 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Nintendo / GameCube / December 2004Xbox 2 in 2005 - Revolution in 2006.
http://cube.ign.com/mail.html Zelda, Revolution, Xbox 2 "i have a quick question with revolution coming next year why would nintendo release a zelda game for gamecube?wouldn't make more sense for it to come out on the new system?also what is the make of the plasma screen you brought?thanks" Matt responds: "Well, Revolution isn't coming out in 2005. It's scheduled to release in 2006 alongside Sony's PlayStation 3. Microsoft will release the successor to Xbox in 2005. And by the way, if there is still any doubt about this happening, now's the time to put it to rest. I've seen some holiday 2005 plans from publishers and several of them have major Xbox 2 titles scheduled for next November. I could name specific franchises and brand new IPs. It's really happening. And from the looks of it, there are going to be some pretty impressive launch titles." so that's almost confirmed. Xbox 2 in 2005, Nintendo Revolution (their next console) in 2006. nothing new, but nice to have things solidifing, at least somewhat. as far as ATI graphics, we could now assume that Xbox 2 is going to have R500 or R5XX graphics and that Nintendo Revolution will most likely have somewhat more advance graphics, maybe of R600 calibur. that is not to say that Revolution is getting an R600. it is likely to be something custom to Nintendo, but probably roughly on par with R600, more or less, and therefore probably more powerful than Xbox 2, just going on timetable alone. Mmmm, don't you think 4 years is a pretty short lifespan for a conosle system..? > http://cube.ign.com/mail.html > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Nintendo, but probably roughly on par with R600, more or less, and therefore > probably more powerful than Xbox 2, just going on timetable alone. > Mmmm, don't you think 4 years is a pretty short lifespan for a conosle > system..? Yeah, but MS knows that the only way they can gain significant ground on Sony (they don't care about Nintendo, and neither does Sony) in the next generation is to 1) launch first, 2) have better hardware and 3) have a killer app launch title and some killer exclusives. I think the chances of all these things coming to pass are slim indeed, and launching early can be a huge disadvantage if it's done wrong (eg. Dreamcast). IMO launching early also puts a lot more pressure on MS to make the Xbox 2 backwards compatible, which is also pretty unlikely. A lot of factors will have to come together for Xbox 2 to grab any real market share away from Sony. Fall 2005 to fall 2006 is going to be a *very* interesting time. -Z- The thing is, Halo 2 was only just relesaed so what will be their main launch title? Rare isn't that reliable ever since they started losing people from the N64 era. If they don't get a great looking Perfect Dark 2, then Xbox 2 is be a bigger flop then the DC. I personally won't be surpsied if they miss that mark of Xmas of 2005 seeing that problems always arise in either hardware issues to a underperpared launch lineup. With the new handhelds, you can see that both Nintendo and Sony have left it to the last minute to get their systems out before Xmas. They know this is the most important time of the year and Sony left it too late for the US lanuch. Now it will be hard for them to make any great market penetration until they start releasing big titles later next year. > > Mmmm, don't you think 4 years is a pretty short lifespan for a conosle > > system..? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -Z- > The thing is, Halo 2 was only just relesaed so what will be their main > launch title? Rare isn't that reliable ever since they started losing > people > from the N64 era. If they don't get a great looking Perfect Dark 2, then > Xbox 2 is be a bigger flop then the DC. Isn't that last comment taking things a little too far? One game isn't going to make or break any console nowadays IMO. Anyway, the DC had plenty of great looking games with great playability ... didn't exactly help much overall in the scheme of things. Seb  SignatureSebastian Kinnaird >> If they don't get a great looking Perfect Dark 2, >> then Xbox 2 is be a bigger flop then the DC. > > Isn't that last comment taking things a little too far? One game > isn't going to make or break any console nowadays IMO. You'll have to forgive Todd. Between the blind Nintendo fanboyism and his unnatural love for koalas, the kid isn't right in the head. But you probably figured that out from his delusional leaps of logic and his barely decipherable spelling. -Z- On 16/11/04 12:25 pm, in article 2vu9f0F2p8gkpU1@uni-berlin.de, "Sebastian Kinnaird" <essdeekay.nospam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> The thing is, Halo 2 was only just relesaed so what will be their main >> launch title? Rare isn't that reliable ever since they started losing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Seb Exactly. Although