XBOX 360: This Generations Dreamcast? [Archive]

lupin

03-28-2007, 10:36 PM

Is the XBOX 360 going to turn into the next Dreamcast of gaming? This is something that was discussed in depth around this time in '05 but here we are 2 years later and we actually have used the damn thing, so I think its time we look back on this question.

As we all know the Dreamcast was an extremely nice system when it first dropped. It came out at a very realistic price point, $199.99. It offered the best graphics of its time for about 2 or 3 years; after that its lack of anything truly next-gen started showing. That may end up being the same problem the 360 will soon be faced with.

The biggest issue with the 360, in fact, almost the only issue with it, is its storage medium for games: Dual Layer DVDs (Not really it actually uses XBOX 360 Game Disc but the structure and size are close enough to DVD-DLs). This is the same disc that we saw used on XBOX and PS2. And even on last generation systems games like Halo 2 and God of War maxed out their 8.5GB allotment. Now, with the next generation bringing us not only upped polygon counts but the expectation of HD cinematics and HD audio the size limitations of these disc are sure to cause problems, perhaps its just a matter of time.

But, there are a few things that separate the 360 from the Dreamcast. Namely the wild cards of:

Halo
Gears of War
and XBOX Live

We all know (or those of us with a PS3 or Wii) that no other system can touch the online strategy that Microsoft has for the 360. And while Nintendo and Sony defend this buy saying theirs is free, Im sure any real online gamer would easily fork over less then $5 a month like they do with Live for these systems as well. Not to mention the new Video Marketplace Live is offering as well as the established base of Arcade titles.

And, for the other two wild cards? Well, they could easily become the very things that make XBOX 360 owners realize what a poor decision MS made by not having HD-DVD be the chosen distribution method for 360 titles when they compare it to Killzone 2 or Ratchet and Clank for the PS3 and they have obviously more varied textures and bigger environments. (Not saying thats true just could be due to BD).

Perhaps Microsoft should look into making a new version of the 360 (720 or 540? oh no make it the 900 and have Tony on it :P) that does use HD-DVD for games in the next year or two. That maybe the only way to keep Sony from getting the edge. I guess only time will tell.

floris

03-28-2007, 10:45 PM

The dreamcast sucked, the xbox360 doesn't.

lupin

03-28-2007, 10:49 PM

The dreamcast sucked, the xbox360 doesn't.

Im going to have to disagree with you on that. Especially since new games are still coming out for the Dreamcast in Japan. And when talks of shutting down acceptance and production of new titles surfaced a huge internet petition was made to keep it from happening. The Dreamcast is definitel a "fan favorite"

masherscf

03-28-2007, 10:49 PM

What are you talking about? The Dreamcast died because the PS2 kicked it's ass. Was this because of the built-in DVD player? Perhaps, however, the DVD was a lot more mature as a format than Blue-ray is now. For one thing, there was no competing CD size disk format for home video. By the time the PS2 was released and there was already a large library of titles available for DVD. In Japan, the PS2 was practically the only available DVD player. This combination of factors did help the PS2 dominate over the Dreamcast.

One thing is clear. Dreamcast sales died from the day the PS2 was released. XBOX 360 sales have not encountered the same genocide.

I'm not sure what PS3 "edge" you speak of. Not with PS3s gathering dust on retailer shelves.

xibalba

03-28-2007, 10:51 PM

I would say

PS3 = Jaguar 64 and Dreamcast :D

comhcinc

03-28-2007, 11:06 PM

they just announced a new x-box 360 with a bigger hard drive

ryudo

03-28-2007, 11:09 PM

When I get back from work I will piss all over who down the Dreamcast.

Stay tuned.;)

masherscf

03-28-2007, 11:20 PM

I think what is missing from Lupin's thesis are the following observations:

Here are two directly competing consumer devices with roughly the same price, give or take the HD-DVD attachment for the XBOX 360.

Each device as roughly similar capabilities, produces similar products and occupies the same niche in the consumer home.

In less than a year, each device will have roughly compatible libraries and what difference there is will diminish over time.

The games themselves have roughly the same look and game-play and in some circumstances ARE the same games. (Unlike the unique experience offered by the Wii.)

Each device costs enough where most consumer households will buy one or the other.

Therefore, comparative sales will be mostly determined by marketing.

The current crop of marketing gurus at Sony are pretty retarded. In less than a decade, they've taken the first name in consumer electronics and reduced it to a second rate vendor.

The XBOX team at Microsoft don't seem to be making the same mistakes. Unless they let guys transfer in from the Zune department, I don't see them losing.

tokenuser

03-28-2007, 11:30 PM

starscream80

03-28-2007, 11:57 PM

Let me guess, you're a playstation fan boy?

rhett803

03-29-2007, 12:26 AM

Who dares insult the great dreamcast! Hell I was in a game store the other day and picked up another one! They are that great.

Now, for all those fanboys out there I think you should step back and try to take a nonbiased look at the gaming systems before you start whining about which is a better system.

Now, I own an NES, Sega Genesis, N64, 3 ps1's, dreamcast, a ps2, and an xbox. I plan on going next gen in the next few months, and I have to say I'm leaning towards the ps3. Eventually, I'll probably have a ps3, wii, and 360. But my first choice is the ps3.

masherscf

03-29-2007, 12:39 AM

Now, for all those fanboys out there I think you should step back and try to take a nonbiased look at the gaming systems before you start whining about which is a better system.

Who's a fanboy? I own a PS2 and I held off buying a next-gen console until the PS3 was released. I wanted to buy PS3.

I got an XBOX 360 instead.

lsman11

03-29-2007, 01:41 AM

semi agreed on that. but yea, xbox isnt going away anytime soon like sega's system did, dreamcast would still be around if they were not vulnerable to a MOD-LESS hack, thats pretty crazy

i remember my friend getting a DC and all the games, just cus he COULD, not even to play them

xbox360 != dreamcast, not pyhsically, not metaphorically, not even emotionally....

boom.

