splinter cell

If you\'re worried about a monopoly in the console industry, look to Sony. They seem to be approaching that status. No monopoly is good no matter what company has that monopoly.

Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware


Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, etc. etc.

But the difference is, Sony didn\'t buy those.  The Saturn was flopping, and the games were shifted to the most popular console.  Which is why those franchises still made it to the N64 and Dreamcast.

I agree with you BH the Saturn was not the most healthy console at the time. However as for TR the original builds were for the Saturn I played the first one on that console. It was not until TR2(huge game during that period the biggest) which was to be ported to both(PSX and SAT) when SONY made the deal with Eidos.(I still have that mag, Gamepro)

That was a major blow to the SAT after that developers began to drop it like a hot potato. Result no good games no console sales. Sony was very aggressive securing third party exclusives early on. They had to because thier first party support was almost nil at the time. No one stood in thier way. Of course a floundering TR appeared on the DC years later
and on no other platform other than PC.

Sony still pulls the strings on TR. Look at Angel of Darkness or the World is not Enough. For Angel Which will be ported to PC as well when it delays for Sony it delays for PC too. The PC build for That Bond game was complete and when it scrapped for the PS2 the PC was scrapped as well. I dont even want to talk about Drakan.

My point is that Sony Really began the third party war the result has been two failed Sega consoles. After all they were up against two of the best first party companies in the market. The Saturn more popular in Japan and the DC more Popular in the US could not be sucsessful only on first party support. Without Third partys like Eidos SAT suffered without support from(PS2 first) EA DC suffered.

Yes Sega dropped the ball on both consoles and the blame for thier failures cannot be all Sonys fault but they were not just innocent bystanders either. Sega was still trying to live off thier previous sucesses but with poor finance and platfoms failing they were doomed. People never forgave them.


IMO Sonys influences went further than just buying out developers they were(and are still) the industry and when they spoke people listened. Retailers, developers, everyone. If the Sony rep told Gamespot to put thier display in the front of the store we did. Nintendo was happy with thier little niche and were no threat to Sony. Sega was because they were looking at the same type of market and Sony took any opportunity to knock them down.


No one can argue with results. Its been Sony domination to this day . Its big business and the one who carries the biggest stick sells games.
________
Niccola

[Bobs_Hardware]

Well.............thanks for the history lesson.

I didn\'t know that they pulled exclusivity on TR in the same vein that they did Grand Theft Auto.

Another reason why people shouldn\'t complain about M$ buying up the industry, as the only reason they are complaining is because they prefer Sony over Microsoft.

More than that Bobo. The point may be moot to many, but look at the PC industry. Of course a monopoly is bad for some very valid points, but I think not all companies have the goal to "milk the industry once they reach a monopoly". Microsoft has quite a bad influence (also a good one though) over the PC industry and I wouldn\'t like them seeing taking over the gaming industry. IMO, I\'d rather see a company like SCE, Nintendo or Sega gain that position. Not Microsoft.

[Bobs_Hardware]

The only positive I could see from any company having a monopoly of the industry would be if it were either Sega or Sony, who would strive to innovate and progress the industry, rather than just sit on what they have.

But either way, I competition must remain.

Originally posted by seven
More than that Bobo. The point may be moot to many, but look at the PC industry. Of course a monopoly is bad for some very valid points, but I think not all companies have the goal to "milk the industry once they reach a monopoly". Microsoft has quite a bad influence (also a good one though) over the PC industry and I wouldn\'t like them seeing taking over the gaming industry. IMO, I\'d rather see a company like SCE, Nintendo or Sega gain that position. Not Microsoft.

seven, dont you think this should apply to Sony as well. They are the electroinics giant who are just as rich and powerful as MS.
I am afraid without the X-Box it would be game over.

To explain we all know that Sony entered the console market to get back at Nintendo.(and to make money) It was Nintendo who contracted Sony to produce a CD based machine and when they were almost done Nintendo dropped them. They went on to produce the best selling console in history.

Nintendo or Sega could never compete with Sony. Too big too much money. But now that MS has entered the console market the playing field is leveling maybe giving Nintendo and Sega a chance to survive in some form. Both Sony and MS make huge money outside the gaming market.

As far as MS it was either get in or lose most of the market share they had invested in PC gaming. To explain, we all know the X-Box is the result of MS looking for a way to consolidate PC gaming or make it standard.

The reason they had to enter is because Sony was threatening that PC market with its new online uber-console. Therefore since they dont control PC manufacturers and determine how they want PCs built. To save what they could of the PC market we have the X.

