain budget and a deadline,and if you "waste" money and time only to understand how to push polys,how to do good textures,how to implement,for example,a bump mapping engine,you have less money and time for more important things=innovative game-play,longevity,lenght...it\'s my point...
You made such a well thought out post the first time around and now it sounds a lot like broken English. Can you please put effort into all of your posts in the future so they are easier to understand? Thank you.
As for what you said in relation to what I said, different TYPES of games do not need to be longer. The games you mentioned are big examples of this. There needs to be a balance of just how long a game is and just how much you can actually take of it. Devil May Cry is but one example of a fine game, but imagine doing that same hack and slash routine not for a mere 7 hours of gameplay, but instead for 25. 25 hours of the same attacks over and over and over again. There are many people out there who absolutely hate shooters because of the simple fact that it is the same crap over and over. Beat-em ups suffer from this as well as certain action games. You want longer games yet you do not stop to think just how boring those games would be if they were any longer. There is another solution to this however...
Maybe you just spend too much time playing games. You admitted to beating all those games in a day and that\'s what, 10, 12 hours of straight gaming? Then you complain that it wasn\'t long enough? People I know beat FFX in three days and complained it was too short even though their timers clocked in at 50 hours. Maybe you should just pace yourself and enjoy it rather then dive in head first and expect it to last for three months.
The only game in recent memory that served the whole longevity and replayabilty category you are looking for is Grand Theft Auto 3 and that was a PS2 game. Oh well, to each their own.
Ryu...I don\'t bash a console for what I see in the first 3-4 months...I give a console the time it needs...at least 2 years...
...Halo is great,but not "revolutionary",you\'re right...but it\'s a launch game,and I\'m impressed...I\'ll wait for Doom3,Project Ego,Brute Force,Ninja Gaiden,etc etc before delivering a substantial judgement on the XBox...I\'ll give this console and even GC the time they need...and then,in case,I\'ll "bash" them!
"Bash"? I never said anthing about bashing anything. I never even bashed the Xbox. No need to be so defensive, it\'s unwaranted here. I merely pointed out that the things you crave with the PS2 are also lacking with the Xbox even though you seem to think that it is the end all be all of consoles. You want longevity and ingenuity with gaming, the most technically impressive console does not guarantee that and you should understand that point. Hardware encourages new things, but money encourages motiviation and the most money is made with the most userbase.
As for the games you mentioned, we don\'t know anything about them to judge a console by them. You claim so much about the Xbox, but the games you use to say how great it is aren\'t even out yet. Reminds me of the big-ass Sony fanboys who posted here when the PS2 first launched.
This is getting a bit off-topic though, Sony being a monopoly really has nothing to do with the Xbox, I fail to see why it was brought up in the first place. You\'re just barking up the wrong tree here.
I\'ve just answered you...great games need great dev and a lot of time...they\'re not self-programmed!
You still give the Xbox the benefit of the doubt regardless, enough to where you proclaim the PS2 to be a gaming failure and the Xbox to be some type of gaming messiah. It\'s weird and uncanny.
...about the DC,it\'s the only one console which has lived up to my expectations...and now are Microsoft and Nintendo on duty!
"And now are Microsoft and Nintendo on du..." WTF are you talking about?
-
Originally posted by Ryu
You still give the Xbox the benefit of the doubt regardless, enough to where you proclaim the PS2 to be a gaming failure and the Xbox to be some type of gaming messiah. It\'s weird and uncanny.
I still give the XBox the benefit of the doubt??...are you joking?:) still?? XBox is a new hardware,a new console and it needs time as every other console...is it too difficult to understand? I said XBox has a greater potential than PS2,not that XBox is some type of gaming messiah!
...and who said PS2 is a gaming failure? I said I\'m disappointed from what I\'ve seen in 2 years...I was expecting a lot more...and it\'s a very different story...it\'s only my opinion...
As for what you said in relation to what I said, different TYPES of games do not need to be longer. The games you mentioned are big examples of this. There needs to be a balance of just how long a game is and just how much you can actually take of it. Devil May Cry is but one example of a fine game, but imagine doing that same hack and slash routine not for a mere 7 hours of gameplay, but instead for 25. 25 hours of the same attacks over and over and over again.
I see you don\'t understand me(maybe my english...if only I could speak italian here:D )...
...I complain about the lack of originality,fresh and unique elements in game-play first,and then about the fact most of games are too easy and short! Take J&D for example and you may easy realize that it\'s nothing more than Mario 64 with bigger environments with "crash style" and some other things taken from Zelda...where\'s the "Next Gen Game"? where\'s the unique game ND promised? It plays like Mario64...and ND spent 2 years on the next gen Machine!! are you happy? me not happy!!
I\'m not complaining only because most of game are short in terms of number of levels or the time you need to finish them! ...if you add,for example,some new and fresh elements to J&D and you make it more challenging...well...it could be more interesting...don\'t you agree?
and you said""Devil May Cry is but one example of a fine game, but imagine doing that same hack and slash routine not for a mere 7 hours of gameplay, but instead for 25. 25 hours of the same attacks over and over and over again""
naah...I don\'t want the same attacks over and over again for 25,50 hours of game-play...I want a deeper and more challenging experience,not the same game-play protracted for 50 hours! I thought it were clear...
Maybe you just spend too much time playing games. You admitted to beating all those games in a day and that\'s what, 10, 12 hours of straight gaming? Then you complain that it wasn\'t long enough? People I know beat FFX in three days and complained it was too short even though their timers clocked in at 50 hours. Maybe you should just pace yourself and enjoy it rather then dive in head first and expect it to last for three months.
I spend time playing videogames,but not that much...maybe my expectations are to high...
"And now are Microsoft and Nintendo on du..." WTF are you talking about?
??
1)PS2,in two years,didn\'t even show me half the potential I was expecting!
2)DC showed me the potential I was expecting!
3)I\'ll wait to see if both XBox and GC will show me the potential I expect from them!
= DC lived up to my expectations,PS2 NO! XBox and GC? who knows? I\'ll give them the time they need!
is it enough clear now?:)
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
ps: ooseven,don\'t cry at mm like a little girl...stop to be a pimp(the reason why you\'re a """mod""")...and start to act like a real mod...please...
Taken from the Newbies FAQ thread in the main forum
Rules
No swearing.
No complaining about the rules. They are the way there are for a reason. To Control the boards and make them fun. Not dirty and full of garbage no one wants to read.
If you have a problem with someone or something said. Please report it too a mod or admin. Do NOT flame back.
In normal english, don\'t attack back. For any reason.
:rolleyes:
please read them as well as RYU\'s words of wisdom on forum protacol """Bozzo""")...
and if you still have a problem with it then here is a link for you
Click here (http://www.teamxbox.com/)
-
I see you didn\'t take mm\'s advice!:)
now I\'m doing nice...do the same!
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
I see you didn\'t take mm\'s advice!:)
now I\'m doing nice...do the same!
cool :)
we are cool
now lets kiss and make up !
or we could just both friendly spam the off topic as a piece offering
;)
now come over here you Italian STUD you !
*kissy* *kissy*
Little note to all of you
Could you please make your long replys a wee bit easyer to read..
this thread is killing me :( :crying:
-
:) ...we cool... :)
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
:) ...we cool... :)
:)
This is NOT spam !
//me gets B£tch slaped by Ryu for spamming in console debating !
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
(Aradin=Bossieman)...when speaking about the arguments"PS2 and XBox almost on par" and "the freedom? of development"...
LMFAO, What???? PS2 and x-box on par?? Are you drunk?? Have I said that??? Freedom of development?????
-
Who deleted my post???