XBOX 360?

[mikeszekely]

Ho hum, this thing will still lag behind the Playstation 3 by tens of millions of units sold. I'd go so far to say the Playstation 2 will be outselling this console when it is relased.

Kind of like how the SNES guaranteed the N64's success, eh?

Sony won't be on top forever, they might not get overthrown this generation but I suspect Microsoft (and maybe Nintendo) will take some of Sony's market share. Sony is getting fat and lazy, only a matter of time.

In their first try, they've managed to outsell Nintendo, who was the world leader in consoles until Sony dethroned them with the PlayStation. For recent quarters, the Xbox outsold the PS2 in the US (although their cumulative total is still far behind).

Many Japanese developers are jumping on board the Xbox 360's boat, too, including a former Final Fantasy director. If they can start to pull numbers in Japan, they might not win the next-gen round, but their third console could be a solid contender in the future.

[mikeszekely]

Lets face it everyone the PS2 has the best Macross game plus don`t forget PSOne DYRL both can be played on PS3 ... Does Xbox has a Macross !

Except that I already own a modded PS2 to play DYRL, VF-X, and the PS2 Macross game. Even though I intend to buy a PS3 as well, I'd surely get the American version, and if a new Macross game was released for it, I'd have to either buy a second Japanese unit or chip my American unit.

Also, with Microsoft gaining more Japanese support, who's to say that the 360 won't have a Macross game?

[yellowlightman]

Also, with Microsoft gaining more Japanese support, who's to say that the 360 won't have a Macross game?

More importantly, who's to say it won't suck? Macross games don't exactly have the best record for quality, I sure wouldn't but a system solely for Macross.

[Ladic]

I reaaaally doubt a nintendo console will ever again be #1.

I got my money on their next console being the last one.

Edited April 25, 2005 by Ladic

[JB0]

To be really honest, this XBox 360 isn't all that much different than every game console since the Atari 5200.  It's just smaller.  And shinier.  Whee.

What makes it diffrent than the 2600, INTV, and Channel F?

</nitpicky_bastage>

Wireless controllers out of the box, an optical disc drive, digital/optical out for surround sound, most likely support for hi-def TVs...

I was nitpicking the fact that it wasn't that diffrent from everything from the 5200 and up.

Which is true, really. It's more and better hardware, but the fundamental concept hasn't really changed since the Channel F introduced the concept of a fully programmable game system.

[JB0]

I reaaaally doubt a nintendo console will ever again be #1.

I got my money on their next console being the last one.

Why would their next be the last?

They've made quite good money on the GameCube.

So what if they aren't selling as much as the PS2?

[yellowlightman]

I reaaaally doubt a nintendo console will ever again be #1.

I got my money on their next console being the last one.

Why would their next be the last?

They've made quite good money on the GameCube.

So what if they aren't selling as much as the PS2?

Nintendo still manages to make a profit. Nintendo executives have gone on record numerous times saying they'll continue to make video game systems. They have the most recognizeable icons in the industry, just because theyre not #1 doesnt mean theyre going to drop out of the business.

[JB0]

I reaaaally doubt a nintendo console will ever again be #1.

I got my money on their next console being the last one.

Why would their next be the last?

They've made quite good money on the GameCube.

So what if they aren't selling as much as the PS2?

Nintendo still manages to make a profit. Nintendo executives have gone on record numerous times saying they'll continue to make video game systems. They have the most recognizeable icons in the industry, just because theyre not #1 doesnt mean theyre going to drop out of the business.

Precisely.

[Ladic]

time will tell.

[JB0]

time will tell.

Yes. It will.

And for the record, I've heard this exact argument three times now.

N64 and GameCube were both Nintendo's last system.

A few people said it in the SNES days, but they were all die-hard drooling idiot Sega fanboys, so their opinion can be dismissed.

Time sure does tell.

[David Hingtgen]

Hasn't anybody here read about Nintendo's plans for their next system? I'm currently 0% interested in it. Basically---they want to go even further along the lines of the DS---more "gimmicks" and touch-screens and touchy-feely etc. Or as they put it, innovation. For some people that's exactly what they want. But I think most people, both hardcore gamers and the general populace, are pretty much going to want eye-popping graphics from the next gen. Nintendo specifically pointed out that "improved graphics etc" are not what they're going for.

I for one do not want a "vibrating light-sensitive two-handed wireless stylus connected to a GBAmk2 SP via an infrared adapter" to play "Special Edition Flourescent Orange with a hint of Chartreuse (chromed version) Pokemon 7"

I've still probably got more SNES hours than any other system, but I didn't buy an N64 and BARELY bought a GC (and regret spending the money). But I stood in line for a PS2 and my Xbox seems like a better buy every month. Mario and Link won't save the company when they only bring out like one good game per series, per system. And of course, zero N64 Metroid games.

But then again, 9/10 of parents buy their kids a Nintendo system because it's the only brand name they recognize...

Finally---0% interest could be rapidly raised if they announce Rogue Squadron 4, Metroid 4, and a really neat fairly traditional sequel to Mario 64, especially if it has Luigi. As launch titles.

Edited April 26, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[the white drew carey]

time will tell.

Yes. It will.

And for the record, I've heard this exact argument three times now.

N64 and GameCube were both Nintendo's last system.

A few people said it in the SNES days, but they were all die-hard drooling idiot Sega fanboys, so their opinion can be dismissed.

Time sure does tell.

I'm still holding on to the possibility that this new VirtualBoy is going to be Nintendo's last system.

[Ladic]

time will tell.

Yes. It will.

And for the record, I've heard this exact argument three times now.

N64 and GameCube were both Nintendo's last system.

A few people said it in the SNES days, but they were all die-hard drooling idiot Sega fanboys, so their opinion can be dismissed.

Time sure does tell.

yep

[JB0]

Hasn't anybody here read about Nintendo's plans for their next system? I'm currently 0% interested in it. Basically---they want to go even further along the lines of the DS---more "gimmicks" and touch-screens and touchy-feely etc. Or as they put it, innovation. For some people that's exactly what they want. But I think most people, both hardcore gamers and the general populace, are pretty much going to want eye-popping graphics from the next gen. Nintendo specifically pointed out that "improved graphics etc" are not what they're going for.

I for one do not want a "vibrating light-sensitive two-handed wireless stylus connected to a GBAmk2 SP via an infrared adapter" to play "Special Edition Flourescent Orange with a hint of Chartreuse (chromed version) Pokemon 7"

All I've heard Nintendo say in terms of concrete details is "Backwards-compatible with GameCube".

They're being their traditional tight-lipped secreteve sons of daughters about it.

They did say at one point that they could quote some specs, but they wouldn't because that wasn't what mattered. Not quite the same as "we aren't trying for improved graphics."

I was among the gamers that applauded that little speech. People focus far too much on how many megahertz are in the box and how many polys it can push. Soemtimes it seems they're buying the machines for the tech specs when they should be buying them for the games.

I've still probably got more SNES hours than any other system, but I didn't buy an N64 and BARELY bought a GC (and regret spending the money).  But I stood in line for a PS2 and my Xbox seems like a better buy every month.  Mario and Link won't save the company when they only bring out like one good game per series, per system.  And of course, zero N64 Metroid games. 

But then again, 9/10 of parents buy their kids a Nintendo system because it's the only brand name they recognize...

Nintendo also has a reputation as being family-oriented, os if they recognize all 3, they know "Well, Playstation has Grand Theft Auto, XBox has Halo, and Nintendo has Mario. Well, my kid sure isn't playing GTA or Halo."

