PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Riku on April 23, 2005, 06:30:49 AM
-
Xbox 360 Titles Race to Launch
Wow, the things I\'ve heard! You\'d think that the guys who make games -- designers, programmers, and producers among others -- were a little like gossipy little high school girls. Man, do they love to, eh-hem, talk shop. We\'ve learned that in addition to Microsoft\'s Perfect Dark Zero being a potential launch title, a few more are being lined up to boot.
These are lots of racing games coming your way. Microsoft is working diligently on Project Gotham Racing 3, lined up as a launch title, along with Atari\'s Test Drive, EA\'s Need For Speed Underground 3, perhaps Criterion\'s next Burnout title, and a renewal of a special Namco racing series. At least one more Japanese developer is officially in development with yet another racing title. So, what is that, six racing games at launch?
Launch Waves
Furthering its launch strategy, we\'ve learned that Microsoft plans on shipping titles in waves. So, instead of releasing all 30 or 40 games simultaneously, MS will ship 15, maybe 20 games at launch, followed two weeks later by a second wave of maybe five to 10 games. Two to three weeks later, after everyone is full with the games they\'ve bought, tasted, and fallen in love with, another wave of 10 or so games will wash in like the tide. It appears Microsoft has studied past hardware launches and analyzed which elements work best. All we can hope is that the hardware shipments are as plentiful as the potential software releases.
Halo 2.5
IGN\'s heard a new spin on the old pup. So, after all the hub-bub about Halo 2.5, which was spurned on by the game\'s abrupt ending and Bungie\'s supposed mad rush to finish it (also partially squashed by the Multiplayer Map Pack), this old dog has the balls to stick his head out again.
A source close to Bungie said that Microsoft plans to release Halo 2.5 with the launch of Xbox 360 this November. The game is allegedly nothing more than a prettied up, high-res, 720p, wide-screen version of Halo 2 -- with perfectly polished cutscenes sans those nasty LOD pop-in textures. Why would you want it, since you and 7 million other people already own it? Well, it\'s prettier for one, and who knows, maybe there are those same maps on it for Xbox 360, and maybe, just maybe it will come bundled with the hard drive, which is sold separately. It\'s just a rumor, but one of those nasty, sounds-like-it-could-be-true ones that stick to you. Kinda hard to skip the hard-drive when Halo 2.5 is on it, don\'t you think? And honestly, do you really think Microsoft will launch its new system without its ultra-successful flagship title Halo?
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/607/607007p1.html
I\'d love to see a new console Ridge Racer.:)
The launch wave strategy is great, but I hope it goes on longer than 3-4 weeks. My biggest complaint with most of my consoles is that the games tend to dry up after the first month, however it seems as though MS plans to have about 40 games out within two months of launch!
Halo 2.5...If it\'s free with the HD then I\'m okay with that, but it better not be a stand alone game.
-
There is this video game exhibit my my museum of science and industry where you can play basically all the games (there are 100\'s or something) and they had the original ridge racer. It was so damn fun.
After playing that and remembering all the good times with the RR series, I too would like to see a new one on next gen systems.
-
I am still very amazed that so much is heard about XBOX2 support.There is a bigger interest compared to XBOX\'s.Impressive.Developers must be very astonished by what they have seen.
Still not a word for PS3.Either they are hiding information purposely or its very very very far from completion.So far that developers cant make decisions
-
If they launch with Halo 2.5 it\'ll be a diaster. Halo 2 was nothing to brag about and making a "special edition" of it for a launch title is plain stupid.
Then again, MS should of learned from Sony. Don\'t launch the HD after the system. Don\'t launch the HD seperate from the system. Either have one or don\'t. Add-on\'s do not sell.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
I am still very amazed that so much is heard about XBOX2 support.There is a bigger interest compared to XBOX\'s.Impressive.Developers must be very astonished by what they have seen.
Still not a word for PS3.Either they are hiding information purposely or its very very very far from completion.So far that developers cant make decisions
yea i agree..and i\'m not an xbox fan in any degree but this new joint has kinda peaked my curiousity...ultimately i\'ll probably end up with a ps3 for the simple fact that i refuse to buy more than one console per gen...but that doesn\'t dismiss the fact that ms, at least at this time is definitely makin\' waves in the indusrty...
who knows with xbox showin their stuff now, and if it\'s highly impressive, trust no hype or slick marketing by sony will save them this time..nobody is going to fall for it...sony better make sure they come with a system that\'s stronger graphically and performance wise than ms...or at least on equal grounds with it...
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
If they launch with Halo 2.5 it\'ll be a diaster. Halo 2 was nothing to brag about and making a "special edition" of it for a launch title is plain stupid.
It\'s not as if it\'s the only launch title, and we\'re not even sure it\'s a stand alone game. If it\'s free with the HD then there\'s nothing to complain about.
Don\'t launch the HD seperate from the system. Either have one or don\'t. Add-on\'s do not sell.
I guess it depends what you want to do with your Xbox 360. A 40GB harddrive would surely be enough to hold downloadable content, music, etc. But if you\'re one who doesn\'t plan to go online then perhaps you should just stick with good old memory cards, which seems to be an option looking at the latest mock-ups.
Me, I never got past the "50,000+ blocks remaining" on my Xbox harddrive. Then again, I didn\'t download any content or rip my music onto the harddrive for custom soundtracks. The inclusion of a harddrive was wasted on me.
Sony\'s HDD was supported by one big game, that\'s it. I don\'t believe that any of Sony\'s games allow for custom soundtracks either. It just didn\'t make sense to put down $100 for one, and apparently it didn\'t make sense for Sony to continue supporting it either.
We know that custom soundtracks are possible for every Xbox 360 game, we also know MS is really pushing customizable/downloadable content for next generation. If MS effectively markets it then the HD will become a must-have to those who plan to go online/download/customize/rip their own soundtracks, etc.
The inclusion of a HD for those who don\'t or can\'t get online, or don\'t care for custom soundtracks, would be entirely wasted money on MS\'s part. That consumer will buy a $20 memory card like they\'ve had to for the past 10 years.
EDIT:
Also, it would be great if the HD acted like an Ipod. The ability to download music is there, all we need is an interface and an earphone jack. If they sold it for $100 or less that would be incentive enough to get the HD.
-
What happen to Halo 3? Ah well can\'t wait to play Morrowind Oblivion.
-
Sony\'s HDD was supported by one big game, that\'s it.
can\'t blame sony for that
-
Originally posted by mm
can\'t blame sony for that
I\'m not pointing the finger, just making an arguement.
But, since you mentioned it...
Why shouldn\'t we blame Sony for the HDD\'s failure? They were the ones who released it with such little support behind it. If they couldn\'t get the developers behind it then it\'s common sense that it wouldn\'t last for too long.
-
Originally posted by pstwo
What happen to Halo 3? Ah well can\'t wait to play Morrowind Oblivion.
If the rumors are true then you can expect to see it sometime around the PS3\'s launch.
-
what support did SoE need to release?
it\'s there for dev\'s to use it
why don\'t dev\'s use it?
cause there\'s little need for a hard drive on consoles.
honestly, how may people suffered thru the xbox cd ripping process to have thier own soundtracks in games? i did it once, and realized how lame it was.
-
Originally posted by mm
what support did SoE need to release?
it\'s there for dev\'s to use it
why don\'t dev\'s use it?
Because there was little incentive to jump on. I think Final Fantasy XI and Socom 2 were two of a few games to use the HDD. 2 games alone will not sell a $100 accessory.
The HDD shouldn\'t have been released at all on the PS2, and that\'s apparent because few of Sony\'s first party games planned on using it.
cause there\'s little need for a hard drive on consoles.
Tell that to Sony and MS going into next gen. Both plan on having some type of online service and microtransactions. You can\'t do that without a place to store that information. A small memory card won\'t cut it.
Even Nintendo is rumored to have a 15 GB HD in the Revolution.
Downloadable content will be common place soon.
honestly, how may people suffered thru the xbox cd ripping process to have thier own soundtracks in games? i did it once, and realized how lame it was.
I don\'t know, are you going to be able to ask every Xbox owner?
I believe the HD is required for Xbox Live, and plus you need the space for the downloadable content.
-
cause there\'s little need for a hard drive on consoles.
from the gamer\'s perspective, there is little
from the money making company\'s? huge
-
Originally posted by mm
from the gamer\'s perspective, there is little
from the money making company\'s? huge
Why didn\'t you just say that before? You didn\'t need to go and quote yourself just to make a point. Not that it matters.
Question, how do you expect to achieve an online service with downloadable content and customizable features without massive storage?
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
If they launch with Halo 2.5 it\'ll be a diaster. Halo 2 was nothing to brag about and making a "special edition" of it for a launch title is plain stupid.
The graphics will be the only selling point for it obviously. Im sure it will look great but the whole idea is somewhat lame.
Then again, MS should of learned from Sony. Don\'t launch the HD after the system. Don\'t launch the HD seperate from the system. Either have one or don\'t. Add-on\'s do not sell.
Expensive Add ons dont sell.