I would say

PS3 = Jaguar 64 and Dreamcast :D

psbp516

03-29-2007, 05:03 AM

I hate console wars. I hate them so ****ing much.

lupin

03-29-2007, 05:42 AM

Lupin also misses the evolutionary nature of the X360.

Older Xbox titles and current X360 titles only needed the 8GB of storage a DVD was able to deliver.

HD-DVD as an add on was announced, but not used for games - but makes for a cheap HDDVD player.

So .. onto the evolutionary nature.

HD DVD. Great, but component output only. (BOO HISSSSSS).
- MS announce an upgraded version with HDMI output (YAY!)
Small HDD limiting downloaded content storage.
- MS announce an upgraded external HDD (based on laptop drives ... easy hack for adding storage larger than retail). Could they be gearing up for downloaded movies on demand ... ala AppleTV?? (YAY!!)

Easy to see the next evolutionary step will be to incorporate the HDDVD into the unit natively rather than an add on (or at least use the external HDDVD for games as well).

The dreamcast was/is a great console, but it was limited in its growth potential. The X360 can continue to evolve nicely. It has plenty of life left in it yet - even unmodified, accessorised, or expanded.

Actually, the Dreamcast could of done the same things. But historically these kind of add-on things dont sell worth anything. I cant think of one console add-on other then the Super GameBoy for the SNES that has worked. Sega knew this most of all. So they didnt. I personally was shocked and happily surprised that the HD-DVD add on is doing great. I didnt think it would.

And I dont think I missed the evolutionary nature of the 360, in fact, near the end I believe I said that such evolution may end up bringing about HD-DVD games. But trust me it will be needed, either that or be prepared to see multiple disc titles. Something that, in my opinion, doesnt scream Next Gen.

And gearing up for movies on demand?? Um, that has been around since November 23rd-ish of '06. And it was also one of the wild cards I talked about "Video Marketplace". But I still think that the small storage space may end up being an issue in the next year or 2 when the console is suppose to be reaching the peak of its life span.

yashar

03-29-2007, 08:31 AM

I gotta say, no console ever had a memory card that kicked ass like the Dreamcast one.

lupin

03-29-2007, 09:00 AM

I gotta say, no console ever had a memory card that kicked ass like the Dreamcast one.

I remembered one time like in 2000 I had just gotten my Dreamcast (we use to be poor so I had to wait till like it cost $50 used) and had a VMU. I took it to class one day and when I was in Corrections or whatever we called the mini-in school detentions I pulled it out to play with I think the Sonic pet and the teacher told me "No Pagers in school". Even though it was only 2000 and cell phones hadnt gotten like they are now I remember thinking "Who the hell has a pager?"

yashar

03-29-2007, 09:08 AM

I remembered one time like in 2000 I had just gotten my Dreamcast (we use to be poor so I had to wait till like it cost $50 used) and had a VMU. I took it to class one day and when I was in Corrections or whatever we called the mini-in school detentions I pulled it out to play with I think the Sonic pet and the teacher told me "No Pagers in school". Even though it was only 2000 and cell phones hadnt gotten like they are now I remember thinking "Who the hell has a pager?"
Haha yea, I had a starfox watch and they took it away because I was playing it. :(

EDIT:
Holy shit I just found it online!

http://www.heimcomputer.de/pics/sfoxuhr1.jpg
http://www.heimcomputer.de/pics/sfoxuhr2.jpg

http://www.heimcomputer.de/english/tele/sfoxuhr.html

om3rta

03-29-2007, 10:16 AM

As long as companys keep handing sony exlusives over to MS the X360 will do fine. Now if the PS3 were a bit cheaper and had about 7 million more units in peoples houses then that would be a different story.

I won't lie, i was STOKED for the PS3 until it actualy came out. no good games at launch and the loss of exlusive titles really hurts my opinion on the system. They still have MGS4 (which will no doubt make it to 360 when the special edition hits, you know it'll happen) and God of War. Not so much final fantasy because there has been a lot of talk about square jumping ship also. Poor sony. This just hasn't been their console cycle.

masherscf

03-29-2007, 02:30 PM

magunwarrior

03-29-2007, 09:47 PM

The dreamcast sucked, the xbox360 doesn't.

The dreamcast was a *****ing system Floris, If mine still worked, I would still be playing it.

ericjosepi

03-29-2007, 10:31 PM

N64 4 Life b!tches!!!!

masherscf

03-29-2007, 11:07 PM

N64 4 Life b!tches!!!!

Next Stop: Atari fanboys!

xibalba

03-29-2007, 11:08 PM

Atari Rules!!!!!! I still have it.

lupin

03-30-2007, 12:54 AM

This whole "PS3 is to XBOX360 as PS2 is to Dreamcast therefore the PS3 will win a console sales war" is completely bogus.

Even if a slight analogy can be applied between the two pairs-of-systems, the proposition is still false since the conclusion does not hold.

The effect of the PS2 release on Dreamcast sales was immediate and devastating. The PS3 has not had the same effect on XBOX 360 sales. Therefore, by contradiction, one of the original assumptions is false.

That is, either the original analogy is false or the effect of that analogy doesn't not translate forward in time. Either way, the argument fails.

The PS3 is NOT to the XBOX 360 as the PS2 was to the Dreamcast because the PS3 and the XBOX 360 have not demonstrated the same relative sales behavior.

Yeah that was pretty round about there buddy. Im not saying its the exact same as before. Im just saying the 360 could face demise due to its choice of DVDs over HD just like one of the reasons Dreamcast failed was due to GD-ROM just like the reason Nintendo is doing so poorly is because of N64 Cartridges. If the N64 had used disc Sony would of probably never even seen a PS2 let alone PS3.

masherscf

03-30-2007, 01:02 AM

Yeah that was pretty round about there buddy. Im not saying its the exact same as before. Im just saying the 360 could face demise due to its choice of DVDs over HD just like one of the reasons Dreamcast failed was due to GD-ROM just like the reason Nintendo is doing so poorly is because of N64 Cartridges. If the N64 had used disc Sony would of probably never even seen a PS2 let alone PS3.

