PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => PS3 Discussion => Topic started by: Unicron! on June 16, 2004, 07:06:30 AM
-
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/523/523592p1.html
.....A major software company already prototyping software for Microsoft\'s "Xbox 2" told IGN today that the publisher "definitely aims to launch the console in North America for Christmas 2005." A November time frame was given. A European release will follow in 2006, said the source....
Meanwhile, IBM and Sony are developing Cell, a proprietary, powerful new architecture that will be used in PlayStation 3. Some developers believe that Sony could delay the arrival of its next-generation console to as late as 2007 in order to create a Trojan horse for its budding Blue-Ray DVD technology, which promises to deliver high-definition DVDs into the living rooms of consumers, replacing current DVD-players.
-
I won\'t believe it until Sony sez so.
-
Originally posted by IGN
"Xbox 2," set to receive a name revision before its release because Microsoft doesn\'t want consumers to assume it\'s inferior to PlayStation 3 based on end numerals
I am so sick of this crap.
Who cares what a console is called, i mean really, it has no influence on how it performs. It really annoys me when people say this.
-
well, they have to market to the lowest common denominator
-
I still rather use my DVD player... My first PS2 died from so much usage.. so I bought a DVD player.. yay for me.
BTW: someone needs to come up with a great use for a PS2 with a messed up laser (other than parts) :)
-
it\'ll make a good coaster.. really, wack those cold drinks on the cd tray and you\'re good to go.
-
Seriously though,
A 2007 launch would make it (if Nintendo Revolution = earlier) the newest and most likely most powerfull console. Devs would have had extensive dev time for PS3. If PS3 development is straight in line evolution with PS2 devving... then PS3 might have a killer launch games line up, contrary to PS2\'s. Still, Sony can never know for sure how well the competitors will do in the meantime, before PS3 launches.
-
Originally posted by Knotter8
Seriously though,
A 2007 launch would make it (if Nintendo Revolution = earlier) the newest and most likely most powerfull console. Devs would have had extensive dev time for PS3. If PS3 development is straight in line evolution with PS2 devving... then PS3 might have a killer launch games line up, contrary to PS2\'s. Still, Sony can never know for sure how well the competitors will do in the meantime, before PS3 launches.
I really don\'t think Sony can afford to give MS and Nintendo that much time to take the market. I don\'t think the developers will wait around which means Sony could lose some key franchises.
I still think Sony will make it in the first half of 2006.
-
Originally posted by PS2_-\'_\'-_PS2
I am so sick of this crap.
Who cares what a console is called, i mean really, it has no influence on how it performs. It really annoys me when people say this.
The consumer\'s psychology plays an important role.It sounds strange but its true.
firms do lots of research to see how the consumer\'s psychology is affected by brand names, looks etc so they will know how to present a product in a way that seems attractive and usually more attractive than competeing products.
-
It\'d be funny if Sony decided to call the PS3 "The PS 9".
-
A lot of sonys costumers are mainstream gamers, so they are not loyal to sony. A delay till 2007 could kill the ps3\'s chances , and give Xbox and Nintendo a huge chance.
-
Originally posted by Knotter8
Seriously though,
A 2007 launch would make it (if Nintendo Revolution = earlier) the newest and most likely most powerfull console. Devs would have had extensive dev time for PS3. If PS3 development is straight in line evolution with PS2 devving... then PS3 might have a killer launch games line up, contrary to PS2\'s. Still, Sony can never know for sure how well the competitors will do in the meantime, before PS3 launches.
just because the PS3 has more time to develop and may be more powerful doesn\'t mean crap, look at the Xbox
-
Lets say that each generation lasts araound 6 years.If XBOX2 and the next Nintendo console are released around 2005 the next generation will start from there, their life will last till around 2011 and thats when the next generation will come with the newer MS and Nintendo consoles.If PS3 is released in 2007 when will its life end and when will the PS4 appear??
-
Yeah...thanks for that...the first info was "official"...and "some developers believe" that\'ll it\'ll be out in 2007. Um...yeah...I\'ll just wait for more on that...:rolleyes:
-
yeah I don\'t think they are that stupid to release it in 2007
-
Originally posted by Rikku
I really don\'t think Sony can afford to give MS and Nintendo that much time to take the market. I don\'t think the developers will wait around which means Sony could lose some key franchises.
What do you mean take the market? The PS2 would probably still outsell those consoles.. ;)
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Lets say that each generation lasts araound 6 years.If XBOX2 and the next Nintendo console are released around 2005 the next generation will start from there, their life will last till around 2011 and thats when the next generation will come with the newer MS and Nintendo consoles.If PS3 is released in 2007 when will its life end and when will the PS4 appear??
actually, the leader dictates when the next generation starts...
-
If MS and Nintendo\'s presence is signifigantly strong in the market with their next gen consoles I believe the next gen will begin.Unless Sony\'s PS3 is enough powerful and has enough "unique" features that will make it stand out of the rest and "restart" the generation.
-
I think it be better if sony release it in 2006, 2007 seem too far off...
-
Originally posted by Rikku
I really don\'t think Sony can afford to give MS and Nintendo that much time to take the market. I don\'t think the developers will wait around which means Sony could lose some key franchises.
I still think Sony will make it in the first half of 2006.
exactly..
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
If MS and Nintendo\'s presence is signifigantly strong in the market with their next gen consoles I believe the next gen will begin.Unless Sony\'s PS3 is enough powerful and has enough "unique" features that will make it stand out of the rest and "restart" the generation.
Actually, what I ment is, this generation basically started with the launch of PS2 since it\'s the number 1 selling console and that by quite a margin. That means consumers, and roughly most of them own just one console anyway, will probably want to hold of their next purchase for quite a while. If Microsoft or Nintendo starts next generation too early, they might just get into a Dreamcast like scenario with 3rd party developers hesitating to start development because the bulk of the market is still happy playing their PS2\'s (and that\'s where in reality the cash is). On the other hand, consumers might want to hold of with their purchase aswell, simply because they have a relatively new PS2 already. Next generation will start when PS2\'s comes to an end - and if Sony plays their cards right, that will happen once PS3 launches. Of course, if XboxNext/NintendoRevolution grabs the market by suprise and 3 years down the road they are the leading console manufacturer, obviously, XboxNext/NintendoRevolution dictates when next generation starts.
-
True.Lets assume that PS3 comes in 2007 without any major hardware difference etc and the games arent that special compared to competitors while XBOX2 and the next Nintendo have already collected a number of quality games and some support during the two years of PS3\'s absence(especially games from firts and second party developers).Those that have been waiting for PS3 will reconsider it.They might be converted.In such a scenario before PS3\'s launch people are hesitating to buy an XBOX2 or a Revolution becuase they are waiting for a PS3.But after a dissapointment they mught prefer the other consoles that already have games and some support.
Developers need money and some might develop some console selling titles for MS or Nintendo.Games like MGS, Final Fantasy etc are titles that may seem too tempting.
There is a chance the XBOX2 and "Revolution" might end up as the next DC.But who knows if the PS3 ends up as the next "XBOX"?
I wonder what sony is planning for PS3 btw.The Cell processor is still incomplete.Hardware specs still arent defined.No news of any development kits from Sony, nothing about tools...The PS3 is like a ghost console.XBOX2 is already taking some shape.
-
^^^wow Uni said something pro-xbox :D
How long does it take to make a processor anyway? I\'ve been hearing about the cell for what seems like years now.