64 Jam Pack did well. There arent too many successful add ons but i enjoyed sega chanel and there are more than a few people that got the network adapter. Under promoted, under supported, useless and/or expensive add-ons seem to be the ones that dont make it.
-
what content needs to be downloaded thats not somerthing to be sold?
hard drives barely benefit the consumer
-
Originally posted by mm
what content needs to be downloaded thats not somerthing to be sold?
You, being a PC gamer, don\'t need to be told this. Episodic content, expansion packs, etc. Not to mention customizing the games that MS has been talking about, and the microtransactions that both Sony and MS have now confirmed to be part of their plans.
This is where games are headed, they are changing.
hard drives barely benefit the consumer
I\'ll just mention the Hurricane Packs for Ninja Gaiden and the upcoming 9 new multiplayer maps being released for Halo 2. HD required.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
You, being a PC gamer, don\'t need to be told this. Episodic content, expansion packs, etc. Not to mention customizing the games that MS has been talking about, and the microtransactions that both Sony and MS have now confirmed to be part of their plans.
This is where games are headed, they are changing.
I\'ll just mention the Hurricane Packs for Ninja Gaiden and the upcoming 9 new multiplayer maps being released for Halo 2. HD required.
all something to be sold, that can be in media form
-
Originally posted by mm
all something to be sold, that can be in media form
It\'s going to be sold then downloaded.
As transferable data capabilities increase you\'ll see more and more media being distributed online. Episodic content, expansion packs, etc. We already have music being distributed online, in the coming years it will be the same with movies and entire games. (Half-Life 2 anyone?)
Why go through the mess of having to get the content on a selected medium, package it, market it, and sell it in different venues when you could do it all in one place? Online.
So we\'ve established why the online component is necessary. The HD component is simple enough, but I\'ll go ahead and spell it out for you. When you download something you need a place to store it.
You probably don\'t like it, but keep in mind that\'s entirely irrelevant.
EDIT: The Hurricane Packs and the expansion pack for Halo 2 would not be possible without the HD. THe Halo 2 expansion pack is giving people the option to download it or buy it on a disc.
-
so how does this benefit the gamer above the company?
the hard drive is not needed when all this extra crap (and thats normally what it is) can be distributed on media.
what happens when the hard drive crashes? restore from media? wait....oh noes!
and please don\'t compare consoles to PC\'s.
i\'ve been thru the PC > console argument too many times
-
Originally posted by Rikku
I\'m not pointing the finger, just making an arguement.
But, since you mentioned it...
Why shouldn\'t we blame Sony for the HDD\'s failure? They were the ones who released it with such little support behind it. If they couldn\'t get the developers behind it then it\'s common sense that it wouldn\'t last for too long.
Ahm....MS didnt do anything about XBOX\'s HD either.It just came with a HD.And the only major game that exploited certain HD possibilities was Molyneux\'s RPG.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Ahm....MS didnt do anything about XBOX\'s HD either.It just came with a HD.And the only major game that exploited certain HD possibilities was Molyneux\'s RPG.
Xbox Live is the reason. Microsoft\'s plan from the beginning was to offer an online service for Xbox gamers, one function of which was to offer downloadable content. Now, you don\'t go and try to sell the service of downloadable content unless you have the storage for it.
The HD has been used in different ways. It\'s been used for the custom soundtrack feature found in some games, as well as a data and texture cache for others. And, as I already mentioned, used to store the content from the Hurricane Packs for Ninja Gaiden, and will be used to store the expansion for Halo 2.
Of course, there are people who don\'t care for any of it so the online service and hard drive is completely lost on them. I think MS is being smart selling them seperately. Sony will do something similar, count on it.
so how does this benefit the gamer above the company?
I see two different ways of getting the same product. In what ways does this not benefit the gamer?
the hard drive is not needed when all this extra crap (and thats normally what it is) can be distributed on media.
Call it what you want.
Where would you store the data from that extra media? A memory card? What happens when a number of developers start releasing extra content?
How do you propose that Sony and MS carry out their microtransactions without an online service and HD?
what happens when the hard drive crashes? restore from media? wait....oh noes!
You should ask Sony, MS, and Nintendo what they have in mind. My Xbox HD has been just fine since launch, so I\'m not that worried.
and please don\'t compare consoles to PC\'s.
i\'ve been thru the PC > console argument too many times
I didn\'t compare the hardware so you can step down off that soap box.
You\'d be short sighted, and a little ignorant, to think that we are not heading into downloadable content. As I said, it\'s already happened with music, and with an entire game, and soon it will happen with movies.
Will it replace mediums like DVD, Blu-Ray, or what have you? No, at least not for a long time. But if you\'re going to have downloadable content (or extra), and it seems we will, then you need a place to store it.
-
ugh, your quoting makes my eyes bleed
this aint the IGN forums, bro
and you\'re being naive if you think "downloadable content" is a win for the gamer.
we\'ll see when you are being nickel\'d and dime\'d to death
why not go as far as to have the games on dvd-rw\'s then?
-
Originally posted by mm
ugh, your quoting makes my eyes bleed
this aint the IGN forums, bro
Sorry, I won\'t bold them any more.
and you\'re being naive if you don\'t think "downloadable content" is a win for the gamer.
we\'ll see when you are being nickel\'d and dime\'d to death
That poses a problem, but it also remains to be seen whether we\'ll be taken advantage of or not. I say if the developers abuse us then they\'ll have a hard time selling their product, and the whole thing will go bust. I think most developers will be good about it, giving away some freebies, and then charging us for bigger content.
Take Bungie\'s Halo 2 for example. You can download two maps for free I believe, then you must purchase the remaining seven. Or you can wait until August or September to download them for free. I\'m okay with that, but being the tight ass that I am I\'d wait for it to be free.
As for downloading entire games, movies, etc. Bring it.
why not go as far as to have the games on dvd-rw\'s then?
That\'s a great solution for adding game content to existing games, however it doesn\'t solve the storage dilemma for soundtracks, customizable content downloaded from your PC (J. Allard said it, don\'t ask), and handling microtransactions of many games at a time.
-
Originally posted by mm
can\'t blame sony for that
Yes you can. It was their dumbass launch of the add-on that killed support.
-
noone really launches an addon (well, aside from sega and look where they are)
the HD is out there for purchase, it\'s just not needed
-
It was an add-on. It was released. It was launched, for goodness sakes. You can try and wiggle out of this all you want, but te add-on was pointless and delayed constantly by Sony because of that reason.
-
wiggle?
sony felt the hard drive wasn\'t necesarry (like i do)
-
If they did not feel it was necesarry , they would of never launched it. They only came up with a HD to counter act MS\'s move on including a HD. I remember this discussion years ago and I was right then, the add-on was a complete failure. Back peddle, wiggle, do whatever you want. Sony released the HD. They released a complete failure.
-
i really hate to break this to you, but you have never been "right"
define "failure"
as in xbox "never make 1$ of profit till ovcer 4 years after launch"
or do you mean as in "dreamcast" failure.
perhaps "LIC\'s attempt at wit, and creative insults" type failure.
i doubt the HD lost sony any money at all, and it was Square who was pushing for the HD and not the user. does everquest online adventures need the HD?
-
using a HD on my ps2 has benefited me greatly. :headbang:
The slim ps2 removed the hd because of this little benefit that loads of people are using. But they still included the usb ports........ ;)
-
pirating games with the HDloader was not the intended use of the HD, soully.
-
Right, Square pushed the HD. They funded the HD. They announced the HD. I forgot. Thanks for reminding me on how it was not Sony\'s choice to put out an add-on in the late lifespan of the PS2. Thanks for reminding me how it was not Sony who announced the HD and how it would benefit gamers, simply to counter act MS\'s choice to include a HD. I forgot all along it was Square who released the failure.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
Xbox Live is the reason. Microsoft\'s plan from the beginning was to offer an online service for Xbox gamers, one function of which was to offer downloadable content. Now, you don\'t go and try to sell the service of downloadable content unless you have the storage for it.
The HD has been used in different ways. It\'s been used for the custom soundtrack feature found in some games, as well as a data and texture cache for others. And, as I already mentioned, used to store the content from the Hurricane Packs for Ninja Gaiden, and will be used to store the expansion for Halo 2.
Of course, there are people who don\'t care for any of it so the online service and hard drive is completely lost on them. I think MS is being smart selling them seperately. Sony will do something similar, count on it.
But its not the fact that MS triesd to support it.Its the fact that the XBOX was sold with one that the HD automatically gained support.
It not because Sony didnt do anything about it from the beginning.Its because it was sold seperately and was expensive that made developers pull back support.Most people didnt want to pay extra to have one.Thus games companies saw no point to spend money and time to support it.And since Sony saw this as well they saw no point to try and dedicate too much on it while chances of a lot more people actually buying one were minimal.
The other features you mentioned are just there because XBOX had it from the beginning.
Even if PS2\'s HD could do these extra features it wouldnt have made people want to buy it more.