I understand your point. However, one of the major factors that drove me to buy a XBOX 360 was price.

Including a Blue-Ray player with the PS3 may be the one thing that works against PS3 sales the most. Using traditional DVD might have actually made the PS3 more competitive.

Very few consumers are going to understand, much less care, about the advantages offered by using a blue-ray player. Not when they can buy an XBOX 360 to fill the next-gen console niche for what seems like almost half the price.

I understand love for the PS3 and I understand wanting to be loyal to the brand. I'll buy a PS3 in about a year when the price drops. However, I think this theory about how the XBOX 360 being doomed because it uses a DVD player is a fantasy.

The PS3 will overtake the XBOX 360 not because of small technical differences, but because of a combination of a superior game library, superior online experience, superior marketing and competitive pricing. Right now, the PS3 is playing catch-up.

The PS3 is not out of the fight. By this time next year, the price of blue-ray will drop and the game library and online will be more mature. Sony has the cash to stay in the console market until that happens. They just have to fix their marketing department and revive they're inner super-star.

For now, round one goes to XBOX 360, live with it.

lupin

03-30-2007, 02:21 AM

I understand your point. However, one of the major factors that drove me to buy a XBOX 360 was price.

Including a Blue-Ray player with the PS3 may be the one thing that works against PS3 sales the most. Using traditional DVD might have actually made the PS3 more competitive.

Very few consumers are going to understand, much less care, about the advantages offered by using a blue-ray player. Not when they can buy an XBOX 360 to fill the next-gen console niche for what seems like almost half the price.

I understand love for the PS3 and I understand wanting to be loyal to the brand. I'll buy a PS3 in about a year when the price drops. However, I think this theory about how the XBOX 360 being doomed because it uses a DVD player is a fantasy.

The PS3 will overtake the XBOX 360 not because of small technical differences, but because of a combination of a superior game library, superior online experience, superior marketing and competitive pricing. Right now, the PS3 is playing catch-up.

The PS3 is not out of the fight. By this time next year, the price of blue-ray will drop and the game library and online will be more mature. Sony has the cash to stay in the console market until that happens. They just have to fix their marketing department and revive they're inner super-star.

For now, round one goes to XBOX 360, live with it.

Um, Im sorry but your wrong. Im not a fan boy of the PS3 or 360. I have both but really the PS3 was more of a "hmm I have $400 extra after selling some shit lets go ahead and get a PS3" buy for me. And I find it to be mediocre at best right now. I just think the size limitation of a DVD will be what hurts the 360 in the long run. I understand compression techniques have evolved since XBOX 1 days, but how can a game like Halo 3 be expected to be its best when its predecessor filled up 5.6GB of the 8.5GB size limit?

And PS3 is going to win by superior library online experience and competitive pricing? What the hell are you smoking. The PS3 is losing exclusives left and right, the online is bollocks and the price, while it is a great price for a next gen system and Blu Ray player, is another problem sony is facing.

xelloss

03-30-2007, 07:43 AM

Um, Im sorry but your wrong. Im not a fan boy of the PS3 or 360. I have both but really the PS3 was more of a "hmm I have $400 extra after selling some shit lets go ahead and get a PS3" buy for me. And I find it to be mediocre at best right now. I just think the size limitation of a DVD will be what hurts the 360 in the long run. I understand compression techniques have evolved since XBOX 1 days, but how can a game like Halo 3 be expected to be its best when its predecessor filled up 5.6GB of the 8.5GB size limit?

And PS3 is going to win by superior library online experience and competitive pricing? What the hell are you smoking. The PS3 is losing exclusives left and right, the online is bollocks and the price, while it is a great price for a next gen system and Blu Ray player, is another problem sony is facing.

Well halo 3 will fit on one disc, everything it going to be streamed, all CGI and other stuff. If a game needs more space, they will put them on another disc, For example Blue Dragon for the Xbox 360 is on 3 discs.

The only challenge is fitting multiplayer, and single player on the same disc, they will solve the issue and it won't be a problem and it won't destroy the Xbox 360. Better compression will be developed if they need to fit it all on one disc.

casework

04-01-2007, 05:16 AM

I admit I didn't read through this entire thread, but I just have one comment to add.

The 360 will not die because of XBOX Live. If, a year from now, the 360 and PS3 are putting out identical games, the 360 will still hold the advantage due to XBOX Live and the Marketplace.

masherscf

04-01-2007, 03:49 PM

I just think the size limitation of a DVD will be what hurts the 360 in the long run.

I think this is a opinion is a fantasy.

The lower price point of the DVD drive is what is one of the things driving sales toward the XBOX 360. The present library of games doesn't seem to require more than the 9GB of data that the two-layer DVD provides. Therefore, the high capacity of the Blue-Ray disk doesn't make any difference at all.

The PS3 will sell more units when they get t the following:

1. More games
2. Lower price point
3. Superior online

Your average consumer does not, and will never, care about the increased capacity of blue-ray disks as long as the lack of capacity does not create excessive inconvenience. That is, until the size of games grows to the point that we have the kind of obnoxious disk-swapping we saw at the end of the PS1 days, It's not an issue.

By the time disk capacity is an issue, HDD will be large enough to compensate.

I'm sure that your haven't read this far, In fact, I bet that you're actually composing your response right now. You should really learn to read responses completely. It would keep me from having to rewrite the same opinions eight times so you'll read it.

I know that you came up with this cockamamie idea about the disk capacity in order to justify the purchase of a PS3 to yourself. It's not necessary for everyone online to agree with you to justify your purchase. The purchase of the PS3 is a perfectly valid act. However, I doubt you or anyone else made the decision based on this disk capacity issue. Most buy PS3 out of loyalty to the Sony brand.