-
Originally posted by THX
^^^wow Uni said something pro-xbox :D
How long does it take to make a processor anyway? I\'ve been hearing about the cell for what seems like years now.
tru..by the time this cell thingy comes out it will already be outdated..:p
-
^^^wow Uni said something pro-xbox :D
Thats not the first time :p
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Developers need money and some might develop some console selling titles for MS or Nintendo.Games like MGS, Final Fantasy etc are titles that may seem too tempting.
That logic is flawed. If money was what the developers were really concerned about when they went to develop for the next MS or N consoles, then they\'d still be developing for the PS2, which will still be selling better than said newer consoles.\\
However, when the next Playstation is released, if it happens to be quite some time after the next MS or N consoles, then it simply must have launch titles to sell the machine. Going up against a couple of companies who already have extremely solid (and well established) first party lineups, they are almost guaranteed to have good quality, and popular games on the system. The PS3\'s hype will help to stave off a lot of sails for the competition, but if it\'s launch games aren\'t up to scratch with what the competition has to offer, then there would most likely be a little bit of trouble. Not necessarily enough to lose their \'lead\', but trouble non-the less. Although, backwards compatability could help a little. ;)
I\'d like to see the next SOCOM and Gran Turismo be the major launch games. And who knows, maybe even Killzone 2. :)
-
I don\'t care what anybody says. Nobody is going sit and wait 2007 to play next generation games.
Sony cannot give there competition and 2year advantage plain and simple.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
I don\'t care what anybody says. Nobody is going sit and wait 2007 to play next generation games.
Sony cannot give there competition and 2year advantage plain and simple.
But how many people waited until the XBox (or GameCube) was released to play, what was then, next generation games?
Or, perhaps a more pertinent example; How many people waited until the PS2 was released to play, what was then, next generation games? The DC was available for quite some time, remember?
:) :p
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
But how many people waited until the XBox (or GameCube) was released to play, what was then, next generation games?
Or, perhaps a more pertinent example; How many people waited until the PS2 was released to play, what was then, next generation games? The DC was available for quite some time, remember?
:) :p
Hey you make a good point. Could be rite. But you have to understand Xbox and Nintendo have gained far more success than the dreamcast. And have proven to be lasting consoles. And are far better consoles.
They may have not overtaken sony but they have made a name for themselves this generation. Especially the microsoft xbox.
Xbox2 has a very good chance of being a huge console and with no real competition for 2 years microsoft could have the opening they need.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
Hey you make a good point. Could be rite. But you have to understand Xbox and Nintendo have gained far more success than the dreamcast. And have proven to be lasting consoles. And are far better consoles.
They may have not overtaken sony but they have made a name for themselves this generation. Especially the microsoft xbox.
Xbox2 has a very good chance of being a huge console and with no real competition for 2 years microsoft could have the opening they need.
Exactly (read my above posts on the matter).
However, Xbox2 will have real competition in that it\'s still competing against the PS2. Whether or not you think it\'s real competition or not is up for debate, however. It\'ll still be doing damn well, and have a [n]lot[/b] of third party support, etc. etc.
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
That logic is flawed. If money was what the developers were really concerned about when they went to develop for the next MS or N consoles, then they\'d still be developing for the PS2, which will still be selling better than said newer consoles.\\
hmm yeah you are right about that.But we still dont know how powerful PS2\'s presence will be when XBOX2 and the next Nintendo will be released.I dont think it will be as massive as you described in the future.Remember how well DC was doing when it was released despite the, PS\'s success and the fact that Sega lost some of its reputation with the saturn?
I mean nothing\'s certain.
But most importantly I dont think developers will continue developing sequels of their most popular franchises, the money magnets :p on out dated technology otherwise they will weaken them.
However, when the next Playstation is released, if it happens to be quite some time after the next MS or N consoles, then it simply must have launch titles to sell the machine. Going up against a couple of companies who already have extremely solid (and well established) first party lineups, they are almost guaranteed to have good quality, and popular games on the system. The PS3\'s hype will help to stave off a lot of sails for the competition, but if it\'s launch games aren\'t up to scratch with what the competition has to offer, then there would most likely be a little bit of trouble. Not necessarily enough to lose their \'lead\', but trouble non-the less. Although, backwards compatability could help a little. ;)
I\'d like to see the next SOCOM and Gran Turismo be the major launch games. And who knows, maybe even Killzone 2. :) [/B]
Yeah but so the next MS and the next N.They will have their launch titles as well as other titles released later which might probably include franchises that made PS2 so attractive in the first place.2 years is a long time.I agree that GT and other games from first party developers are console sellers but so were many games from third pary developers like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Tekken etc.The absence(if there will be one) of these exclusive games are sure to reduce appealing and sales.These include the franchises from third party developers that made people wait for PS2\'s release instead of purchasing a DC.Hmm....if we think the possibility that these games arent released for XBOX2 or the next N what you said about the competitors ending up like the DC will most likely happen.
Oh well.I agree with your arguements ofcourse I just think of the other possibilities as well.
Heh.If Sony manages to keep the leading position for 3 generations in a row we are talking about a record.
-
excellent article that furhter illustrates my point of who dictates when next generation starts:
In other words, studios are being asked to invest in next-generation R&D two years before it\'s required for PS3, and to spend more money developing an Xbox 2 version of a cross platform title - for an audience of a few million people - than they\'ll spend developing all three current-generation versions of the game - for an audience of well over a hundred million. Faced with this prospect, huge companies like EA may be able to throw money at the problem, and some small independent developers may be able to make a go of it by switching entirely to Xbox 2 development; but the simple fact is that nobody is going to stop supporting PS2 for Xbox 2, and the cost of supporting both may be prohibitive for a great many publishers and developers.
Full article here:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3635
-
Brings up very good points.Also what you and bob mentioned earlier.Very intreresting read.
-
The belief within Microsoft\'s top Xbox executives, according to company insiders, is that the main reason that Xbox has failed to seriously challenge the PlayStation 2 is because Sony had first mover advantage - a gap of a year in which to build up its installed base and convince consumers and industry alike that it was the key platform of the next generation. Hence the urgency around launching Xbox 2 well ahead of its competitors; if, as seems increasingly likely, PlayStation 3 doesn\'t arrive until late 2006 or even early 2007, Microsoft believes that it will have won a huge competitive advantage by being to market as much as two years earlier. This, the conventional wisdom says, is how Microsoft will crush Sony.
If MS is only looking at it as a time advantage then they will fail. I think it will be hard to entice gamers to move on, seeing as how Xbox, GC, and PS2 all have some excellent looking titles coming in 2005. MS would need some red hot exclusives, lots of third party support, and a price that can\'t be passed up.
Even then Sony could start hyping the PS3 to be 5x more powerful(just an example) and that alone would have people wait while they play their PS2.
Microsoft isn\'t used to making decisions as an industry small-fry, and it\'s trying to act like an industry leader in an industry it simply doesn\'t lead.
This is so true. This is signature material for TeamXbox;)
-
Well seems they will fail unless MS finds a way to keep developing costing low on XBOX2.
-
Yes, hopefully XNA will help them out in this regard and encourage developers.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
If MS is only looking at it as a time advantage then they will fail. I think it will be hard to entice gamers to move on, seeing as how Xbox, GC, and PS2 all have some excellent looking titles coming in 2005. MS would need some red hot exclusives, lots of third party support, and a price that can\'t be passed up.
Even then Sony could start hyping the PS3 to be 5x more powerful(just an example) and that alone would have people wait while they play their PS2.
This is so true. This is signature material for TeamXbox;)
Not true ppl are graphic whores. One of the reason ps2 started out so successful ppl thinking ps2 graphics where going to be so much better than dc.
It could not have been the games because at the time Dc had much better games than ps2.