often it can feel like one game makes a machine. I wonder what the situation would be like now if MS or Nintendo had exclusive rights to GTA. How good it is is irrelevant, as the DC shows. Zo Well using the word flop was a bit strong, but the games are what in the end make or break you. What would MS be without Halo? Americans love those type of games to death, and Halo and Halo 2 are the best selling games ont he Xbox. Sega's reasons for failing are many, but Sega lasted that long with the help of their name in the industry. MS on the other hand has no room to fail, though they have endless mounttains of money, that means nothing if no-one buys its system. I'm just being realistic here. I personally don't care in the long run if MS pulls it off or not in the US, seeing as Sony will always have a strangle hold on the industry because it owns Japan outright. You MS fangirls can squeal all you want in joy with your Halos and other lame-a.s American gaming plots and pretty pictures... > On 16/11/04 12:25 pm, in article 2vu9f0F2p8gkpU1@uni-berlin.de, "Sebastian > Kinnaird" <essdeekay.nospam@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Zo > MS on the other hand has no room to fail, > though they have endless mounttains of money, that means nothing if no-one > buys its system. i think MS has already proven itself to be dedicated to console gaming with the xbox. i was never a fan of the xbox, and i still aint a fan of MS, but i must admit they have done a good job of promoting their console and maintaining an excellent (currently the best) online solution. online gaming isnt what i am into, but many people out there are into online gaming, and i can see the xbox 2 doing well on the strength of xbox live alone. > i think MS has already proven itself to be dedicated to console gaming > with the xbox. i was never a fan of the xbox I think it's more accurate to say that they're dedicated to dominating as many markets as they can get away with which are vaguely related to computers. They don't give a toss about "console gaming" except as a means to that end. -Miles Signature`...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.' [The Economist] Microsoft's only focus is to keep its accounts full, not making good games. They can't totally rely on their buggy OS and PC related products forever, so instead they copied Sony's market plan but they will never reach Sony's high becasue they are an American company. > > i think MS has already proven itself to be dedicated to console gaming > > with the xbox. i was never a fan of the xbox [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products > less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.' [The Economist] > Microsoft's only focus is to keep its accounts full, not making good > games. They can't totally rely on their buggy OS and PC related > products forever, so instead they copied Sony's market plan but they > will never reach Sony's high becasue they are an American company. You have a major case of Japanese envy, Todd. Go f.ck a koala. -Z- > Americans > love those type of games to death, and Halo and Halo 2 are the best > selling games ont he Xbox. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: englighten as to what kinds of games Australians like. Your fellow countrymen on this NG must cringe every time you open that flapping maw of yours. > MS on the other hand has no > room to fail, though they have endless mounttains of money, that > means nothing if no-one buys its system. And the Xbox is outselling your beloved Gamecube, a console made by the oldest name in the business that costs $50 less. > I'm just being realistic here. You've never been realistic in your life. > I personally don't care in the long > run if MS pulls it off or not in the US Oh yes you do. You'd cry yourself to sleep at night if MS succeeded. > seeing as Sony will always > have a strangle hold on the industry That's what they used to say about Nintendo. > You MS fangirls can squeal all you want in joy with your Halos and > other lame-a.s American gaming plots and pretty pictures... And you can go back to playing brooding hermaphrodites in Japanese RPGs with more cutscenes than gameplay. I'll take Jade Empire any day, thanks. -Z- > > You MS fangirls can squeal all you want in joy with your Halos and > > other lame-a.s American gaming plots and pretty pictures... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Z- This is certainly not a support for the ultimate Nintendo fanboy there in any way....., but just how do you take a game that doesn't exist? I'm just curious. > This is certainly not a support for the ultimate Nintendo fanboy there > in any way....., but just how do you take a game that doesn't exist? > I'm just curious. Based on Bioware's spotless reputation, the strength of KOTOR and the two builds of the game I've had a chance to play thus far. Jade Empire is shaping up to be KOTOR-quality but with real-time fighting. I'm actually way more stoked for it than for KOTOR II. -Z- Heh, I always roll my eyes when guys here use the word 'fanboy' all the time. I may enjoy Nintendo franchises the most but I don't let gaming rule my life like a lot of people I know. Its not my fault I enjoy games that don't require killing... > > > You MS fangirls can squeal all you want in joy with your Halos and > > > other lame-a.s American gaming plots and pretty pictures... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in any way....., but just how do you take a game that doesn't exist? > I'm just curious. > Heh, I always roll my eyes when guys here use the word 'fanboy' all the > time. I may enjoy Nintendo franchises the most but I don't let gaming rule > my life like a lot of people I know. > > Its not my fault I enjoy games that don't require killing... So you don't like Zelda, Metroid Prime or Mario games? That Aussie tosser Todd wrote: > Its not my fault I enjoy games that don't require killing. No, but if one of Sony or MSFT's first-party developers created a game in which you played a dingo mauling babies by using your sphincter to manipulate a digeridoo peripheral, you'd be camped out the night before it was released. Signature"It's a salty dog. Drink it, you pussy." > No, but if one of Sony or MSFT's first-party developers created a game > in which you played a dingo mauling babies by using your sphincter to > manipulate a digeridoo peripheral, you'd be camped out the night > before it was released. Todd is currently doing a frantic search for "digeridoo peripheral" on Lik-Sang.com. -Z- In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Sebastian Kinnaird <essdeekay.nospam@hotmail.com> wrote: > Isn't that last comment taking things a little too far? One game isn't > going to make or break any console nowadays IMO. Metal Gear Solid 2. The promise of this game alone helped drive PS2 sales early on even when its released library really wasn't all that great. I can remember SSX being one of the best games for the console almost a year after it was released... > Anyway, the DC had plenty of great looking games with great playability ... > didn't exactly help much overall in the scheme of things. Ah, but it didn't have an overwhelming "Gotta get it!" type of game, at least nothing with the wide appeal of, say, a Metal Gear Solid, Halo, Mario game. Yes, it had some great games, but many of them didn't start appearing until almost a year after the console had been released - and then Sega killed it. Then again, Sega was already on the ropes even before they released the DC. They'd already burned their customers with the Sega Saturn - which I would argue was a better platform AND had some killer games for it even with its short time on the market. > In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Sebastian Kinnaird > <essdeekay.nospam@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > after > it was released... So in that paragraph alone you've stated two games. IMO, neither of which 'made' or 'broke' the PS2 - spurred sales, yes, but that's not quite the same thing. > Then again, Sega was already on the ropes even before they released the > DC. They'd already burned their customers with the Sega Saturn - which > I would argue was a better platform AND had some killer games for it even > with its short time on the market. Yeah, it was a shame it was short-lived but as Sega now makes games for PS2, Xbox and GC it's made a lot more people happy which is always good. Seb SignatureSebastian Kinnaird > > Mmmm, don't you think 4 years is a pretty short lifespan for a conosle > > system..? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > generation is to 1) launch first, 2) have better hardware and 3) have a > killer app launch title and some killer exclusives. I think the chances of perhaps you can explain how it's possible to accomplish 1) and 2) at the same time? It sort of goes against the logic of progress (not to mention Moore's Law). I'm pretty sure either Sony or MS would hire you in an instant if you have the secret formula to pulling off that miracle, and I don't mean a shorter than 3 month launch advantage either, because that's kinda meaningless, unless the 3 month actually spans across Christmas, in which case engineers and marketing strategist in the late launching company should be shot for making such an obvious mistake. > perhaps you can explain how it's possible to accomplish 1) and 2) at > the same time? Xbox 2 and PS3 will be such wildly different machines from the CPUs through the GPUs that it's conceivable Xbox 2 could launch first and still be more powerful in some respects, or (and this is pretty much a given) be less powerful on paper but much easier to program for, and thus much easier for developers to use the hardware to its potential. But you're right, what I should have said was launch first with hardware that's still competitive when the PS3 comes out. -Z- > > perhaps you can explain how it's possible to accomplish 1) and 2) at > > the same time? > > Xbox 2 and PS3 will be such