The HD also harmed XBOX btw.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
If they did not feel it was necesarry , they would of never launched it. They only came up with a HD to counter act MS\'s move on including a HD. I remember this discussion years ago and I was right then, the add-on was a complete failure. Back peddle, wiggle, do whatever you want. Sony released the HD. They released a complete failure.
Thats BS and you know it.Sony planned to release a HD for the PS2 before even you knew what the hell XBOX was.
Sony were the first to announce a 40GB HD for their console.It was never MS
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Thats BS and you know it.Sony planned to release a HD for the PS2 before even you knew what the hell XBOX was.
Sony were the first to announce a 40GB HD for their console.It was never MS
Right. Dig up those announcements, by all means.
That\'s also why if they planned so far ahead, the HD lacked so much support, right?
-
It lacked support just because it was planned to be released seperately nothing more nothing less.
The fact that Sony planned the release of the HD before MS and regardless of XBOX\'s HD doesnt change
-
It was a reaction to MS. Plain and simple. If it wasn\'t, Sony would of never released it. If it was planned so far ahead of time, they would of released it with the PS2. They paniced, dug themselves a hole and eventually had to release the HD with a sub-par Square game (then again, most Square games are sub par).
-
Lots of little semi-OT attacks in this thread. I like that.
-
Yeah yeah.Sony planned the HD before they even knew about XBOX to counter MS.Sounds rational. :rolleyes:
MS could take more losses per harware sold.Thats why XBOX came with one.Unless you believed that the PS2 would have existed if Sony had the same losses MS has suffered thanks to XBOX.
What you said about FF11 being HD only (or that its sub par?What does this have to do with the hard drive) say nothing.Thats again a result of Sony releasing the HD separately.
-
LIC, you can stamp your feet an whine all you want, but the HD was not a failure.
did sony lose any money on it, no.
did sony drop out of the market cause of it, no.
sont does what square wants, and square wanted a HD for FF11
(then again, most Square games are sub par).
you sir, should be slapped across the face
this isnt the jaguar cd addon, or the sega 32x, ya know.
i guess eyetoy was a failure too
:rolleyes:
-
I can\'t help the fact that Uni can barely speak english and has no common sense.
I can\'t help the fact that MM is blind to most common things.
The HD was a failure. Remind me again how many sold? Right. Not a lot. Remind me again of the support it had? Right. Not a lot. Failure. If you compare the amount sold to the PS2 userbase, it was a friggin\' failure. Not sure why that is hard for you to grasp.
As for Sony wanting Square so they released the HD, bullshit. You know as well as I do, Sony could of told Square no and Square would of stayed, simply due to the large PS2 userbase. Sony went ahead and released an add-on that would never sell and they knew it. Square never forced them, as you two would make it seem.
And I\'m sorry, but Square games are simply some of the most over-rated pieces of crap. They go right along with MGS on the whole cinema over gameplay. Old Square = good. Anything new Square = complete shit, \'cept for Tobal 1 & Tobal 2, those are the two exceptions.
Then again, I\'m not sure why any of you would even try and defend Sony\'s HD add-on. It was a diaster on all accounts.
Sony\'s HD is as half-baked as their online plans this generation. No real goal on either accounts.
And as for the Jaguar CD / 32X comment. You know what, the only thing that seperates it from those add-ons? Marketing. Sony knew the HD had no userbase, so they never bothered to market. If they would of marketed it, it would of been just a big failure and just as noticed.
As for the Eyetoy , no it\'s not a failure. It\'s just a gimmicky piece ole\' crap. May as well dig out a Super Scope, while we are at the gimmicks.
-
Remind me again of the support it had? Right. Not a lot.
bro, the HD is there for dev\'s use
it\'s not proprietary for square.
look how few dev\'s actually make good use out of the xbox hard drive.
grow up, please, and stop trolling
*couldnt resist, after your edits
sony\'s online plans?
sony had...
nevermind, waste of my time
-
Originally posted by mm
bro, the HD is there for dev\'s use
it\'s not proprietary for square.
look how few dev\'s actually make good use out of the xbox hard drive.
grow up, please, and stop trolling
I swear, am I talking to a wall or are you just this stubborn?
You argue that Sony released the HD due to wanting Square. I said they could of told Square no and avoided any money put into the failure.
As for this comment...Here is the difference..
The consumer buy\'s an Xbox and if the DEV does not use it, guess what? The consumer is not out. The consumer buys a PS2 and decides to get the HD also...Three games use it - who loses? The consumer. They bought an add-on, that for almost all accounts is useless. They paid EXTRA for a stupid add-on that is used on very few games and usually just to decrease the damn loading time (Stupid Capcom, with their stupid online Resident Evil game).
As for trolling....
Hello?
Pot ...talking to Kettle...calling Kettle BLACK
Oh and Sony had no online plans. They never fostered a community like MS did with Xbox live. However, I understand you are all blind and can\'t admit that your mighty Sony does make mistakes. It\'s A-OK. Live in that dream world.
;)
-
sony didn\'t need an "online plan"
they made the tools available for the devs (like the hard drive, hello?)
They never fostered a community like MS did with Xbox live.
hah, they fostered a bunch of sheep to pay a fee for online gaming and listen to 12 year olds with robot voices say "i pwned you, bitch"
can\'t hide your biased attitude from me
my mighty sony? bro, what is this 1996?
:rolleyes:
i\'d rather argue with soully
try again, please
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I can\'t help the fact that Uni can barely speak english and has no common sense.
I can\'t help the fact that MM is blind to most common things.
The HD was a failure. Remind me again how many sold? Right. Not a lot. Remind me again of the support it had? Right. Not a lot. Failure. If you compare the amount sold to the PS2 userbase, it was a friggin\' failure. Not sure why that is hard for you to grasp.
As for Sony wanting Square so they released the HD, bullshit. You know as well as I do, Sony could of told Square no and Square would of stayed, simply due to the large PS2 userbase. Sony went ahead and released an add-on that would never sell and they knew it. Square never forced them, as you two would make it seem.
And I\'m sorry, but Square games are simply some of the most over-rated pieces of crap. They go right along with MGS on the whole cinema over gameplay. Old Square = good. Anything new Square = complete shit, \'cept for Tobal 1 & Tobal 2, those are the two exceptions.
Then again, I\'m not sure why any of you would even try and defend Sony\'s HD add-on. It was a diaster on all accounts.
Sony\'s HD is as half-baked as their online plans this generation. No real goal on either accounts.
And as for the Jaguar CD / 32X comment. You know what, the only thing that seperates it from those add-ons? Marketing. Sony knew the HD had no userbase, so they never bothered to market. If they would of marketed it, it would of been just a big failure and just as noticed.
As for the Eyetoy , no it\'s not a failure. It\'s just a gimmicky piece ole\' crap. May as well dig out a Super Scope, while we are at the gimmicks.
No its just the fact that you are always WRONG!Its been a long time since I agreed with mm but he is RIGHT and you are WRONG
Its not my problem if you lack IQ
-
1)Sony didnt release the HD with the PS2 because it would have raised cost of production=more losses/less profit with each hardware sold.MS dont mind that much for losses.
2)Why release it with the HD and increase cost since it wasnt necessary?
3)FF11 was HD only because SQUARE wanted to make it that way and it was impossible to play an online RPG with features like FF11 without a HD on PS2.
The HD is just an extra planned by Sony for those that care.It wasnt supposed to bring anything major anyways to conclude that it failed.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
But its not the fact that MS triesd to support it.Its the fact that the XBOX was sold with one that the HD automatically gained support.
It not because Sony didnt do anything about it from the beginning.Its because it was sold seperately and was expensive that made developers pull back support.Most people didnt want to pay extra to have one.Thus games companies saw no point to spend money and time to support it.And since Sony saw this as well they saw no point to try and dedicate too much on it while chances of a lot more people actually buying one were minimal.
The other features you mentioned are just there because XBOX had it from the beginning.
Even if PS2\'s HD could do these extra features it wouldnt have made people want to buy it more.
The HD also harmed XBOX btw.
Wrong.
MS had to have a HD in the Xbox. It was from the beginning that they were banking on seperating themselves with their online service, and to effectively sell the idea to developers they had to have the hardware equipped for it. Xbox Live would have been an absolute failure if people had to buy the HD in addition to the console. They were far too green in the console industry for anyone, developers and consumers alike, to buy into it.
The inclusion of the HD was a double edged sword, and did add to the costs of the Xbox quite a bit. However, it was only a part of the problem. The fact that MS used off-the-shelf parts was more costly than a custom solution, plus the absolutely awful deal with Nvidia. The later of which is still hurting them to this very day.
If Sony had had an online service to launch, plus the games and features to support it, then the HD would have done better. That goes in line with what mm said, the HD wasn\'t necessary for PS2. That can not be said for the Xbox and MS\'s plans for their Live service.
The other features you mentioned are just there because XBOX had it from the beginning.
Even if PS2\'s HD could do these extra features it wouldnt have made people want to buy it more.
I didn\'t say otherwise. I was merely informing you that more than Fable exploited the HD.