If ms shows xbox 2 with next gen graphics up against ps2 with outdated graphics they will have a chance. They will have a chance regardless. There biggest thing is too get the console up and in stores before sony has a chance. I bet the farm that a 2007 launch of ps3 would hurt the system.
2 years is a long time to give the competition.
-
QuDDus:
Not quite sure. The reason why PS2 was successful was because of mindshare, in other words anticipation from consumers that bought a PlayStation and were looking forward to the next console by Sony together with all the expected sequels to the franchises that made the PlayStation a big success. Dreamcast on the other hand lacked the proper marketing, the support and had negativ mindshare evolving back from the days of the Saturn.
The graphics delivered at PS2\'s launch were marginally better than Dreamcast\'s at the time - mainly Tekken Tag Tournament being the only one that looked better than most things that Dreamcast could offer. Other titles lacked the clean image quality to set themselves apart or on the same level as Dreamcast visuals. PS2 was successful because of proper marketing, incredible mindshare and the support of just about every developer.
The big mistake Microsoft is making, is not making their console backwards compatible. By not doing so, they\'re loosing their market and users of the current generation and have to start blank. Backwards-compatability would make the whole transision smoother, thus making it easier for Microsoft to start with a range of well-known games already, give Xbox consumers the chance to just "upgrade" their console and know that their recently purchased software isn\'t lost value with the new one. That would give developers the necessary confidence to make the jump.
Also another thing, which I think you missed out:
the last two years of a generation are always the most profitable for a developer. How would Xbox get its software when all devs are still happy to develop on the old generation and make the "big money"?
Are you also aware that PlayStation still outsold next generation consoles shortly after they had launched until almost a year later?
-
Btw since DC was mentioned.DC was doing very well before PS2.And it was released in 1998.It had many many titles on it.Want development high costing too back then?
-
Originally posted by seven
QuDDus:
Not quite sure. The reason why PS2 was successful was because of mindshare, in other words anticipation from consumers that bought a PlayStation and were looking forward to the next console by Sony together with all the expected sequels to the franchises that made the PlayStation a big success. Dreamcast on the other hand lacked the proper marketing, the support and had negativ mindshare evolving back from the days of the Saturn.
The graphics delivered at PS2\'s launch were marginally better than Dreamcast\'s at the time - mainly Tekken Tag Tournament being the only one that looked better than most things that Dreamcast could offer. Other titles lacked the clean image quality to set themselves apart or on the same level as Dreamcast visuals. PS2 was successful because of proper marketing, incredible mindshare and the support of just about every developer.
The big mistake Microsoft is making, is not making their console backwards compatible. By not doing so, they\'re loosing their market and users of the current generation and have to start blank. Backwards-compatability would make the whole transision smoother, thus making it easier for Microsoft to start with a range of well-known games already, give Xbox consumers the chance to just "upgrade" their console and know that their recently purchased software isn\'t lost value with the new one. That would give developers the necessary confidence to make the jump.
Also another thing, which I think you missed out:
the last two years of a generation are always the most profitable for a developer. How would Xbox get its software when all devs are still happy to develop on the old generation and make the "big money"?
Are you also aware that PlayStation still outsold next generation consoles shortly after they had launched until almost a year later?
Well if you read my post I said one of the reasons. There are a number of factors as to why ps2 was such a huge console. Second thing being backwards compatible is something that has just taken effect. Many consoles have all survived without having it and it is not something that will make or break your system. It is just a bonus for ppl who throw away there old console.
If your going to keep all those old games then don\'t throw away your system.
Another thing you missed out is XNA which I guess you haven\'t been reading up on. XNA will allow developers to make games on xbox2 cheaper,faster, and better.
-
Yeah, PS2 inherited PSX\'s vast library of top hit games. Even when PS2 was a little bare in teh first year, you could still get games you missed from PSX and play it. I did that with FF9.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
Well if you read my post I said one of the reasons. There are a number of factors as to why ps2 was such a huge console. Second thing being backwards compatible is something that has just taken effect. Many consoles have all survived without having it and it is not something that will make or break your system. It is just a bonus for ppl who throw away there old console.
If your going to keep all those old next games then don\'t throw away your system.
Another thing you missed out is XNA which I guess you haven\'t been reading up on. XNA will allow developers to make games on xbox2 cheaper,faster, and better.
The XNA was mentioned in the article but it seems that theere are chances that the low development cost wouldnt be a sure thing
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
The XNA was mentioned in the article but it seems that theere are chances that the low development cost wouldnt be a sure thing
I don\'t see how it couldn\'t be.
-
Same here. and to be quite honest with you guys, for me, I could care less if I cant play the PS3 until 2007, as long as they keep releasing good games... Until I see a bunch or incredibly awesome games for the Xbox, I\'ll continue to stick with sony exclusivley. And even if I did buy an Xbox, I\'d STILL buy a ps3, which I\'m sure is the case for a lot of people
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
I don\'t see how it couldn\'t be.
There seems to be something else we ommited that the author didnt.I dont know.The XNA was mentioned in the article as a solution decided by MS to counter the problem but the author insisted on high cost of production becuase it will be too soon.I dont know.
Actually I dont see how it couldnt be either. :confused:
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
I don\'t see how it couldn\'t be.
That\'s because you aren\'t familiar with console development. The biggest cost in making games is art assets. XNA won\'t reduce those costs by any chance. XNA also won\'t make development magically easier - it will just serve as an API like DirectX which would help the porting process between platforms that share XNA.
In other words, what you are suggesting is that XNA\'s cheaper development costs\'s benefits would outweigh the 100+ million userbase of the PS2 in its peak software momentum and profits. Given the time frame XNA is launching and that art assets make up for the biggest bulk of development, it won\'t cut developers much. Heck, PS2 was already a bitch to program for compared to Xbox\'s DirectX "PC environment" - how many developers jumped ship? That should give you a fair idea...
Second thing being backwards compatible is something that has just taken effect. Many consoles have all survived without having it and it is not something that will make or break your system. It is just a bonus for ppl who throw away there old console.
If your going to keep all those old games then don\'t throw away your system.
Times have changed. Think about all those consumers that have 20+ games stacked away and a 6 year old PS2 dying... it is clear that PS3 will be backwards-compatible. This gives two advantages:
Old games are not lost value. The PS2 which will be close to breaking after extensive usage will only make the backwards-compatible PS3 even more attractive. Most people just have one console in their livingroom and intend it to stay that way.
This in turn gives another benefit: 3rd parties developers know that backwards-compatible is a great thing and therefore also know that there games for PS2 can still be played even on the new system. It\'s added value for them too. And as said, it makes the transition from this generation [PS2] to PS3 smoother.
Sure it\'s not a big deal - but it\'s an important factor none the less.
-
^ and you said you just didn\'t have it in you for these types of debates anymore.:)
-
Hey Seven I get the impression you are a developer and you are hiding ity from us
-
I want even talk about all the benefits of XNA it all over the web just do a google search or goto microsoft.com
I know one thing if a developer can get there games up and running faster and better why wouldn\'t they develope for xbox?
Backwards compatibility may be a good thing but it is not something that a consoles must have to be successful.
The next generation titles have always and will always be the thing that sells the next generation systems.
-
QuDDus:
Incase you didn\'t notice, I am well aware on what XNA is about and what its benefits are. It is important though to realise that a lot of it is also hyped PR talk and that even XNA has its limits. Microsoft wants to sell XNA - they want people to think it will magically lower costs (which it will to some extent), but certainly not to that degree that it would make an early generation transition more attractive than making big cash on the ending current generation.
