Rumors of Xbox 360 launch games

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?

[Living-In-Clip]

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.

[Evi]

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?

[Living-In-Clip]

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