It really hurts Nintendo in the young adult market, because "OMG TEH GAEMCUB IZ A KIDDIE SYSTEM!111"(regardless of whether the label is deserved or not), but they gain a fair bit of it back with the family market.

Personally, I just saw more stuff that genuinely interested me on the 'Cube than the PS2 and XBox.

Though I acknowledge my tastes are somewhat less than mainstream.

I find most of the "must have" games for the PS2 and XBox to be... well, stupid.

I like the wierd squirrely stuff that the GC is getting the majority of.

Finally---0% interest could be rapidly raised if they announce Rogue Squadron 4, Metroid 4, and a really neat fairly traditional sequel to Mario 64, especially if it has Luigi.  As launch titles.

Metroid 4's been used on Fusion(ick). Shoot for 5.

Anyways, odds are very good the Revolution will have another Prime-style game, which I've enjoyed greatly(despite being one of the people that was very negative about the move to 3D when Prime 1 was announced).

Not to say that I wouldn't welcome a new 2D sprite-based entry that makes full use of the hardware available. There's a LOT of untapped sprite power in the current generation.

...

Ooooh, a new 2D Mario game. Now THAT I'd pay good money for.

[mikeszekely]

They've made quite good money on the GameCube.

No, they haven't. In fact, it was about a year or so ago that they were running in the red for the first time in their corporate history. They've been seriously losing money on the Gamecube.

What's kept Nintendo in the game for the last few years was their virtual monopoly on the handheld market. The PS2 might have outsold the Gamecube and the Xbox combined, but the GBA and GBA SP have outsold the PS2.

If the PSP cuts into the handheld market (which I think it will, but not enough to keep Gameboys from being hot items at Christmas), Nintendo might finally have to start worrying.

All I've heard Nintendo say in terms of concrete details is "Backwards-compatible with GameCube".

Not true. While a lot of what's being tossed about is rumors, real comments have sparked them. Things like how the DS was supposed to innovate, but the Revolution is supposed to change the way we think about games. Things like how they thought games are getting to complicated, and how they want to simplify their games and the method of input for their games so that even a mom could pick up and play her children's games.

We can speculate what that means... be it gyroscopes or buttonless controllers that are one big touch screen. But one thing is certain... Nintendo really wants to buck tradition and "innovate." And like David, I hear "more DS-style gimmicks" whenever Nintendo says "innovation."

At the end of the day, I think Nintendo is right to say that it doesn't come down to technical specs. It shouldn't come down to gimmicks, either. It should come down to games, and even on that front, I think Nintendo's losing it. Don't get me wrong, Nintendo's games are still fun to play... but Sunshine was the Mario 64 with a squirt gun. Windwaker was Ocarina of Time with cel-shading. Some of their best exclusives, like Metroid Prime, are actually second-party games. And if Rare has taught us anything, it's that all it takes for a second party to jump ship is a little money.

Maybe I am a little jaded, but I'm with David... I wasn't very enthused with the N64, and I too regret buying a Gamecube. And while I loved my GBA, the DS is a colossal dissapointment. As of right now, I have zero interest in the Revolution. Actually, I do hope they quit after this one, and become a third-party developer. I've lost faith in Nintendo's hardware and Satoru Iwata, but Nintendo does crank out the occasional fun game.

[JB0]

They've made quite good money on the GameCube.

No, they haven't. In fact, it was about a year or so ago that they were running in the red for the first time in their corporate history. They've been seriously losing money on the Gamecube.

I hadn't heard that.

I've heard it about the XBox, but I'd heard the 'Cube was a quite profitable system.

All I've heard Nintendo say in terms of concrete details is "Backwards-compatible with GameCube".

Not true. While a lot of what's being tossed about is rumors, real comments have sparked them. Things like how the DS was supposed to innovate, but the Revolution is supposed to change the way we think about games. Things like how they thought games are getting to complicated, and how they want to simplify their games and the method of input for their games so that even a mom could pick up and play her children's games.

Thsoe are meaningless soundbites, with no real content.

We can speculate what that means... be it gyroscopes or buttonless controllers that are one big touch screen.  But one thing is certain... Nintendo really wants to buck tradition and "innovate."  And like David, I hear "more DS-style gimmicks" whenever Nintendo says "innovation."

Nintendo also counts the GameCube pad's button layout, the SNES' shoulder keys, and the N64's analog stick as innovative.

One's really nothing special, one actually was fairly innovative, one... would've been if Atari hadn't done it over a decade before them.

Beyond saying I really hope the "revolutionary" feature isn't the rumored scrapping of the d-pad, there's really nothing I can say about this.

I like seeing new control concepts. Everything that works hasn't already been done. But there's no reason to discard something that does work, and work well.

At the end of the day, I think Nintendo is right to say that it doesn't come down to technical specs.  It shouldn't come down to gimmicks, either.  It should come down to games, and even on that front, I think Nintendo's losing it.  Don't get me wrong, Nintendo's games are still fun to play... but Sunshine was the Mario 64 with a squirt gun.  Windwaker was Ocarina of Time with cel-shading.  Some of their best exclusives, like Metroid Prime, are actually second-party games.  And if Rare has taught us anything, it's that all it takes for a second party to jump ship is a little money.

Second-party, first-party, third-party... it's all the same. I don't really care who makes the games.

Nintendo sold Rare because they didn't feel they were getting enough out of the organization. Rare didn't just up and go "Hey, we can make some nice cash by moving to Microsoft."

Anyways, almost everything on the PS2 and XBox is 3rd-party software. Same with the 'Cube.

At least Nintendo has a signifigant business in MAKING games.

Maybe I am a little jaded,

Welcome to the dark side. MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

but I'm with David... I wasn't very enthused with the N64, and I too regret buying a Gamecube.  And while I loved my GBA, the DS is a colossal dissapointment.

I wasn't very interested in the N64 either, honestly.

Well, I was hyped about Zelda 64 and Robotech: Crystal Dreams, but one never materialized and the other was pushed back and back and back and then when I got a chance to play it, I didn't even like it. That sort of quashed my interest.

I wouldn't mind a copy of Blast Corps, though. Or StarFox 64. Oh yeah, and Mischief Makers looked interesting...

*sigh*

I'll wind up with one eventually. Just for the handful of games. Maybe there'll still be working controllers available when I get it.

DS... I need to scrounge the cash up for one. The kind of games showing up on it are the exact kind of wierd crap I like.

As of right now, I have zero interest in the Revolution.

I'm curious as to what it is. That's a kind of interest.

I'll save actually wanting one for when some sort of hard info appears.

Actually, I do hope they quit after this one, and become a third-party developer.  I've lost faith in Nintendo's hardware and Satoru Iwata, but Nintendo does crank out the occasional fun game.

I, on the other hand, would be greatly disappointed.

Sure part of it's nostalgia, but there's nothing wrong with the GameCube that I can see, from a hardware standpoint(aside from it only being available in purple at launch). Heck, it's got the only current-gen controller I actually like.

Aside from that, I don't see anyone really primed to fill that 3rd system slot if Nintendo bows out. And I'd like to see 3 on the shelves in the future. I think the extra competition is good for the industry.

[yellowlightman]

time will tell.

Yes. It will.

And for the record, I've heard this exact argument three times now.

N64 and GameCube were both Nintendo's last system.

A few people said it in the SNES days, but they were all die-hard drooling idiot Sega fanboys, so their opinion can be dismissed.

Time sure does tell.

I remember hearing the same argument about Sega and the Dreamcast, and how if Sega didn't succeed with that one they'd be screwed. Which was almost correct.