Sony has been banking on the brand loyalty of PS2 owners to carry them into the next generation. I think Sony needs a marketing strategy other than "PS3, you're gonna buy one!"

lupin

04-02-2007, 09:31 PM

Your average consumer does not, and will never, care about the increased capacity of blue-ray disks as long as the lack of capacity does not create excessive inconvenience. That is, until the size of games grows to the point that we have the kind of obnoxious disk-swapping we saw at the end of the PS1 days, It's not an issue.

Your right no consumer should care about disc size, but developers do. And like said earlier Blue Dragon is a 3 disc game and its just a Second Gen game. Imagine how bad it could get come near the end up the 360s life span. And Blue Dragon is a RPG and RPG fans are use to disc swapping already, but what about lets say, open world titles? I honestly think the game the "GTA" of this generation (no not GTAIV but man that looked *****in' didnt it ;) that awe inspires the masses due to free roaming and emergent gameplay and overall size stands a very good chance of being a PS3 exclusive just because of the size of the Disc.

Also masherscf I think you should take some of your own advice :P

It's not necessary for everyone online to agree with you to justify your purchase.

So dont think Im writing this to justify my purchase of a PS3 which in my head needs no justification to myself or anyone else, especially since I acquired the money for it by selling a PSP a DS and my PS2 (all modded someone paid $225 for each).

Also, Im beginning if anyone read the original post. I sited the fact that if Sony doesnt get on the ball in regards to Online, XBOX Live could be all MS needs to squash the PS3. I dont know what it is, but I love knowing who is online during any game I play, sending messages while killing some zombies in Dead Rising, choosing a custom soundtrack to any of mine games, or initiating a chat with a friend while still killing the same set of Zombies all while still playing the same game. So, even though the 360s Next-Gen hardware is very limited, that is definitely a next-gen experience right there, one that, as of now, Sony hasnt been able to match.

This Generation of gaming isnt about fancy Graphics or high fidelity audio; its about what I just said. Its about your gaming console no longer requiring a disc to do fun things. Its about Micro-transactions, its about getting back to the nukes the terrorist have one minute then the next on the same console watching a HD Movie you downloaded from its Online Service. Its about your console being the center of a game night, a party, or a movie night. Its about AIO. This is the AIO Generation of Gaming.

But, that doesnt mean jack if you dont have the core games to back it up. So lets sum this up shall wel?

360: Seems to have cornered the market in the AIO region.
PS3: Could easily stick it to 360 if developers decided to stop being lazy and give us truly Next-Gen visuals. Otherwise the 360 will more then likely come out ahead.

masherscf

04-02-2007, 10:00 PM

Also masherscf I think you should take some of your own advice :P

Never!

360: Seems to have cornered the market in the AIO region.
PS3: Could easily stick it to 360 if developers decided to stop being lazy and give us truly Next-Gen visuals. Otherwise the 360 will more then likely come out ahead.

I don't think you can lay it all on developers. It's not really fair to expect developers to produce blockbuster titles unless their large numbers of potential buyers.

However, Sony isn't a small start-up. They're a big company with large pockets. I betting they can afford to wait for their market to mature. I bet they can play a good long game.

In twelve to eighteen months the number of PS3 in consumer homes will be a pretty nice target for game developers. Six months after that the XBOX 360 is going to start to look positively old. I makes me shake to think whats gonna make GOW look old, but It's coming and It's gonna be on a PS3.

PS3 is by no means out of this fight.

lupin

04-02-2007, 10:22 PM

Never!

I don't think you can lay it all on developers. It's not really fair to expect developers to produce blockbuster titles unless their large numbers of potential buyers.

However, Sony isn't a small start-up. They're a big company with large pockets. I betting they can afford to wait for their market to mature. I bet they can play a good long game.

In twelve to eighteen months the number of PS3 in consumer homes will be a pretty nice target for game developers. Six months after that the XBOX 360 is going to start to look positively old. I makes me shake to think whats gonna make GOW look old, but It's coming and It's gonna be on a PS3.

PS3 is by no means out of this fight.

But arent we saying the same things? Dreamcast was great at first because it was the new thing. When PS2 came out it had a small graphical enhancements here and there but for the most part it wasnt head and shoulders better then the Dreamcast till 2002. Only reason we didnt see Dreamcast titles produced on into '03 is probably because developers instantly saw the PS2s potential. The 360 is made up of overall last gen hardware, albeit decked out to the max last gen shit, but still last gen. The 360 though offers Next Gen Software as I mentioned before. I do believe it will be an interesting fight indeed.

That is of course as long as Sony doesnt start emulating MS. As soon as they happens, well, ya...

masherscf

04-02-2007, 10:27 PM

But arent we saying the same things?

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the next-gen console fight was over. I was only rejecting your "The generation's Dreamcast" analogy. I think it's far too simple a model. Plus, I don't think that the XBOX 360 is anything like the Dreamcast. Developers stopped developing for Dreamcast because people stopped buying Dreamcast. After all, XBOX and Gamecube are both technically superior to PS3, and developers are still releasing PS2 games today. In fact, last December the top selling game console was still the PS2 (Source (http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=11067)). Maybe you were too quick to get rid of yours.

In any event, I think that Sony needs to kick it's marketing guys in the ass.

lupin

04-03-2007, 10:03 PM

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the next-gen console fight was over. I was only rejecting your "The generation's Dreamcast" analogy. I think it's far too simple a model. Plus, I don't think that the XBOX 360 is anything like the Dreamcast. Developers stopped developing for Dreamcast because people stopped buying Dreamcast. After all, XBOX and Gamecube are both technically superior to PS3, and developers are still releasing PS2 games today. In fact, last December the top selling game console was still the PS2 (Source (http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=11067)). Maybe you were too quick to get rid of yours.

In any event, I think that Sony needs to kick it's marketing guys in the ass.