Its just a big bad world and if there is one heavyweight then another should be around to keep the first in-check. Its good for competition. Otherwise he who has all the gold wins.
________
PASSIONHOTTY cam

[Titan]

Originally posted by Echo
Multiplatform games aren\'t most often better on Xbox. The graphics may be better, but it\'s all down to how well the controls have been put in each version and which controller you like more.

From looking at multiplatform games on other consoles and comparing them, they aren\'t better graphically. I don\'t think they\'d spend the time and money to make one better than the other graphic and sound wise. They are the same graphically. The only difference are the controls. Atleast that\'s what I noticed.

[Titan]

Originally posted by maindodi
I am still amazed at how much people refuse to buy an xbox and would rather wait for a game that might not be coming out on the PS2.  Also people seem to be quite happy buying PS2 version\'s of games when the xbox versions usually have better graphics and extra levels etc.  Why would you keep buying the inferior product?

I personally like having the best console available to play the best games available.

Don\'t get me wrong I have a PS2 aswell but it hardly gets played because the xbox has better games coming out all the time.

You know why the Xbox runs better graphic (even though I don\'t notice a difference)? BECAUSE IT RUNS AT A HIGHER FRAMERATE. Just because its "better" graphically, doesn\'t make it a better console. The games so far on XB suck IMO. PS2 has a much better array of games available. You have a better range of games and they are usually quality. The reason I don\'t have and Xbox is two reasons. First off, I hate M$. Second off, I\'m not paying 200 dollars for another console. PS2 is good enough for me. I think the Xbox is the worst console of this generation. There aren\'t a whole lot of great games out there, its only aimed toward one audience, teens, hence why they are stuggling in Japan and Europe, and I think the sales of the PS2 this quarter prove it. PS2 is still outselling per quarter, even though they\'ve been out a whole year before. Especially in the US, where I live. Every time I buy M$, I\'m deadly disappointed. I\'ll admit that Xbox has some good games but I won\'t admit its the best system out.

Someone once said that people hate MS cause its the trend and its cool...

I really wonder how many people out there even know why they hate MS...

I wonder how many of those reasons can ONLY be applied to MS and not any other giant corporation...

By the way, why is this still in the Main Forum?

What is it, exactly, that makes Sony so special that it is alright for them to have a monopoly? Sega or Nintendo I could understand, but Sony? Did they bring anything new that no other company would have done? Maybe they added something new and I couldn\'t think of it at the moment.

Either way, if you would rather Sony have the monopoly, then I guess you are getting your wish. They were able to wait a good two years before dropping the price of the Ps2 and get away with it.

As I had expected, my views raises a few questions so let me explain as to why I prefer Sony over Microsoft if it were to come to monopolizing the industry.

First of, let me say that I don\'t think a monopoly is very likely in near future, because consoles have a lifecycle of just around 5 years. Every 5 years, there will be something new on the market, making it possible for any company to jump in if they can secure software support. The only way I see this changing is if

consoles become upgradable (giving it a lifespan far beyond 5 years).

If this happens, which I think is highly unlikey, then we may see a similar advancement as in the PC industry we all should know so well. Now, I don\'t think this will happen because consumers wouldn\'t want that, as this sets us apart with "inferiour" PC gaming. It will be interesting to see though what will happen if Sony releases a very powerful next-gen system that will live for 7+ years. Also, technology is nearing photo-realism soon and it raises the question if hardware will be going through the same jumps in technology as we know it today. Will we need it? Probably yes, as IMO, there\'s always ways to improve and the possibilities are infinite.

As far as MS it was either get in or lose most of the market share they had invested in PC gaming. To explain, we all know the X-Box is the result of MS looking for a way to consolidate PC gaming or make it standard.

The reason they had to enter is because Sony was threatening that PC market with its new online uber-console. Therefore since they dont control PC manufacturers and determine how they want PCs built. To save what they could of the PC market we have the X.

It goes further than just DirectX. Sony is becoming a threat to the PC market not just because of superiour gaming, but because they are investing in making a TV into a consumer friendly PC environment. The arguement "why pay more for a PC if you can do the same on your TV?" may become reality sometime in the future.

So I am somewhat dodging the question, as I really think monopolizing the industry is not possible anytime soon. I do get upset though when I see a spending-friendly Microsoft willing to invest billions to get a stranglehold of the industry. Did Sony do this? No. They may have secured themselves the dominant position but never through bruteforce tactics such as buying out developers and spending ludicrous amounts of money, except in areas where it would benefit towards a competitive console. Despite Sony dominating last generation, they are the ones who made the console with the most R&D to back it up. Sony also isn\'t relying on 3rd party efforts but has built up their 1st parties which are getting really impressive results. That\'s what I like seeing, as we as the consumer will benefit in the long run from it. I\'ll be damned if Microsoft\'s influence spreads and we\'ll have Windows kernels running our future consoles.