Just in case anyoen tries to pull up a comparison between Sega and Nintendo, it's important to realize that Sega was a creator-driven company. A lot of leeway was given within Sega to release games that wouldn't sell well. Which is why the Dreamcast had tons of games that didn't fit into the mainstream taste and thusly didn't sell to well. Sega was also losing money.

The Sega hardware division got axed because it was an effort to make Sega profitable. I suppose that it ensures the longevity of the company, but we'll never see another game like Shenmue or a system liek the Dreamcast, which is a real shame.

Bringing it back to the Xbox and Microsoft, MS has alot of money, a considerable amount more than Sony. MS wants to break into the console market and wants to be #1, they've thrown a lot of money at the Xbox and will continue to do so until it becomes #1. I'd expect MS to announce some new company aquisitions the sooner we get to the next Xbox's release date, much as they did with Bungie and Rare before the current XBox launched.

[JB0]

time will tell.

Yes. It will.

And for the record, I've heard this exact argument three times now.

N64 and GameCube were both Nintendo's last system.

A few people said it in the SNES days, but they were all die-hard drooling idiot Sega fanboys, so their opinion can be dismissed.

Time sure does tell.

I remember hearing the same argument about Sega and the Dreamcast, and how if Sega didn't succeed with that one they'd be screwed. Which was almost correct.

Just in case anyoen tries to pull up a comparison between Sega and Nintendo, it's important to realize that Sega was a creator-driven company. A lot of leeway was given within Sega to release games that wouldn't sell well. Which is why the Dreamcast had tons of games that didn't fit into the mainstream taste and thusly didn't sell to well. Sega was also losing money.

The Sega hardware division got axed because it was an effort to make Sega profitable. I suppose that it ensures the longevity of the company, but we'll never see another game like Shenmue or a system liek the Dreamcast, which is a real shame.

As I understand things, Sega wasn't even turning a profit during the Genesis days. IF you can't turn aprofit with something like that, what CAN you do?

Bringing it back to the Xbox and Microsoft, MS has alot of money, a considerable amount more than Sony. MS wants to break into the console market and wants to be #1, they've thrown a lot of money at the Xbox and will continue to do so until it becomes #1.

MS doesn't care about dominating the game industry.

They only made the XBox because they have the PC OS market locked down, and modern business analysis takes the unreasonable view that if a company isn't growing, it's dying.

MS needs to expand to keep the investors happy. They don't really care what they expand into.

[David Hingtgen]

I think it boils down to this:

1. We all know it's the games, not the system.

2. That said, what do the developers care about? Are they going to try to reinvent every genre to cater to gimmicky button/screen innovations for a single system, or are they going to make "Sequel number 3 to established series" with much-improved graphics and maybe a re-arranged shoulder button for the top 2 systems?

I generally like Square, Namco, Capcom, Konami, and Tecmo. (And recently Bioware) That makes up a LARGE chunk of my games. Who/what do you think they're going to develop for?

Final point: EA. Money, and mass-market. That means graphics. Their ads are little more than pretty screen-shots.

I am not enthralled by pretty graphics. Sure I appreciate them but they certainly cannot make a game better than it is. Best RPG's ever are Xenogears, Valk Profile, and Suikoden 2---sprite-based! But the developers (and to an even greater degree the publishers) sure like to use them to attract casual gamers. I usually rate music as the most important thing after gameplay, and that's utterly independent of the hardware.

Unless Nintendo does "direct brain-input control" there's not many innovations that are going to have developers/gamers come running.

Edited April 26, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Wes]

I'm glad to see many are like me console-wise, but some of you talk about these systems like you got stocks in them. Sure, it's fun to speculate, but hey, for all we know, the Macross could arrive a few years late, streak over X-Box's Mexico plant when Bill Gates is visting, taking them both out(WooHoo! ), and land dead center of Sony's PS-factory, leaving Harmony Gold to claim all intellectual rights to the craft and everything around it, giving them the capital to create a multi-media giant that brings out the most hyped-up system ever, which video game purists come to realize is just a fancy rip-off of the NeoGeo. Hey, it could happen, but who knows? I think if you're not too obsessed with video games you can find plenty of entertainment in any one of the systems out now, and that will probably be true in the next line-up.

But, for fun of speculation, I think there will be plenty of room for three consoles, manly because most people who spend more than 5 hrs a week on games have more than 1 current system at their home at a fairly low expense. I mean, I started with a Gamecube, got it on sale for $130 with Windwaker(was a real good deal then), then, when Macross came out, I got a used PS2 and modded it for a little over $100 total. Now I support my game supply with a Gamefly subscription and some good used, maybe sale-new games, and I have in some cases more than I want. And if I want to play an X-Box game, I just lend out one of the systems to a friend and mess with that for a week. So you see, it's not necessary for one to get the shiney-new stuff at launch and still get their hands on variety, with all the companies getting some money. And who knows which ones will rise and fall, I mean, Apple's still sell, don't they?

I feel the exact same way only I have a very convienient birthday. Anytime anything is released in Nov I get it regardless. Personally, I wouldn't buy a launch system unless I was very interested also due to lack of play time. Was going to get the PSP but didn't like the stunts Sony was pulling so I will wait. Have no interest in the DS at all. Anything else.... I'm likely to get free. 

Now we're opposites in that way; I'm a February baby, so whatever great thing I didn't get for Christmas as a kid I could beg for it in a couple of months. The only thing that sucked was waiting 10 months for more gifts...

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

No offense to the designers, etc... but every damn console I've ever seen has a power button, an input tray (or cartridge for those of you who remember way back yonder), controller ports and memory cartridge areas.

To be really honest, this XBox 360 isn't all that much different than every game console since the Atari 5200. It's just smaller. And shinier. Whee.

Agreed! I too often hear about how this and that looks silly because it won't fit in with my Home theatre set up and other sophisticated-looking eqiupment. It's like they are embarassed that if thier friends are over they will laugh at them for owning a game system that doesn't look cool and high tech because of this pressure to justify the price they paid. If a console looks anything like a toy (take GC for example) they fear it will harm thier image they have of themselves. It's stupid but true. (like when people compare thier mobile phones with everyone else and feel pressured to show off. The exterior says "this is who I am")

MS doesn't care about dominating the game industry.

They only made the XBox because they have the PC OS market locked down, and modern business analysis takes the unreasonable view that if a company isn't growing, it's dying.

MS needs to expand to keep the investors happy. They don't really care what they expand into.

You may have to lose money to start making it. Once you dominate the market, that's when you can celebrate. I don't thnk MS are trying necessarily to satisfy the gamers so much as prevent other companies (sony) from cashing too much in on the "set top box entertainment" area where everything (movies, online gaming, music etc) converge and people get used to the idea of accessing everything through a home console system. In short the games console was going to be this vehicle to start making profit in all these other areas while at the same time, giving the existing gamers what they wanted to begin the uptake of the system as a dedicated game console (and not the dirty "mulitmedia" thing which does lots of things but doesn't excel at what areas the "gamer-only" people want) to appease the early-adopting crowd. After they got these devoted early-adopting people to buy thier system to get them used to trustig the MS brand seriously, hopefully after a time, they could then expand from not just gaming, but other things. (music etc generally being the mainstream gateway to all kind of broadband entertainment accessed from the living room)

The ps2 was a good alternative to a dedicated dvd player for a lot of people who were slow to get into dvds in japan, so I can imagine that a game system with extra features was a big deal when sony first did it because there genuinly was an interest here. (ie peope back then were not expecting this dual ability of game consoles as standard, like they do now so because the console could double as a dvd movie-playing system it helped sales and was good timing on sony's part)

