 |
05-12-2003, 01:11 PM
|
#1 | ||
|
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jun 2001
|
EA snubs X-box Live
Stole this off of the IGN boards. No link, sorry!
EA Shows Its Clout and Wariness Of Letting Xbox Dominate Market By ROBERT A. GUTH Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Electronic Arts Inc. became the king of videogames with the likes of Tiger Woods and John Madden. Now it's using these allies to challenge the king of software: Microsoft Corp. The next great battleground for the $27 billion videogame industry is online games -- and there, Electronic Arts is about to throw its considerable weight behind Sony Corp. Tuesday, it plans to announce that when it takes the long-awaited step of putting its biggest blockbuster sports games online, they will be only in versions for Sony game machines. The exclusive deal shuts out rival game-machine makers from access to the popular EA Sports line in its new online form. It's a particular rebuke to Microsoft, whose Xbox competes with Sony's PlayStation 2. In its drive for a dominant role in online games, Microsoft tried again and again during the past 18 months to persuade Electronic Arts to add its games to Microsoft's own online game service. But Electronic Arts executives decided Microsoft was demanding too much control over Electronic Arts' games and wasn't willing to pay the company for their use. The snub by Electronic Arts puts Microsoft in an unfamiliar position. Accustomed to having the upper hand as the owner of software that all personal-computer makers need, Microsoft now confronts a cagey software maker that holds the best cards. Electronic Arts is the world's No. 1 game maker, thanks in large part to its sports hits such as Madden NFL and Tiger Woods PGA Tour. The confrontation came to a head April 16 at the Redwood City, Calif., headquarters of Electronic Arts. Sitting in his boardroom with Robbie Bach, Microsoft's videogame chief, Electronic Arts Chairman Larry Probst gave his final word on the matter: Electronic Arts was going to "build something big," and it wouldn't be with Microsoft. "There's a 100-foot wall between us," Mr. Probst said in an interview in which he recounted that meeting. "We are not going to capitulate on this." The decision to side with one partner is a break from Electronic Arts' longstanding practice of building games for all major players including the PlayStation 2, Xbox and Nintendo Co.'s GameCube. It continues to make games for Microsoft and Nintendo. But in the emerging online market, Electronic Arts says it will remain exclusive to Sony through next March. (Sony's success with PlayStation 2 is a rare bright spot for the trend-setting company.) The clash is emerging at a critical juncture for the electronic-game industry, one that could determine winners and losers for years to come. Most consumers now play videogames as they have for two decades: alone or in pairs on home machines hooked to television sets. If the industry can get those gamers online, it could provide a steady revenue stream through subscriptions, helping level off an industry characterized by boom-and-bust sales cycles. Electronic Arts has racked up $300 million in losses on several big online failures. Today it offers only a handful of games online in a service that hasn't taken off. But now with broadband connections becoming widely available and renewed online efforts by gamemakers, online games could finally be ready to catch on. Microsoft has invested heavily in its Xbox Live online game service, as part of a broader mission: to control the direction of home entertainment in much the same way it does for personal computers. As Microsoft envisions it, online videogames would create a path to sell a host of other subscription services as well as software that links game machines to PCs, handheld computers and other digital devices. Xbox Live could also put Microsoft in control of customer relationships with game buyers, wresting that role away from game makers. "The time is right for us to establish a position [in online games] and start setting the agenda for what the future of the digital entertainment lifestyle holds," says J Allard, the Microsoft vice president in charge of Xbox Live. Microsoft wanted Electronic Arts games on its network, but Electronic Arts executives say Microsoft wouldn't agree to share portions of the Xbox Live subscription fees with publishers of the games that are played. Electronic Arts and other publishers argue that could give Microsoft unfair control over pricing and influence over customers. Microsoft's strategy "is very simple," says Mr. Probst, the Electronic Arts chairman. "They collect all the money; they keep all the money." Microsoft won't comment on its financial arrangement with specific game publishers. When asked about the dispute with Electronic Arts, Mr. Bach, the Microsoft games-division chief and senior vice president, says Xbox Live can help game makers by boosting their sales. To access the Xbox Live service, players must first purchase the individual games from publishers. IN PLAY That Electronic Arts could simply walk away from the negotiating table with Microsoft is a sign of the videogame industry's new dynamics. Once a fragmented field with hundreds of small players, it now sees clout concentrated among a few big players who have the wherewithal to continually invest as much as $10 million to $20 million in single games and the sales volume to command shelf space at retailers. Sales of videogame hardware and software reached $10 billion last year in the U.S., compared with about $9 billion for movie-box-office receipts. Electronic Arts has exploited those changes better than any game publisher. Years ago the company started signing deals with professional sports leagues such as the National Football League and big names including Messrs. Madden and Woods and more recently Jason Kidd of the New Jersey Nets and this year's No.1 NFL draft pick, Carson Palmer. Under Mr. Probst, a savvy negotiator and hard-nosed leader, Electronic Arts combined extensive market research with rigorous development schedules to turn its EA Sports brand into one of the most profitable and recognized game franchises. It dominates nearly every major category, including football, basketball, soccer, baseball and golf. On that foundation, Electronic Arts has built other winning franchises, such as games based on movies including the Harry Potter and James Bond series. Last week Electronic Arts said for the year ended March 31 it posted a net profit of $317 million, a nearly threefold increase from the previous year, as the company benefitted from big sales of Playstation 2 games. Sales jumped 44% to $2.48 billion. That caps 15 years of compounded annual growth in revenue of 30% and net income of 36%. At the end of March, the company held $1.6 billion in cash and had no debt. Its share price has more than doubled over the past five years. In 4 p.m. Nasdaq Stock Market trading Friday, Electronic Arts shares were off 24 cents at $61.55. Game publishers such as Electronic Arts and makers of game machines -- Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo -- are co-dependent: Sales of one rely on sales of the other. That makes it hard for one side to strong-arm the other. Also, while Electronic Arts dominates its industry, surprise hits can come from nowhere. Grand Theft Auto, a driving-and-shooting game that outsold all other U.S. games in 2002, emerged from a once little-known New York publisher, Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. Still, when Electronic Arts flexes its muscles, it can have stark results. The company's decision several years ago not to build games for Sega Corp.'s DreamCast game computer was one of the primary reasons that cutting-edge machine died, inflicting huge losses on Sega. When Sega countered last year, attacking Electronic Arts head-on in sports games, Electronic Arts batted it down. During an internal strategy session in Tokyo last year, Sega executives searched for sports areas that Electronics Arts doesn't dominate. One conclusion: swimming. When Microsoft decided, in the summer of 1999, to build the Xbox , one of its first stops was Electronic Arts' headquarters. Electronic Arts announced in December 2000 that it would produce eight games for the Xbox . Both Mr. Probst and Microsoft's Mr. Bach emphasize that this side of the companies' relationship is still strong. Electronic Arts has some 15 to 20 Xbox games under development. But even as Electronic Arts and Microsoft prepared the Xbox games in 2001, differences surfaced in the online business. One of the biggest obstacles to making online gaming more widespread has been the huge investment needed in servers and software to run the multiplayer games. Not wanting to take the risk, many game makers didn't invest. Those that did -- such as Electronic Arts -- couldn't make money at it. Microsoft's answer to that problem was simple -- it would invite game makers to put their games on a central online service that it would run. With a single password, gamers would be able play games from any game maker on the Microsoft system. Many publishers privately worried about the Microsoft model because it put Microsoft between publishers and their customers. In traditional videogames, publishers sell gamers disks at retail stores such as Wal-Mart. Under Microsoft's online plan, gamers still need the disks, but the entire online portion of the game would be in Microsoft's hands. Enter Sony, which last year came up with a counterplan that alleviated such concerns. Its offering will allow game publishers to run their own computers and manage their own customers. Sony said it would just ship to retailers a $40 specialized modem and software for the PlayStation 2 that would let gamers connect using any online service. The game publishers would still have to invest in Internet infrastructure to set up their online games, but they would maintain control of the revenue and the relationship with the game players. The publishers would pay a royalty fee to Sony -- which would help with the development and security of the gaming sites, shoulder some of the marketing costs and deliver its