Interesting Phenomenon

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 10:51 am

Hype kills. that's there was practically no info on Half-Life2 until recently.

/end

Alucard_FoN · Post by **Alucard_FoN** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 12:19 pm

shadow-the-hedgehog wrote:The Xbox is a console. You play games on a console. THATS IT. Well thats all its meant to do. DVD playback are a plus for some people.

I realize this, and I agree. My point was simply that you can't compare the overall prices of the two. It's like comparing the price of a Sony Discman to that of an entire entertainment center. Both play CD's, but the latter also does a lot more, and is a lot more expensive.

As far as the point of the topic goes, I predict the XBox will fail anyway. There aren't very many good games for it that aren't available on other systems, because Microsoft has failed to make the console attractive to game developers.

EarthCurrent · Post by **EarthCurrent** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 12:30 pm

Alucard_FoN wrote:I realize this, and I agree. My point was simply that you can't compare the overall prices of the two.

Then how can you justify arguing about "expense" if you don't think you can "compare" costs?

We merely wind up chasing our tails with that sort of argument.

FirestormXIII · Post by **FirestormXIII** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 1:37 pm

KungPaoChicken wrote:I'm asking whether or not Microsoft's aggressive pursuit of pushing Xbox Live is actually having a negative effect on Xbox games; specifically towards games that don't support online play through Xbox Live.

Yes, it does. But I think Microsoft is reaping what it's sowing, in this case. First off, at the launch of the X-box, it didn't have a very large user-base. This has improved, especially within the past half year or so, but it's base is still not huge (especially on a comparative basis).
Now, looking at that already 'limited' user-base, out comes the X-box Live. Now the X-box Live itself is a great idea: Give people voice chat and online play that's not laggy. And everytime I hear about the Live, I hear nothing but praise about how smooth it is and how much fun it is to play online.
The reality outside actually being online with the Live kit, however, is that the number of people who have DSL/Cable and can afford it is still quite low. And the number of people who are going to get it for the sole purpose of console gaming? Even lower. Hell, there are still areas of the country (and the world) that Broadband isn't even available in.
And Microsoft is pushing the X-box Live a lot, because they believe it's the future of consoles. While I respect their vision, Microsoft has to realize that online console gaming is not the now, especially if they're going to keep people out of the experience who haven't made the jump to broadband yet. I think having a broadband only online system would be a great idea...in 3 or 4 years. And not only is Microsoft keeping people out that don't have broadband, they're forcing people that do decide to get the X-box Live to pay for it after a year. (Not to mention that the price of the X-box Live itself will go up to $70 around November, but that's another story for another time)

I simply see too much bottlenecking going on at every level with the X-box Live. It's a good idea, but it's either bad execution, or a little ahead of it's time. Maybe a little of both.

My next point is the games themselves. If you're paying for broadband, and the X-box Live, you want great games you can play online with. I'm not saying X-box doesn't have a number of good games to play online, what I'm saying is that when people investing in Live hear a lot of hype about a game (especially one that was at one point dubbed 'the next Halo') you can bet they want that game online.
When that game, on top of being delayed, is lacking online play, I'm sure a lot of people start wondering 'what am I paying for?' And of course, you have the people who aren't online who are finding less reason to go there when a game as hyped as Brute Force doesn't even have online play.
And that does hurt how a game is rated, very much so. I mean look at Return to Castle Wolfenstein, it's a great game in itself, but with online play it's suddenly become dynamite. Online capability can very much make or break a game now, even if it would be great under normal circumstances.

It's like a huge Catch-22, if you're pushing people to go online you have give them reasons to go there, and keep giving them reasons to do so. But the more you push, and the more selective you are, the more chance you have of potential online console gamers slipping through your fingers.
And for heaven's sake, if you're going to push your online agenda, make sure your 'killer' games that are coming out have online capability. Because if they don't, it's only going to hurt the game and your agenda.

Blah, there's some points I missed I'm sure, and I also wanted to touch on the PC online gaming vs Console online gaming talk, but I'll do that later.

y2kwizard · Post by **y2kwizard** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 1:41 pm

Here's another pro for console gaming: You will get an EXTREMELY consistent gameplay experience with a console than you will with PC. All consoles are exactly the same, so the games will play the exact same way no matter whose system you're playing on. This also means that online gaming for consoles, theoretically, will go a bit more smoothly than PC gaming, for no one will be behind the curve technology-wise (except, perhaps, with types of connection to the Internet).

With PCs, there are SO MANY different setups. Gameplay will be inconsistent. If I want to play the same game that IL ove on a friend's computer, gameplay will be entirely different. Sound will be different, the game will LOOK different through the monitor,etc.

ALSO, console games are guaranteed to work all the time on the consoles, as PC games sometimes have problems with compatibility with certain hardware. I'm having a horrible time getting Battlefield 1942 to work on my PC, but Ibet, if i had an XBOX, it would work perfeclty on the XBOX.

I personally still use PC over console, as the PC is multifunctional. But that's one thing ot think about.

dwb · Post by **dwb** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 1:52 pm

Lyrs wrote:Hype kills. that's there was practically no info on Half-Life2 until recently.

/end

i agree. i dont have xbox but i do have ps2. there is a game and anime called Arc the Lad.very good game play and everything but it was allmost done when ps2 came out. i think. which means it didnt inclue spoken lines or better graphics so this game sold very little cause of the hype surrounding ps2's capabilities(sp??). which is essentially the same thing that has happening to brute force. this type of thing also happened to dreamcast it came out at a bad time, but it is still a good machine. sega has allways had bad release dates but good machines. technology is just moving to fast for anyone except the console/pc makers, who make it move fast. i also think that microsoft is pursuing xbox live alot to keep up with ps2's SOE[ sony online entertainment i think]. even gamecube has online entertianment. and dreamcast had online stuff, dont know if it still does though. so imho online gameplay is not a big deal but it is something new for xbox which might be y they are agressively pursuing it. just some thoughts.

Dale

Asalyn Po · Post by **Asalyn Po** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 2:21 pm

I still wuv my little dreamcast! It rocks! I play Chu Chu Rocket, Bangai-o, Crazt Taxi, and soul calibur on it!

EarthCurrent · Post by **EarthCurrent** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 2:37 pm

Asalyn Po wrote:I still wuv my little dreamcast! It rocks! I play Chu Chu Rocket, Bangai-o, Crazt Taxi, and soul calibur on it!

Bangai-o is indeed the supreme DC game. Keep up the good work.

shadow-the-hedgehog · Post by **shadow-the-hedgehog** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:49 pm

Alucard_FoN wrote:As far as the point of the topic goes, I predict the XBox will fail anyway. There aren't very many good games for it that aren't available on other systems, because Microsoft has failed to make the console attractive to game developers.

Doubt it. Why you ask?

Well, some people were told early on that the Xbox was the supreme console. It can do so much, it has this and that. These people then went on to dis the GC and PS2(to an extent). While the xbox has only like 14 GOOD games, it will still do pretty well due to its fan base.

Nappy · Post by **Nappy** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 9:10 pm

my last 3d card cost more than my xbox (plus a game and live) :l

ppl keep comparing it to a computer, but its a bit off. I mean I remember the dreamcast was equal to a 233 but there's no way a standard 233 could run those games so well, if at all. I forget what the xbox was equal to but it can easily outdo most computers because it is so dedicated to only gaming, not windows, explorer, aim and all that other crap you got running now. You'd need a pretty expensive computer plus 3d card etc. to run a game like halo smoothly (and thats just a launch game).