Timing has a lot to do with it which is why we are seeing this generation sort of die out, for fear that if you don't have something around the corner you might let the competition get too much control. I believe the DC totally was destroyed in the US once people knew and were anticpating the next Playstation and because of sony's successful hype compaign, this would have detered lots of gamers from getting DCs. (even though people knew very little about the next PS, it was still exciting to imagine about what this could do before being able to get one)

On the subject of nintendo dying out:

I genuinely think that sony is a big threat here because nintendo fail to understand that gamers have grown up and are now adults. (they got it right with GBA SP exterior design which looked nice) This is why all this pressure to make your system and the content on it "mature", because as graphics, audio, AI, physics technology/engines gets better and better and more sophisticated, people demand that things have more and more realism to match the system's power rather than going to waste. Whereas sony and MS are aiming to better thier game realism (remember all that hype early in sony's PS2 life about how games would start to look just like movies and be almost like virtual reality where the character's behaviour would be like that of real humans with expression and emotions to match? ) Nintendo are happy to go at it all alone, forgetting that third parties are most drawn to a system with the highest userbase (the one the mainstream will recognise) so that they can make the most money and appeal to the largest audience out there to make as much money in as short a space possible. Also the more 'niche' genres your system caters to, and the wider the variety of the audience you are aiming for, the better for all. (both third parties wo want to streamline thier profits, and gamers who have more choices in the game library when they see everything release for thier system)

I believe nintendo if anything are not in the same threat to sony the same way MS are because of this tradition of nintendo's to go it alone. ie Big name, inhouse-made, first party titles being the main draw to thier system more than third party stuff.

In the earlier console wars it was always about the first party titles that determined whose console was going to kick more ass because back then third parties did not make up the bulk of AAA+ quality games. But now things have changed and the manufacturer's of these consoles need to realise that half the battle is going to be about teaming up with the right talent and drawing the crowds who are interested in the properties those third party companies have made in the past. (rewind back to the days when Squaresoft announced they would not be making final fantasy 7 on n64 because the cart limits were too crappy and expensive for them to realise thier cg-graphics-infested wet dreams. The loss of support by a big name company like that was a big blow to nintendo who needed an rpg making company to fill the gap that sony was going to benefit from.

So you see it's all about content for todays systems and established franschises from the third parties. Not just in house made software. Otherwise sony would not have bothered with all this BS "first year exclusivity" crap to prevent the competition from benefitting too much from highly anticipated games by fans of the franchises.

Often the most important thing that determines which system you will be getting is "what games are going to be available for it? And which companies are supporting it" This is no different to the idea of somebody choosing what OS they will install based on what software is available for that OS. (of course now we have emulation and all. But I'm reffering to games, and which OS has the lion's share of the market and overall game support.)

If you are a hardcore gamer, often times you will not care too much what inhouse software your system will have because you buy lots of games often and this is where the third parties come in: While nintendo are spreading thier sequels years and years apart to perfect thier games, third parties are all to eager to keep people busy playing thier games in-between the big name titles like the marios and zeldas and metroids etc If you buy lots of games a week, a month, a year, you tend to care more about a system which has a good sheer qaunitity of good titles. The key to why sony's success in the playstation 1 days. (taking advantage of overall superior third party support) This is why I tell people, if you ever buy a nintendo system also be prepared to be tempted to get another system to supplment the deficiencies in the nintendo's game library. As a stand alone game platform nintendo sometimes neglect a certain "genre" and leave people thirsting in the desert. (friends of mine have often bought a nintendo system at launch, sold it when they no longer played the system to get back the market value, then amazingly when a new sequel or big name title comes out, they bought the system again just to play the new games that are finally out for that system. Its as if the nintendo platform is a disposable item )

Edited April 26, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[yellowlightman]

To be really honest, this XBox 360 isn't all that much different than every game console since the Atari 5200.  It's just smaller.  And shinier.  Whee.

What makes it diffrent than the 2600, INTV, and Channel F?

</nitpicky_bastage>

Wireless controllers out of the box, an optical disc drive, digital/optical out for surround sound, most likely support for hi-def TVs...

I was nitpicking the fact that it wasn't that diffrent from everything from the 5200 and up.

Which is true, really. It's more and better hardware, but the fundamental concept hasn't really changed since the Channel F introduced the concept of a fully programmable game system.

The same can be said for automobiles and people, whats your point?

[JB0]

On the subject of nintendo dying out:

I genuinely think that sony is a big threat here because nintendo fail to understand that gamers have grown up and are now adults. (they got it right with GBA SP exterior design which looked nice) This is why all this pressure to make your system and the content on it "mature", because as graphics, audio, AI, physics technology/engines gets better and better and more sophisticated, people demand that things have more and more realism to match the system's power rather than going to waste.

Pause breifly.

Mature as it is usually used in the context of console wars, especially Nintendo VS the world, usually means A. M-rated software, and B. gore and violence.

GameCube has the HIGHEST RATIO OF M GAMES of any of the 3 consoles. We've come a long way from censored Mortal Kombat.

Whereas sony and MS are aiming to better thier game realism (remember all that hype early in sony's PS2 life about how games would start to look just like movies and be almost like virtual reality where the character's behaviour would be like that of real humans with expression and emotions to match? )

Correction: Sony and MS are putting out powerful hardware and letting 3rd parties supply realism. Neither one has any signifigant console game development facilities.

Nintendo are happy to go at it all alone, forgetting that third parties are most drawn to a system with the highest userbase (the one the mainstream will recognise) so that they can make the most money and appeal to the largest audience out there to make as much money in as short a space possible.

Nintendo HAS made effort to snag 3rd parties on the 'Cube. And get more mature titles at the same time.

Remember the Resident Evil exclusive deal? Okay, so Capcom is allegedly porting RE4 to PS2, but Nintendo still has exclusives on RE0 and the (latest) RE1 remake, and the general belief is the PS2 just can't do RE4 as it exists on the 'Cube.

Also the more 'niche' genres your system caters to, and the wider the variety of the audience you are aiming for, the better for all. (both third parties wo want to streamline thier profits, and gamers who have more choices in the game library when they see everything release for thier system)

I think the 'Cube has the greatest percentage of niche games.

PS2 and XBox cater more to the mainstream.

...

On the other hand, PS2 just has the most games. That gives it a big advantage in this sort of thing. Lot easier to find something you want.

I believe nintendo if anything are not in the same threat to sony the same way MS are because of this tradition of nintendo's to go it alone. ie Big name, inhouse-made, first party titles being the main draw to thier system more than third party stuff.

Then how come world-wide GameCube and XBox are tied for a painfully distant second place?

In the earlier console wars it was always about the first party titles that determined whose console was going to kick more ass because back then third parties did not make up the bulk of AAA+ quality games.

Funny. Most of my SNES games ARE third-party.

The NES wasn't built on Mario and Zelda alone. The Contras, the Megamans, the Metal Gears, the Gradiuses, the Castlevanias, they were easily every bit as important to Nintendo's success.

Nintendo knew this. That's why everyone had to sign abusive license agreements that kept their NES games as system-exclusives. They'd've done it on the SNES too if they weren't trying to lure back developers that moved tot he Genesis and got bit by the exact same sort of license agreements over there.

But now things have changed and the manufacturer's of these consoles need to realise that half the battle is going to be about teaming up with the right talent and drawing the crowds who are interested in the properties those third party companies have made in the past.

How have they changed, exactly?