-
exactly, m$ wanted the hard drive cause they had to bank on sucking gamers into paying for online gaming to make any profit. is a hard drive needed for online gaming? not at all. does it help in selling worthless fluff and extras? why sure it does. in fact, it is!
sony didn\'t have to use a hard drive, as selling sheer numbers of consoles was enough (they reach 30 million yet?). granted, the PS2 came out almost 2 years before the xbox.
-
MS could take more losses per harware sold.Thats why XBOX came with one.
Wrong again. MS didn\'t just incur that cost to one-up the competition. Again, Xbox Live is the reason.
Think of the HD this way, it\'s a big memory card. It\'s also a necessary component if you\'re going to have an online service with the possibility of downloading large amounts of data.
-
Originally posted by mm
exactly, m$ wanted the hard drive cause they had to bank on sucking gamers into paying for online gaming to make any profit. is a hard drive needed for online gaming? not at all. does it help in selling worthless fluff and extras? why sure it does. in fact, it is!
sony didn\'t have to use a hard drive, as selling sheer numbers of consoles was enough (they reach 30 million yet?). granted, the PS2 came out almost 2 years before the xbox.
Correct.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
Wrong.
MS had to have a HD in the Xbox. It was from the beginning that they were banking on seperating themselves with their online service, and to effectively sell the idea to developers they had to have the hardware equipped for it. Xbox Live would have been an absolute failure if people had to buy the HD in addition to the console. They were far too green in the console industry for anyone, developers and consumers alike, to buy into it.
The inclusion of the HD was a double edged sword, and did add to the costs of the Xbox quite a bit. However, it was only a part of the problem. The fact that MS used off-the-shelf parts was more costly than a custom solution, plus the absolutely awful deal with Nvidia. The later of which is still hurting them to this very day.
If Sony had had an online service to launch, plus the games and features to support it, then the HD would have done better. That goes in line with what mm said, the HD wasn\'t necessary for PS2. That can not be said for the Xbox and MS\'s plans for their Live service.
I agree but still what you are saying isnt that different from what I have said.
The reasons why support didnt work with Sony\'s HD are the reasons that MS had forseen and made them choose to include the HD with the XBOX and the only way to get the most possible support for it.As you said releasing the HD separately would have been a bad choice for XBOX(for the reasons I also described).
And thats what Sony did.but thats not because Sony themselves didnt do anything or cared.
The PS2 was launched in 1999.Much sooner than XBOX.Also too early to have the online service ready for launch.They have been working on it for a long time and they even delayied it.There were technical problems.
Sony couldnt launch PS2 with online service nor with a HD and there was no reason to
So why release it with one?
Also what I ment with the HD doing bad to the XBOX didnt have to do with cost.But with piracy.
Originally posted by Rikku
Wrong again. MS didn\'t just incur that cost to one-up the competition. Again, Xbox Live is the reason.
Think of the HD this way, it\'s a big memory card. It\'s also a necessary component if you\'re going to have an online service with the possibility of downloading large amounts of data.
I didnt say such a thing.You didnt get my point.What MS had in mind and planned to include the HD is a different story from why they could and Sony couldnt.
Somy could have included the HD with the PS2 if they could and support would have increased automatically when the online service was ready.If there was nothing to lose why not?But it was an unneeded move and a risk to take unlike MS
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
I agree but still what you are saying isnt that different from what I have said.
The reasons why support didnt work with Sony\'s HD are the reasons that MS had forseen and made them choose to include the HD with the XBOX and the only way to get the most possible support for it.As you said releasing the HD separately would have been a bad choice for XBOX(for the reasons I also described).
And thats what Sony did.but thats not because Sony themselves didnt do anything or cared.
The PS2 was launched in 1999.Much sooner than XBOX.Also too early to have the online service ready for launch.They have been working on it for a long time and they even delayied it.There were technical problems.
There is no online service for PS2.
So why release it with one?
Why release one at all?
Also what I ment with the HD doing bad to the XBOX didnt have to do with cost.But with piracy.
True, but it would have happened anyway. The PS2 isn\'t exactly pirate proof, with or without the HD.
I didnt say such a thing.You didnt get my point.What MS had in mind and planned to include the HD is a different story from why they could and Sony couldnt.
Somy could have included the HD with the PS2 if they could and support would have increased automatically when the online service was ready.If there was nothing to lose why not?But it was an unneeded move and a risk to take unlike MS
I\'m much too tired to work out your english, but I do want to make sure we are saying the same thing.
MS did not include the HD because they could take a loss on every Xbox. It was not included just to act only as a game saving device or to hold your soundtracks. It was included to sell their online service. In other words, you don\'t have to question why MS supported the idea of an HD, the answer is Xbox Live.
Sony\'s online service never happened, and seeing as how late the HD was introduced I don\'t think they had intentions to release a service during their PS2 generation. The only reason seems to be Final Fantasy XI. Surely they could gauge the support of the rest of their development community. One game to release a $100 accessory? They had to know it would tank.
-
Am I the only one that thinks writing "M$" instead of MS is really stupid?
-
Originally posted by Soul Reaver
Am I the only one that thinks writing "M$" instead of MS is really stupid?
Not really, however most blind fanboys won\'t realize that Sony is in the business for money also.
-
Writing M$ is for flaming goat felchers...
-
Originally posted by Rikku
There is no online service for PS2.
I ment online capabilities.Sorry
Why release one at all?
For those who care.They had to release it for Square\'s FF11
True, but it would have happened anyway. The PS2 isn\'t exactly pirate proof, with or without the HD.
No its not.But every person I know has modified their XBOX and have lots of games copied in their HD.
I\'m much too tired to work out your english, but I do want to make sure we are saying the same thing.
MS did not include the HD because they could take a loss on every Xbox. It was not included just to act only as a game saving device or to hold your soundtracks. It was included to sell their online service. In other words, you don\'t have to question why MS supported the idea of an HD, the answer is Xbox Live.
I didnt mean that MS wanted to throw a HD in the XBOX just because they could afford it.What I am trying to say is that MS financial state enables them to take procedures other companies cant risk to try.Sony would have never tried a plan for an online service like MS\'s unless they were 100% sure they were going to profit from it.
Even the existence of XBOX is thanks to MS\'s ability to stand losses other companies cant.If it was a different company they would have seized the production of it.They can risk and keep making losses while building a fanbase and support at the same time.Thus increasing cost of production didnt mind MS as long as they saw that in the long term they would have built a base of users using XBOX live from which they could profit later
Sony\'s online service never happened, and seeing as how late the HD was introduced I don\'t think they had intentions to release a service during their PS2 generation. The only reason seems to be Final Fantasy XI. Surely they could gauge the support of the rest of their development community. One game to release a $100 accessory? They had to know it would tank.
Exactly.I didnt say otherwise.There were difficulties and since they profit already, they havent introduced something like MS.No reason to take such risky actions.It is true that FFXI must have been a primary reason since Square was planning to release this for years on it.But it was an opportunity to see the possibilities of other games using it in the future.But as you said since it was very expensive and few people would buy one developers didnt show interest and neither has Sony.Its just there for those that care.As I said it wasnt supposed to bring anything major because they saw that selling the HD separately they couldnt have gained enough support for it.Trying to bring major changes with the HD it would have been a waste of money and time
-
M$ did not originate with the xbox
:rolleyes:
LIC, what company isn\'t in business for money?
-
For those who care.They had to release it for Square\'s FF11
Right. I mean, that is right. Square had a gun to Sony\'s head. Right? I mean, we all know Square would leave Sony if they didn\'t get the HD released...Honestly, if you believe that, you are dumber than I thought.
No its not.But every person I know has modified their XBOX and have lots of games copied in their HD.
So you are making your judgement based on "every person" you know. Which is how many on that little island of yours?
I didnt mean that MS wanted to throw a HD in the XBOX just because they could afford it.What I am trying to say is that MS financial state enables them to take procedures other companies cant risk to try.Sony would have never tried a plan for an online service like MS\'s unless they were 100% sure they were going to profit from it.
Crackhead.
You are crazy. Sony is a multi-billion dollar company. They have how many huge products? They are easily worth enough money to include a HD at launch and have online plans.
Exactly.I didnt say otherwise.There were difficulties and since they profit already, they havent introduced something like MS.No reason to take such risky actions.It is true that FFXI must have been a primary reason since Square was planning to release this for years on it.But it was an opportunity to see the possibilities of other games using it in the future.But as you said since it was very expensive and few people would buy one developers didnt show interest and neither has Sony.Its just there for those that care.As I said it wasnt supposed to bring anything major because they saw that selling the HD separately they couldnt have gained enough support for it.Trying to bring major changes with the HD it would have been a waste of money and time
That is like saying the 32X / SEGA CD / JAGUAR CD / NINTENDO RAM CART was there for "those who cared". It\'s just a cheap way to justify an unnessarcy add-on that was a ........FAILURE.
-
haha, LIC is frustrated cause noone agrees with his jaded theories
:headbang:
-
Originally posted by mm
what support did SoE need to release?
it\'s there for dev\'s to use it
why don\'t dev\'s use it?
cause there\'s little need for a hard drive on consoles.
honestly, how may people suffered thru the xbox cd ripping process to have thier own soundtracks in games? i did it once, and realized how lame it was.