large audience to the gamemakers' doorstep. The Sony plan appealed to Electronic Arts because it offered more flexibility and a bigger potential market, since the PlayStation 2 far outsold the Xbox . By spring 2002, Electronic Arts began publicly distancing itself from Microsoft in the online business. That was clear last May at the Orpheum Theatre in Los Angeles. On the eve of the annual industry exposition, Microsoft pledged it would spend $2 billion during the next five years on the Xbox , including investment in Xbox Live. Microsoft shined spotlights on its supporters in the audience. Electronic Arts was conspicuously absent. The same evening across town, Electronic Arts was preparing an online version of Madden NFL 2003 for a demo the following morning at a Sony strategy briefing. During the demo, Minnesota Vikings quarterback Daunte Culpepper had an online scrimmage with Tennessee Titans defensive end Jevon Kearse, thousands of miles away. Mr. Madden razzed the two pros via live video feed from San Francisco. When Electronic Arts opened the game to the public later in the year, it was one of the first videogame-machine blockbusters to go online. Following the expo, Microsoft forged ahead with efforts to sign up games for its new service. But by October, when Electronic Arts shipped its first Xbox version of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003, Microsoft had still failed to woo Electronic Arts into its online camp. In fact, Electronic Arts was growing closer to Sony. That month, executives at Electronic Arts approached Sony about moving the EA Sports franchise online in a more serious way. One reason: the strong response to the experiment with Madden NFL online. While the numbers weren't large, they showed Electronic Arts executives that the online market was emerging faster then they had thought it would. So around that time, Electronic Arts and Sony started working out the financial details of the online service. Electronic Arts started making online versions of games that could handle both Sony's and Microsoft's online systems. On Nov. 15, Microsoft opened Xbox Live to the world with plans to deliver up to 14 online games by year's end from game makers including Sega, Ubi Soft Entertainment and THQ Inc. It still had no deal with Electronic Arts. As 2003 got started, Mr. Probst says, "it just became increasingly clear to us that we were not moving the needle toward our side" in discussions with Microsoft. In February, Sony announced details that Electronic Arts had requested: a royalty structure for its online business. With the game exposition approaching in May, Electronic Arts executives at a meeting on March 10 pushed forward the talks to give Sony exclusive rights to EA Sports online, says a person at the meeting. With an exclusive deal with Sony in the works, developers scrambled to ready EA Sports games for the PlayStation 2 online, not Xbox Live. The last meeting came in mid-April, when Microsoft's Mr. Bach and his team dropped by to brief Electronic Arts on the progress of the Xbox . Mr. Bach declined to comment on the meeting. After the team filed out of the room, Mr. Bach sat with Mr. Probst, who issued the warning that Electronic Arts was going to build a service. "Robbie, you don't need us, and we don't need you," Mr. Probst says he told the Microsoft executive. At this year's videogame-industry convention in Los Angeles, Electronic Arts and Sony Tuesday will show how Tiger Woods gamers can golf against players across the Internet, create computer-graphics versions of themselves, shop at virtual pro shops and compete for real prizes in online tournaments. The game is scheduled to ship in the fall following the release of EA Sports' online versions of Madden NFL and a basketball title, NBA Live. The service will also include Electronic Arts' NHL 2004, MVP Baseball 2004, FIFA Soccer 2004 and NASCAR Thunder 2004. Microsoft's Mr. Bach acknowledges the rift with Electronic Arts but says Microsoft is seeing stronger-than-expected growth in subscriber numbers to Xbox Live. "We're growing just fine without them, but I'd love to see them on the service," he says of Electronic Arts. He adds that by the end of the year, Xbox Live will feature 50 games. "We just stay in discussions with everybody, and so far the people who've gotten on board have been very successful," Mr. Bach says. |
||
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:14 PM
|
#2 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California
|
That sucks!!!
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:16 PM
|
#3 |
|
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jun 2001
|
Not if you like the PS2.
 And EA. |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:18 PM
|
#4 |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
It's been common knowledge for a while that EA is opposed, at least in principle, to Microsoft's business model for Xbox Live. Battlefield 1942 was a game that had been in development for Xbox, and subsequently got canned over the rift between the two companies.
I don't see this as particularly serious, since it appears as though EA Sports games will still appear on the Xbox - they just won't be online. Status quo, in other words, albeit perhaps with a formal announcement that it'll *stay* that way. Should be good for Sega, though, in terms of the 2k* sports' line's overall sales numbers. |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:19 PM
|
#5 |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
And, uh, Kodos? More power to ya, but if you can honestly sit there and tell me that you'd prefer to play your games on an underpowered piece of hardware that requires you to actually purchase some of its critical components separately...then I'm not really surprised that you hail from outer space.
 |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:22 PM
|
#6 |
|
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jun 2001
|
Bah! The PS2 is plenty powerful for my liking. And it has a much better selection of great games to choose from than the X-box. In fact, X-box still hasn't got enough good games for me to seriously consider buying it. Meanwhile, if Sega wants to throw its lot with X-box, well, good luck, and another sterling business decision for you.
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:27 PM
|
#7 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California
|
Xbox Live wants it to be a one fee pays all model, while Sony wants to allow each game to charge a fee.
Ask any financial analyst who has the better model and they will say Xbox. Xbox adheres to the Cable TV model. Pay so much per month/per year and you get all these channels/content/games, etc. As one analyst told me ... if you had to buy each cable channel for $9.95 a month you wouldn't get very many. You would pick one, your wife would pick one, the kids would pick one and you would pick one for everyone ... and that'd costs $40-$50 for those few channels. That's what Sony is doing and it isn't smart. AOL had it figured out right with the online service. You pay a monthly fee. That gets you tons of channels/content. Than when you want premium channels you pay more (just like cable). And than it all goes on one bill. Sony's model requires you not only to pay multiple fees, but you'll have to pay different bills. Microsoft's model probably allows for these premium content fees, but wants to handle the billing and EA probably won't allow it. EA and Sony have the wrong idea. |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:30 PM
|
#8 |
|
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jun 2001
|
Sony's is free today.
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:30 PM
|
#9 |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
The main thing I notice whenever somebody says "The Xbox doesn't have enough good games..." is that they tend to conveniently exclude games that appear on multiple platforms from the Xbox's list of good titles, but not from the PS2's list of such.
When you do that, of course you're not gonna find games worth owning an Xbox for. I got my PS2 'bout two weeks after it came out, and was horribly, horribly disappointed in it until E3 six months later, and even THAT was mostly signs of things yet to come, as opposed to anything spectacular happening for it right that minute. I'll tell ya, it's gotten to the point where if I'm buying a game that's on multiple systems, I'm buying the Xbox version of it. In some cases, that has to do with content download, and in others, actual online gameplay. So Madden will be online on PS2 and not Xbox - y'know what? I'm not terribly heartbroken about that. I don't care for EA Sports' line of games much at all. Y'know what the last PS2 game I purchased was? High Heat Baseball 2004. Going back from there? It might very well have been Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. That's not an encouraging track record. I had about 30 PS2 games when the Xbox launched. I STILL have about 30 PS2 games, and in the meantime, I'm up to about 40-somethin' Xbox games, and close to a dozen GameCube games. Josh |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:33 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
Not completely, and not for long. Sony's not charging you a dime to connect, granted, but EA Sports could very well start charging a monthly fee with this season's line of games, and EQ: Online Adventures is already the first MMORPG on PS2 with a $10/month fee. Star Wars Galaxies will join that this winter, probably around $13/month. And that's far from the end of it. It's essentially the same thing as what we see in the PC market, or soon will be: you'll have a couple dozen games all with monthly fees, and only a few of them will do well at all, because nobody's going to pay $10/month for every game that they want to play online. They might make an exception for one or two games in particular, but that's the exception, not the rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:41 PM
|
#11 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California
|
What SackAttack said is the problem. I am willing to pay a monthly fee on two games, but beyond that it is nuts.