(rewind back to the days when Squaresoft announced they would not be making final fantasy 7 on n64 because the cart limits were too crappy and expensive for them to realise thier cg-graphics-infested wet dreams. The loss of support by a big name company like that was a big blow to nintendo who needed an rpg making company to fill the gap that sony was going to benefit from.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nintendo lost Square because they didn't care about them. They had Enix. They liked Enix.

Square left because Nintendo had a long and proud history of abusing them and favoring Enix. And Nintendo didn't care. The famous "Square can have a dev kit over my dead body" crap that was going on later was because when Square saw Nintendo didn't care about their defection to Sony, they talked Enix into moving development to the Playstation. THAT was what set Yamauchi off. Not that Square left them, but that they lured Enix into leaving.

Before FF7, the RPG was a minor niche market in the US. And Enix had more respect in Japan.

So you see it's all about content for todays systems and established franschises from the third parties. Not just in house made software. Otherwise sony would not have bothered with all this BS "first year exclusivity" crap to prevent the competition from benefitting too much from highly anticipated games by fans of the franchises.

Sony was doing what everyone had been doing for ages. ATARI had exclusivity licenses with 3rd parties.

Often the most important thing that determines which system you will be getting is "what games are going to be available for it? And which companies are supporting it"

If you're rational. The people that bought PS2s on launch day were buying them because they were PlayStations.

If you are a hardcore gamer, often times you will not care too much what inhouse software your system will have because you buy lots of games often and this is where the third parties come in:

OR you could only buy the stuff that looks interesting.

There are a lot of hardcore gamers that buy very few games because they think most of them are crap.

While nintendo are spreading thier sequels years and years apart to perfect thier games, third parties are all to eager to keep people busy playing thier games in-between the big name titles like the marios and zeldas and metroids etc If you buy lots of games a week, a month, a year, you tend to care more about a system which has a good sheer qaunitity of good titles.

Personally, I got the system that had not the most good ones, but the BEST ones.

I'd rather have a few masterpieces than a lot of not-bads.

The key to why sony's success in the playstation 1 days. (taking advantage of overall superior third party support)

And the NES, and the 2600, and the Colecovision, and the SNES and Genesis...

This is why I tell people, if you ever buy a nintendo system also be prepared to be tempted to get another system to supplment the deficiencies in the nintendo's game library.

I just tell people to buy the system with the games they want.

Eventaully, I'll have all 4 current-gen systems. My Dreamcast and GameCube are serving me well, but I already own a few PS2 and XBox titles that I deemed must-haves.

As a stand alone game platform nintendo sometimes neglect a certain "genre" and leave people thirsting in the desert.

So does Sony.

Everyone has a few deficencies.

(friends of mine have often bought a nintendo system at launch sold it when they no longer played the system, then amazingly when a new sequel comes out, bought the system again just to play the new games that are finally out )

Reason I don't sell my games.

Sure, I may get kinda pissed at my NES occasionally when it doesn't want to behave, or wonder what my 2600 would fetch on eBay, but ultimately I come back to the games. Be it Asteroids, Metal Storm, PN3, Valkyrie Profile, something draws me to an ignored console, I dust it off, power it up, and lose a few hours of my life to a game I thought I wasn't ever going to play again.

Also a strong argument for a Nintendo system.

As I said, in my opinion it doesn't have the most good games, but it DOES have the best games.

Edited April 26, 2005 by JB0

[Black Valkyrie]

From magicbox :

X B O X

- Microsoft announced they will be revealing the next generation system Xbox 360 in Japan on May 13, at Virgin Cinemas, which located in Tokyo's Roppongi Hills. The event actually takes place simultaneously with the MTV Xbox 360 show in North America on May 12, due to timezone differences. In addition, Myst Walkers will be present at the event to reveal its first Xbox 360 titles. Myst Walkers is created by the Final Fantasy father Sakaguchi.

As for me I`ll give N5 a chance (YES I`M A NINTENDO FAN), not only it plays NGC game but it accepts the controller too.

[yellowlightman]

X B O X

- Microsoft announced they will be revealing the next generation system Xbox 360 in Japan on May 13, at Virgin Cinemas, which located in Tokyo's Roppongi Hills. The event actually takes place simultaneously with the MTV Xbox 360 show in North America on May 12, due to timezone differences. In addition, Myst Walkers will be present at the event to reveal its first Xbox 360 titles. Myst Walkers is created by the Final Fantasy father Sakaguchi.

Sakaguchi is waaaay past his prime. He hasn't done anything worthwhile lately.

As for me I`ll give N5 a chance (YES I`M A NINTENDO FAN), not only it plays NGC game but it accepts the controller too.

I no longer have my Gamecube, so I might pick it up simply to play my GC games.

EDIT: Whatsup with the word censoring? Are we all six years old or something?

Edited April 26, 2005 by yellowlightman

[Black Valkyrie]

Seriously guys what do you play lately. Me GBA, classics und Anime games specially on PS2.

[mikeszekely]

I hadn't heard that.

I've heard it about the XBox, but I'd heard the 'Cube was a quite profitable system.

We're looking at two different ideas of profitable, I suppose. Yeah, for every Xbox sold, Microsoft takes a hit because they make less money on that sale than they spent building the unit. However, Microsoft has made great strides in establishing the Xbox brand, so that future endevors might turn out to be more profitable.

Nintendo might make money on every Gamecube sold... but they lose money on ever console built and left unsold. That's what led to the stoppage in production for a time, and that's what led to their first ever quarter in the red. It was largely strong GBA sales through the holiday season that put them back in the black. If the "innovation" in the Revolution turns out to be expensive, or if it alienates more consumers than it draws, they may find themselves heading for hard times. Especially if the PSP takes a bite out of their handheld market.

Nintendo HAS made effort to snag 3rd parties on the 'Cube. And get more mature titles at the same time.

Remember the Resident Evil exclusive deal? Okay, so Capcom is allegedly porting RE4 to PS2, but Nintendo still has exclusives on RE0 and the (latest) RE1 remake, and the general belief is the PS2 just can't do RE4 as it exists on the 'Cube.

But to what degree have they been successful? Viewtiful Joe, Resident Evil 4, Killer 7, and other games by Capcom were only supposed to be exclusive to the Gamecube in the first place because Shinji Mikami threw his support behind the Gamecube and publicly criticized the PS2. Developing exclusives for the Gamecube turned out to be less than profitable, hence Capcom's decision to also release the games on the PS2.

Whatever strides Nintendo has made to gain 3rd party support, they've offset by using more expensive, proprietary media, and by gouging developers on licsensing. If you can only afford to develop a game for one console, chances are you're going to go with the PS2, given that it's cheaper to make a PS2 game and you have a much larger potential audience.

I think the 'Cube has the greatest percentage of niche games.

PS2 and XBox cater more to the mainstream.

No arguing about the Xbox, but I think the PS2 has more niche games than the Cube. I mean, all that readily springs to mind on the Cube is Pikmin and Animal Crossing. The PS2 has stuff like My Street, Parappa, Space Channel 5, Katamari Damacy, Taiko the Drum Master, etc. It's kind of easy to overlook those games, though, in the sea of mainstream stuff that does get released on the PS2. Having the most games has its advantages and disadvantages, I suppose.

Of couse, as evidenced by some of the niche games released on the PS2, the real champion of the obscure was definately the Dreamcast. I don't care whch system they release for, but I definately want seqeuls to Samba de Amigo and Seaman.

Nintendo lost Square because they didn't care about them.

No, as I recall, Square went with Sony because Final Fantasy VII was impossible on a cartridge. The bad blood was less because of some beef that Square had with Nintendo, and more Nintendo being unhappy that Square had broken ties with them and handed their new rival a smash hit.