Umm I loved having a hdd on my xbox. And will be buying one for 360. I ripped so much music and saved so many highlights and clips to my xbox. I loved playing games with my own custom soundtracks. So If I can do the same with 360 I am happy:)
-
like i said, little need
-
Originally posted by mm
like i said, little need
maybe for you. But for those of us who actually are going to use it for whatever needs we want we have it. If we just like ripping are music and saving are game hightlight or whatever we have it.
And those who don\'t have any use for the hdd won\'t get it.
-
Originally posted by mm
haha, LIC is frustrated cause noone agrees with his jaded theories
:headbang:
(1) I could care less if any of you agree with me. I am just discussing and debating this topic. Don\'t agree with me? That\'s fine. I don\'t really care.
(2) You are not one to be calling someone jaded.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Right. I mean, that is right. Square had a gun to Sony\'s head. Right? I mean, we all know Square would leave Sony if they didn\'t get the HD released...Honestly, if you believe that, you are dumber than I thought.
I didnt say Sony was forced funny man. :laughing:
They wanted FF11 for PS2.And FF11 needed the HD.And Sqauersoft wanted to make FF11 for PS2.And Sony wants to have good relations with Square.And it was a chance to test the HD for future possibilities.
So you are making your judgement based on "every person" you know. Which is how many on that little island of yours?
OOOOOO YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!You probably forgot some news a year ago. ;)
Crackhead.
You are crazy. Sony is a multi-billion dollar company. They have how many huge products? They are easily worth enough money to include a HD at launch and have online plans.
Well you are the last person to undrestand between a monopoly company that makes superprofits and a competitive one that makes profits.But you dont know economics anyways so.....
That is like saying the 32X / SEGA CD / JAGUAR CD / NINTENDO RAM CART was there for "those who cared". It\'s just a cheap way to justify an unnessarcy add-on that was a ........FAILURE. [/B]
Wow man!You are confusing add-ons with the HD.Slow down a bit
-
Damn, you\'re an idiot if you don\'t realize that the HD is an add-on.
Think about it..
You buy the HD to add-on to the PS2.
Guess what that makes the HD?
An ADD-ON.
Oh God no! Logic!
And we all know Square could of toned down the crap-ass FF title , if Sony would of said no HD.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
For those who care.They had to release it for Square\'s FF11
They had no further implications for the add-on other than FFXI, that\'s what I\'m having the issue with.
I suppose I would be better off asking anyone who purchased the PS2 version of FFXI if it was worth it.
No its not.But every person I know has modified their XBOX and have lots of games copied in their HD.
What\'s your point? With or without the HD the Xbox would have been pirated. The HD just allowed them a place to store it. How does that hurt MS?
I didnt mean that MS wanted to throw a HD in the XBOX just because they could afford it.What I am trying to say is that MS financial state enables them to take procedures other companies cant risk to try.Sony would have never tried a plan for an online service like MS\'s unless they were 100% sure they were going to profit from it.
That\'s besides the point. I don\'t care why Sony didn\'t release an online service, I\'m trying to find the reason for releasing the HD and not expecting it to bomb.
MS had to have the HD. Do you understand that? It wasn\'t a question as to whether they could afford it or not, it was necessity because they had planned on Xbox Live being their defining attribute.
Even the existence of XBOX is thanks to MS\'s ability to stand losses other companies cant.If it was a different company they would have seized the production of it.They can risk and keep making losses while building a fanbase and support at the same time.Thus increasing cost of production didnt mind MS as long as they saw that in the long term they would have built a base of users using XBOX live from which they could profit later
What does this have to do with anything?
Exactly.I didnt say otherwise.There were difficulties and since they profit already, they havent introduced something like MS.No reason to take such risky actions.It is true that FFXI must have been a primary reason since Square was planning to release this for years on it.But it was an opportunity to see the possibilities of other games using it in the future.But as you said since it was very expensive and few people would buy one developers didnt show interest and neither has Sony.Its just there for those that care.As I said it wasnt supposed to bring anything major because they saw that selling the HD separately they couldnt have gained enough support for it.Trying to bring major changes with the HD it would have been a waste of money and time
This is what I\'m arguing. Please don\'t bring the financial status of the companies up again, it\'s not important.
They could have gained support for the HD had there been a reason to support it (needing to store large amounts of data). When are you going to need all that space unless you plan on downloading it from somewhere?
It was entirely unnecessary save for FFXI. I suppose I can\'t grasp the idea of selling a $100 accessory for the purpose of one game.
Am I the only one that thinks writing "M$" instead of MS is really stupid?
I\'ve always wondered why people don\'t write $ony, it\'s just as easy and makes just as much sense.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Damn, you\'re an idiot if you don\'t realize that the HD is an add-on.
Think about it..
You buy the HD to add-on to the PS2.
Guess what that makes the HD?
An ADD-ON.
Oh God no! Logic!
And we all know Square could of toned down the crap-ass FF title , if Sony would of said no HD.
Yeah and my light gun is an add on like the 32x
my memory card is an add on like the Sega CD
And the eye toy is an add on like the Jaguar CD
I mean you add them on your PS2 so they are the same example.Right? :laughing:
A surgical instrument is an instrument.And so is a guitar.So a guitar is a surgical instrument!OH NO GOD!!L-I-C\'S LOGIC!
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Yeah and my light gun is an add on like the 32x
my memory card is an add on like the Sega CD
And the eye toy is an add on like the Jaguar CD
I mean you add them on your PS2 so they are the same example.Right? :laughing:
A surgical instrument is an instrument.And so is a guitar.So a guitar is a surgical instrument!OH NO GOD!!L-I-C\'S LOGIC!
The memory card is necessary if you plan on saving any of your games. The rest are accessories.
The HD was an accessory for the PS2.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
They had no further implications for the add-on other than FFXI, that\'s what I\'m having the issue with.
Ok
I suppose I would be better off asking anyone who purchased the PS2 version of FFXI if it was worth it.
Irrelevant
What\'s your point? With or without the HD the Xbox would have been pirated. The HD just allowed them a place to store it. How does that hurt MS?
If you remember well there was a huge issue on XBOX\'s increasing piracy thanks to the HD some time ago
That\'s besides the point. I don\'t care why Sony didn\'t release an online service, I\'m trying to find the reason for releasing the HD and not expecting it to bomb.
I ve told you and you have said it by yourself that selling the HD separately is a bad move.There is the explanation.
MS had to have the HD. Do you understand that? It wasn\'t a question as to whether they could afford it or not, it was necessity because they had planned on Xbox Live being their defining attribute.
Excuse me but I just said it by myself that the inclusion of the HD wasnt just because they could afford it and decided to throw it just like that.I mentioned a ton of things like XBOX LIVE and other things you see as unimportant (you ommited) and you are disagreeing with me for no reason.Everything is combined.
What does this have to do with anything?
Because it does.See below
This is what I\'m arguing. Please don\'t bring the financial status of the companies up again, it\'s not important.
They could have gained support for the HD had there been a reason to support it (needing to store large amounts of data). When are you going to need all that space unless you plan on downloading it from somewhere?
It was entirely unnecessary save for FFXI. I suppose I can\'t grasp the idea of selling a $100 accessory for the purpose of one game.
Financial stats is everything.Thats were strategy decisions and possibilities are based on.
Thats exactly what kept MS in the game despite losing millions(its the same example as the inclusion of the HD and the high cost), thats exactly what helped MS make decisions other companies like Sony wouldnt have made like the inclusion of the HD in conjunction with XBOX live.
Sony couldnt have had a HD included in the PS2 so a service like XBOX live doing well and supporting the HD was out of chance for the PS2.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
The memory card is necessary if you plan on saving any of your games. The rest are accessories.
The HD was an accessory for the PS2.
I was just being sarcastic with L-I-C who was trying to present the HD as if its the same example as the 32X, Jaguar CD etc
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Irrelevant
It was actually a jab at you, I\'m getting tired of the excuses you\'re making.
If you remember well there was a huge issue on XBOX\'s increasing piracy thanks to the HD some time ago
Link me. Also, prove that the issue of piracy costs Microsoft more than it costs Sony. Otherwise it\'s irrelevant.
I ve told you and you have said it by yourself that selling the HD separately is a bad move.There is the explanation.
That\'s not an explanation on why they released it. It\'s a prompt for questioning why they bothered with it at all.
Excuse me but I just said it by myself that the inclusion of the HD wasnt just because they could afford it and decided to throw it just like that.I mentioned a ton of things like XBOX LIVE and other things you see as unimportant (you ommited) and you are disagreeing with me for no reason.Everything is combined.
But how is the financial status of Sony an excuse for releasing an underplayed accessory?
Financial stats is everything.Thats were strategy decisions and possibilities are based on.
Thats exactly what kept MS in the game despite losing millions(its the same example as the inclusion of the HD and the high cost), thats exactly what helped MS make decisions other companies like Sony wouldnt have made like the inclusion of the HD in conjunction with XBOX live.