Yes Sony is free and some games might remain free in the future (as a marketing tool). But Sony has designed their system to allow for subscriptions. They've said that from the start. Microsoft's model is much better. The key is to create packages just like cable. Everybody gets said games for $49.95/year. Than you can add the sportsman pack, the military pack, the shooter pack, etc. Or buy the whole thing for $99.95/year. Or whatver. One caveat though is that the Microsoft model doesn't necessarily work for just one game. And that's where you need to allow for ala carte. In the end that may be what's holding EA and Microsoft apart. If you're just going to play Madden online a package deal doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:43 PM
|
#12 |
|
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jun 2001
|
I suspect EA will go with a flat fee for all EA Sports games for a year, if they decide to make it pay for play. I'd have no problem paying for that, if they do it. I don't care about games like Everquest because those games have never been of interest to me. I would like to see a game like TimeSplitters2 online, but otherwise, it's mostly just Madden that I care about playing online.
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:44 PM
|
#13 |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
I dunno. The Microsoft model is 50 bucks for a year. So far there've only been three games either announced or released that will have a premium fee on top of the Xbox Live subscription, and all of them are RPGs.
If you're playin' just NFL2k3 online on Xbox, you're payin' roughly 4 bucks a month for the privilege. I don't think that's so out of line, nor so unreasonable that somebody who was considering it would change their mind. Paying 10 bucks a month for one game and then having to decide whether to ante up for the others as well...now, that's a tougher call. |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:47 PM
|
#14 |
|
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jun 2001
|
Luckily I have no interest in the NFL 2k series in any format. I've given 4 different incarnations of it a chance (NFL 2k and 2k1 on Dreamcast, the more recent ones on Sony), and I have never actually liked the game. I will stick with the proven winner, Madden.
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:52 PM
|
#15 |
|
High School Varsity
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississippi
|
Oh well!!
I have an XBOX and really like it alot, but I guess that just mean SEGA Sports will be getting my money for games like NCAA 2K4, which I think is going to be pretty incredible. I have always bought EA games too. Like I said before, oh well.
__________________
The Dallas Cowboys!! America's Team will rise again. |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 01:55 PM
|
#16 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
But see, if it's a flat fee, you have to figure it's going to be more than $10, if it's a yearly subscription, and probably more than $10/month, because there's a half-dozen or so EA Sports games that're likely to be online, and they ALL need a chunk of the revenue stream. You say you have no problem with pay-for-play, but if they do it that way, the Sony initiative could end up getting much more expensive than you bargained for in a big hurry. You're already on the hook for the PS2 at $200. Now you need the network adapter for $40 to go online, but lo and behold, you ALSO need the $25 memory card in order to save your connection information so you CAN go online. Now you've got $265 in expenses, and you need at least one game to play online. Okay, boom, you drop your 50 bones on the new Madden. You're up to $315. But hey, let's suppose that EA charges, let's say, $50/year for the right to play EA games online on your PS2. That's a fairly reasonable assumption, since I'm assuming that it'll cover not just EA Sports, but regular EA games on the PS2 as well. You're up to $365, and what you've gotten for that money is the ability to play EA games online. Other games may be free to play, certainly, but having the open architecture makes it more likely that MORE, not fewer, games will be pay for play. Now let's take a look at the Xbox. You spend your $200 bones on the Xbox, but you've got your ethernet port built in, as well as your hard drive. No network adapter/memory card necessary. You buy your Xbox Live starter kit, which includes the subscription information to allow you to go online. Guess what? You've got the full game of Tetris Worlds, playable online, in that package, along with online-playable demos of MechAssault and MotoGP. That's included in that 50 bucks. Those games will change over time, depending on what's new and fresh. At any rate, you're now up to $250. Let's say you want an online football game, so you buy the new NFL game from Sega in August. You're up to $300 now. Figure that the $50/year fee for Xbox Live and the EA initiative is a wash cost-wise, but thenyou gotta consider this - your $50 for Xbox Live gets you access to virtually every online-playable game on the Xbox, whereas your EA fee only gives you access to EA games. You'll still be able to play the free online games on PS2, but as I mentioned, I think you're going to see more pay-per-play initiatives on the PS2 than Sony is letting on. Bottom line, it's costing you $65 more to play online on the PS2, at a *minimum*, and you're getting less for that money. You don't have the voice chat that Xbox Live boasts (aside from SOCOM), so you have to use a keyboard (if you already have a USB keyboard, good for you. Otherwise, add another $20-25 to that total) if you want to communicate at all. About the only thing you're getting on PS2 is narrowband compatibility, which is less of a joy than you might think - games that are engineered to support both narrowband and broadband will necessarily have a less robust feature set, since it needs to be accessible to both groups. Still think the Sony plan is a good deal? |
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 02:05 PM
|
#17 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Troy, Mo
|
I'm with Kodos, have fun with Sega sports, I'm glad EA is backing Sony. Heck, I picked the right console for once.
I think SA is a tad anti-sony? Todd |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 02:09 PM
|
#18 |
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
|
I feel compelled to point out that Xbox owners looking to play online football do have an option besides Sega and EA - NFL Fever 2004 will once again be online compatible (last year's version was the first online capable Xbox Live game) with an expanded set of options in terms of tournaments, etc.
The game itself has been significantly upgraded over last years version, which was primarily focused on becoming Live-enabled with graphics and gameplay upgrades a secondary concern. Not so this version. For those going to E3, take a look for yourselves; for everyone else, keep an eye on it and give it a look in the fall before you make your football purchase. |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 02:10 PM
|
#19 |
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Manchester, CT
|
I own a PS2, and frankly the game library for it is pretty bad.
I don't think the XBox library is any better. I am a very, very casual console gamer, and do not buy many titles at all anyway, but I think both of these systems have a been a disappointment as far as the software aspect goes. When PS1 came out, I couldn't keep up with the good games coming out. So, basically, my PS2 collects a lot of dust because I only use it on rare occassions.
__________________
81-78 Cincinnati basketball writer P. Daugherty, "Connor Barwin playing several minutes against Syracuse is like kids with slingshots taking down Caesar's legions." |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 02:13 PM
|
#20 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California
|
Quote:
Somebody here works for Bill Gates. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 02:13 PM
|
#21 |
|
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Macomb, MI
|
I'm still gonna by my EA games for XBOX. I don't care about online play in Madden and NCAA there is to many ways to expose the AI. And all most everyone I have played does it.
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 02:20 PM
|
#22 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Troy, Mo
|
Marmel,
I'm in agreement for the most part as well. Ico was a blast as well as Rachet & Clank. Except for the usual Madden and NCAA college football, there isn't a great library of games for any console, including the GC. I still play more games on my pc than anything else. Todd |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 02:29 PM
|
#23 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
That's the distinction, isn't it? I'm not anti-PS2. It has some great games that I've enjoyed quite a bit, but to be honest with you, nothing exclusive on it has grabbed me in the last year or so. The games I've been playing have been multi-platform, so I've gone with the Xbox versions of it. I just honestly don't understand how anybody can be thrilled to have bought a product that a) is defective about 40% of the time, b) is grossly underpowered - not compared to the Xbox, but compared to what it SHOULD have been, and c) is basically the 32X when it comes to getting the most out of it. I can understand extra controllers being separate, and I can even understand memory cards if and ONLY if there are no plans for a hard drive for the console. That's not the case with the PS2. By making all this shit sold separately, they reduce the overall market penetration of any one of those products, which in turn reduces the developer's willingness to take advantage of it. What that means is that you're going to see an awful lot of people who dropped $35 on the multitap and around $100 on the hard drive (when it's released) who just aren't going to be happy with the level of support those products wind up with. ESPECIALLY that hard drive, I'm thinkin'. The memory card and network adapter will obviously achieve greater penetration, but I just can't help but think that, at least in the case of the network adapter, people who might have tried online gameplay if it were built in just won't bother to spend that 40 bucks, and that will limit the success of Sony's initiative. It's not that I have anything inherently against Sony or the PS2. Rather, I have a problem with the business model Sony has chosen to pursue. I don't think it benefits PS2 consumers in the slightest, and I must confess to being puzzled as to why anybody would be -happy- about getting soaked that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 02:37 PM
|
#24 |
|
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Macomb, MI
|
It don't help that my PS2 is a piece of shiot. Damn thing wouldn't even read a DVD disk the other day, let alone a blue disk.