If you're rational. The people that bought PS2s on launch day were buying them because they were PlayStations.

Which isn't entirely irrational. It isn't only the launch games that matter... it's the potential games throughout the entire life span of a console. People who wanted a PS2 just because it was a PlayStation were obviously very satisfied with the original PlayStation. Despite the dissapointing technical limitations of the PS2, chances are most of those early adopters wound up satisfied. It's because I've been happy with my PSone and PS2, as well as my Xbox, that I'm very intersted in the Xbox 360 and the PS3.

Conversely, it was because of the greatness of the original Nintendo and SNES that I bought an N64, and despite the being less than stellar, the previous success of the NES and SNES had be come back for the Gamecube, which also dissapointed me. After two dissapointments, I just can't bring myself to care about the Revolution.

Personally, I got the system that had not the most good ones, but the BEST ones.

I'd rather have a few masterpieces than a lot of not-bads.

I'm a gamer. I don't watch much TV, because I'd rather play games. I confine my reading to after I go to bed but before I fall asleep, because given the choice, I'd rather play a game. To that end, a handful of "masterpieces" aren't going to cut it for me, because once they're done, they're done. A dozen 8 and 9's are better to me than 5 10's, because that's 7 more games to keep me entertained.

Of couse, that's assuming that the Gamecube had the most masterpieces... which it hasn't. I can't think of a single game on the Gamecube that really even held my interest. The only games on the Cube I even bothered to finish was Megaman Network Transmission and the Rogue Squadron games.

On the PS2, I absolutely loved the Onimusha series, the Ace Combat games, the Megaman games, Z.O.E, God of War, and the Shin Megami Tensei games. I also prefer racing games on the PS2, and did greatly enjoy the Need for Speed games as well, although I realize that they were also available for Gamecube. And for the Xbox, I might not have liked Halo as much as some people, but it was still a fun game, and I also loved Jade Empire and the Knights of the Old Republic games. Also, I prefer sports games on the Xbox because of the hard drive, although sports games for me really means Tiger Woods PGA Tour.

Also a strong argument for a Nintendo system.

As I said, in my opinion it doesn't have the most good games, but it DOES have the best games.

Again, not a big fan of Nintendo's first party games. Haven't liked a Mario or Zelda since the SNES days. Actually, my favorite Nintendo franchise these days would be Pokemon...

...and if Nintendo would happen to get out of the hardware market, wouldn't a Pokemon game on the PSP be grand? Just speculating, mind you, as I doubt that Nintendo would quit cranking out handhelds anytime soon, even if they quit making home consoles.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Pause breifly.

Mature as it is usually used in the context of console wars, especially Nintendo VS the world, usually means A. M-rated software, and B. gore and violence.

GameCube has the HIGHEST RATIO OF M GAMES of any of the 3 consoles. We've come a long way from censored Mortal Kombat.

I'm not a fan of ratios I would rather used total number of games. I'm glad nintendo does make an effort to appease the "mature" gamer, but it feels almost as if they would prefer not to because it is not thier style. (think of all the negative publicity when nintendo first announced "cel"da. People were disapointed they went with the celshaded look instead of the traditional darker look of the n64 OOT. Personally I was glad they tried something new, but the reality is when you've been to as many different boards as I have and seen people's general attitude and perception of nintendo: that they are family oriented, it's usually that they have preffered to let second party and third parties handle that kind of content. People truly love and expect to see realism versus cartoon style graphics to show off the power of the system. They loved the idea that Link could be this adult character, they loved the dark atmoshpere of OOT and that early demo of link fighting ganondorf. When the next Zelda was going to come out, what they were dreaming about were dark and moody and atmoshperic castles with realistic FX and stuff. This is why effects ARE important because it draws you into the world of the game and tells the person, "this is the reason you upgraded to a new system". (not so different to why people buy graphics accelerators to have the best image they can)

Correction: Sony and MS are putting out powerful hardware and letting 3rd parties supply realism. Neither one has any signifigant console game development facilities.

It doesn't matter who supplies it, but the idea that third parties prefer systems with highest userbase and imo are better focused on a specific machine rather than trying to be everywhere at once. Inhous dvelopers are not the make or break facotr in systems success imo as they used to be.

You will see certain companies (both crap and good ones) tend to shrink thier support for systems where they feel the userbase isn't big enough once a dominant system takes the biggest share and constantly expands. This has an effect on fans of certain companies who make on average A grade stuff that you can't afford to lose support from. The very reason nintendo needs someone like capcom to help secure the areas nintendo inhouse may be weak in. Frankly I'm glad they are making attempts to be proactive about it. I love RE4 for example and think this is the kind of thing nintendo really needs.

I think the 'Cube has the greatest percentage of niche games.

PS2 and XBox cater more to the mainstream.

...

On the other hand, PS2 just has the most games. That gives it a big advantage in this sort of thing. Lot easier to find something you want.

I think in general though if a certain niche is under-represented (this refers more to the past because back then nintendos third party relations were not good) it tends to go to a system that might have increased chances of finding its audience. A system where it might be less risky to release the title on. A game in the early ps1 days like Carnage heart, may not have done well on a system where the userbase hadn't already estblished itself strongly. (and if the sales were poor it would mean bad things ie unsold catridges vs unsold cds) The more sales you can get on your title, the more of that niche can appear, the more of that niche appears, the more you will see attempts by other developers to clone your idea. If an idea isn't popular at first, no biggie. Maybe you will sell enough, (thanks to the medium being cheaper and the system being popular) just to make enough profit to survive.

Then how come world-wide GameCube and XBox are tied for a painfully distant second place?

I think it has to do with brand recognition and timing. MS has made a great attempt to enter the mindshare of gamers for its first attempt. (they got a much better online strategy than sony and nintendo have pretty much been anti-oline gaming in the past due to thier belief that there isn't enough profit in the idea to interest them) And people were very skeptical that MS wouid screw up. The next attempt may be a bigger threat to sony then many people think. Don't count them out just because they failed to catch up with sony yet. The fact that every Xbox version of a game I buy is one less version of a game bought for sony's platform must count for something.

Funny. Most of my SNES games ARE third-party.

The NES wasn't built on Mario and Zelda alone. The Contras, the Megamans, the Metal Gears, the Gradiuses, the Castlevanias, they were easily every bit as important to Nintendo's success.

Nintendo knew this. That's why everyone had to sign abusive license agreements that kept their NES games as system-exclusives. They'd've done it on the SNES too if they weren't trying to lure back developers that moved tot he Genesis and got bit by the exact same sort of license agreements over there.

Yeah I know that. But it is ever moreso apparent now than then. Because as costs to make games gets higher, we are seeing the same developers and the same franchises in the top ten over and over again. Big name titles draw lots of the attention away from equally-good-but-less-known software that struggles to compete. If a good third party does to nintendo what nintendo did to others in the past, this could be the thing that drives the hardcore gamer away from nintendo. And that's lots of money now as gaming is more mainstream and hype-driven than in the past.

It is no wonder why a fan of konami who wants to play metal gear 34 would first choose a PS platform as his console of priority so he can have the goodness earlier. Personally I'm scared of this happening, because I feel it is better to spread support out. Once a system does too well, and a successful software developer has less incentive to be original or try to bring freshness to thier franchises and rushes the games to cash in early, (eg releasing a game by the holiday period instead of tweaking it to perfection) it can only mean bad things. The masses might not give a poo (EA games anyone?) but hardcore or jaded people do, because once they get bored they soon leave gaming as a hobby.

