....PS3 in 2007???XBOX2 in 2005??

[Bobs_Hardware]

Also, if developers and people alike are going to jump ship and support a brand new console based on graphics capabilities, what\'s going to stop them all from jumping ship from the XBox2 to the PS3 when it comes around?

Originally posted by seven
Of course these are all opinions. If everything were fact, we wouldn\'t even be arguing! On the other hand though, I wasn\'t stating my own opinion, just arguing the articles perspective and agreeing with the author of that article since it is very accurate and reflects the market situation. If you find that opinion (and mine that is agreeing with it) flawed, please point out why.



Uh oh. You are putting words in to my mouth here. I never stated no 3rd party support (and neither did the article) - we were explicitly arguing about support in which it would benefit Microsoft with Xbox2 and allow them to make a serious impact and make their early launch worthwhile. The article states valid concerns, stating that the approach as Microsoft is going to use it, may backfire for the reasons stated above in the article and the ones listed and explained in more detail in my post.

It all boils down to one question, which btw, you haven\'t answered yet:

Why would a developer support Xbox2 with an uncertain future with high quality expensive software if lots more profit can be made on current generation as art-assets, libraries and existant R&D can be re-used?

I\'ll be looking forward to your answer. Cheers.

Why don\'t they just give up on xbox and quit because xbox2 will have no developer support at all. We all know there were no third party games on xbox.

Unicron:

But games although fewer will be appearing on XBOX2 till PS3 arrives.That means some developers will already start developing on those art assets and libraries which will reduce costs to some extend while PS3 will have to do what XBOX2 did before.

Not quite sure what you mean, but maybe this helps:

The whole point of the article is basically that Microsoft wants to launch Xbox in late 2005, a full year if not more before PS3. What I think most people I think are missing though is one thing: if developers want to have their software out on launch day for Xbox2, they will need to start development pretty soon (late 2004).

As already explained, late 2004 until late 200506 will be the time that developers will hope to turn in most of their profits. The last big games will ship, the market will be almost saturated (PS2 userbase around 100+ million?) and development cycles will be at their shortest thanks to existant libraries and art-assets/code recycling.

Now the whole point of Microsoft launch 1 to 2 years earlier is basically to get a headstart. If they want to get a headstart, they desperately need a good launch to make an impact and convince the market that they should just forget about their PS2, the upcoming PS3 and buy an Xbox2. The longer this takes, the closer it will be to PS3s launch, the bigger the hype will be for PS3 and the lesser the chance people will go out and buy an Xbox2 because they would want to wait just a little longer to see what Sony has in store. The whole point in launching earlier is to gain a headstart, one they will only effectively get if they can make an impact and convince the market.

To make that impact, they need software and good software at that. The market doesn\'t care about average games that hardly made an impact this generation. They need big exclusives like the GTA franchise or similar. The games they need, cost money. A lot. They just don\'t grow on trees, but require a lot, especially since it\'s a new console and requires new approaches, new ideas, new art.

What the article is arguing is that the trival support that Microsoft needs from 3rd party won\'t be there later this year - which they need if they want to make an impact on launch. It won\'t be there, because as I outlined, this generation will be at its most profitable stage and developers would want to milk that as much as they can.

If you got this far, appologies. Just thought this may clear up things a little.

Now on to the art-assets. Developers starting early will of course start early on making art-assets and their share of libraries and tools. Some of those tools and libraries will make it to other developers (perhaps through the developer kits), but expect the most to stay within developers of their own, because they spent money on that research and wouldn\'t want to give it away just like that. Art-assets don\'t move around either - it\'s what makes the bulk of the game and required the most time. 3 years of getaway was basically spent on art-assets (taking photos, making textures, modeling the city etc).

So yeah, the developers that do start early will have a headstart. This advantage isn\'t worth much though if the majority of 3rd parties "wait and see" and then decide to start development on both PS3 and Xbox2 since they will both have very similar art-assets requirement (they\'re in the same generation afterall). If that happens though, the whole point in launching Xbox2 earlier went down the drain and with a headstart of one or two million, Microsoft may be wondering why they didn\'t wait that extra year in favour of better hardware while they are getting themselves kicked by Sony and PS3.

Microsoft will already have a lot of trouble come late 2005 when they launch (if they really launch then) because the hype on PS3 will definately beginn to role and will make everyone believe it\'s going to be a tenfold better than Xbox2.