Of course the PS2 is still the top selling console but thats cause the PS2 is like the ghetto box. Everyone has one regardless of income. When I worked at Gamestop we would have people come in who looked like they lived on the street and was trading in Games for pennies. If you dont have a PS2 you are either

1. Not a Gamer
2. A mountain folk

I think Sony is going to have an Apple II problem for a while where they cant kill their previous system especially if devs keep pumping out C+ titles and a few A+s here and there. But the PS2 did kill the PSX though it took a year pretty much, and Im sure the PS3 will do the same. And yes all the devs ***** about the PS3 but they all *****ed about the PS2. At the end of the day its like you said, you will see the best games on the console with the largest install base. I just kind of hope the 360 doesnt win this just like I wished the PS2 didnt get so many exclusives cause we all know they would of looked better as XBOX exclusives just like 360 titles would probably looked better on PS3.

Im about the best console winning and tech spec wise that is the PS3 hands down. So it has my backing just like last gen I shat on the PS2 and was a die hard XBOX fan. Though, my 360 will never leave me. I use it for so much more then games.

tokenuser

04-03-2007, 10:25 PM

If you dont have a PS2 you are either

1. Not a Gamer
2. A mountain folk

Or ...

3. A PC Gamer
4. An XBOX Gamer

ryudo

04-03-2007, 10:27 PM

Dreamcast is my fave systems ever and had many great games 3 are my top faves ever and well ahead of it's time...the REAL #1 reason why Dreamcast stopped being made is because Sega sucked at making financial decisions and after 32X CD and Saturn it sent Sega in Financial turmoil and COsoles are NOT made to make Profit..they rely on games for that to break the console even...Sega could not afford to keep DC afloat and while they had great games it did not have much developer support despite it was an easy console to develop for and had great games and was easy to develop for esp with Win CE built in and Direct X 6.1(btw the Xbox 1 was developed much after DC using test gamers playing dreamcasts..the controller almost had VMU's) Even 360 borrows from DC in many ways..right down to the Live cam (DC had Dreameye camera)..ermanyway Sega had a Choice..go Bankrupt or drop the hardware biz and keep manufacturing consoles(the still did arcade yes but to even support that ater had a merge with Sammy but before that had the Triforce using Gamecube hardware and some help from Namco)...and Japan JUST TODAY stopped supporting Dreamcast officially..so it had a 9 year run In it's homeland. (came out in 1998 there but games were still being made..GD roms stopped support in Jan 2007)
I still don't have a PS2 because I could not support all 4 systems and I bought an Xbox for Shenmue II not Halo..I don't like Halo...but I am now trying to get a Silver PS2 when I can afford it....and PS2 right now is 3rd best selling console in stores..first is Wii and DS...PS3 and PSP are last easy..and just today after much retailers pressure for months against sony to even MOVE a PSP so they stop collecting dust in stock rooms Sony finally agreed to lower the core system price.

PS one last semi related note Shenmue was the most expensive game ever made and helped develop much of the technology for games made today...but the game only got a cult following and that also in sad sense send Dreamcast to stop being manufactured for financial reasons(PS2 was only part of it but not the main reason if so then by that Logic nintendo would had stopped making Gamecube and Xbox would have been in bargin bins early...Xbox only outsold GCN by about 3 mill systems)

lupin

04-03-2007, 10:48 PM

Or ...

3. A PC Gamer
4. An XBOX Gamer

Yeah but thats not funny ;)

masherscf

04-03-2007, 11:30 PM

Im about the best console winning and tech spec wise that is the PS3 hands down.

Sure, but my whole tirade is to convince you that tech specs are only a small part of console marketing... as the PS2 proves.

lupin

04-03-2007, 11:38 PM

Sure, but my whole tirade is to convince you that tech specs are only a small part of console marketing... as the PS2 proves.

Dude, I believe I said that already. I mentioned the PS2. Are you even reading my post anymore or scanning it for certain lines to quote ;)

masherscf

04-04-2007, 12:08 AM

Dude, I believe I said that already. I mentioned the PS2. Are you even reading my post anymore or scanning it for certain lines to quote ;)

It's a great time saver.

lupin

04-04-2007, 02:05 AM

It's a great time saver.

It also defeats the purpose of my long and well thought out post.

masherscf

04-04-2007, 02:11 AM

It also defeats the purpose of my long and well thought out post.

Hey, if you want my attention... write porn instead.

lupin

04-04-2007, 02:35 AM

Hey, if you want my attention... write porn instead.

As Tiffanie slowly slid two fingers down her low cut jeans...

<.<

xibalba

04-04-2007, 02:37 AM

This thread took a turn for the worse...

lupin

04-04-2007, 07:34 AM

Indeed it did captain obvious ;)

masherscf

04-04-2007, 03:48 PM

Token! Stick a fork in it.

tokenuser

04-04-2007, 04:01 PM

I am waiting on the PS4:TNG.

It will pwn all other consoles with its superior architecture and support (provided under contract by Microsoft - don't laugh, they already provide Linux support for Novell SuSE products).

Console wars, like OS wars, are pissing contests. People line up behind their banner of choice and don't listen to anything anyone else has to say.

Thats OK. Be a fan. Enjoy the games that come out.

Reality is that online play is where the games are going. People want to play against friends across the street or across the world.

VERY soon, it wont matter which console you prefer. Titles are no longer necessarily exclusive, so cross platform play is what its all about. It doesn't matter if you are on a PS3 or an X360 - its all about game play.

masherscf

04-04-2007, 04:05 PM

Console wars, like OS wars, are pissing contests. People line up behind their banner of choice and don't listen to anything anyone else has to say.