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 03:10 PM
|
#25 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Troy, Mo
|
SA, I understand what you are saying.
I've only had one problem with my ps2 after lots of movies and many games, but taking it apart and cleaning the lens did the trick. It's like any other electronic device, you have to service it every once in awhile, if you don't, then get the extended service plan and have someone do it for you. I waited and waited to get my ps2 until all the bugs were basically worked out and I could get a good handle on what the xbox could do. I'm not partial to any console maker, but the ps2 made sense to me. For what I play, two memory cards have been more than enough for me... and I can't imagine what I would need a HD for. I'm happy thus far. Todd |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 03:16 PM
|
#26 | ||
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
Which is fine if your warranty has already expired. Otherwise, you've just invalidated the warranty. Quote:
We still get people coming in at work who have purchased their PS2 within the last 60 days who already have issues with the laser. The bugs are far from worked out. As far as the hard drive goes, there's all sorts of useful functions there. Yeah, it saves your games. Also saves your downloadable content, allows you to rip music to it so you can listen to your own music instead of that awful licensed garbage in the various racing games, etc. Heck, some games are even using the hard drive the same way a PC hard drive is used - spool the level in question to the drive, cut down massively on loading times. It's not all about saving the games, although that's convenient too. It bears noting that the PS2 hard drive will be able to do all of this stuff too, theoretically...but will enough people buy it to convince the developers to bother? Time for work. Later, guys. |
||
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 03:18 PM
|
#27 |
|
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, CA
|
I don't have a console game machine and have no plans to buy one, so as a consumer, I don't really care. But I always greatly enjoy it whenever someone is able to give Microsoft the finger.
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 03:29 PM
|
#28 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Troy, Mo
|
I work with at least 10 people who have a ps2 and no problems to speak of. I bet you can find just as many people who have problems with their xbox, it works both ways.
I'm not getting into a console war, I just find it amusing when xbox people have to justify their purchase to us ps2 owners. To me, it's all about the games, that's where you'll find me console wise. EA gets most of my sport money, so I'm glad they are backing the ps2 more so than the xbox. Todd |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 03:37 PM
|
#29 |
|
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jun 2001
|
Defective 40% of the time.
 Please use a credible figure. Also, EA plans to incorporate the headset this time around, at least for Madden. And frankly, I have little interest in listening to some 12-year old spout off while I'm playing Madden. At least with a keyboard, they may be too lazy to pause and then type out their stupid remarks. What about not being able to use the X-box dvd without buying the extra remote? And what about those X-box games charging a premium above the yearly fee? And do you think that EA won't do that if they ever decide to support X-box Live? So then you would have to pay the yearly fee AND the premium on top of it. So there goes your big savings. You may work in the industry, but you sure seem to be a bit biased/unobjective in the ways you look at things. Also, I'm curious. What great downloadable content has X-box provided so far? Last edited by Kodos : 05-12-2003 at 03:39 PM. |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 06:41 PM
|
#30 |
|
Pro Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Iowa City, IA
|
doesnt really bother me because I don't have X-Box Live.
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 07:26 PM
|
#31 |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
As the only Gamecube "fanboy" on the board (at least I'm pretty sure), I love seeing EA give Billy Gates the finger, as well. See how much more useless that piece of crap green and black thing is.
{insert rant tags here} You'll find very few Gamecube fans who really hate the PS2- they definately have some quality exclusive games (GTA3, FFX, GTA3:VC, MGS2, KH spring to mind immediately) that we would love to see on our system. And you know what- we'd be perfectly content with #2 and, hell, we'll all buy PS2's when the PS3, or whatever it will be called, comes out in 2006 so we can play those great games. However, we almost all view the Xbox is just a powered down computer with Halo. Yes, that's it: It's a piece of sh*t with games you can get on every system or PC. And the only reason people seem to like it is that it looks slightly prettier. I've been able to play Madden and NHL{insert year here} and better FPS's (don't get me wrong: Halo's the best console FPS) for years through the magic of this thing we call a (slowly now) "P C" and it, too, has a much wider selection of games. That's what really gets us: we have Metroid, we have Zelda, we have Eternal Darkness, we have Smash Bros, we have Mario, we have Resident Evil, and we will have Mario Kart and Star Fox and F-Zero and Pilotwings by the end of the year. Yet X-Box is outselling us because people seem to think that slightly better graphics and marketing/image are more important than quality games. "Xbox is a great system": If you tell yourself a lie enough times, you'll eventually believe it, right? SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" Last edited by sterlingice : 07-09-2003 at 02:35 AM. |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 08:07 PM
|
#32 |
|
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Kansas
|
I'll toss my hat in there as well as a Gamecube fanboy, love that thing.
Even though I only own I think 2-3 games for it, it's my personal favorite.I also love to see the X-Box get bashed, not to do with it's quality in so much, as so far it's been one of the few things you'll find MS can't buy it's way into success real easy. But seriously, if we're going to bash the XBox, lets bash the design and such, I thought about buying one, but I don't have the money to throw away on an extra room to store it in. And the controllers, ughh the controllers. I just think the X-Box came around, what, two years later? I'm not sure, and I've seen no real reason for someone who bought a PS2 to need one. Then again, I'm the person who still stands firmly behind the Dreamcast as the greatest console today.  sterlingice- Don't forget to add Animal Crossing to your list of uber GC games! |
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 08:18 PM
|
#33 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California
|
I have all three consoles.