wildly different machines from the CPUs through > the GPUs that it's conceivable Xbox 2 could launch first and still be more > powerful in some respects, or (and this is pretty much a given) be less if that really did occur, then it proves that Sony really screwed up with their strategy to go the Cell route, and that the entire Cell idea was wrong, if a competing console could come out earlier and still be more powerful. This remains to be seen. > powerful on paper but much easier to program for, and thus much easier for > developers to use the hardware to its potential. But you're right, what I being easy to develop for isn't all positive, because it means that it will more likely hit its graphical ceiling before the one that's hard to develop for, since there's a higher learning curve for developers would only be using a portion of its capabilities at the beginning. If two console came out at the same time and the game graphic quality are very comparable, but one is harder to program for and one is easy, then I'm willing to bet that at the end of the console's lifespan, we're likely to see the graphics of the hard to develop for console surpass the one which is easy to develop for > should have said was launch first with hardware that's still competitive > when the PS3 comes out. depends then on the subjective definition of "competative". Would you consider the PS2, which came out over 1 year before the XBOX to have "competative" graphics to XBOX? If you do, then that's what the XBOX need to shoot for because it's widely expected that it would launch first. If it indeed launch with the same time advantage that the PS2 enjoyed, then three years from now, the arguments fanboys used to claim superiority over the other now would actually be reversed, with PS fanboys claiming superiority of hardware and the XBOX fanboys claiming better library. However, if it enjoys the same time advantage but fails to achieve the numerical sales advantage that the PS2 enjoyed over the XBOX, then the PS fanboy would have one additional ammo. > being easy to develop for isn't all positive, because it means that it > will more likely hit its graphical ceiling before the one that's hard > to develop for, since there's a higher learning curve for developers > would only be using a portion of its capabilities at the beginning. Given a choice, I'd rather have a console with games that are maxing out its power from day one than have early games that are only using 50% of the console's capabilities. It would be like buying a DVD player that starts out playing movies at VHS quality and only achieves DVD quality after you've owned it for three years. And besides, the Xbox is accepted to be much easier to code for than the PS2 and so should have theoritically hit its ceiling already, and yet the PS2 is nearly at the end of its life cycle and its games still don't look any better than Xbox games. If PS2 developers have all the machine's secrets well in hand now, then Killzone should look at least as good as Halo 2, if not better. (Well, it looks good in static screens. The framerates are pretty brutal though.) > depends then on the subjective definition of "competative". Would you > consider the PS2, which came out over 1 year before the XBOX to have > "competative" graphics to XBOX? Good question. Competitive, yes, but not superior. The PS2's only real advantage is its library, period -- despite processors which are theoretically more powerful than the Xbox's off the shelf Pentium 3 and GeForce 3, the PS2 still can't overtake the Xbox graphically (and that's not even taking into consideration that most Xbox games are 480P, while most PS2 games are not.) Which is why I'm not convinced the theoretically more powerful Cell processors will result in a real-world advantage over the Xbox's PowerPC and ATI chips. Have to wait and see. But I'm also not convinced that launching first will ensure the Xbox 2 has a better library than the PS3, ultimately. The Playstation brand is just too powerful for developers to ignore, and Sony is too smart to be outfoxed by a competitor that tips its hand too early. -Z- > Given a choice, I'd rather have a console with games that are maxing out its > power from day one than have early games that are only using 50% of the > console's capabilities. It would be like buying a DVD player that starts out > playing movies at VHS quality and only achieves DVD quality after you've > owned it for three years. If it is that extreme then I will agree. but what I said was if they both launched at the same time and have comparable level quality initially, the one that is hard to develop for will likely surpass the other one > And besides, the Xbox is accepted to be much easier to code for than the PS2 > and so should have theoritically hit its ceiling already, and yet the PS2 is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not better. (Well, it looks good in static screens. The framerates are > pretty brutal though.) For starters, the PS2 came out