How have they changed, exactly?

Before nintendo was comfortable ignoring third parties.

Nintendo can't afford to be arrogant like they were. They need third party content as much as thier own in-house developers to make thier system attractive to the hardcore gamer.

Companies that don't listen or want feedback, poo me to tears. It's why I don't want another monopoly becuase it is a fact that without competition fro msony we'd all still be stuck in a less technologically advanced genreation of hardware. And it's why the n64 did not do well: they did not have a system that could allow developers the freedom to put as much content into the game through a better medium.

Also: Technology and specs IS important. I want my worlds to have the detailed textures, I want my world to push more polygons (the ps1 is superior in this to the n64) so that the 3d objects look more realistic, and I want my system to have the best chances of getting games ported to it from the arcade. (if you are a fans of 2d fighting games, you wouldn't get the same treatment on n64. You needed either a saturn or ps1) Now at the end of the day we can all say "gameplay is all that matters dude..." but it's when your system offers that and the best specs that you have reached contentment. I'm so glad that sony is finally entering into the handhld market because I'm sick of the price of carts for handhelds. GBA even when it was first released is an underpowered system. And nintendo have had the market all to themselves meaning increased prices, less healthy industry overall, and less happy handheld gamers. I love nintendo for the games they make, and am a fan of thier software, but they have been a block in the advancement of technology due to having had it too good for too long. I'm happy that they've been profitable for so long but as a gamer I know it can be better.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nintendo lost Square because they didn't care about them. They had Enix. They liked Enix.

Square left because Nintendo had a long and proud history of abusing them and favoring Enix. And Nintendo didn't care. The famous "Square can have a dev kit over my dead body" crap that was going on later was because when Square saw Nintendo didn't care about their defection to Sony, they talked Enix into moving development to the Playstation. THAT was what set Yamauchi off. Not that Square left them, but that they lured Enix into leaving.

Before FF7, the RPG was a minor niche market in the US. And Enix had more respect in Japan.

Ok but it doesn't change my point about how it was a big blow to them due to crappy treatment. I'm just glad we moved away from carts just as I'm glad we are moving away from them now with the handheld gaming systems due to some competition. It was a good kick up the ass to Nintendo to lift thier game.

Sony was doing what everyone had been doing for ages. ATARI had exclusivity licenses with 3rd parties.

Which is why it is important that MS secure third parties that mean something and why they may be a threat to sony in the future. Whereas Nintendo are more comfortable doing thier own thing rather than competing directly. (n64's library vs ps1's library) There was a huge rpg gap in the xbox library before morrowind. The main gist of what I was saying is that without a broad range of games (from talented developers) you lessen chances of increasing your userbase quickly. As the masses have chosen sony, you've got to compete in terms of sheer number and variety of titles to dominate. That can't be achieved unless you care who you are catering to. Nintendo don't care as much for the adult market as sony and MS. Adults are the bulk of the people who buy the most games.

If you're rational. The people that bought PS2s on launch day were buying them because they were PlayStations.

Agreed. But Sony established themselves from PS1 success singlehandedly thanks to good timing, compatibility with arcade hardware, good prtnerships (namco), good third party support, a focus on 3d. These factors lead to the doanfall of saturn (specialised in 2d) and n64 (cart based gaming) and they had no competition so it was easy for them to be successful with ps2. With MS this next go is ther chance to hopefully bite into pie early and not give sony so much of a lead. By forcing people to choose the system by securing the best companies and franchises, sony's domination can finally be challenged. In stead of just blindly choosing the system that already has the most marketshare, people will have to think more about which system is worth owning based on content, not because other system are simply dead. (like n64 and saturn)

OR you could only buy the stuff that looks interesting.

There are a lot of hardcore gamers that buy very few games because they think most of them are crap.

Maybe they are right. But those kinds of people probably haven't had a chance to try them to confirm. I would say that overall, if you've played most of the top games and still want something more (All systems have great games on them) you are better off having experienced what those other games have to offer form third parties if you are just itching for something new. (don't just play games that are in the top ten, or get high ratings from reviewers)

Everyone has different taste but the more third parties you attract, the more chance of seeing something original, new and interesting. I remember a little known sim on ps1 called carnage heart. It is the kind of thing you wouldn't say stands out amoungst all the best stuff but it was interesting game nonetheless. Then there are the 'dying niche' type games that are garuanteed to not get the highest scores or the biggest hype due to not using the latest fx. Games like Castlevania SOTN on ps1, or just a port of a simple arcade game that many mainstream reviewers couldn't care much about like raiden. Just because they are not the best, doesn't mean they weren't worth experiencing. I love the ability to have lots of choice in a library.

And the NES, and the 2600, and the Colecovision, and the SNES and Genesis...

But nintendo failed to do that in the n64 period which is how people who play games measure "success". A system is successful when there are a superior library of good third party (and first party) titles to choose from. This is the basis for why there are console rivalries and people needing to buy more than one console if thier favourite games or company defects or doesn't show much support for a system they buy. You don't dominatethe market by pissing fans off or limiting thier choices.

I think GC is nintendo's first step into redeeming themselves. I like the system much more then the ps2.

So does Sony.

Everyone has a few deficencies

Maybe but not as much as the other two. Again to dominate means superior userbase, which gets developer support, which leads to more game sales and thus more profits, and expansion. More games are then rleased taking more shelf space, leading to retailers devoting more space to the 'winning' system.

I just tell people to buy the system with the games they want.

Eventaully, I'll have all 4 current-gen systems. My Dreamcast and GameCube are serving me well, but I already own a few PS2 and XBox titles that I deemed must-haves.

Same here. You're happier when you research the games and reflect on your own tastes. Not all games are designed t be enjoyed by everyone. And there is only so much time in the day after all, so by at least knowing something about each game you have at least saved yourself some time and effort by avoiding the crap.

Reason I don't sell my games.

Sure, I may get kinda pissed at my NES occasionally when it doesn't want to behave, or wonder what my 2600 would fetch on eBay, but ultimately I come back to the games. Be it Asteroids, Metal Storm, PN3, Valkyrie Profile, something draws me to an ignored console, I dust it off, power it up, and lose a few hours of my life to a game I thought I wasn't ever going to play again.

Also a strong argument for a Nintendo system.

As I said, in my opinion it doesn't have the most good games, but it DOES have the best games.

I keep the classics based on a gameplay consideration, sell the stuff I don't want and at least get the market value out of those ones that I've played so I can use that money to pay for other game I might want to keep. Not all games are even worth keeping. The guy who sells his system after owning and playing the AAA stuff and being done with it, isn't an example of somebody who hates nintendo or anything, just that at the time, it would have been a wise choice based on the idea that as console hardware prices go down over time due to retail price cuts, he is getting back closer to the value he paid for the system than if he kept the system and did not do anything with it for ages. (during this time he may have just wanted to use the money to buy something else he wanted, which is fair enough)

As for the title of "best games" that is all in people's heads. Everytime a poll of the best games is done in a gameforum, there are list of different titles no one can ever agree on what is best. Just like those lifestyle mags that choose the most beautiful man and women based on popularity.