Let me explain why the last phase of a generation is often the most profitable stage for developers:
The last phase of a generation is usually in its 5 to 6 year. During this time, developers can look back at around 4 or more years of development, extensive researching and usually up to 3 or 4 games depending on their size. Now after every title that they develop, obviously, experience is gathered, libraries are developed and skills increase just as do art-assets increase. After 3 to 4 years of development, this will be one big bulk of information gathered worth a lot of money. Later games always benefit from previous ones by re-using art-assets and existant libraries to shorten dev-cycles. Good examples are Final Fantasy X-2 or the Getaway 2 which both re-use most art-assets from their previous games. As experience grows in development, development time decreases. At the end of a generation, the art-assets and libraries available reach a considerable amount which will make software cheaper to make and therefore make it even more profitable. Makes sense, doesn\'t it?
So now that we addressed why development is cheaper at the end of a generation, lets look at Microsoft\'s dilema:
Microsoft has turned in big losses with Xbox development, so obviously, they are very keen on ending it as soon as possible while gaining the head-start advantage. This way they hope to get two advantages: Being the first out and having the \'wow\' factor and second, halt Xbox production in favour of new "profitable" Xbox2 systems.
Now lets look at what their problem is: With every new generation that starts, AND regardless of the API used - any new generation is linked with massive intial costs. Why?
1.) New and more powerful hardware. Because art-assets are hardware driven, old art-assets can\'t be used and need to be re-created targeting the new and more powerful hardware.
2.) Old libraries can\'t be used, since they too are optimised for a specific hardware. In other words, no libraries can be re-used or only very basic ones, if any.
3.) New hardware require new ways of thinking and other approaches. This kind of R&D is necessary and costs money and time.
Given these reasons, it is quite obvious that developers dislike console transistions. They are expensive and require time and money. Even with the beauty of XNA, most intial costs aren\'t reduced and therefore, development costs are significantly higher for new consoles than it is for old consoles where 99% of everything previously created can be re-used.
Back to Microsoft\'s situation at the end of next year, developers will be facing a choice: To develop for Xbox2 with high initial costs or profiting on the grounds of cheap software with current generation. Since Xbox2 will not be backwars-compatible, it is more than likely that Xbox production is going to halt fairly soon after Xbox2 launches. In other words, since Xbox1 won\'t be supported anymore, it will be one or the other for most developers. On the contrary, if backwards-compatibility would be there - at least cross porting would be an option. Not having it, nullfies this possibility completely.
What does Xbox2 need to be successful?
Software. And what does it need to get software? Developer support. Obviously, it will have the support of its own 1st and 2nd party developers. Will they be enough to kick of Xbox\'s2 launch though? Even if yes, 3rd parties will still be given the choice if to support the new 1+ million base of Xbox2 or the 100+ million PS2 base (which would also be considerably cheaper). And given that Xbox wasn\'t even close to a leading console, one has to wonder, why would any developer even consider deving for xbox2 in favour of \'old generation platforms\' if the future is still uncertain by any means? On the other hand, once PS3 launces, PS2 will halt, but the software will still be usable with the PS3. This gives developers the freedom to still develop for old generation.
So to cut things short: XNA is great! Will it cut costs? Yeah, sure. Of art-assets? No. Will it make next generation development cheaper than current generation? Hell no. Not by any chance. The biggest strength of XNA is basically for portings from XNA to XNA. This could help the Xbox2 -> Xbox3 transition, but anything beyond that is just wishfull thinking on the believer or MS PR talk without much substance.
-
But isnt high developing cost something Sony will have to face as well when the PS3 is released???
-
Originally posted by seven
QuDDus:
Incase you didn\'t notice, I am well aware on what XNA is about and what its benefits are. It is important though to realise that a lot of it is also hyped PR talk and that even XNA has its limits. Microsoft wants to sell XNA - they want people to think it will magically lower costs (which it will to some extent), but certainly not to that degree that it would make an early generation transition more attractive than making big cash on the ending current generation.
Let me explain why the last phase of a generation is often the most profitable stage for developers:
The last phase of a generation is usually in its 5 to 6 year. During this time, developers can look back at around 4 or more years of development, extensive researching and usually up to 3 or 4 games depending on their size. Now after every title that they develop, obviously, experience is gathered, libraries are developed and skills increase just as do art-assets increase. After 3 to 4 years of development, this will be one big bulk of information gathered worth a lot of money. Later games always benefit from previous ones by re-using art-assets and existant libraries to shorten dev-cycles. Good examples are Final Fantasy X-2 or the Getaway 2 which both re-use most art-assets from their previous games. As experience grows in development, development time decreases. At the end of a generation, the art-assets and libraries available reach a considerable amount which will make software cheaper to make and therefore make it even more profitable. Makes sense, doesn\'t it?
So now that we addressed why development is cheaper at the end of a generation, lets look at Microsoft\'s dilema:
Microsoft has turned in big losses with Xbox development, so obviously, they are very keen on ending it as soon as possible while gaining the head-start advantage. This way they hope to get two advantages: Being the first out and having the \'wow\' factor and second, halt Xbox production in favour of new "profitable" Xbox2 systems.
Now lets look at what their problem is: With every new generation that starts, AND regardless of the API used - any new generation is linked with massive intial costs. Why?
1.) New and more powerful hardware. Because art-assets are hardware driven, old art-assets can\'t be used and need to be re-created targeting the new and more powerful hardware.
2.) Old libraries can\'t be used, since they too are optimised for a specific hardware. In other words, no libraries can be re-used or only very basic ones, if any.
3.) New hardware require new ways of thinking and other approaches. This kind of R&D is necessary and costs money and time.
Given these reasons, it is quite obvious that developers dislike console transistions. They are expensive and require time and money. Even with the beauty of XNA, most intial costs aren\'t reduced and therefore, development costs are significantly higher for new consoles than it is for old consoles where 99% of everything previously created can be re-used.
Back to Microsoft\'s situation at the end of next year, developers will be facing a choice: To develop for Xbox2 with high initial costs or profiting on the grounds of cheap software with current generation. Since Xbox2 will not be backwars-compatible, it is more than likely that Xbox production is going to halt fairly soon after Xbox2 launches. In other words, since Xbox1 won\'t be supported anymore, it will be one or the other for most developers. On the contrary, if backwards-compatibility would be there - at least cross porting would be an option. Not having it, nullfies this possibility completely.
What does Xbox2 need to be successful?
Software. And what does it need to get software? Developer support. Obviously, it will have the support of its own 1st and 2nd party developers. Will they be enough to kick of Xbox\'s2 launch though? Even if yes, 3rd parties will still be given the choice if to support the new 1+ million base of Xbox2 or the 100+ million PS2 base (which would also be considerably cheaper). And given that Xbox wasn\'t even close to a leading console, one has to wonder, why would any developer even consider deving for xbox2 in favour of \'old generation platforms\' if the future is still uncertain by any means? On the other hand, once PS3 launces, PS2 will halt, but the software will still be usable with the PS3. This gives developers the freedom to still develop for old generation.
So to cut things short: XNA is great! Will it cut costs? Yeah, sure. Of art-assets? No. Will it make next generation development cheaper than current generation? Hell no. Not by any chance. The biggest strength of XNA is basically for portings from XNA to XNA. This could help the Xbox2 -> Xbox3 transition, but anything beyond that is just wishfull thinking on the believer or MS PR talk without much substance.
while you tried to make a good case the logic is flawed. If you think developers will not make games for xbox2 thats pure speculation and a great deal at that. I doubt MS would launch there next gen system with no developer support.
Thats wishful thinking right there. Nobody is saying developers will not make games for ps2 still. But to say they won\'t produce games on xbox2 which still being built on familure hardware is just wrong.