over one year before the XBOX, not the same time, so even though it can compensate through developers gaining knowledge of the hardware, it started off at a much lower level. If you go back and look at some first generation PS2 titles they look absolutely brutal, a little better than PS1 titles, compare to present day PS2 titles. I think the gap in the quality between present and launch is much more significant than XBOX titles. Even though the quality has improved through developer familiarity, the one year tech difference is a bit too much to accomodate for, that's why the best looking PS2 titles will never look as good as the best looking XBOX titles. > Good question. Competitive, yes, but not superior. The PS2's only real > advantage is its library, period -- despite processors which are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > powerful Cell processors will result in a real-world advantage over the > Xbox's PowerPC and ATI chips. Have to wait and see. I don't think I've seen any tech spec which suggest that the PS2 EE is more powerful than XBOX's Nvidia. Different yes.. but I certainly havn't read any tech reviews which says its more powerful. Regardless.. the question that should be asked is not whether or not the PS2 is technically comparable to XBOX. That is already established, its not, and that is not the fault of Sony but just a factor of the progress of technology. The question that SHOULD be asked is.. is the technology gap between PS2 and XBOX appropriate considering the launch time difference of over 1 year. Another way that the question can be asked is, if the situation is reversed in the next generation, ie: XBOX 2 launch over 1 year before PS3, will the gap in graphics capability between the two consoles be MORE or LESS than the gap between PS2 and XBOX. There is no evidence right now to answer this question one way or the other. > But I'm also not convinced that launching first will ensure the Xbox 2 has a > better library than the PS3, ultimately. The Playstation brand is just too > powerful for developers to ignore, and Sony is too smart to be outfoxed by a > competitor that tips its hand too early. As you've said yourself, the same thing was said about Nintendo. Nothing is certain. But this question you're asking is the right question. If the situation is reversed for the next generation, will other aspects also reverse.. ie: will MS sell 80 million XBOX2 by year 2010. Will it have the same library advantage that the PS2 currently enjoys over the XBOX. Will it own nearly 70% of the global hardware market? Will the software and hardware sales be merely mirror images of the market today. These, along with the question I raised in the last paragraph, is the real questions, and anybody that says they have a definitive answer, I'd like to see their certificate from the Global Clairvoyant Society. > Mmmm, don't you think 4 years is a pretty short lifespan for a conosle > system..? But it will not be a 4 year lifespan. They will still continue to make games for probably 2-3 years after that. Do you really believe that MS will put any of of its 1st party temas on the original Xbox after it launches the newer model? Very wishful dreaming > > Mmmm, don't you think 4 years is a pretty short lifespan for a conosle > > system..? > > But it will not be a 4 year lifespan. They will still continue to make > games for probably 2-3 years after that. > Do you really believe that MS will put any of of its 1st party temas on > the > original Xbox after it launches the newer model? > > Very wishful dreaming Yes I do believe they will. There is no way they will want to piss off people with the original xbox because they know full well that not everybody is going to buy the new one. In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Beck <my_bulkmail@removebtopenworld.com> wrote: > Yes I do believe they will. There is no way they will want to piss off > people with the original xbox because they know full well that not everybody > is going to buy the new one. This *is* Microsoft we're talking about here... They'll probably tell everyone to "upgrade" to Xbox Next the day it hits the shelves. >>Mmmm, don't you think 4 years is a pretty short lifespan for a conosle >>system..? > > But it will not be a 4 year lifespan. They will still continue to make > games for probably 2-3 years after that. with the speed of advancement in technology i do not think that a 4 year lifecycle is detrimental to a console these days. however i cant see xbox games being made 2-3 years after the next console has been released. > But it will not be a 4 year lifespan. They will still continue to make > games for probably 2-3 years after that. Very true. When the Playstation 2 came out, new games didn't suddenly stop coming out for the original Playstation. Another strike against Xbox 2 is that it probably won't be backwards compatible with the original Xbox, which means there will be only a small number of games available for it at launch. Meanwhile, the original Xbox has established a firm foothold and if there's money to be made by developing games for it, they will be made. I also expect new games will continue to come out for the original Xbox for at least two years following the release of Xbox 2 while Xbox 2 establishes a solid user base. My opinion is that the Xbox will die as quickly as the N64 did if the Xbox 2 can't play Xbox 1 games. Sony and Nintendo also has the advanteage of having access to 3 large markets to Microsoft's 2. No matter how good the system goes in the US, it still won't get any serious support from Japanese developers > > But it will not be a 4 year lifespan. They will still continue to make > > games for probably 2-3 years after that. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > least two years following the release of Xbox 2 while Xbox 2 establishes a > solid user base. The Todd Ate My Baby wrote: > My opinion is that the Xbox will die as quickly as the N64 did if the > Xbox 2 can't play Xbox 1 games. So then you're saying the Gamecube is dead because it can't play N64 games? What about the SNES not playing NES games? Did that hurt it? Your opinion means about as much as a platypus fart I'm afraid. Once a new console has a year's worth of solid titles under its belt, backwards compatibility is a practically non-issue. Take a straw poll of PS2 owners and you'd be hard pressed to find a single one who has played a PSX game on his machine any time in the last three years. > Sony and Nintendo also has the advanteage of having access to 3 large > markets to Microsoft's 2. Except even though the Xbox is doing terribly in Japan, Microsoft is still ahead of the more inexpensive GameCube in global installed base. And given Nintendo's comments about how gamers don't care about graphics or online play, they're going to lock themselves into a dwindling niche market in the next generation if the Revolution doesn't live up to its name and actually try something different. Sony can survive launching their next console after the Xbox 2, but I really don't know if Nintendo can. > No matter how good the system goes in the > US, it still won't get any serious support from Japanese developers No matter how well the next Nintendo system does in Japan, it still won't increase its audience in the US or Europe if it keeps sticking to the same formula (and it will still continue to get killed in sales by the PS2 in its own country too.) Gamecube has the oh-so-important support of Japanese developers, so what's your excuse for why it isn't clobbering -- or even leading -- the Xbox in worldwide sales? -Z- I for one played more PSX games on my PS2 than PS2 games. I only liked about 7 PS2 Games that were not also available for my X-Box. (including all the Dynasty Warriors 2 and 3 and Dynasty Tactics, Xenogears and FF X, something else too, can't remember) I spent most of my PS2 time playing the PSX RPG's of which I owned 40-60. (I no longer have a PS2 nor most of my games). So um.. don't press too hard... > Once a new console has a year's worth of solid titles under its belt, > backwards compatibility is a practically non-issue. Take a straw poll of > PS2 owners and you'd be hard pressed to find a single one who has played a > PSX game on his machine any time in the last three years. I actually believe with the increases in technology in recent years that after 4 years the box is getting long in the tooth & ready for an upgrade. Yes people will buy Xbox 2! Innovation drives the gaming marketplace. >> Mmmm, don't you think 4 years is a pretty short lifespan for a conosle >> system..? > > But it will not be a 4 year lifespan. They will still continue to make > games for probably 2-3 years after that. >I actually believe with the increases in technology in recent years that >after 4 years the box is getting long in the tooth & ready for an upgrade. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> But it will not be a 4 year lifespan. They will still continue to make >> games for probably 2-3 years after that. they would be better off releasing an official emulator for a PC with some cables/controller etc, then say giving it sys requirements then selling it then allowing people to buy the games/download-buy them from an official website and play them, good idea i think that, then it isnt a console in essence but a pc > Mmmm, don't you think 4 years is a pretty short lifespan for a conosle > system..? It definitely is, but that's not to say that Micro$oft isn't going to make it that short. They want to squeeze as much money out of us gamers as they can, and they saw what happened when the ps2 came out a year before their machine. Which will be more profitable: supporting Xbox full-time for an extra year, or trying to sell as many units as PS2 and then support Xbox 2 for an extra year? If their console takes over the market, you can bet your life the latter is much more profitable. Sony is not bringing out their system so soon because they're already dominating, and, as is