My view is there is no best game because game developers leap frog each other in quality over time. What you thought was great 5 years ago becomes standard (and almost unplayable) for average developers to achieve later as the bar for quality is raised, and the demands from fans are heightened exponentially to reflect the times they are living in. It is true you can go back to old games to play them out of nostalgia but I prefer playing enhanced versions of them if I can, barring those games that are truly timeless. (for eg I used to love super metroid but it isn't the tpe of game you play over and over again non-stop especially if you were a perfectionist like I was when playing it for the first time and are now sick to death of it)

One of the things that worries me is this: as developers get fatter, costs to make worthwhile games increase, we might reach a point where we see little improvement over what has gone before. There may be a chance that a good talented developer loses its magic. (it can happen to all software developers) Sure the hardware and production values of games has risen, but that fuzzy feeling you get when you experience a new game is gone as originality fades and people become more jaded. I'm not trying to point out that we've already lived through a game "golden age" or anything, just that as more and more developers are bought and owned by bigger companies, some of that individual touch is missing and things have a more mass-produced, manufactured feel to it. (even miyamoto's stuff) That's one thing I think nintendo are good for in the industry. I believe they genuinely want to branch out into something new not just to save themselves but because it is needed to maintain that "fuzzy" feeling of excitment that I mentioned earlier when you play a game that is way before its time, is both addictive and balanced/well-thought-out, and you can't stop.

Edited April 26, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Black Valkyrie]

With all these console wars sometimes I start to loose interest, even sometimes I wish they loose their business.

When you look to it now its more about console power than gameplay

Pacman creator not long ago said if the game companies continue this way then they`ll loose all their business, no more consoles and no more games.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Well I'm actually looking forward to the next GBA. (not the DS. For some reason I just don't feel compelled to get one..for now)

I hope GBA2 will be the true psp killer or at least result in some fierce competition like the days of sega vs nintendo. But I'm worried that there is too much hardware released at once which wil divert the software companies' attention. You might have heaps of shovelware and like 1 or 2 good games that are good, but not the "killer-app" kind of good.

..and then..bang MS themselves decide to compete in handheld market, making it even more fragmented. I always felt that nintendos threat was the wireless gaming that mobile phones might offer. I'm glad the ngage thing died! The prophets of doom could have thier day when it all collapses, but I think it will survive. I just feel nintendo see themselves as more of a toy company than high tech sophisticated gadgets kind of company. (whereas extra features on the other two companies are multimedia add ons, nintendo gimmicks are gameplay related in some wierd way, or at least they try to be - again this reflects the difference in atittudes: one is gadget focused, the other is family oriented fun, attracting people who are not necessarily the hardcore type, to get into gaming. eg the donkey kong game with the bongos.)

Pacman creator not long ago said if the game companies continue this way then they`ll loose all their business, no more consoles and no more games.

I think it will be here to stay, it will just get to a point where people are sick of playing the same stuff and stop buying at the rate they were. Maybe people will abandon consoles altogether and go back to pc games or just play emulated old classics.

Edited April 26, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Black Valkyrie]

Man !!!!!!!!!!!! if N64 was a CD based console things would be different now.

[yellowlightman]

When you look to it now its more about console power than gameplay

That's really not true, there's still a lot of games out there with really solid gameplay. The last two games I bought (Halo2 and Outrun2) had fantastic gameplay, Outrun2 is probably one of the greatest arcade games of all time.

I'm not a big graphics whore, I think the most beautiful games tend to be 2D, but some games are just unplayable because of their graphics. Tried going back and playing those N64, Playstation or 3D Saturn games? It's painful going back to those games.

My bigger complaint with graphics comes from games like the GTA series, where the gameply is there but the graphics blow. If the games had been designed for the GC or XBox, they wouldn't look like the ass they look like. The same can be said for a lot of PS2 games. Does it ruin the game? No, it's just frustrating to know that it could be better.

Pacman creator not long ago said if the game companies continue this way then they`ll loose all their business, no more consoles and no more games.

Given that the video games industry is bigger than the movie industry and growing, that won't be happening anytime soon. The three-company setup in the industry right now almost guarantees there won't be a repeated Atari fiasco as well, if one company messes up, there's two more to take it's place...

[Black Valkyrie]

When you look to it now its more about console power than gameplay     

That's really not true, there's still a lot of games out there with really solid gameplay. The last two games I bought (Halo2 and Outrun2) had fantastic gameplay, Outrun2 is probably one of the greatest arcade games of all time.

I'm not a big graphics whore, I think the most beautiful games tend to be 2D, but some games are just unplayable because of their graphics. Tried going back and playing those N64, Playstation or 3D Saturn games? It's painful going back to those games.

My bigger complaint with graphics comes from games like the GTA series, where the gameply is there but the graphics blow. If the games had been designed for the GC or XBox, they wouldn't look like the ass they look like. The same can be said for a lot of PS2 games. Does it ruin the game? No, it's just frustrating to know that it could be better.

Pacman creator not long ago said if the game companies continue this way then they`ll loose all their business, no more consoles and no more games.

Given that the video games industry is bigger than the movie industry and growing, that won't be happening anytime soon. The three-company setup in the industry right now almost guarantees there won't be a repeated Atari fiasco as well, if one company messes up, there's two more to take it's place...

But very little. Outrun2 yes and 2D games are the best.

[bandit29]

When you look to it now its more about console power than gameplay      

That's really not true, there's still a lot of games out there with really solid gameplay. The last two games I bought (Halo2 and Outrun2) had fantastic gameplay, Outrun2 is probably one of the greatest arcade games of all time.

I'm not a big graphics whore, I think the most beautiful games tend to be 2D, but some games are just unplayable because of their graphics. Tried going back and playing those N64, Playstation or 3D Saturn games? It's painful going back to those games.

My bigger complaint with graphics comes from games like the GTA series, where the gameply is there but the graphics blow. If the games had been designed for the GC or XBox, they wouldn't look like the ass they look like. The same can be said for a lot of PS2 games. Does it ruin the game? No, it's just frustrating to know that it could be better.

Pacman creator not long ago said if the game companies continue this way then they`ll loose all their business, no more consoles and no more games.

Given that the video games industry is bigger than the movie industry and growing, that won't be happening anytime soon. The three-company setup in the industry right now almost guarantees there won't be a repeated Atari fiasco as well, if one company messes up, there's two more to take it's place...

But very little. Outrun2 yes and 2D games are the best.

Well that's a matter of opinion. There are/were alot of horrible 2D games.

Most 2D games age better though. 3D PS1/Saturn and N64 look horrible now.

I'm not too excited about the next generation of gaming. I'm still enjoying what we have now. Do X-Box gamers feel the need to upgrade?

And I really don't care about Nintendo anymore. The Lamecube has been disappointing. Mine's been collecting dust. Better than the turd that was the N64 but still not that great. The GBA SP is cool but the DS seems like it was a mistake. Hardly any games for that and its been out since Christmas. I haven't loved Nintendo since the SNES.

Edited April 26, 2005 by dejr8bud

[mikeszekely]

I hope GBA2 will be the true psp killer or at least result in some fierce competition like the days of sega vs nintendo.

Unlikely. In terms of raw power, the PSP is likely to hold the title for awhile. The next GBA, which is still only a rumor started by analyst predictions and nothing official from Nintendo, isn't likely to be huge leaps and bounds over the current GBA. The analysts who are predicting a new Gameboy are also predicting that it says under $100.

Still, while I believe that the PSP will capture a good section of the handheld market, I think there's plenty of room for the Gameboy yet. Pokemon is still a strong seller, and let's face it, parents are unlikely to spend $250 to get a handheld system for a 4-10 year old who is likely to lose or break it.

..and then..bang MS themselves decide to compete in handheld market, making it even more fragmented.

Actually, Microsoft has thrown their support behind the Gizmondo. Which, aside from the prohibitively high price (Sony could get away with it you know developers are going to support it), I'd be have tempted to get just for Momma, Can I Mow the Lawn?

Edited April 26, 2005 by mikeszekely