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 08:23 PM
|
#34 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Jan 2001
|
Quote:
You mean the X-Box?  Sorry, I'm a PC man first. Consoles are starting to get tempting but they still have to show me more before I'll consider them. The best games are always on the PC and if a game is successful enough on a console, they'll port it to the PC. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 08:38 PM
|
#35 | ||
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
Oh, believe me, I have put tons of hours into that, but not quite for mainstream consumption Quote:
SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
||
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 09:14 PM
|
#36 | ||||
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
|
Quote:
What's your point? All video game consoles are "powered down computers". Yeah, the Xbox uses architecture that more closely resembles PC's - so what? They figured out a way to mass-produce a console using common hardware components quickly and less-expensively than engineering a completely new design, and yet it still packs more processing and graphics horsepower than either the PS2 or the GameCube. Or are you referring to the fact the Xbox has a hard drive, which expands the scope of what consoles are capable of doing? God forbid that Microsoft advance the capabilities of consoles. Quote:
"Slightly prettier?" Every review I've seen that compares cross-platform games notes how the Xbox version is noticably better-looking than it's cousins, sometimes dramatically so (depending on the effort level of the developer to take advantage of the Xbox hardware). And are you seriously trying to compare playing Madden or any other sports game on a PC vs. a console? PC sports games are a complete afterthought for EA, frequently a year or more behind in the game engine from the console version. Yes, FPS games will always be better on PC's because of the mouse, and if you're willing to keep up on the hardware you can make the game look better. Of course, you'll be spending more on your video card than you would for the entire Xbox, and you'll be looking at it on a computer monitor from a desk chair, as opposed to a big TV from your couch with the sound running through your stereo system. I have nice computer speakers and they sound pretty good, but it's no comparison to the sound I get from my Xbox running through my amp and surround-sound speaker setup. So yeah, you could spend that $2000+ on a gaming PC, or $150 on an Xbox. Quote:
Metroid and Zelda are great games. So are Halo and Dead or Alive. Resident Evil was a great series, but who hasn't already played them all the first time they came out? When was the last great Mario game? Nintendo has the best first party content, but Microsoft's isn't that far behind (Halo, MechAssualt, RalliSport Challenge). The non-first party exclusives have been pretty good as well (Dead or Alive, Splinter Cell for the first 6 months). Of the cross-platform stuff, they're always rated highest in their Xbox versions. So where's your big software advantage? Quote:
Ah yes, all these people have been deceived - the superior graphics, the built-in hard drive and broadband modem, the commitment to Xbox Live, etc. Since when has Microsoft ever been "cool" or had a great image? This is the first business where the advantages Microsoft has with their OS monopoly has no bearing - in order to succeed in video games Microsoft must build their business from the ground up with no inherent advantages - in fact, their complete lack of cool is a hindrance in this market. Yes, Microsoft has a lot of money, but the idea that they're simply "buying" success with all their cash is completely overblown. They've commited enough money and resources to ensure they'll be around for the next generation of consoles, but if they were really just throwing cash around they'd have bought Square, Sega and other software companies by now. Instead, they've shown some restraint and been realistic in their business cases so far. People seem to conveniently overlook that Sony is the biggest consumer electronics company in the world and has plenty of cash to throw around. Not to mention the fact that as the pre-eminant consumer electronics manufacturer with a big chunk of media ownership as well they have a lot weight to throw around in the business and have done so in a dramatic way. Nintendo is the biggest gaming company in the world with plenty of money themselves and has a history of stubborn stances that haven't always been to the benefit of consumers or their partners (for example their continuous decision to use unique and inferior media for their games). You think that Sony and Nintendo haven't been doing a lot of behind the scenes manipulations in Japan to limit Microsoft's efforts with software developers there? The fact that Microsoft has eased into the #2 spot despite a serious handicap in Japan speaks volumes - everywhere else in the world Xbox is clearly ahead of the GameCube. As far as Sony goes, their big advantage was releasing over a year before Xbox and GameCube and their exclusive deal with Rockstar Games for the GTA releases, plus their own huge marketing budget, their influence with retailers due to their status as the world's biggest consumer electronics manufacturer, their influence in Japan with developers and their huge existing fan base from the first PlayStation. I have no problem acknowledging that the other platforms have their advantages - it makes this a great time to be a gamer. But to be a fan boy is to be willfully ignorant of what the other systems have to offer. The thing is, Nintendo isn't going to go away - their first party content virtually assures that, along with their dominance in hand-helds, so crying about Xbox being #2 is nothing but sour grapes. |
||||
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 09:43 PM
|
#37 | |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Troy, Mo
|
Quote:
Put this down for post of the year considerations, nicely said. Todd |
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 09:48 PM
|
#38 | |
|
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Kansas
|
Quote:
I have all three consoles as well; PS2, Gamecube, and Dreamcast.  |
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2003, 10:02 PM
|
#39 |
|
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Avondale, AZ, USA, Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
|
Kodos,
I don't see how you can spin this as a positive development, whether you have an XBox or a PS2. To begin with, I have no desire to fan the flames of a console war, but I can tell you I did a lot of research, and ultimately picked an XBox. Better hardware, built in hard drive, better graphics, Built in Ethernet port. Yes, Microsoft is a corporate death star, but so is EA Games. This is after all, the company trying to charge $9.95 a month to idiots for a POS half-finished product called The Sims Online, then forcing them to call and get a telemarketing pitch in order to cancel the subscription. It may be free now, though with EA, I seriously doubt it stays that way long. I might point out that even drug dealers give free samples. I admit I have an XBox. For it, I like Madden, but frankly, NFL 2K3 was just about as good a game, and I'll make sure to buy the Sega version from this point forward. FWIW, NHL 2K3 for the XBox was far better than EA's NHL 2003, which sucked large rocks through a soda straw. Add in the fact that EA's Customer Support has a well-established reputation for blowing chunks, and I hardly see a reason to get excited. This is a financial move, pure and simple. EA has sunk a ton of money into EA.com, which has *never* been profitable for them, and is trying to recoup the investment, something that wouldn't be possible if they funnel through XBox Live.
__________________
"I guess I'll fade into Bolivian." -Mike Tyson, after being knocked out by Lennox Lewis. Proud Dumba** Elect of the "Biggest Dumba** of FOFC Award" Author of the 2004 Golden Scribe Gold Trophy for Best Basketball Dynasty, It Rhymes With Puke. |
|
|
|
|
05-13-2003, 12:45 AM
|
#40 | ||||
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
You'd be surprised. I really think you would. The newer models don't have nearly that rate of problems, but MANY of the launch models simply crapped out after about a year. Quote:
Okay, so you have little interest in talking to random strangers. What about FOFers you get involved in a league with? No desire to talk smack? Quote:
Look at what Microsoft built into the Xbox that the competition doesn't have - hard drive, ethernet port, four controller ports...out of the box. They gotta keep costs down somewhere, and since both Sony and Microsoft have to pay a royalty to Philips if their machines are used to play DVD playback, it kinda makes sense to only charge that royalty to those who are actually buying it with that purpose in mind, doncha think? Or would you rather pay that extra 20 bucks blindly when you don't have to? Quote:
Roster updates for most of the sports games. Lobby patches to improve the matchmaking experience in games such as Ghost Recon and Unreal Championship. A 28 megabyte downloadable level for Splinter Cell, "Kola Cell." Two new mechs for MechAssault, two new multiplayer maps for MechAssault (more on the way). Downloadable quests for Phantasy Star Online. I could keep going, but you get the point - even if none of this impresses you now, it's a start, and it's only going to get better. Josh |
||||
|
|
|
|
05-13-2003, 12:49 AM
|
#41 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
What, you mean you have a gripe with the Controller S? That's what the Xbox ships with now, in case you haven't been paying attention. I don't see anything wrong with the design of the system other than that. Sure, it's large. It also has more hardware packed in there than either of the other two. [quote[I just think the X-Box came around, what, two years later? I'm not sure, and I've seen no real reason for someone who bought a PS2 to need one. Then again, I'm the person who still stands firmly behind the Dreamcast as the greatest console today. [/quote]One year later, actually. Not terribly significant, especially since the bulk of Sony's first year was crap. Make no mistake about it, Sony's Christmas holiday last year was superb, but if you're going to bash the Xbox for having "nothing but ports," Sony needs a little of that hate too. The GameCube is a fabulous little system, but it doesn't even have half of those ports - its strength rides almost solely on the back of the Nintendo-branded software. Fabulous stuff, no doubt, but its relative dearth of software is a bigger strike against it than the Xbox "having PC ports". What's that all about, anyway? Practically any major PC game is going to get ported to console and vice versa. Is it because Microsoft is using manufacturers whose roots are traditionally in the PC realm that people decry the Xbox as "a crap PC"? Does anybody stop to consider that that's all a console in general IS? Just a PC stripped down for the sole purpose of playing games on a TV? Josh |
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2003, 12:57 AM
|
#42 |
|
Captain Obvious
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
Here is the only problems I have with Xbox.