I don't understand tech-wars myself. You use the OS that you like most and is best for what you do. You use the game console that has the games you want to play. You use the camera that fits you personally. You drive car that best fit your lifestyle.

xibalba

04-04-2007, 05:27 PM

I always get the console with the best and most RPGs.

lupin

04-05-2007, 02:25 AM

I have no brand loyalty myself. I used Windows from ages 3-15 now I like OS X and Linux over XP/Vista any day. I grew up with Nintendo but after the N64 I kind of quit caring about them. My first MP3 player was an iPod 2G, now I use a Zune. As you can see, I use what I think is best. And as I said, right now neither the 360 or PS3 has bested the other. 360 lacks hardware in a big way, but its Live service and OS makes up for it for now. The Sony Network, though just started, is far behind Live. And the OS is nice on the XMB but the lack of in-game options compared to the 360 is sad. But of course, this could all change. While the 360s lack of next-gen hardware or storage medium could become and issue.

And I disagree. Cross-Platform titles are the problem with todays gaming industry. All they care about is making the most money possible. These titles will never push any consoles capabilities. I miss the days when Cross-Platform releases where instantly branded as the POS they where. I myself was hoping that this would be the generation of the rebirth of console specific IPs. But with the amount of titles jumping ship, I doubt that is going to be the case.

masherscf

04-05-2007, 02:58 AM

And I disagree. Cross-Platform titles are the problem with todays gaming industry. All they care about is making the most money possible. These titles will never push any consoles capabilities. I miss the days when Cross-Platform releases where instantly branded as the POS they where. I myself was hoping that this would be the generation of the rebirth of console specific IPs. But with the amount of titles jumping ship, I doubt that is going to be the case.

As President Reagan used to say "There you go again."

I don't to get into another pointless debate, but here's my opinion for what's worth.

I think exclusive titles are exclusively bad for gamers, because they kill competition. Competition is the life's blood of any consumer. It's great that some of the Playstation's more popular third-party games are showing up on th XBOX 360. Sony is just going to have to be more competitive.

It's not stopping anyone from pushing any consoles capabilities. On the contrary, if side-by-side, the games look marvelously better on PS3 than XBOX 360, that pushes sales of PS3s. A title being captive to any one console is only going to encourage stagnation.

Just my opinion, take it or leave it...

lupin

04-05-2007, 07:43 AM

As President Reagan used to say "There you go again."

I don't to get into another pointless debate, but here's my opinion for what's worth.

I think exclusive titles are exclusively bad for gamers, because they kill competition. Competition is the life's blood of any consumer. It's great that some of the Playstation's more popular third-party games are showing up on th XBOX 360. Sony is just going to have to be more competitive.

It's not stopping anyone from pushing any consoles capabilities. On the contrary, if side-by-side, the games look marvelously better on PS3 than XBOX 360, that pushes sales of PS3s. A title being captive to any one console is only going to encourage stagnation.

Just my opinion, take it or leave it...

Thats bullshit and your opinion is very ill informed. Cross platform releases in no one promote Competition. Competition between what? 2 different titles from the exact devs/publishers on 2 different systems. Oh yes we really come out ahead on that. And a Cross Platform title cant push the limits of a PS3 or 360 when its done based on the LCD, and these titles are never made with pushing the envelope in mind. Instead they use tried and true techniques on each console to make sure they get a mediocre title out on all systems.

Think about the best titles out there. Metal Gear God of War Halo Ratchet and Clank Resident Evil (for the most part) Jak and Daxter Chronicles of Riddick Jade Empire Dead Rising. All great titles that are exclusives for their systems when they released. Exclusive titles are always better then any Cross Platform stuff.

masherscf

04-05-2007, 03:00 PM

Thats bullshit and your opinion is very ill informed. And a Cross Platform title cant push the limits of a PS3 or 360 when its done based on the LCD, and these titles are never made with pushing the envelope in mind.

For all you people who use this "Least Common Denominator" analogy. It doesn't fit. The "Least Common Denominator" is greater than or equal to a collection of denominators. Therefore, having to design to a least common denominator means actually raising expectations, not lower them.

I know people use this phrase to denote some sort of lowering of standards, but the mathematical application of the term just doesn't fit.

Other than you're abusive use of analogy, your understanding of economics and marketing are flawed.

Game developers don't push hardware for heck of it. If it was up to software and hardware vendors, we'd still be playing on 16-bit consoles with 2D platformers.

What drives performance is consumer demand. Gamers have an insatiable need for improvements in experience. This could mean a deeper game design or more realistic presentations. The bottom line is computing power.

No console is going to deliver the most computing power, you need a PC game for that. Nevertheless, the design of a console dictates delivering the most power for the least cash.

After the console is delivered, it is up to the software designers to optimize the code to get the most out of the available hardware. While it may be true that tailoring code to a specific hardware makes this optimizing easier. I'm not sure this actually drives the optimization. That is, A given software team gains experience with particular hardware profile and that helps them in the future, but it doesn't motivate them.

Most game designs probably exceed the capabilities of the available hardware. This usually isn't a problem with PC games because they almost always scale to the available hardware at the time of release.

However, when software designers port the code over to the specific consoles they "dumb-down" the presentation to yield to each console's limitations. This could mean less graphics or less robust AI. In that case of the Wii, both. It also means adapting to each console's strengths. Therefore, the game will not be the same on every platform as you suggest.

What drives software writers to get the most out of their available hardware is market competition. The drive to make games better is to sell games. You sell more games if you release on multiple consoles.

Indeed, cross platform releases are not good for console vendors. Sometimes a hit game like "Halo" can make or break a consoles market. However, if "Halo" has been released on PC at the same time as XBOX, the only thing that would have suffered was XBOX sales. The PC version of HALO is superior to the XBOX version in almost all respects except the online. The XBOX online community makes that the best place to play HALO with others.

So here are my points.

1. The quest for sales drive innovation, not exclusivity.

2. Exclusive titles only benefit console vendors not gaming consumers.

3. Competition benefits consumers.

lupin

04-06-2007, 02:53 AM

I disagree with you in almost every way, and I would go as far as to say you are out of touch with the gaming industry if at all you ever where. Your head seems to be permanently wrapped around these inaccurate and frankly asinine ideas of how you think things work. Anybody who thinks exclusive titles hurts gamers obviously just doesnt like the idea of having to have multiple consoles to play all their favourite titles. And yes the LCD is what these developers have to shoot for. These has been stated many many times by developers.

masherscf

04-06-2007, 03:08 AM

And yes the LCD is what these developers have to shoot for. These has been stated many many times by developers.