-
I dont think Seven was absolute when he said no support for XBOX2.He ment minimum support compared to expected or satisfactory I believe.
-
...
If you think developers will not make games for xbox2 thats pure speculation and a great deal at that. I doubt MS would launch there next gen system with no developer support.
I didn\'t say no support. In fact I even mentioned that 1st and 2nd party developer will support Xbox2 from the very beginning and was talking on behalf of most 3rd party developers that are multi-platform as they are ultimately the majority of developers around.
But to say they won\'t produce games on xbox2 which still being built on familure hardware is just wrong.
Familiar hardware? You call 3 double core IBM CPU with a custom ATi GPU card familiar to what is in Xbox? :rolleyes:
Fact is, the new hardware will see a tenfold+ increase in every aspect and this will force developers to make new art-assets, new R&D, new optimised libraries for their development. That is, if you want next generation games to appear on next generation hardware.
Nobody is saying developers will not make games for ps2 still.
The point is, costs in making games for current generation opposed to Xbox2 development will be so different, it will ultimately come down to a decision. Xbox2 doesn\'t need \'average\' games to make an impact - it needs big quality games or franchises. I am questioning how many developers will actually support Xbox2 with high quality titles.
The ultimate question is, why would a developer support Xbox2 with an uncertain future with high quality expensive software if lots more profit can be made on current generation as art-assets, libraries and existant R&D can be re-used?
No one is disputing the fact that some will be able to do both (the article even suggests this) - it\'s the quality software that matters and the majority of developers will have to make a choice. Given this choice and the points I listed above, most of them will probably take the "wait and see" approach - and this will be very bad for Microsoft, as they will be loosing out the big "impact" they need and at the same time need to stand ground on Sony building up hype for PS3.
-
It’s all rather redundant anyway because the Game boy advance DS is due for release in 2005 so I know where my money will go :D
-
Something that is still unanswered....doesnt high development cost count for every next generation console?I mean if XBOX2 is released earlier that probably means art assets, libraries etc will evolve before PS3\'s or the next Nintendo\'s.Which will result to lower costs later for XBOX2 but higher for the other consoles that will be released earlier
-
Unicron!;
High development costs is for any new platform that arises. The difference is, once PS3 launches, current generation will end as PS2 production will halt soon after and developers will have to move on as consumers \'upgrade\' to next generation. Given that Xbox2 is trying to force new generation to happen earlier, I wouldn\'t expect many consumers to support XBox2 from the beginning but rather "wait and see". For those that do start earlier though, there will be a headstart.
Development costs between PS3 and XNA shouldn\'t be all too different. XNA may have an advantage as does Xbox development compared to PS2, but the bulk still lies in art-assets which is more or less hardware independend. The biggest factor will be mindsahre and therefore expected userbase.
-
Originally posted by seven
Unicron!;
High development costs is for any new platform that arises. The difference is, once PS3 launches, current generation will end as PS2 production will halt soon after and developers will have to move on as consumers \'upgrade\' to next generation. Given that Xbox2 is trying to force new generation to happen earlier, I wouldn\'t expect many consumers to support XBox2 from the beginning but rather "wait and see". For those that do start earlier though, there will be a headstart.
Development costs between PS3 and XNA shouldn\'t be all too different. XNA may have an advantage as does Xbox development compared to PS2, but the bulk still lies in art-assets which is more or less hardware independend. The biggest factor will be mindsahre and therefore expected userbase.
Like always thats just your opinion and a flawed one at that.
And first and second party support is a given on xbox2. So I don\'t even understand why you put so much attention towards that. I assumed that you meant third party support from the start. Everyone already knows they will 1st and second support.
Guessing and speculating that no third party will support xbox2 til sony who knows when decides to end the cycle of ps2 which at this times is being rumored in 2007.
-
Like always thats just your opinion and a flawed one at that.
Of course these are all opinions. If everything were fact, we wouldn\'t even be arguing! On the other hand though, I wasn\'t stating my own opinion, just arguing the articles perspective and agreeing with the author of that article since it is very accurate and reflects the market situation. If you find that opinion (and mine that is agreeing with it) flawed, please point out why.
Guessing and speculating that no third party will support xbox2 til sony who knows when decides to end the cycle of ps2 which at this times is being rumored in 2007.
Uh oh. You are putting words in to my mouth here. I never stated no 3rd party support (and neither did the article) - we were explicitly arguing about support in which it would benefit Microsoft with Xbox2 and allow them to make a serious impact and make their early launch worthwhile. The article states valid concerns, stating that the approach as Microsoft is going to use it, may backfire for the reasons stated above in the article and the ones listed and explained in more detail in my post.
It all boils down to one question, which btw, you haven\'t answered yet:
Why would a developer support Xbox2 with an uncertain future with high quality expensive software if lots more profit can be made on current generation as art-assets, libraries and existant R&D can be re-used?
I\'ll be looking forward to your answer. Cheers.
-
But games although fewer will be appearing on XBOX2 till PS3 arrives.That means some developers will already start developing on those art assets and libraries which will reduce costs to some extend while PS3 will have to do what XBOX2 did before. :confused:
-
Also, if developers and people alike are going to jump ship and support a brand new console based on graphics capabilities, what\'s going to stop them all from jumping ship from the XBox2 to the PS3 when it comes around?
;)
-
Originally posted by seven
Of course these are all opinions. If everything were fact, we wouldn\'t even be arguing! On the other hand though, I wasn\'t stating my own opinion, just arguing the articles perspective and agreeing with the author of that article since it is very accurate and reflects the market situation. If you find that opinion (and mine that is agreeing with it) flawed, please point out why.
Uh oh. You are putting words in to my mouth here. I never stated no 3rd party support (and neither did the article) - we were explicitly arguing about support in which it would benefit Microsoft with Xbox2 and allow them to make a serious impact and make their early launch worthwhile. The article states valid concerns, stating that the approach as Microsoft is going to use it, may backfire for the reasons stated above in the article and the ones listed and explained in more detail in my post.
It all boils down to one question, which btw, you haven\'t answered yet:
Why would a developer support Xbox2 with an uncertain future with high quality expensive software if lots more profit can be made on current generation as art-assets, libraries and existant R&D can be re-used?
I\'ll be looking forward to your answer. Cheers.
Why don\'t they just give up on xbox and quit because xbox2 will have no developer support at all. We all know there were no third party games on xbox.
-
Unicron:
But games although fewer will be appearing on XBOX2 till PS3 arrives.That means some developers will already start developing on those art assets and libraries which will reduce costs to some extend while PS3 will have to do what XBOX2 did before.
Not quite sure what you mean, but maybe this helps:
The whole point of the article is basically that Microsoft wants to launch Xbox in late 2005, a full year if not more before PS3. What I think most people I think are missing though is one thing: if developers want to have their software out on launch day for Xbox2, they will need to start development pretty soon (late 2004).
As already explained, late 2004 until late 200506 will be the time that developers will hope to turn in most of their profits. The last big games will ship, the market will be almost saturated (PS2 userbase around 100+ million?) and development cycles will be at their shortest thanks to existant libraries and art-assets/code recycling.
Now the whole point of Microsoft launch 1 to 2 years earlier is basically to get a headstart. If they want to get a headstart, they desperately need a good launch to make an impact and convince the market that they should just forget about their PS2, the upcoming PS3 and buy an Xbox2. The longer this takes, the closer it will be to PS3s launch, the bigger the hype will be for PS3 and the lesser the chance people will go out and buy an Xbox2 because they would want to wait just a little longer to see what Sony has in store. The whole point in launching earlier is to gain a headstart, one they will only effectively get if they can make an impact and convince the market.