1. Bill gates is an evil evil man. Ive never liked MS, look at how they tried to force the little guys out of the Windows market. I think they would do the same thing in the console market given the chance. 2. The Xbox doesnt have any multi-generation titles. The PS2 does have some, but not that many This is where the Gamecube shines. I would buy one just to play games like metroid, mario, and zelda. Why? Because they were all some of the coolest games at the time when I was growing up. The only areas where I see the XBOX getting ahead is clever marketing and MS has a better knowledge of the relationship between Hardware and software. Why build a machine that is hard to program for? I think MS one upped the competition here by going with a PC like architecture. It makes it easier to port games, and easier to code games for out of the box. also, pc hardware is really mass produced and cheap. I would say its cheaper to slap in a pentium chipset and geforce video processor, than go with specialized hardware that does the same thing, but costs alot more.
__________________
Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again! |
|
|
|
|
05-13-2003, 01:09 AM
|
#43 | |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
Really? Walk into your local game store one of these days and tell me what gets more shelf space - PC games or console games. Nothing against the PC, but I honestly feel like it's going to be fairly limited as to what you see on PCs from now on. Anything that benefits from a mouse/keyboard, sure. I don't think you'll see those go away anytime soon. But for most other types of games...we're seeing a shift to consoles. Your average consumer doesn't want to sit in front of a PC after work - they wanna veg out on the couch in front of the TV. Josh |
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2003, 01:17 AM
|
#44 | |||
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
Quote:
You're fooling yourself if you think Sony wouldn't do the same. Quote:
Define multi-generational. Xbox has some titles from various companies (not themselves) that have been on prior platforms. Toe Jam & Earl III, regardless of how you feel about it, is multi-generational; we saw it way back on the Genesis. Ninja Gaiden, which is coming, had a predecessor on the NES. Shenmue II had a more recent predecessor on the Dreamcast. Dead or Alive...we've seen that on platforms dating back to the Saturn. Again, if you're going to define multi-generational as having several iterations of a game on a console or that console's predecessors, then Xbox is necessarily behind the curve, and by definition can never BE acceptable in that scenario until Xbox 2 comes out. By that standard, Sony and Xbox should be sucking wind in sales while the GameCube rules the world. Quote:
All a console is to begin with is a glorified PC. It's a stripped down machine designed to do one thing - play games. That Microsoft used commonly available PC parts to do the job and still keep the consumer cost in line with the competition isn't something to be shunned. It's a GoodThing (tm). If you're a PC gamer, knock yourself out. Don't bother with consoles. If the Xbox makes you that defensive that "It's just a shit PC!" is your biggest comeback (and I'm not talking about you specifically, no offense here), then maybe it's time to consider that PC gaming is on its way out, ne? |
|||
|
|
|
|
05-13-2003, 01:24 AM
|
#45 |
|
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
OK, one final comment about Xbox Live before I wrap up for the night and prepare for E3. Apparently at the pre-E3 press conference from Microsoft, MS announced something called "Xbox Sports Network."
Long and short of it: online *leagues* through Xbox Live with the upcoming round of MS Sports games on the Xbox. Now, whether you dig or hate Fever/Inside Drive/NHL Rivals, one thing is clear: if MS can do that with their games, nothing's stopping Sega Sports from following suit, or EA, should they "give in." Can that be replicated on Sony's network? I don't know. I hope so, for the sake of PS2 owners, but I know this much - I am SO there on Xbox Live. Josh |
|
|
|
|
05-13-2003, 05:33 AM
|
#46 | |||||
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't have to throw down $2000 every year to get a new computer. Heck, I spent just over $600 about a year and a half ago and completely redid the entire guts of my machine and it will run everything this side of Doom III. I've had no problems running high end games over the past year like Warcraft III and Battlefield 1942 and I doubt I'll be replacing most of the parts for another 2-3 years. Also, as an aside, you can easily run your computer through your sound system just as easy as your tv is. Heck, you can run PC through your TV but, yeah, that's not recommended (I do, at times, since I have a Radeon AIW but that's only for TV shows I get online) as the quality just isn't up to snuff because comps just aren't configured for NTSC TV display very well. As for the "slightly prettier" response- c'mon, that's just not a reason to own a system. Games for all three systems looks great: it's not as if Madden for PS2 and Gamecube have 2-d sprites on the field and Xbox is using state of the art rendered polygonal figures. If you think that seeing more detail in the blades of grass and crowds are worth a weak game library then you're just helping me prove my point: the Xbox is staying afloat because they appeal to the stupid rich, those who care more for style over substance. As for games for the PC, yes, EA had pretty much mailed it in with their computer versions of Madden, NBA Live, et al, through 2002. However, last year's crop jumped way up in quality as they realized they were competing against their other games now that they are released across three consoles. No, they weren't quite at the console levels but they closed the gap immensely. Not only that but they were released at about the same time (maybe a week apart). This is definately one of the places where competition has been very good: computer gamers are going to get the same quality sports games as soon as the 2004 versions. Again, we're back to basically splitting hairs: sure the Xbox version was better but enough to justify a weak library? Quote:
This is where my main point of contention comes in. Let's play the "which one of these doesn't fit" game: Metroid, Zelda, Halo, DoA3. Three are system sellers and one is a nice second tier game. Not only that, but N has two other system sellers (Smash Bros and Mario Sunshine topped 1M and 500K in sales, respectively) while XBox's second (Splinter Cell) not only went multiplatform but they had addons for PS2 and Gamecube. The Gamecube also has a borderline one in Animal Crossing (sold over 600K copies)- tho that is targeted more towards the youth and female markets and that's probably why you've never played it. Not only that, but for every DOA3 or MechAssault (I'm not even dignifying RalliSport Challenge- it's not in the same league), Nintendo has a Resident Evil Zero or Rogue Leader to match it. And that's to say nothing of the games like Pikmin, Wave Race, Super Monkey Ball, and Eternal Darkness which are quality games on that level. Not only that, but by the end of 2003, Gamecube is expected to have Mario Kart, F-Zero, Star Fox Armada, Phantasy Star Online III, Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Pilotwings, Pikmin 2, a pair of Pokemon games, and Kirby's Air Ride. And those are just the Gamecube-exclusive titles with some measure of hype. There's no telling what games might sneak up on people and become huge hits like Animal Crossing did last year. Sure, Xbox has it's big bomb to drop in Halo 2 but it just counters Nintendo's huge offering in Zelda which sold over 800K in preorders alone. What else does Xbox have exclusive to counter the games you see above (of the same quality: no more sneaking in "RalliSport Challenge" or DOA3 on lists they don't belong on)? Lastly, I know that Mario comment was in typical Xbox fanboy fashion, but really, "When was the last great Mario game?" Mario 64 was the last Mario game before Sunshine and it's widely regarded as one of the greatest games of all time (would you like me to cite lists?) not just for it's gameplay but because it basically created 3-d platforming. Was this just a throwaway insult or is your memory really that short? Fortunately, Shigeru is hard at work on Mario 128 and has even come out publically saying Mario Sunshine wasn't a huge step forward but the next one will be. Quote:
Could you keep your non-sequitors straight? You start off a paragraph talking with a question about Microsoft's image and then launch into a 4 paragraph tirade loosely talking about Nintendo but mainly whining that Sony's beating Microsoft at what is typically their game. (more on the image thing in a second) Also, could you possibly explain to me what the game media has to do with the system? If it's the N64, it's a huge deal because it limited what they can do. However, for the Gamecube, it's a proprietary DVD which holds 1.5 gigs. I'm not sure if this has changed in the last few of months, but as of late last year, no game had filled up a DVD (Enter the Matrix has a definite shot) and a lot of the early PS2 games were shipping a tenth or fifth full. So what if Nintendo uses smaller anti-piracy media? It doesn't take away from the games at all. My favorite argument from Xbox owners is that the Gamecube sucks because it doesn't have DVD capabilities and then in the next breath, I hear about how the Xbox is so great because the graphics are amazing and that makes up for a sub-par software library. If you're so enamored with aesthetic qualities of what you watch and listen to then why are you satisfied with a bargain-basement DVD player? It's just another one of those image biases ingrained from who knows where (anyone played the Halo CD backwards? does it tell you to kill your parents and to buy an Xbox is to know eternal coolness?). Speaking of which... Back to that image argument. How many times have you said or heard said that the Gamecube is a kiddie system or something of that ilk. Just because a system has games like Pokemon targeted towards kids doesn't mean you should not buy it. Zelda is cartoon cel shaded (a fact which I wasn't initially wild about)- is it too kiddy? Don't you just hate tripping over all of those kiddie games like Resident Evil, Eternal Darkness, Phantasy Star Online, and Metroid Prime. Just because Nintendo's marketing campaign doesn't center itself around the awful "she kicks high" motif doesn't mean every game is called Pokemon. I mean, really: the Xbox game most advertised in the past couple months was what we mockingly call "Volleyball with Boobies" after what its fanbase sees it as. Yet another of the near-infinite examples of style over substance. Sure I was happy to get my Gamecube and showed it off when it was new. But how many guys aged 15-35 try to get some extra status by their ownership of an Xbox? I'm sure a lot of you are in denial, but I see it all the time: that loser in Target trying to play some crappy Xbox demo game just so he doesn't get seen playing the Gamecube one even if it's Zelda or Metroid or that dorm rat who, when everyone is talking about consoles, says "I have an Xbox" and is silent the rest of the conversation because the only game he even plays for it is Halo. It's not that you can't genuinely believe the Xbox is the best system for you, but if all you want is a console system to play sports games and FPS's, you need to get out a little more and try something new. But those aren't even the ones I'm addressing here: a large majority of Xbox owners have one just to have one and not because it was a truly worthwhile purchase. Quote:
We started with the "it's just a PC argument" and we've come full circle: your best defense is that it has superior graphics, a built-in hard drive, and broadband modem. I have all of those in my computer and a much better library of games. Not only that, but I didn't have to pay an additional $250 to do it (after additional controllers, memory cards, DVD remote, etc). These are things that are nice addons for a console, but I want meat for my console and that means games. I really wish Nintendo had an online commitment (there's a broadband modem but only a couple of games like PSO use it): I would love to thrash some people across the country in Super Smash Bros Melee or Mario Kart or Mario Party or Super Monkey Ball or F-Zero. But that's not an option and I'd much rather play those games with friends in my apartment than have to settle for playing lesser games. Sure I have to do that on some accounts but I'll take my Timesplitters 2 and birthday-present-in-waiting Soulcaliber 2 (or SSBM- which is much better but, again, I feel the specter of the "kiddie" argument) as substitutes for Halo and DOA3. The step down there is a lot less steep than trying to find the Xbox counterparts to Metroid, Zelda, Mario Kart, Mario, et al. Finally, that Xbox Live online commitment doesn't do you a whole lot of good if EA's lineup doesn't work for it. Xbox Live is that much more worthless if the only quality games for it are shooters. There are basically two ways this plays itself out: 1. EA and M$ will reach some sort of agreement where there's a special EA sports channel on Xbox Live and EA gets to keep a bigger cut of the cash because that is what this is all about anyways. EA is wanting to position themselves so they get a bigger cut out of the online pie without having to pay for it and M$ is wary that yesterday they just released a financial report that showed the Xbox division lost $190M last quarter. This smells faintly of when Square jumped ship to Sony because they knew Nintendo needed them more than they needed Nintendo and so it is with EA: Xbox Live needs EA Sports games much more than EA Sports games need the Xbox. 2. The Xbox fans flock to a lesser quality brand in XSN. It's what they've done all along: blindly playing inferior games rather than making good gaming decisions is what owning an Xbox is all about. Microsoft knows that educated gamers who can only afford one system won't get the Xbox but if they can keep hammering away at those with more money than brains, it will eventually turn a profit. SI (btw, sorry in advance for any delays in responding but I've taken up too much time already with this during finals week)
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" Last edited by sterlingice : 05-13-2003 at 05:45 AM. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
05-13-2003, 08:12 AM
|
#47 | |
|
Coordinator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Quote:
I can understand not liking the XBox because of it's affiliation with Microsoft, but c'mon! I'm insulted at the majority of your post, because you're saying that people who buy XBox are idiots. I bought it because say what you want, the Nintendo library of games did not appeal to me. I owned a NES and SNES for years, and enjoyed most of those games, including the Zelda and Mario series... but then I became an adult. Then I did want a DVD capable system to have as a 2nd player that we could use in the basement to play movies for my son. So, contrary to what you say, I do have valid reasons for choosing the XBox. Why I chose the XBox over the PS2 is mostly because I didn't want to have to buy memory cards. And I thought that the XBox might be able to take advantage of that hard drive with some of their games in the future. I was a little annoyed at having to buy the DVD playback kit, but I had a $25 gift card to Best Buy, so that pretty much took care of that. I am still jealous that GTA is not on XBox yet, but I'm too busy playing Splinter Cell, Silent Hill 2, World Series Baseball 2K3, and NCAA Football 2003 to even fit it in right now anyway. PS2 does have more games, but my interest is pretty limited anyway, to sports games and adventures. Online play was not really a factor for me, so the whole EA Sports/XBox Live thing doesn't matter to me. If EA stopped making games for the XBox altogether, that would be a problem. In a couple of years I might get broadband, and perhaps play games online. But the next generation of systems will probably be coming out by then. In fact, Splinter Cell is the first game I've played in that genre, and I'm enjoying it a lot. It's almost more of a first person adventure than a FPS, because you don't really do all that much shooting. FPS's bore me after a while. SI, that was quite the Nintendo fanboy post. And while I'm not a big fan of major corporations, and Microsoft is low on my list, if they have a superior product, I'm gonna buy it. And I have.
__________________
My listening habits Last edited by Butter : 05-13-2003 at 08:15 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2003, 08:40 AM
|
#48 | |
|
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Troy, Mo
|
If you like Spinter Cell on the xbox, take a look at it through a GeForce Ti card and a 21" Sony monitor - beautiful.
To each their own, I bought a ps2 for the DVD capability and current lineup of games, not to mention a few ps1 games I still play. Xbox owners are a little ticked EA is backing Sony, point blank.. I know I would be. I truly believe Sega has a niche with the Xbox, but not the Ps2. EA has gotten too big and sooner or later Microsoft will realize they aren't the big boys on the console block like they are in the PC world. Whether you like it or not, the ps2 dominates the gaming marketplace, and will continue to do so until the ps3 comes out. Here's a snipit from an article I read today: Quote:
What does this mean? In the long run more software makers will be supporting the ps2 over the xbox. Todd |
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2003, 08:41 AM
|
#49 |
|
Roster Filler
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Cicero
|
Sterling - you are not the only GameCube guy here. I have one, and Wade Moore (is he still around?) had one too. I chose that console because it was going to have Mario and Zelda, but was very disappointed in both. Thank goodness for Metroid.
I think the GC has the best original hardware, but the lack of expandability (no plans for HD, DVD, no network support). To whoever asked what the last great Mario game was - umm, the last one (Mario 64). Its not like it was the original for the NES. The way I see it, there are advantages to all the systems, and some disadvantages too. PS2 - most popular thus most support from 3rd party devs, but has reliability XBox - built in HD, can buy good devs to force exclusive titles. Costs for DVD. GC - great excl franchise titles, but least popular for US 3rd partys, no add-ons. All in all, had I to do it again, I might go with the XBox, because the exclusive titles on the Nintendo were not as good as I had hoped, and I would give anything to stop shelling out money for these infernal memory cards (NCAA 2K3 costs $20 per dynasty to save) and have a HD.