Sony couldnt have had a HD included in the PS2 so a service like XBOX live doing well and supporting the HD was out of chance for the PS2.
What was Sony\'s strategy for the HD? There was none, it was a one time accessory.
Again, MS did not make their decision to include the HD because they were financially capable. They were able to incur that costs because of the financial situation, but that\'s irrelevant. Bottom line is that there was rhyme and reason for their HD. Sony\'s reason, other than FFXI, is what we\'re disputing.
If Sony had felt that they were ready to go online with a service then they would have been online. Sony didn\'t feel it was time to committ to online gaming, so they didn\'t. Just to prove to you that the financial stats are irrelevant I want you to think about Sony\'s current situation. Some 70 million in debt, yet they have already committed themselves to microstransactions and cross-platform play which no doubt will require some type of online service.
-
wihtout reading all the drivel above, i also wouldn\'t call the HD a true "addon"
it\'s in a differect category then the 32x, Tg-16 cd, ect
they put no effort in marketing it
it\'s there for dev\'s use, period.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
It was actually a jab at you, I\'m getting tired of the excuses you\'re making.
Excuses about what?
Link me. Also, prove that the issue of piracy costs Microsoft more than it costs Sony. Otherwise it\'s irrelevant.
I am not going to spend time trying to find the link that was posted a year ago.I wont try to convince you.But its a fact.Although it is indeed irreleant to the reason why PS2 doesnt have one while the XBOX has
That\'s not an explanation on why they released it. It\'s a prompt for questioning why they bothered with it at all.
You seem to be quotimg me just to prove me wrong not to discuss.You ignore what followed previously in the discussion.This is the explanation to why it didnt "bomb"
But how is the financial status of Sony an excuse for releasing an underplayed accessory?
Because there wasnt big amounts of money and time spent to support an accessory.Its there for FF11.You said it by yourself.There was nothing to risk.
You are comparing them as if Sony\'s intentions and procedures with the HD were the same as MS\'s now.You are almost contradicting yourself.
What was Sony\'s strategy for the HD? There was none, it was a one time accessory.
Well DUH!
Again, MS did not make their decision to include the HD because they were financially capable. They were able to incur that costs because of the financial situation, but that\'s irrelevant. Bottom line is that there was rhyme and reason for their HD. Sony\'s reason, other than FFXI, is what we\'re disputing.
Well DUH DUH thats exactly what I ve been saying with the difference that the financial state IS RELEVANT!
If Sony had felt that they were ready to go online with a service then they would have been online. Sony didn\'t feel it was time to committ to online gaming, so they didn\'t. Just to prove to you that the financial stats are irrelevant I want you to think about Sony\'s current situation. Some 70 million in debt, yet they have already committed themselves to microstransactions and cross-platform play which no doubt will require some type of online service.
You are saying what I said just to argue with me only with different words.
About the 70 million in dept you mentioned though is way too general.You ommit the fact that MS has already done their online service while LOSING profits thanks to XBOX but Sony is making future plans expecting to GAIN profits from the service and the next PS.Is the 70 million in dept thanks to PS2?No.
This move only shows that they are having positive expectations that they will gain from it and help their situation when its put into action.
Otherwise they would have risked and released an online service with the PS2 already to compete MS and make longer long term plans just like MS despite that this would have caused losses to them
-
it\'s a quote battle!!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
I was just being sarcastic with L-I-C who was trying to present the HD as if its the same example as the 32X, Jaguar CD etc
It\'s a damn add-on. I\'m sorry that everything is backwards in your third world country, but it\'s an add-on.
You cannot compare the memory card to the HD. The memory card is a *must* for every single game that allows you to safe.
The HD is required for a certain game. The HD is used for *certain* games. Unlike the eyetoy, which is an accessory. Big difference, but it\'s useless arguing with someone like you. It\'s a waste of time.
Again, MS did not make their decision to include the HD because they were financially capable. They were able to incur that costs because of the financial situation, but that\'s irrelevant. Bottom line is that there was rhyme and reason for their HD. Sony\'s reason, other than FFXI, is what we\'re disputing.
Thank God at least someone knows what the point of this debate was. The main reason behind Sony\'s HD .
And MM - they didn\'t market it, because there was nothing to market . Not to mention if it didn\'t sell they still wasn\'t going to take a huge loss. Think of the HD just like Nintendo\'s 64DD. Hyped up, then when released, it was done in quiet, because there was nothing to really show.
-
again, blame the devs, not sony
again, blame the devs, not sony
again, blame the devs, not sony
yes, posted 3 times so perhaps it will sink thru the jaded haze in your head.
oh, and the HD = accessory, not addon
:)
-
wow
Makes my head hurt
-
Thank God at least someone knows what the point of this debate was. The main reason behind Sony\'s HD .
And MM - they didn\'t market it, because there was nothing to market . Not to mention if it didn\'t sell they still wasn\'t going to take a huge loss. Think of the HD just like Nintendo\'s 64DD. Hyped up, then when released, it was done in quiet, because there was nothing to really show. [/B]
Thanks for agreeing and describing the reason why the HD isnt the same example as the 32X, sega CD or whatever ;)
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
I am not going to spend time trying to find the link that was posted a year ago.I wont try to convince you.But its a fact.Although it is indeed irreleant to the reason why PS2 doesnt have one while the XBOX has
Then don\'t even think about bringing it in to the arguement.
You seem to be quotimg me just to prove me wrong not to discuss.You ignore what followed previously in the discussion.This is the explanation to why it didnt "bomb"
But it did "bomb". They are no longer supporting it. The new PSTwo is not compatible with it.
Because there wasnt big amounts of money and time spent to support an accessory.Its there for FF11.You said it by yourself.There was nothing to risk.
You\'re still missing it. I don\'t care about the financial situation of Sony when they released the HDD. It doesn\'t matter. They released it for one game, and that\'s what I can\'t understand. Then again...looks at my Samba De Amigo maracas
You are comparing them as if Sony\'s intentions and procedures with the HD were the same as MS\'s now.
Bingo. Why else release an HD unless you\'re going to use for the massive storage it offers? I highly doubt FFXI did enough with it to justify what, a 40 gig HD? It was a wasted and unnecessary venture on Sony\'s part, and that\'s because they didn\'t have any plans outside of FFXI.
Well DUH DUH thats exactly what I ve been saying with the difference that the financial state IS RELEVANT!
The finances still don\'t matter. I\'m not discussing this with you, stop bringing it up.
You are saying what I said just to argue with me only with different words.
Perhaps if I could understand what you are saying then we wouldn\'t be here. I\'ll make a mental note to avoid you in the future.
About the 70 million in dept you mentioned though is way too general.You ommit the fact that MS has already done their online service while LOSING profits thanks to XBOX but Sony is making future plans expecting to GAIN profits from the service and the next PS.Is the 70 million in dept thanks to PS2?No.
This move only shows that they are having positive expectations that they will gain from it and help their situation when its put into action.
How is that relevant?
Otherwise they would have risked and released an online service with the PS2 already to compete MS and make longer long term plans just like MS despite that this would have caused losses to them
They\'re going to experience loss anyway. You think it\'s cheap to set up an online service?
I\'m going to suggest you and I stop. We\'re not getting anywhere and I\'ve grown tired of trying to figure out what it is you\'re getting at.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
But it did "bomb". They are no longer supporting it. The new PSTwo is not compatible with it.
When you said it didnt bomb I thought you ment why it didnt do well.Well the point is the explanation was about why it didnt do well.
You\'re still missing it. I don\'t care about the financial situation of Sony when they released the HDD. It doesn\'t matter. They released it for one game, and that\'s what I can\'t understand. Then again...looks at my Samba De Amigo maracas
You are the one who is missing it.You misread that part.In this part you quoted had nothing to do wiuth Sony\'s financial state.I ment that they didnt spend time and money for it.
Bingo. Why else release an HD unless you\'re going to use for the massive storage it offers? I highly doubt FFXI did enough with it to justify what, a 40 gig HD? It was a wasted and unnecessary venture on Sony\'s part, and that\'s because they didn\'t have any plans outside of FFXI.
As I said the HD was there for FF11 and at the same time it was an opportunity to see the possibilities with the HD.If it succeeded more than expected it would have brought more possibilities.Sony didnt think "you know lets release it for FF11 onlyand constrain the storage just for that game".They let it open for possibilities and so if another developer wants to exploit the HD they can have the chance to.And here is what mm said.Blame the devs.
The finances still don\'t matter. I\'m not discussing this with you, stop bringing it up.
You are corneered thats why
Perhaps if I could understand what you are saying then we wouldn\'t be here. I\'ll make a mental note to avoid you in the future.
Because you seem to be biased against me thats why and you seem to misread everything I write and create unneeded arguements.I am the one that should have made that note
How is that relevant?
I ve been eexplainig it in every post.But you seem to think that companies can all act the same way when it comes to decisions.
They\'re going to experience loss anyway. You think it\'s cheap to set up an online service?