To make that impact, they need software and good software at that. The market doesn\'t care about average games that hardly made an impact this generation. They need big exclusives like the GTA franchise or similar. The games they need, cost money. A lot. They just don\'t grow on trees, but require a lot, especially since it\'s a new console and requires new approaches, new ideas, new art.
What the article is arguing is that the trival support that Microsoft needs from 3rd party won\'t be there later this year - which they need if they want to make an impact on launch. It won\'t be there, because as I outlined, this generation will be at its most profitable stage and developers would want to milk that as much as they can.
If you got this far, appologies. Just thought this may clear up things a little.
Now on to the art-assets. Developers starting early will of course start early on making art-assets and their share of libraries and tools. Some of those tools and libraries will make it to other developers (perhaps through the developer kits), but expect the most to stay within developers of their own, because they spent money on that research and wouldn\'t want to give it away just like that. Art-assets don\'t move around either - it\'s what makes the bulk of the game and required the most time. 3 years of getaway was basically spent on art-assets (taking photos, making textures, modeling the city etc).
So yeah, the developers that do start early will have a headstart. This advantage isn\'t worth much though if the majority of 3rd parties "wait and see" and then decide to start development on both PS3 and Xbox2 since they will both have very similar art-assets requirement (they\'re in the same generation afterall). If that happens though, the whole point in launching Xbox2 earlier went down the drain and with a headstart of one or two million, Microsoft may be wondering why they didn\'t wait that extra year in favour of better hardware while they are getting themselves kicked by Sony and PS3.
Microsoft will already have a lot of trouble come late 2005 when they launch (if they really launch then) because the hype on PS3 will definately beginn to role and will make everyone believe it\'s going to be a tenfold better than Xbox2.
-
No apologies needed.I enjopy reading your posts no matter how long they are :)
It helped and indeed answered to my question
Thanks :)
-
Originally posted by seven
Microsoft may be wondering why they didn\'t wait that extra year in favour of better hardware while they are getting themselves kicked by Sony and PS3.
You really think an extra year will make a difference in hardware?
Sorry to tell you it won\'t. There best chance is too get out early.
All the consoles will have great graphics.
Sony has brainwashed everyone into thinking that playstation is the only system for good games. And ppl believe that 100%.
I remember when I bought my Dc with sonic,sc and nfl2k.
No matter how good the games where ppl would always tell me playstation will have better games. I remember I was a work and I had nearly an entire first shift of men and women telling me how better playstion2 was an it wasn\'t even out.
I have a friend if ps2 was sony last console he would stop playing games. No matter how good the game is on xbox he always find a reason to put down the console.
I mean a lot of ppl are playstation loyal. I don\'t understanding how can a person be loyal to a video game system. If there are games that I like on other systems I will at least give that system a chance.
People bash and bash the other systems. Without competition you would have $500 dollar consoles and $80 games. Then everyone would be crying.
-
QuDDus:
Launching a year later will most definately ensure a more capable machine. A year or even two is large amount of time when speaking of technology. Just look at how much better GPUs are that launch a year later. Also, Moore\'s law that sais that transistor counts roughly double every 18 months should get you thinking aswell. More transistors == more logic == better more capable hardware.
-
Originally posted by seven
QuDDus:
Launching a year later will most definately ensure a more capable machine. A year or even two is large amount of time when speaking of technology. Just look at how much better GPUs are that launch a year later. Also, Moore\'s law that sais that transistor counts roughly double every 18 months should get you thinking aswell. More transistors == more logic == better more capable hardware.
If your theory was correct xbox and gamecube would be the clear winner.
Playstation 2 games looks just as good as anyother console.
1 year or 2 won\'t matter.
-
If your theory was correct xbox and gamecube would be the clear winner.
In terms of transistor budget, they clearly are. GameCube and Xbox were built on more advanced processes - meaning smaller chips, more logic, higher clocks. More transistors == more logic.
More logic can be seen in form of hardwired features such as bump mapping etc. Best example is more memory btw! ;)
Playstation 2 games looks just as good as anyother console.
The result is jaded because Sony took an exceptional way of going with a bruteforce like approach. The PS2 chipset is highly optimized for high data throughoutput featuring high bandwidth and low memory - AT THE SAME TIME THOUGH, the logic on board is very primitive and comparable to a Voodoo 1 chipset. The result is jaded because thanks to going with a custom design, Sony was able to optimize the available transistor budget they had in favour of a few strengths that even the later consoles can\'t meet (high fillrate and the use of eDRAM).
GameCube and Xbox both are more or less "off the shelf" parts and not very optimized for gaming. GameCube was a relative cheap console (but very well designed / optimized) while Xbox relativily unoptimized (weak CPU, bandwidth etc).
Next generation is different though as Microsoft isn\'t going with off the shelf parts but customizing aswell.
-
Originally posted by seven
In terms of transistor budget, they clearly are. GameCube and Xbox were built on more advanced processes - meaning smaller chips, more logic, higher clocks. More transistors == more logic.
More logic can be seen in form of hardwired features such as bump mapping etc. Best example is more memory btw! ;)
The result is jaded because Sony took an exceptional way of going with a bruteforce like approach. The PS2 chipset is highly optimized for high data throughoutput featuring high bandwidth and low memory - AT THE SAME TIME THOUGH, the logic on board is very primitive and comparable to a Voodoo 1 chipset. The result is jaded because thanks to going with a custom design, Sony was able to optimize the available transistor budget they had in favour of a few strengths that even the later consoles can\'t meet (high fillrate and the use of eDRAM).
GameCube and Xbox both are more or less "off the shelf" parts and not very optimized for gaming. GameCube was a relative cheap console (but very well designed / optimized) while Xbox relativily unoptimized (weak CPU, bandwidth etc).
Next generation is different though as Microsoft isn\'t going with off the shelf parts but customizing aswell.
You take the simple things and make them hard.
Ok your reading to much into this. In the pass I can\'t really see how one console has had a huge generation gap in graphics over the other.
They have all had pretty much had the same graphics. None have been light years above the other. It has always been the games and will continue to be the games. Your hardware theory is flawed.
I am sure Microsoft has spent a lot of time and effort in putting together the specs for there next generation console. Again your reading to far into the situation. It\'s not that complex.
-
Ah you mean out of the view of a casual consumer? Well, time will see, but I can assure you this: if Xbox2 launches late next year and PS3 in 2007 (1.5 to 2 years later) - it will have much more capable hardware and Sony will make everyone believe exactly that.
This generation, Microsoft was in the position to play the "better hardware" game (and a lot of people bought into that) - next generation they won\'t. Not if they launch 1 to 2 years in advance.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
You take the simple things and make them hard.
Ok your reading to much into this. In the pass I can\'t really see how one console has had a huge generation gap in graphics over the other.
They have all had pretty much had the same graphics. None have been light years above the other. It has always been the games and will continue to be the games. Your hardware theory is flawed.
I am sure Microsoft has spent a lot of time and effort in putting together the specs for there next generation console. Again your reading to far into the situation. It\'s not that complex.
I d like to add something on this.It was just a coincidence you didnt see much difference.For example if we take the past generation.
The Saturn and the PS were released almost at the same time frame with PS coming slightly after (And indeed PS could handle better 3D graphics despite the smal time frame).
The N64 which was released a lot earlier failed to show enough difference because Nintendo didnt just think of more powerful hardware.They wanted simplicity, they wanted just enough to make the games they wanted and the hardware ended up being cardridge based which limited the possibilitites of a more powerful 64-bit CD based hadrware.It wasnt a hardware progression.They took steps back as well.Not to mention the higher development costs which reduced developers\' motives to develop on the console which ment not enough efforts to exploit fully the console\'s potential.