No apologies needed.I enjopy reading your posts no matter how long they are
It helped and indeed answered to my question
Thanks

Originally posted by seven



Microsoft may be wondering why they didn\'t wait that extra year in favour of better hardware while they are getting themselves kicked by Sony and PS3.

You really think an extra year will make a difference in hardware?
Sorry to tell you it won\'t. There best chance is too get out early.
All the consoles will have great graphics.

Sony has brainwashed everyone into thinking that playstation is the only system for good games. And ppl believe that 100%.

I remember when I bought my Dc with sonic,sc and nfl2k.
No matter how good the games where ppl would always tell me playstation will have better games. I remember I was a work and I had nearly an entire first shift of men and women telling me how better playstion2 was an it wasn\'t even out.

I have a friend if ps2 was sony last console he would stop playing games. No matter how good the game is on xbox he always find a reason to put down the console.

I mean a lot of ppl are playstation loyal. I don\'t understanding how can a person be loyal to a video game system. If there are games that I like on other systems I will at least give that system a chance.

People bash and bash the other systems. Without competition you would have $500 dollar consoles and $80 games. Then everyone would be crying.

QuDDus:

Launching a year later will most definately ensure a more capable machine. A year or even two is large amount of time when speaking of technology. Just look at how much better GPUs are that launch a year later. Also, Moore\'s law that sais that transistor counts roughly double every 18 months should get you thinking aswell. More transistors == more logic == better more capable hardware.

Originally posted by seven
QuDDus:

Launching a year later will most definately ensure a more capable machine. A year or even two is large amount of time when speaking of technology. Just look at how much better GPUs are that launch a year later. Also, Moore\'s law that sais that transistor counts roughly double every 18 months should get you thinking aswell. More transistors == more logic == better more capable hardware.

If your theory was correct xbox and gamecube would be the clear winner.

Playstation 2 games looks just as good as anyother console.
1 year or 2 won\'t matter.

If your theory was correct xbox and gamecube would be the clear winner.

In terms of transistor budget, they clearly are. GameCube and Xbox were built on more advanced processes - meaning smaller chips, more logic, higher clocks. More transistors == more logic.

More logic can be seen in form of hardwired features such as bump mapping etc. Best example is more memory btw!

Playstation 2 games looks just as good as anyother console.

The result is jaded because Sony took an exceptional way of going with a bruteforce like approach. The PS2 chipset is highly optimized for high data throughoutput featuring high bandwidth and low memory - AT THE SAME TIME THOUGH, the logic on board is very primitive and comparable to a Voodoo 1 chipset. The result is jaded because thanks to going with a custom design, Sony was able to optimize the available transistor budget they had in favour of a few strengths that even the later consoles can\'t meet (high fillrate and the use of eDRAM).

GameCube and Xbox both are more or less "off the shelf" parts and not very optimized for gaming. GameCube was a relative cheap console (but very well designed / optimized) while Xbox relativily unoptimized (weak CPU, bandwidth etc).

Next generation is different though as Microsoft isn\'t going with off the shelf parts but customizing aswell.

Originally posted by seven
In terms of transistor budget, they clearly are. GameCube and Xbox were built on more advanced processes - meaning smaller chips, more logic, higher clocks. More transistors == more logic.

More logic can be seen in form of hardwired features such as bump mapping etc. Best example is more memory btw!



The result is jaded because Sony took an exceptional way of going with a bruteforce like approach. The PS2 chipset is highly optimized for high data throughoutput featuring high bandwidth and low memory - AT THE SAME TIME THOUGH, the logic on board is very primitive and comparable to a Voodoo 1 chipset. The result is jaded because thanks to going with a custom design, Sony was able to optimize the available transistor budget they had in favour of a few strengths that even the later consoles can\'t meet (high fillrate and the use of eDRAM).

GameCube and Xbox both are more or less "off the shelf" parts and not very optimized for gaming. GameCube was a relative cheap console (but very well designed / optimized) while Xbox relativily unoptimized (weak CPU, bandwidth etc).

Next generation is different though as Microsoft isn\'t going with off the shelf parts but customizing aswell.

You take the simple things and make them hard.
Ok your reading to much into this.  In the pass I can\'t really see how one console has had a huge generation gap in graphics over the other.

They have all had pretty much had the same graphics. None have been light years above the other. It has always been the games and will continue to be the games. Your hardware theory is flawed.

I am sure Microsoft has spent a lot of time and effort in putting together the specs for there next generation console. Again your reading to far into the situation. It\'s not that complex.