I\'m going to suggest you and I stop. We\'re not getting anywhere and I\'ve grown tired of trying to figure out what it is you\'re getting at.
termporal loss.Not long term loss.Something only MS can do.You are confusing investment expenses with returns in proft/losses from these expenses.I ve explained it in my previous post.They are expecting recovery from it.They expect profit.
I suggest that now we should stop
-
You didn\'t corner me, in order for you to do that I would have had to understood your arguement. Had that happened we wouldn\'t have gone on for so long now would we?
I have no bias against you. I\'m being entirely honest when I say I had a hard time understanding your arguement.
I am the one that should have made that note
Please do. Better yet put me on ignore as I am you to avoid any further arguments. It\'s for the best.
termporal loss.Not long term loss.Something only MS can do.You are confusing investment expenses with returns in proft/losses from these expenses.I ve explained it in my previous post.They are expecting recovery from it.They expect profit.
Same thing. MS doesn\'t plan to keep losing money, and Sony won\'t start recovering profits from the first day it launches it services just like MS. They\'re going to have to get a number of subscriptions to recoup their expenses to run such a service. That will take a while, and MS is already well down that road.
Later
-
noone could possibly think that if a sony online service with PS3, it won\'t immediatly put xbox live to shame in sheer numbers.
(not that i\'d pay a fee for online console gaming, thats for suckers)
-
Thats the sad part, because just like everything else from them, it\'ll be poorly done.
-
im sorry, i read your post and all it says is "blah, blah, blah, sony killed my dog"
please translate
-
mm, you will not get the attention that you strive for
-
it just flocks to me, i can\'t help it
thanks, tho
-
hay guys whats going on here?
-
A lot of worthless banter.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
Please do. Better yet put me on ignore as I am you to avoid any further arguments. It\'s for the best.
You suggested it but you didnt do it
Same thing. MS doesn\'t plan to keep losing money, and Sony won\'t start recovering profits from the first day it launches it services just like MS. They\'re going to have to get a number of subscriptions to recoup their expenses to run such a service. That will take a while, and MS is already well down that road.
Later
you avoided some certain details.MS doesnt plan to keep losing money but the difference is that MS can make longer long term plans than Sony.XBOX hasnt brought profit to MS in its whole life span yet its still in the market and its supported by MS.They are the first to manage and keep a console alive depsite the losses
Sony can not do the same thing.They can not opperate with a product that brings nothing but millions of losses for a long period of time hoping it will bring profit later like for example in the next generation.
As for the example you mentioned with the service as I said earlier there is a difference between investment expenses/expenses to run the service and returns.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
XBOX hasnt brought profit to MS in its whole life span yet
wrong
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
wrong
wrong
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
wrong
Yeah probably once in 2005 http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000070029526/:rolleyes:
-
one quarter of profit does not outweigh 3 years of losses
quoted for truth
-
exactly.Also
But chief financial officer John Connors warned that the home and entertainment division would lose money again in the first six months of 2005, and likely won\'t achieve ongoing profitability until the second half of 2006.
-
Originally posted by mm
noone could possibly think that if a sony online service with PS3, it won\'t immediatly put xbox live to shame in sheer numbers.
Xbox Live is somewhere between 1.5-2 million members, Sony won\'t immediately demolish that. I do believe Sony\'s service will be more popular in the long run simply because they have more appeal to the Japanese, but even with that it will take time.
-
Expect no one expected MS , including themselves, to make a big profit off of the Xbox, not this generation at least. This generation was about setting up an userbase and winning gamers over.
-
This generation was about setting up an userbase and winning gamers over.
Which they\'ve done very well.
-
winning "halo" gamers over
they can have em
-
Hello?
Knights of Old Republic?
Halo?
Ninja Gaiden?
List goes on and on.
Personally, I can say without problem I have preffered MS\'s offerings over Sony\'s this generation. I will buy both next generation, but look forward to MS\'s offering the most..Nintendo\'s the least.
-
say xbox to the random_xboxuser_01 and what would they respond with?
that right, halo
kotor was better on PC
:)
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Hello?
Knights of Old Republic?
Halo?
Ninja Gaiden?
List goes on and on.
Personally, I can say without problem I have preffered MS\'s offerings over Sony\'s this generation. I will buy both next generation, but look forward to MS\'s offering the most..Nintendo\'s the least.
hmm I wonder why is that.Probably the 2D games?Games that were as good as the old days or different than PS2\'s? :rolleyes:
-
Why is it that when people defend themselves to say great games that are on a system, they all say the same exact crap? It\'s like they have 5 games in their collection or something. "Halo is enough for me!!" :crap: We should all be more like LIC, with his 900,000,000 game collection. People need to broaden their gaming experience...
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
hmm I wonder why is that.Probably the 2D games?Games that were as good as the old days or different than PS2\'s? :rolleyes:
Don\'t you even start. I own 20 + consoles and hundred\'s of games. Yes, I prefer 2D games, but there are great 3D games out there, it just so happens, some of the best have been on the Xbox this generation, in my opinion.
PS2 games I enjoyed.
...Kolona 2
DMC
Mark of Kri
Xbox games I\'ve enjoyed.
Ninja Gaiden
Munch
Jet Set Radio Future
Fable
KoToR
KoToR2
Originally posted by mm
say xbox to the random_xboxuser_01 and what would they respond with?
that right, halo
kotor was better on PC
:)
Say to the average PS2 user and they respond.
GTA or MGS.
Both of which was crap games.
-
owned
-
pwned too
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Don\'t you even start. I own 20 + consoles and hundred\'s of games. Yes, I prefer 2D games, but there are great 3D games out there, it just so happens, some of the best have been on the Xbox this generation, in my opinion.
PS2 games I enjoyed.
...Kolona 2
DMC
Mark of Kri
Xbox games I\'ve enjoyed.
Ninja Gaiden
Munch
Jet Set Radio Future
Fable
KoToR
KoToR2
Say to the average PS2 user and they respond.
GTA or MGS.
Both of which was crap games.
Owning hundreds of games mean nothing.You resemble the type of people that buy expensive art paintings and believe that this alone makes them art experts and good art judgers.
Its funny that these are the examples you mentioned on both consoles.
(You made XBOX sound inferior too)
Fable?PS2 has more RPG\'s. better ones that last longer.
Munch suffers from the same camera problems you like mentioning so much about 3D platform games.
And its probably the best platform game available on XBOX.....Since it was launched.
Oh and Kotor is a PC game on a console.hmmm.......
I personally can name tons of games that I love on PS2 without mentioning GTA at all.(I dont like GTA).So stop judging as if its the same case with everyone or almost everyone.These wont be the only games mentioned.
What about asking the average XBOX user?Exactly
XBOX didnt offer anything different or better than what PS2 has offered.It offered more the same type of games you dont like and bitch about existing on PS2.
You are just biased againts Sony.mm isnt the only one who noticed it
And you forget one basic thing
its never about what the average gamer prefers.Its about the good games that both few and everyone play
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Owning hundreds of games mean nothing.You resemble the type of people that buy expensive art paintings and believe that this alone makes them art experts and good art judgers.
Its funny that these are the examples you mentioned on both consoles.
(You made XBOX sound inferior too)
Fable?PS2 has more RPG\'s. better ones that last longer.
Munch suffers from the same camera problems you like mentioning so much about 3D platform games.
And its probably the best platform game available on XBOX.....Since it was launched.
Oh and Kotor is a PC game on a console.hmmm.......
I personally can name tons of games that I love on PS2 without mentioning GTA at all.(I dont like GTA).So stop judging as if its the same case with everyone or almost everyone.These wont be the only games mentioned.
What about asking the average XBOX user?Exactly
XBOX didnt offer anything different or better than what PS2 has offered.It offered more the same type of games you dont like and bitch about existing on PS2.
You are just biased againts Sony.mm isnt the only one who noticed it
And you forget one basic thing
its never about what the average gamer prefers.Its about the good games that both few and everyone play
Sony wasn\'t all that great this generation either. They banked off a lot of BS and hype. Which was bound to happen. I enjoyed both consoles this generation. As of late I have gotten bored with this generation. I can\'t wait til the 360 hits shelves.
I think MS is moving in the right direction with 360. I have been checking the xbox forums and reading up on the console. And I am impressed with what MS is trying to do.
The game industry goes in cycles. Everyone gets there chance on top. MS is bound to takeover the top spot from sony sooner or later. No one console company has stayed on top forever.
Every console company that was on top in the past has fallen off. Nintendo is still trying to climb their way back to the top.
And UNI you don\'t see any MS bias from anyone?????
-
overall you basically find the same games on both systems. but to honestly say which system has the overall best selection of games...it\'s gotta go to the ps2...yea you can ask any xbox owner what games are good on the box and they\'ll come with halo...ps2? gta,..there\'s a few exclusives on both systems that kinda breaks it down to individual preference...ninja gaiden, jade empire(xbox)...god of war, tekken 5, devil may cry,final fantasy (ps2)...overall i still feel the ps2 has the overall better lineup...
yea some will say there\'s more quantity than quality on ps2...which is probably true, but it still doesn\'t hurt to have quantity when you also have alot of quality games...