With other words they havent exploited the time they had under their disposal to offer what they should.
-
:gman:
-
btw QuDDus... I can\'t help but feel that you think we hate Microsoft and Xbox. It\'s not like that. I just think happen to agree with the article and believe that Microsoft is making a big mistake by going that early into next generation (based on the points I expressed above).
I think the way they\'re heading, they might just end up in a Dreamcast like position - basically being the underdog (which they already are), but also in perspective of hardware and standing in the shade of PS3\'s hype.
We should run a pole to see which people think is the worse scenario:
1.) standing up to PS3\'s hype
2.) or actually standing up against PS3 if they were to launch side by side.
I actually think hype is more dangerous than actual PS3 substance. Seriously. We saw what happened with Dreamcast back then. Sure, if Sega had the cash, it would have went well, but then again, Sega lacked the support and didn\'t go that much earlier. Besides, Sega had a huge loyal fanbase (still do btw) - Xbox, I argue, doesn\'t.
-
Originally posted by seven
btw QuDDus... I can\'t help but feel that you think we hate Microsoft and Xbox. It\'s not like that. I just think happen to agree with the article and believe that Microsoft is making a big mistake by going that early into next generation (based on the points I expressed above).
I think the way they\'re heading, they might just end up in a Dreamcast like position - basically being the underdog (which they already are), but also in perspective of hardware and standing in the shade of PS3\'s hype.
We should run a pole to see which people think is the worse scenario:
1.) standing up to PS3\'s hype
2.) or actually standing up against PS3 if they were to launch side by side.
I actually think hype is more dangerous than actual PS3 substance. Seriously. We saw what happened with Dreamcast back then. Sure, if Sega had the cash, it would have went well, but then again, Sega lacked the support and didn\'t go that much earlier. Besides, Sega had a huge loyal fanbase (still do btw) - Xbox, I argue, doesn\'t.
No but MS will do good. XNA seems like it is going to be a good thing for xbox2 and the industry. You know it\'s always easy to find something wrong with something.
I think MS is a huge company who knows exactly what they doing. For the sake of gaming I hope they do well and everyone else should to.
Then again we all know how bad competition is for us consumers. I guess I would be more happy paying $500-600 for my ps2.
-
I\'ve read though this whole thread, and what read. Good job guys you all make very compelling arguments.
Here is what I have to say. You had better hope the M$ does a dang good job on XBOX2 because if they fail, consoles gamming will go downhill IMO. Sony needs the competition to keep them at there toes, other wise they will not push to bring forth innovative titles/hardware you\'ll be paying lot\'s of Molla for the systems and games etc.....
Take the PC Graphics card industry for example, Look what happened when NVIDIA had no real competition back in the Geforce 2-4 era. They produced junk, until ATI whipped NVIDIA back in shape and viola 6800/NV40.
So for those of you that hate the XBOX etc... You’re going to weep what you sew
-
I actually think hype is more dangerous than actual PS3 substance.
Hype can indeed be a very dangerous thing, espically considering the power Hype plays in the uniformed mainstream consumer. DC had an amazing game title line up yet, every mainstream yuppie I talked to at the time was bragging how much better ps2 was going to be, it would make coffee and toast in the morning, etc...However I’m glad MS is bringing out the XBOX2 before ps3, I too believe that this is there best shot at grabbing hold of the next gen market segment.
All I care is if XBOX will hook up to my PC, and lets me plug in a mouse, plus hook it up to my Monitor, if XBOX2 can do this I"M SOLD.
-
I think MS is a huge company who knows exactly what they doing.
No doubt they\'ve learned quite a bit in the subsequent three years and I can only hope it\'s enough to launch a successful Xbox 2.
The one thing they seem to be slow on picking up is that they need a lineup of exclusive killer games, more than that they need a steady flow of them. MS\'s first party efforts have been less than adequate and it will always hold them back until they deliver a higher quality of games. In other words, don\'t give me Blinx or Azurik as my platformers when I can play Jak & Daxter or Ratchet & Clank. it feels wrong to even compare them
Third party support is important and I think MS has done a good job, finally getting EA support will do good things for Xbox and their Live service. I can only assume EA will continue with Xbox 2. Several developers have started to work on Xbox 2, a full 17 months ahead of the rumored release date. The eagerness to start indicates they are excited to jump into the next generation, and on Xbox 2.
It\'s already been commented that Xbox 2 will be difficult to develop for, MS needs to make sure that the developers have all the tools and support needed to create their line up of games. XNA has garnered alot of attention from the development community inlcuding Square so there is always a chance things could turn around, however unlikely they are. Unfortunately I don\'t think MS will ever be successful in Japan and the big box will continue to lose the heavy weight titles to Sony.
Can MS take on Sony? I think so...
The first generation of Xbox 2 games have to be a cut above of what any of the current consoles can offer, in terms of graphics and gameplay, otherwise consumers won\'t budge. I\'m confident MS knows this and that the Xbox 2 will have what it takes to deliver. What\'s more important is that there has to be a steady release of top notch games between the Xbox 2 release and the PS3 launch, don\'t give gamers a reason to anticipate the PS3 any more than they already will be.
-
i still don\'t know how to quickquote! :mad: anyway i agree with everything you said ginks, but i didn\'t think xbox2 would be difficult to develop for...
-
It has to do with the new architecture, some people have compared it to PS2. It has to do with multi-threading or something like that. I\'m not a techy so I couldn\'t even begin to tell you about it.
I\'m not sure what you mean by quick quote...I always copy then paste what I want in between quote tags.
-
I don\'t believe for one second ps3 will launch in 07 it will surface in 06.
-
I don\'t believe for one second ps3 will launch in 07 it will surface in 06.
I thought the same however after reading quite a bit of general information I\'m starting to think differently. The cell processor itself, not to mention all the plans Sony has for it, is quite ambitious. Sony\'s spending billions of dollars on research and development, they aren\'t going to release it until it\'s ready.
Cosidering that they said PS2 hasn\'t even hit its\' peak yet I wouldn\'t be suprised at a later launch date.
-
Originally posted by clips
i still don\'t know how to quickquote! :mad: anyway i agree with everything you said ginks, but i didn\'t think xbox2 would be difficult to develop for...
That\'s basically because Microsoft\'s marketing at XNA. Reality though, is that the game development is going through a steady growth: projects are getting larger, more ambigious, more complex and more expensive. Animators and level designers will have to deal with more data, much more.
On the other hand, Xbox2 seems to be quite a complex peace of hardware. As of yet, the hardware is still more or less unknown. We do know however that it\'s a very custom design, featurung 3 double core IBM CPUs and somewhere in there, you have the ATi designed GPU (which will be something between a R500, possibly with features of a R600). It will be interesting how much XNA will abststract the hardware and make it easier for developers. On the other hand, as I said, XNA won\'t reduce the amount of art-assets and the work level-designers and all those people will have to do.
Microsoft is a software company: of cours they\'re promoting their software as their strength (XNA). Sony is a hardware company. It\'s obvious their promoting their strength, which is hardware (CELL).
In short: development is always going to get harder. Creating content will be the biggest challenge though.
-
doesnt matter I bought my xbox with the warranty with BEST BUY and apparently according to the contract if a newer version comes out during the PSP period they will replace my xbox with newer version CHA CHING...