But the LCD is greater than or equal to the other denominators. Therefore, developers shooting for the LCD is a good thing... right?

Do you even know what a "least common denominator" is?

If so, please define it for me. If not, please refrain from using the term.

Don't cheat by looking it up.

Lupin, there's really no need for you to get insulting because we disagree. No body wins online arguments be calling the other person's opinion asinine. I read the same magazines you do. I just come to different conclusions about how business in general works. It doesn't mean anything. You need to lighten up.

lupin

04-06-2007, 07:53 AM

But the LCD is greater than or equal to the other denominators. Therefore, developers shooting for the LCD is a good thing... right?

Do you even know what a "least common denominator" is?

If so, please define it for me. If not, please refrain from using the term.

Don't cheat by looking it up.

Lupin, there's really no need for you to get insulting because we disagree. No body wins online arguments be calling the other person's opinion asinine. I read the same magazines you do. I just come to different conclusions about how business in general works. It doesn't mean anything. You need to lighten up.

Lowest Common Denominator. Its a math term. Im not 100% so how it works in math (shut up I hate math). But in regards to what we are talking about it refers to the fact that when you make a cross platform title you have to work as if you only have the power of the weakest system available. Its easier this way then creating a custom tooled game that utilizes the best of each console it is coming out for.

And Im not insulting Im questioning if you actually know about what you are talking.

tokenuser

04-06-2007, 02:12 PM

Thats bullshit and your opinion is very ill informed. Cross platform releases in no one promote Competition. Competition between what? 2 different titles from the exact devs/publishers on 2 different systems. Oh yes we really come out ahead on that. And a Cross Platform title cant push the limits of a PS3 or 360 when its done based on the LCD, and these titles are never made with pushing the envelope in mind. Instead they use tried and true techniques on each console to make sure they get a mediocre title out on all systems.

Think about the best titles out there. Metal Gear God of War Halo Ratchet and Clank Resident Evil (for the most part) Jak and Daxter Chronicles of Riddick Jade Empire Dead Rising. All great titles that are exclusives for their systems when they released. Exclusive titles are always better then any Cross Platform stuff.Lupin, the competition you are referring to is for the consoles. Exclusive titles help individual consoles - and Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have a number of licenses thatthey exclusively hold ... but that does nothing for the gamer. The gamers needs to spend $1500 to have each platform to run each exclusive title on. Does it make one platform more desirable than the others? Depends on the genre of ame you prefer.

BUT for game developers, it is a different story. You want your title on as many platforms as possible. Why limit yourself to X or P when your market could be X + P + W. Now, before accusing me of having my head up my ass and not knowing what I am talking about, I have a background in development. Not game development, but have been involved in cross platform development for desktop systems (Windows and MacOS), and cellphones (Nokia vs BREW vs J2ME). I *AM* familiar with the software industry more than you might imagine - just not as a game developer. Having said that, cross platform developers do target the platforms they are designing for. Much of the underlying code is identical. The smart developers have abstracted libraries that their code calls, which then calls system specific routines. Even the graphics and graphic models are largely identical - being translated into the specific platform for each build. Each of their code teams will have specialist programmers for the specific platforms, and they will be trying to optimise their code libraries as much as possible to take advantage of the underlying differences int he platforms.

So, as a gamer - would you prefer to need to buy a new console to play "Gods of Warez" or "Buponic the Mole" ... or be able to buy just that title for your existing console? What is better - a 35 game library available for your console or a 120 game library for your console ... especially if, because the title is cross platform, its cost could be reduced (not going to happen - their is an expected price point now :( ). That is competition. Needing to buy individual consoles to play games is not.

masherscf

04-06-2007, 02:39 PM

Lowest Common Denominator. Its a math term. I'm not 100% so how it works in math (shut up I hate math). But in regards to what we are talking about it refers to the fact that when you make a cross platform title you have to work as if you only have the power of the weakest system available. Its easier this way then creating a custom tooled game that utilizes the best of each console it is coming out for.

And Im not insulting Im questioning if you actually know about what you are talking.

I'm questioning that you understand what you read or think you read.

Since you don't know what an LCD is, I'll define it for you. See if it fits into what you think it is.

1. Common Multiple. A common multiple of A and B is any number that is divisible by A and B.

Observe, any Common multiples of A and B are necessarily greater or equal to A and B.

Easy enough.

Any list of positive whole numbers has a smallest member, there for there is a common multiple of A and B that is less than all the others.

2. Least Common Multiple. The least common multiple is the common multiple that is less than all the others.

Fractions: Since whole number arithmetic doesn't get along with division we invented fractions. A fraction is any number that can be expressed as a division A divided by B where A and B are whole numbers. We denote this A/B. We call A the numerator and B the denominator.

Fractions come with their own issues. One is that we can write the same number an infinite number of ways as a fraction. That is A/B=C/D is AD=BC.
We consider two fractions A/B and C/D equivalent if A=mC and B=mD for some common factor m.

Another problem with fractions is that you can't compare, add, or subtract them if they don't have the same denominator. Fractions without the same denominator are called "unlike." Those with the same denominator are called "like."

Comparing unlike fractions is like comparing apples and oranges, it just doesn't work. Luckily, you can always express two unlike fractions as two like fractions. In this case, you can choose any common multiple of the denominators to be the new denominator. To make life easy we choose the smallest one.

Least Common denominator: The LCD of 2 fractions is least common multiple of theory denominators.

Notice that the LCD is actually less than or equal to the other denominators.

Why did I go through this?

I wanted to show you that people who write about tech sometimes use phrases and terms without actually knowing what they mean. For some reason the term LCD has come to mean some sort of compromise between parties. That compromise meaning a lowering go values. Nevertheless, numerically speaking finding the LCD means nothing of the sort.