__________________
http://www.nateandellie.net Now featuring twice the babies for the same low price! |
|
|
|
|
05-13-2003, 02:27 PM
|
#50 | |||||||||||||||
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
|
Quote:
I did miss your point here - because you don't have one. Is the Xbox more similar to PC's in architecture than the PlayStation2 or GameCube? Yep. It's also more powerful than either one, and still sells for the same price as the PS2 and only $50 more than the Cube. You make it seems like your point is obvious - well, call me stupid, because I don't see it. Quote:
You've just proved my point. For the amount you spent upgrading your computer you could've bought all 3 consoles. To be more precise though, let's break this down: When the Xbox debuted, it featured the most powerful graphics card this side of 3D workstations, and it sold for $300. Several months after Xbox launched nVidia started selling the GeForce4, a slightly more powerful version of the graphics chip in the Xbox. Cost? About $300. Yes, the cost has gone down on the graphics cards, but so has the cost of the Xbox. I haven't even mentioned the sound chip in the Xbox, which surpasses most sound cards people have in their PC's (not to mention the other consoles). Yeah, you could run your PC through your stereo system, but who has their PC's in the living room with their TV and surround-sound system? Quote:
Assuming everything else is equal (i.e. cost and software library) having a console that has noticably better graphics (and sound) is a pretty good reason to own a console. That's the rub though - whether the software library appeals to you. I'm not going to argue your own personal preferences of software, but looking at the sales of Xbox vs. GameCube it seems that your view is not in the majority. As for the stupid rich comment, you reveal your irrational bias - what about the Xbox makes it something for the "stupid rich"? It's the same price as the PS2 - are PS2 owners the "stupid rich" as well? The GameCube is only $50 less - is the difference between "stupid rich" and sensible now defined by $50? You spent $600 upgrading your PC - does that make you "stupid rich"? Quote:
We'll see just how much effort EA continues to put into their PC line of games. My interpretation of the recent releases is that it was just a periodic upgrade to the line, but I wouldn't expect it to be the norm. Look at it from a financial perspective - the market for PC sports games is tiny in comparison to the consoles. Additionally, EA has no competition in the biggest sport of all, football. Where is the financial incentive to spend any more than the minimum necessary to release PC versions of their games? They may do so for other reasons, but I wouldn't count on it. Quote:
Software preference is highly personal; if the Nintendo library holds vastly more appeal to you than the Xbox library, good for you. Looking at Gamerankings.com though, I'm not seeing much of a difference in the top 20 games available for each system. Most of them overlap - EA and Sega sports games, Tony Hawk, Splinter Cell. GameCube's advantages are Metroid, Zelda, Super Smash Brothers and Mario Sunshine. Xbox's are Halo, Panzer Dragoon Orta, World Series Baseball 2K3, Mech Assualt and Rallisport Challenge. I'm discounting the Resident Evil games somewhat - yes, they've been given facelifts in the graphics department and look much better than they did on the original PlayStation, but they're the same games, and most of us have already played them. I'm not "sneaking" Rallisport on a list it doesn't belong on - perhaps you should do a little more research. You can bag on Rallisport all you want, but you're in a distinct minority on that one - it's the best racing game on the Xbox and is not far behind Gran Turismo overall. Of course, if you like racing games you're pretty much SOL with the Cube - the pickings are pretty meager aside from Burnout2 and the 2 NASCAR games (all of which are also on Xbox). I could also list all of the upcoming Xbox exclusives and try to convince you they'll all be great games, but what's the point? If you genuinely love the Nintendo games like Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Pikmin, Pokemon, etc. then the Cube is the console for you. Most of the good games out there are on all three consoles, and almost without exception the best version is the one on the Xbox. Quote:
First, I'm hardly an Xbox "fanboy" - I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the strengths of the other consoles. Nintendo does a great job with their 1st party titles, which is the primary reason to own a Cube. Sony has the huge library of titles and a few great exclusives like GTA and Gran Turismo. The Xbox has superior hardware and Xbox Live support. In short, they all have good reasons for owning them. It's a shame you can't see past your own bias to say the same. As for Mario, I was unaware of Mario Sunshine. Apparently it's getting good reviews, so I withdraw my statement. However, until that was released, Mario 64 was indeed the last great Mario game - but it wasn't a Cube game. Quote:
My point was that you bash Microsoft for business practices you disagree with but are willing to give Sony a free ride. You can't possibly be so naive as to think that Sony behaves any less competitively and aggressively in their markets than Microsoft does? Nintendo is hardly a "mom & pop" company as well - software companies for years have complained about how they were treated by Nintendo. That was one of the big reasons the PlayStation suceeded - they were easily able to court developers due in part to bad feelings many had towards Nintendo. Quote:
Let's see, a proprietary small DVD that holds 1.5 GB vs. traditional DVD's that hold up to 6 GB - hm, looks like a definite limitation to me. And those 6 GB aren't going very empty either - most games I've seen on the Xbox are 4 GB or more. I think you'll find Halo2 fills its DVD quite nicely. Quote:
That's not my favorite argument, but it's one of several. I'd rate the built-in hard drive, ethernet port, superior graphics and sound ahead of the DVD playback. BTW, nice petty little comment there about playing Halo backwards. Quote:
Yes, Nintendo has finally started catering to more adult audiences, but the bulk of their exclusive content is geared more towards the younger crowd. Yes, Metroid is not a kiddie game, and it's a great system seller. Resident Evil is not a kiddie game, but it's, what, 5 years old now? It was a great game, but I've played it already. Xbox is hardly the first console to feature games with animated tits (hello, PlayStation). And, unfortunately DoA Volleyball is just "volleyball with boobies" - we were all hoping for better gameplay there. That's hardly representative of the Xbox fanbase, any moreso than the 8 year-old kids playing Pokemon on their Cubes. Quote:
Ah, we're all just in denial, is that it? Pot, meet kettle. It couldn't possibly be that not everyone is in love with the Nintendo games, right? It couldn't possibly be that we recognize the superior hardware and the vast potential of Xbox Live? Here's where your arguments are breaking down to reveal the true source of your diatribe - you hold a bias against the Xbox and so you perceive everything related to it in a negative light. You seem to think that people are buying Xbox's simply because they're a status symbol? First, if that were true, that would imply that the Xbox carries a positive status in the first place - if that's true, doesn't that imply that it carries that status because it's something worth having? As for people owning Xboxes and only playing Halo, that's pretty rare - the Xbox has the highest rate of games sold per console in history. Most Xbox owners are also playing a hell of a lot of Splinter Cell, Madden and plenty of others. Quote:
Really? What's the better alternative? If you're playing these games on a console, the sports games are on all of the consoles but look and sound the best on the Xbox. For FPS games, Halo is at least as good as any other console FPS out there, and you can also play superior looking and sounding versions of Counter Strike, MGS2, Unreal Championship, etc. Quote:
How much did you spend for your computer? I rest my case. Quote:
Again, software library preference is a personal call - if you really like Nintendo games that much better, good for you - you have the option of a Cube. BTW, Soul Calibur 2 is coming out on all 3 consoles, so the Cube gets no exclusive argument there. Quote:
Not having EA online with Xbox Live is definitely a blow. However, there are those who prefer Sega Sports, and those more than likely will be on Xbox Live. There are people that prefer the Microsoft 1st party sports games (Fever has sold just as many games on Xbox as Madden) which will definitely be on Xbox Live. Yeah, EA has the leverage here and they're wielding it. Time will tell if their strategy bears out. The cable TV and dish models seem to suggest that the Xbox Live vision of online gaming is a more viable one than the Sony/EA vision. But the real meat of your argument is clear - you have an inherent bias against Microsoft. M$? That's real clever. Life must be easy when you form simplistic opinions that follow popular opinion. So, Nintendo and Sony aren't all about the almightly dollar, only Microsoft right? EA is all about the gamers and not $$$, right? People that buy Xboxes are rich and uneducated and are only doing so because the Xbox carries status, is that your argument? You are the epitome of a fanboy. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