Originally posted by seven
I do get upset though when I see a spending-friendly Microsoft willing to invest billions to get a stranglehold of the industry. Did Sony do this? No. They may have secured themselves the dominant position but never through bruteforce tactics such as buying out developers and spending ludicrous amounts of money, except in areas where it would benefit towards a competitive console.

Microsoft was facing far more opposition when they first launched the Xbox. What competition did Sony have in 1995? Practically none. And what exactly did Sony do with ludicrous amounts of money that helped competitive consoles?

No competition? Perhaps not when it launched, but as you may know, it was not until later that the PSX started selling like crazy. And what Sony apparently spent during those days on securing exclusives, does not qualifiy being ludicrous amounts. Also, PSX set its way through not only with those few exclusivity contracts, but the console which was better for the devs. We all know the faults of the Saturn and N64. It was simply the better console at the time which then paved the way to generation dominance.

Even the N64 wasn\'t that much of a competitor. It started out with strong sells, but then the game droughts took their toll. Microsoft on the other hand has to compete with... well... Sony who has already had a year out of the gate no less. There is simply no comparison.

here\'s a pretty good reader review that I found;

This "Splinter Cell" controversy is not so much the debate over one reviewer\'s "anti-xbox" agenda as it is the refusal of the entire video-gaming community to accept "Splinter-Cell" for what it really is: one of the most clever, effective, and, unfortunately, misleading AD-CAMPAIGNS in recent memory. I applaud Greg Kasavin for having the integrity to review this game objectively.

Normally, I find little merit in pointing out a game\'s flaws...video-games, like all works of art, should not be subjected to the type of negative, journalistic criticism so many movie, book, and game "reviewers" are wont to dish out. Saving a consumer fifty-bucks (or a trip to the store) hardly justifies casting such insulting dispersions when ANYBODY can rent these games and decide for themselves. Having said that, I do think that the entire Splinter-Cell debacle needs some analysis.

The level of emotion in most of these reader-reviews is unprecedented. Readers called Mr. Kasavin a "crack" addict and "stupid"; obviously, this game represents much more than just another addition to the X-Box library. The reality is that this game falls far short of the image put forth by Ubi-Soft and Microsoft, and many gamers are finding it hard to accept that glaring disparity.

My main intention here is to explore why the very idea of this game has evoked such emotion, but I think it\'s important to first look at why this game is not, as so many magazines have claimed, "a revolution" in the industry. Firstly, the graphics are on par with a lot of what I\'ve seen on other systems. Sam Fisher, the main character, does not interact with the environment smoothly. His arms go through walls and occasionally he blends in almost completely with the background (inspite of the game\'s stealth features). The trial and error nature of the game (which in my opinion was not one of Ubisoft\'s intentional innovations) was, as Mr. Kasavin says, frustrating. It\'s a continual nuisance, compounded by the poor saving mechanism. Other games, such as Metal Gear Solid 2, reward the implementation of thoughtful strategy--SC seems to punish it. In MGS2 there is a balance between time, action, and environment, and when the game requires emphasis on any one of those elements, the others become less demanding; the game is challenging without being overwhelming. And the cut-scenes in SC are poor and uneccesary. While most of these gliches do not affect the gameplay, they are enough to warrant a thorough reevaluation of Splinter-Cell\'s presumptuous title, "the greatest game ever".

But the question remains, why can\'t the majority of gamer\'s accept this? Like I said earlier, many X-Box owners are emotionally invested in the success of this game. I believe the long-standing fued between console owners (which has played beautifully into the hands and pockets of all the major video-game coorporations) has firmly secured blind allegiance to games that, judged on their own merit, are quite unspectacular. Now, from a commercial stand-point, it could be argued that this is just the consequence of capitalism and a necessary evil of big business. But on the other hand, the grotesque over-commercialization of these "highly anticipated" games is preventing some truly brilliant but slightly less glitzy games from getting any attention. And on an even more tragic level, these "fan-boy" wars are preventing the INDUSTRY of video-games from becoming an ART FORM. I\'m not suggesting that SONY, NINTENDO, and MICROSOFT turn off their ad-machines ( such a request would be useless), but rather, that video-gamers take more control of the industry and make purchases based not on "hype" but rather on actual content. Despite SC\'s less than brilliant gameplay, I\'m sure it will become one of the best-selling games this season. And while I agree with a lot of people when they say, "Who cares? Games are just for having fun!", I believe these factors, along with a number of others, are preventing video-games from getting the serious, critical attention they deserve.

I returned my copy of Splinter-Cell two days after I bought it. I found the game profoundly frustrating. Greg Kasavin\'s 8.6, in my opinion, is actually a little too generous.