Unfortunately, the improper use of the LCD phrase continues into the vernacular where it actually takes on a meaning for people that it doesn't technical have. That is, use if the term LCD in this manner is not technical but merely slang.

(shut up I hate math)

Fair enough, shutting up now...

lupin

04-06-2007, 10:36 PM

Lupin, the competition you are referring to is for the consoles. Exclusive titles help individual consoles - and Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have a number of licenses thatthey exclusively hold ... but that does nothing for the gamer. The gamers needs to spend $1500 to have each platform to run each exclusive title on. Does it make one platform more desirable than the others? Depends on the genre of ame you prefer.

BUT for game developers, it is a different story. You want your title on as many platforms as possible. Why limit yourself to X or P when your market could be X + P + W. Now, before accusing me of having my head up my ass and not knowing what I am talking about, I have a background in development. Not game development, but have been involved in cross platform development for desktop systems (Windows and MacOS), and cellphones (Nokia vs BREW vs J2ME). I *AM* familiar with the software industry more than you might imagine - just not as a game developer. Having said that, cross platform developers do target the platforms they are designing for. Much of the underlying code is identical. The smart developers have abstracted libraries that their code calls, which then calls system specific routines. Even the graphics and graphic models are largely identical - being translated into the specific platform for each build. Each of their code teams will have specialist programmers for the specific platforms, and they will be trying to optimise their code libraries as much as possible to take advantage of the underlying differences int he platforms.

So, as a gamer - would you prefer to need to buy a new console to play "Gods of Warez" or "Buponic the Mole" ... or be able to buy just that title for your existing console? What is better - a 35 game library available for your console or a 120 game library for your console ... especially if, because the title is cross platform, its cost could be reduced (not going to happen - their is an expected price point now :( ). That is competition. Needing to buy individual consoles to play games is not.

See your right about computer Software. The more platforms it runs for the better. But to say that gamers dont benefit from exclusive titles just is wrong imho. You will get the most and best out of a game if you focus it for one release. Why do you think Hideo Kojima doesnt want MGS4 on the 360? Because he wants to alienate his fan base? No. Its because he crafted this game to work on the PS3 and he knows unless he spends a year or more retooling it to work on the 360 as well it will end up like MGS2 did on the XBOX 1. Of course, Konami would love to put it on the 360 and probably will, because they know the 360 has a larger install base and even though MGS4 will be a big console seller it still probably wont match the 360.

From a business stand point Cross Platform will always be better. But the cost is that you will never see what your console can offer from a Cross Platform title. And honestly, yes I would rather buy a console for each of my favorite titles. While I do consider your opinion to be more well written and thought out, I still feel as though you are incorrect. And I would say thats part of the problem of the game industry today.

I mean, its starting to come to the point that there is no point in having more then one console since every game comes out on every console. This is how it use to be right before the Gaming Crash of the '80s.

tokenuser

04-06-2007, 10:44 PM

Ah, the great gaming crash of the 80's. Yes. I remember it well. I lived through that era, and the electronic wasteland that came afterwards.

HANG ON! You were still in diapers in '89!!! WTF do you know about the crash of the 80's!!!

The 80's crash was driven by entirely different reason, and it was not cross platform titles. It was crappy games and hardware that wasn't keeping pace with rapid developments in personal computers.

lupin

04-09-2007, 07:07 AM

Actually, I was born in '89, but that doesnt mean I dont know my video game history ;) And thats not why the crash was caused really. Well, that could be one facet of it, but the main issue was the arcades. They where pumping out too many titles that where derivative of titles already out. And the market just became flooded. It may not be the exact same scenario but its pretty damn close. You have the issue of everything coming out on both the consoles and many consumers are just going to hold off until one comes out as a clear winner. You are seeing an over saturation of the market of mediocre titles that are almost all the same.

(sorry im 2 days late with that. I was busy over the weekend ;)

zeidiot

04-10-2007, 10:30 PM

It won't go the way of the Dreamcast because of the marketers and media involved in it. The difference now and back when Sega launched its network is that marketers now see it as a platform to make money... that means it won't go away.

It will have nothing to do with games or content in the long run, it's going to be
"how can marketers sell this?"...

ashwin100

04-10-2007, 10:40 PM

The PS3 will overtake the XBOX 360 not because of small technical differences, but because of a combination of a superior game library, superior online experience, superior marketing and competitive pricing. Right now, the PS3 is playing catch-up.

The PS3 is not out of the fight. By this time next year, the price of blue-ray will drop and the game library and online will be more mature. Sony has the cash to stay in the console market until that happens. They just have to fix their marketing department and revive they're inner super-star.

For now, round one goes to XBOX 360, live with it.

Are you frickin joking?

Superior game library? Absoletely no way. For one thing Sony is losing their all killer exclusives. First R* announce that GTAIV will be available on the 360 at the same time as the PS3, then Capcom announce Devil May Cry 4 (one of their three big hyped games Sony were going on about) will be on the 360 at the same time as the PS3. How long before we see Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy on the 360 as well?

Superior online experience? Even Sony fanboy's gotta admit that the PS3 is completely outclassed there. Xbox Live has taken the definition of online play on a console to a new level, features like achievements and d/l content have made Live an integral part of the system - plus it is a MS necessity that developers make use of it. Sony does have that 'Home' online system coming out some time that sounds interesting, but it will take a hell of a while to reach the success of Xbox Live.

Superior marketing and price? They might be pushing the marketing more than MS but their PR is low. You can't find an article nowadays without bashing Sony, that rootkit scandal wasn't exactly good for them either. Even Time magazine had the PS3 down as a dud (a little harsh considering it's still in infancy but still -ve PR). And if you come back to reality you'll find the PS3 is still more expensive than buying a Wii and X360 together.

I'm not a MS fanboy, I think the PS2 was great, the PS3 could be good too and I don't have a 360, but objectionably the PS3 doesn't look like it's in the best position present or future looking.