-
after XNA being a major point brought up in this thread, here\'s a good read for those that still see XNA purely as a way to make development easier:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3489
some quotes for the lazy:
Of course, it\'s easy to see why Allard, and the rest of Microsoft, would be keen on a market model in which they simply created a reference design and let others take care of the actual manufacture of consoles. After all, the company has lost billions of dollars on the Xbox to date, largely because of the significant loss it takes on every hardware unit it sells; and it is seemingly coming around to the idea that it isn\'t a hardware company after all. It would prefer to design the specification, let others do the hard work of building and selling the systems, and then rake in profit from the software sales. However, third party hardware manufacturers won\'t sell hardware at a loss. The change required to the business model of the games industry to accommodate this would be huge - and may indeed be entirely unfeasible, as outlined above.
XNA is presented by Allard as a technology which will allow games to operate across a wide range of devices; a basic genome which will link a whole menagerie of gaming devices and experiences. When he talks about it, he sounds convincing; but when XNA is boiled down to its most basic, the whole thing appears less exciting - and potentially more interesting, in fact.
XNA is designed as a framework to make Xbox 2 more easy to develop for. It has applications beyond Xbox 2, of course, since Microsoft is also providing it for PC developers, but it\'s Xbox 2 that is the core of the matter here. The raison d\'etre for XNA, in a nutshell, is that Xbox 2 is going to be incredibly tough to develop for; with a six-processor design which will require game developers to start worrying about multi-threading and other such concepts in their code, all ideas which are completely alien to the development process as it stands.
On one level, XNA will help slightly by providing standard, familiar DirectX style interfaces to programmers on Xbox 2, but that will make very little odds to the actual complexity of coding for the system. More importantly, it is likely that XNA will form a framework for a whole set of technologies - such as RenderWare, or Havok physics - which will be supplied in multi-threaded, or thread-safe, form to developers, allowing them to take advantage of the multi-CPU design of Xbox 2 more easily.
and finally
Allard\'s future vision is compelling, there\'s no doubt, but it\'s also highly idealised and parts of it are in desperate need of more detailed explanation; or perhaps of more detailed thought. The actual effect on Xbox 2 of his projections will be minimal, perhaps even none; it would seem that he is thinking more in terms of the following generation, or even beyond that.
It\'s also telling that Microsoft\'s gameplan now differs substantially from Sony\'s. Sony wants to own the market from end to end; it is happiest with a vision of a future where it owns the content creation platform (Cell workstations), the content delivery system (UMD and Blu-Ray discs), the content platform (PS3, PSX3, PSP) and much of the software market (Sony Pictures, Sony Music, SCE\'s publishing divisions). Microsoft wants to be a software company, providing a reference design and games.
There\'s probably only room for one of those models in the games industry. The coming decade of conflict between the two companies can almost certainly have only one winner - and with Allard\'s cards on the table, along with Sony president Nobuyuki Idei\'s, the battle lines are well and truly drawn.
-
The raison d\'etre for XNA, in a nutshell, is that Xbox 2 is going to be incredibly tough to develop for; with a six-processor design which will require game developers to start worrying about multi-threading and other such concepts in their code, all ideas which are completely alien to the development process as it stands.
How does PS3 compare to this?
-
I\'ve read that before and it doesn\'t say much, just raises several important questions and some of which probably won\'t apply to this upcoming generation.
I\'m more interested in the fact that several developers have shown interest in XNA.
-
I\'ve read that before and it doesn\'t say much, just raises several important questions and some of which probably won\'t apply to this upcoming generation.
The main point of posting it was due to a lack of understanding I noticed surrounding XNA - mainly some people (not you Ginko) seeing XNA as something that will make Xenon software all the more attractive to develop due to it reducing costs, time and effort significantly.
What this article nicely points out is what XNA is and what Microsofts vision is. It goes way beyond just serving as a framework or middleware. The main point is also that it won\'t reduce development costs by a large factor - but will of course make it easier to deal with certain aspects of the hardware.
I remember reading in some other articles that one of its strong points is the basic library which will make it easy to deal with the multiple threads, making the learning curve somewhat easier for new developers to jump in and get sufficiant results.
The more important question however is, how will it compare to what Sony or Nintendo are working on?
How does PS3 compare to this?
Not much is made public on what kind of an API Sony will include for PS3 at this time unfortunately. Sources indicate that they are building software in close alliance with IBM (which has had experience in computer grids and software over quite some time) to make development easier on PS3. It will be complicated, but press also indicates that it will be more like PSP development or PSone (more libraries, better support, some API).
On a more interesting note, it very well seems that PS3 developer kits will be CELL based machines. People that have studies CELL know that it\'s a network processor, not only being scalable in its own entity, but can also draw more performance over hispeed networks.
Imagine the following scenario:
If future game studios buy CELL workstations and hook them up via highspeed network, each and every workstation gets more powerful as it will be able to draw performance over the network from the other workstation that are idle. Think of it like this: during development, the longest and most time consuming task is rendering. Already today this is a problem and development times could already be greatly reduced if these could be reduced. if you\'d have a CELL based network with CELL workstations, every time when a computer needs to render, it just fetches performance over the network and would be able to get an amazing increase in performance. Imagine a huge developer studio with 20 CELL workstations - 19 being idle and one being ready to render? 19x increase in performance?
I\'m sure you all read the visions on having a CELL based TV, a CELL based Radio all hooked up over a network. Well, IMO, I think what Sony is after is CELL workstations. If this turns out to be true and they get the necessary support from Maya, 3d studio max and all the others, this may be the reason to support PS3 and the CELL platform. The benefits would be unbeatable.
Thoughts?
-
Thoughts?
Sony might rock the gaming industry again. Then again its\' full potential might never be realized due to lack of support...I doubt this will be the case as this is Sony we\'re talking about.:)
Just don\'t put MS or Nintendo under, I\'d be extremely upset no matter what my new PS3 could do.
-
Owning a PS is "cool" to everyone so yeah Sony will never lose another console "war" again.
-
Originally posted by Ginko
I\'m more interested in the fact that several developers have shown interest in XNA. [/B]
after reading seven\'s posts probably developers are interested mainly for developing on PC using XNA.It doesnt mean that they have XBOX2 game development in mind.Probably its just a general interest.
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
Owning a PS is "cool" to everyone so yeah Sony will never lose another console "war" again.
The games on it are cool actually :p
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
after reading seven\'s posts probably developers are interested mainly for developing on PC using XNA.It doesnt mean that they have XBOX2 game development in mind.Probably its just a general interest.
I was speaking about the developers who have already begun Xbox 2 development and those who have a general interest. The point being that there\'s obviously something worth noting about XNA whatever the intentions might be.
-
hmm...probably indeed there is something worth noting.Unless some developers hasted their conclusions about XBOX2 and started developing on the incomplete development kits ignoring that the XBOX2 will be different in terms of hardware later from the development kits.
-
I think it\'s funny Microsoft is developing for the Xbox 2 with Apple\'s G5 computers as of currently...according to IGN. :D
-
Ginko:
I was speaking about the developers who have already begun Xbox 2 development and those who have a general interest. The point being that there\'s obviously something worth noting about XNA whatever the intentions might be.
AFAIK, the only developers that have started development on Xenon are 1st parties. This most definately includes Rare. Since most 1st party developers of Microsoft have a PC background, their interest comes to no suprise as they have been working with similar framework and middleware for the last few years (DirectX). Don\'t want to put them down in any way, but AFAIK no big 3rd parties have really started actual development (perhaps planing stages?) yet. Therefore, I can\'t comment on how big interest is and why.
What I do know is, that the above scenario that I listed with CELL workstations could be a serious dent in XNA\'s plans and future. Not only that, but it seems Sony and IBM are working on to provide something similar as an API.
-
and the general interest has been from some select 3rd parties, including Square. It\'s nothing concrete and conclusions shouldn\'t be made, interest is there...that\'s all right now.