Ah you mean out of the view of a casual consumer? Well, time will see, but I can assure you this: if Xbox2 launches late next year and PS3 in 2007 (1.5 to 2 years later) - it will have much more capable hardware and Sony will make everyone believe exactly that.

This generation, Microsoft was in the position to play the "better hardware" game (and a lot of people bought into that) - next generation they won\'t. Not if they launch 1 to 2 years in advance.

Originally posted by QuDDus
You take the simple things and make them hard.
Ok your reading to much into this.  In the pass I can\'t really see how one console has had a huge generation gap in graphics over the other.

They have all had pretty much had the same graphics. None have been light years above the other. It has always been the games and will continue to be the games. Your hardware theory is flawed.

I am sure Microsoft has spent a lot of time and effort in putting together the specs for there next generation console. Again your reading to far into the situation. It\'s not that complex.

I d like to add something on this.It was just a coincidence you didnt see much difference.For example if we take the past generation.
The Saturn and the PS were released almost at the same time frame with PS coming slightly after (And indeed PS could handle better 3D graphics despite the smal time frame).
The N64 which was released a lot earlier failed to show enough difference because Nintendo didnt just think of more powerful hardware.They wanted simplicity, they wanted just enough to make the games they wanted and the hardware ended up being cardridge based which limited the possibilitites of a more powerful 64-bit CD based hadrware.It wasnt a hardware progression.They took steps back as well.Not to mention the higher development costs which reduced developers\' motives to develop on the console which ment not enough efforts to exploit fully the console\'s potential.
With other words they havent exploited the time they had under their disposal to offer what they should.

:gman:

btw QuDDus... I can\'t help but feel that you think we hate Microsoft and Xbox. It\'s not like that. I just think happen to agree with the article and believe that Microsoft is making a big mistake by going that early into next generation (based on the points I expressed above).

I think the way they\'re heading, they might just end up in a Dreamcast like position - basically being the underdog (which they already are), but also in perspective of hardware and standing in the shade of PS3\'s hype.

We should run a pole to see which people think is the worse scenario:

1.) standing up to PS3\'s hype
2.) or actually standing up against PS3 if they were to launch side by side.

I actually think hype is more dangerous than actual PS3 substance. Seriously. We saw what happened with Dreamcast back then. Sure, if Sega had the cash, it would have went well, but then again, Sega lacked the support and didn\'t go that much earlier. Besides, Sega had a huge loyal fanbase (still do btw) - Xbox, I argue, doesn\'t.

Originally posted by seven
btw QuDDus... I can\'t help but feel that you think we hate Microsoft and Xbox. It\'s not like that. I just think happen to agree with the article and believe that Microsoft is making a big mistake by going that early into next generation (based on the points I expressed above).

I think the way they\'re heading, they might just end up in a Dreamcast like position - basically being the underdog (which they already are), but also in perspective of hardware and standing in the shade of PS3\'s hype.

We should run a pole to see which people think is the worse scenario:

1.) standing up to PS3\'s hype
2.) or actually standing up against PS3 if they were to launch side by side.

I actually think hype is more dangerous than actual PS3 substance. Seriously. We saw what happened with Dreamcast back then. Sure, if Sega had the cash, it would have went well, but then again, Sega lacked the support and didn\'t go that much earlier. Besides, Sega had a huge loyal fanbase (still do btw) - Xbox, I argue, doesn\'t.

No but MS will do good. XNA seems like it is going to be a good thing for xbox2 and the industry. You know it\'s always easy to find something wrong with something.

I think MS is a huge company who knows exactly what they doing. For the sake of gaming I hope they do well and everyone else should to.

Then again we all know how bad competition is for us consumers. I guess I would be more happy paying $500-600 for my ps2.

I\'ve read though this whole thread, and what read. Good job guys you all make very compelling arguments.

Here is what I have to say. You had better hope the M$ does a dang good job on XBOX2 because if they fail, consoles gamming will go downhill IMO. Sony needs the competition to keep them at there toes, other wise they will not push to bring forth innovative titles/hardware you\'ll be paying lot\'s of Molla for the systems and games etc.....

Take the PC Graphics card industry for example, Look what happened when NVIDIA had no real competition back in the Geforce 2-4 era. They produced junk, until ATI whipped NVIDIA back in shape and viola 6800/NV40.

So for those of you that hate the XBOX  etc... You’re going to weep what you sew