-
jesus unicorn learn to hit the god damn space button after periods.
-
When will people realize that all 3 consoles really suck and the Dreamcast was really the best?
-
jesus unicorn learn to hit the god damn space button after periods.
I must agree with you here.
When will people realize that all 3 consoles really suck and the Dreamcast was really the best?
Right after Jessica Simpson says something intelligent...
-
I think the big 3 next gen consoles have are been overhyped and ended up terribly overrated. I\'ve found that PC gaming>all lately.
LIC...GTA is a great series. Pls2explain why it suxx or gtfo.
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Say to the average PS2 user and they respond.
GTA or MGS.
Both of which was crap games.
By average you must mean those kids that dont know anything but what ign tells them.
1) Thats an opinion 2) Ive heard far more xbox owners pull the halo name than ps2 owners pulling gta or mgs. 3) Both gta and mgs were far more enjoyable than halo IMO
not that it matters much
meh
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
I think the big 3 next gen consoles have are been overhyped and ended up terribly overrated. I\'ve found that PC gaming>all lately.
http://www.psx2central.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=30
LIC...GTA is a great series. Pls2explain why it suxx or gtfo.
I\'m not sure why you guys are even attempting to argue about which console has a better line-up, it\'s all subjective. And in case you guys forgot, MGS and GTA are on Xbox as well so why use it to dispute such an argument?
To those of you who claim that Xbox people (is there a name for them like X-bots or something?:p) rely on Halo are a bit off the mark. Go visit an Xbox board and you\'ll see alot of people who bring up KOTOR, Project Gotham Racing, Ninja Gaiden, Dead or Alive and, more recently, Jade Empire in the same sentence as Halo. Yes, ask anyone on Teamxbox who their favorite developer is and you\'ll likely hear Bioware before you hear Bungie. Plus there is the soon to be released Conker Live and Reloaded and Forza Motorsport which by every indication are going to be great games.
But as Nicon said, not that it matters.
-
PS2 lineup > xbox lineup
bioware = recycle
-
Originally posted by mm
PS2 lineup > xbox lineup
bioware = recycle
this is all I could think of when reading your post...
http://www.dailyrotten.com/articles/diarrhea.jpg
except it was coming out of your mouth.
-
Oh and Kotor is a PC game on a console.hmmm.....
Hey, Jackass..
It was a console game ported to the PC.
Get your facts straight.
y average you must mean those kids that dont know anything but what ign tells them.
1) Thats an opinion 2) Ive heard far more xbox owners pull the halo name than ps2 owners pulling gta or mgs. 3) Both gta and mgs were far more enjoyable than halo IMO
not that it matters much
If you ask me, all three series are crap.
XBOX didnt offer anything different or better than what PS2 has offered.It offered more the same type of games you dont like and bitch about existing on PS2.
You are just biased againts Sony.mm isnt the only one who noticed it
And you forget one basic thing
Go cry me a river.
(1) I\'ve been playing games for decades now, unlike you. There is gaming beyond Sony. Therefor, I am not a blind Sony fanboy like you.
Do I hate Sony? No. I hate the blind loyality you people give them. The PSone was a decent console, but everyone with any knowledge of gaming knows that the Sega Saturn was a superior system, with better games (in Japan, at least). I won\'t say MS is better than Sony this generation. Still MS has done a great job. They established a community with Xbox Live, something that Sony completely screwed up and they held their own .
And as for PS2 having better RPGS, sure if you like Square. I personally can\'t stand Square and havn\'t liked them since PSone generation. Their last great game was Chrono Trigger, in my humble opinion.
-
yeah, rikku
it\'s hard to see outside your jaded views
sony killed your dog too, eh?
oh, and LIC said "fanboy"
:laughing:
-
Originally posted by mm
yeah, rikku
it\'s hard to see outside your jaded views
sony killed your dog too, eh?
Jaded views? Such as?
-
Originally posted by mm
PS2 lineup > xbox lineup
yup pretty much....
-
Originally posted by mm
yeah, rikku
it\'s hard to see outside your jaded views
sony killed your dog too, eh?
oh, and LIC said "fanboy"
:laughing:
You are in no position to mentioned jades views or fanboy.
At one point, you wasn\'t so blind. Not sure what happened.
-
blind?
you happen to forget i hate all consoles equally?
tsk tsk
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
Sony wasn\'t all that great this generation either. They banked off a lot of BS and hype. Which was bound to happen. I enjoyed both consoles this generation. As of late I have gotten bored with this generation. I can\'t wait til the 360 hits shelves.
I think MS is moving in the right direction with 360. I have been checking the xbox forums and reading up on the console. And I am impressed with what MS is trying to do.
The game industry goes in cycles. Everyone gets there chance on top. MS is bound to takeover the top spot from sony sooner or later. No one console company has stayed on top forever.
Every console company that was on top in the past has fallen off. Nintendo is still trying to climb their way back to the top.
Cant disagree
And UNI you don\'t see any MS bias from anyone????? [/B]
There are HUUUGE threads were I was defending Halo and Fable.
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Hey, Jackass..
It was a console game ported to the PC.
Get your facts straight.
Playing KOTOR on XBOX is like playing Splinter Cell on XBOX instead of a PC.
(1) I\'ve been playing games for decades now, unlike you. There is gaming beyond Sony. Therefor, I am not a blind Sony fanboy like you.
Do I hate Sony? No. I hate the blind loyality you people give them. The PSone was a decent console, but everyone with any knowledge of gaming knows that the Sega Saturn was a superior system, with better games (in Japan, at least). I won\'t say MS is better than Sony this generation. Still MS has done a great job. They established a community with Xbox Live, something that Sony completely screwed up and they held their own .
And as for PS2 having better RPGS, sure if you like Square. I personally can\'t stand Square and havn\'t liked them since PSone generation. Their last great game was Chrono Trigger, in my humble opinion.
As I said how many games you ve plaied and for how long mean nothing.
You know perfectly well that I am NOT a fanboy and there are members in these boards like Ginko etc who have seen this clearly.
YOU are NOT the person to judge ME on my gaming experience.So keep these idiotic comments for yourself
You just cant accept the fact thet your beloved Sega which I also used to adore did BS decisions, mistakes offering less and Sony took the crown from them.This is exaclty what let me to believe that you are biased againsts Sony from the beginning.You only prooved me right wih this post of yours.
Well you are funny if you believe that the only good RPG\'s on PS2 came from Square although compared to PS1 it didnt offer the same amounts of good RPG\'s.
And its stupid when you say that thats just your opinion but at the same time you are telling people that what they like is BS and that\'s only because they are Sony fanboys that they like certain games.Get over it.
-
DC Lineup > All
-
Just wanted to point out to Rikku that MGS3: Snake Eater, and GTA: San Andreas aren\'t on the XBox.. ;)
The rest of this thread is dumb.
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
Just wanted to point out to Rikku that MGS3: Snake Eater, and GTA: San Andreas aren\'t on the XBox.. ;)
The rest of this thread is dumb.
I was talking in general, and GTA: San Andreas is due out this Summer for Xbox.
-
so is the superior PC version ~
-
Originally posted by mm
so is the superior PC version ~
Is that a kick in the face to PS2 as well? In any case I found this for you:
PSX2Central PC Forums (http://www.psx2central.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=30)
Hooray for PC, or whatever.;)
-
PC\'s > consoles*
-
What\'s the asterisk for mm?
-
to make you ask "What\'s the asterisk for mm?"
-
I figured you think as much, and I\'m trying to help you find your way to the PC forum.
*shrugs
-
Originally posted by mm
to make you ask "What\'s the asterisk for mm?"
:D Well damn you, it worked.
-
rik, i know very well where the PC forum is
perhaps you might find trolling "off-topic" more suited to your tastes
-
Originally posted by mm
rik, i know very well where the PC forum is
perhaps you might find trolling "off-topic" more suited to your tastes
I like it here, thanks.
If you hate all consoles as much as you put on then why even bother in here?
BTW, I think Consoles > PC\'s in a pure gaming sense. I\'ll take sitting on the floor or on my couch in front of my TV over a PC any day. You probably care about that assessment as much as I care about yours, so we should probably just stop, huh?
-
You probably care about that assessment as much as I care about yours, so we should probably just stop, huh?
Don\'t feed the fire...
-
Originally posted by EviscerationX
Don\'t feed the fire...
Please, as if mm has ground to stand on with such a silly argument.
mm...
-
Ok...don\'t feed the annoying replies...that better?
-
I just wanted an excuse to use that gif.:p I\'m satisfied.
-
Best...avy...ever.
-
Originally posted by EviscerationX
Best...avy...ever.
yea that s**t is funny...
-
Consoles>PC
I prefer consoles as well
-
I like both, but for the most part its consoles first.
I really just dont have the money to bust on upgrades and games all the time.
-
yeah, gaming on the parents gateway is tough
-
Originally posted by mm
yeah, gaming on the parents gateway is tough
Wouldnt really know.