well-known to this forum, selling games is where the money's at. It's a gamble on Microsoft's part, but I really don't see it hurting them that much if it fails. These companies have more than enough money to stay afloat. Nintendo is something else though. It seems like they care about their gamers more than M$ and Sony, but that's not necessarily a good thing for their wallets. If they could outsell Xbox 2 (and even Sony?) in the next generation by bringing it out earlier, then that's what they should be doing. They want to continue supporting the GC though, and they always have the GBA to fall back on. It's good in the short term (again with game sales), but in the long term, we'll have to wait and see. They've got the best first-party games hands-down, and that's enough to keep them in the console business. Perhaps with this move they are trying to keep their current (and create some new) loyalists. > Nintendo is something else though. It seems like they care about > their gamers more than M$ and Sony, but that's not necessarily a good [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Perhaps with this move they are trying to keep their current (and > create some new) loyalists. i think if nintendo dont gain some kind of success with the revolution (not neccessarily dominate, but at least not flounder in third place like the cube has) then the revolution will be their last console. which is a shame because, as you said, their dedication to games is second to none... yes I do think 4 years is kinda short. but remember, from the beginning of MS's enterance into this industry, they said that they would not change hardware for 4 years. MS said that in 2000 during a conference call about Xbox. meaning Xbox launch in 2001 + 4 years, Xbox 2. It looks like they're keeping to their word on that one. > Mmmm, don't you think 4 years is a pretty short lifespan for a conosle > system..? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > therefore > > probably more powerful than Xbox 2, just going on timetable alone. > http://cube.ign.com/mail.html > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > out on the new system?also what is the make of the plasma screen you > brought?thanks" Zelda? Another for GC? When? I NEED another Zelda fix! Scott It will be interesting to see if they can release both Japanese and English versions at the same time like with OoT. > > http://cube.ign.com/mail.html > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Scott > Zelda? Another for GC? When? > > I NEED another Zelda fix! hi scott, check out the details here: http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/action/thelegendofzelda/index.html > http://cube.ign.com/mail.html > > Zelda, Revolution, Xbox 2 xbox 2 out early? microsoft is obviously hoping to have the advantage the ps2 had when it came out (im ignoring the failure that was the DC). however if microsoft releases 3 different versions of the xbox 2 a year before any of the competition then perhaps they will realize what a mistake it is before the ps3 and revolution begin to eat into the next gen market share... if nintendo pull their finger out and get the revolution out before the ps3 this could go well for them. the ps2 has dominated this current generation of consoles. lets hope that in the next generation things are a bit more even - this would be a great thing for gamers across the world... It would be foolish of Nintendo to launch along side of Sony's new system. In the US Nintendo has lost interest in the gaming sector due to it not following in Sony's steps(ie: not embracing violance and gore). It would have a better chance in Japan though, but still... The Big N needs to release months ahead of Sony to get any real Market penetration. This time around they have to launch without any other system near, or only the hardcore gamers will care about their systems while the general gamer will only buy Sony and its system selling titles. > > http://cube.ign.com/mail.html > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > generation of consoles. lets hope that in the next generation things are > a bit more even - this would be a great thing for gamers across the world... > It would be foolish of Nintendo to launch along side of Sony's new system. > In the US Nintendo has lost interest in the gaming sector due to it not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > near, or only the hardcore gamers will care about their systems while the > general gamer will only buy Sony and its system selling titles. nintendo needs to completely readdress its marketing policy. they need to mature with their core audience. they need to stop shying away from violence and gore. most of all they need to stop using characters like mario and pokemon as their flagship titles and company mascots. they seem to be slowly realizing this, and evidence can be seen of nintendo slowly "growing up", but they need to act quicker and develop more mature game developing companies like retro. combine this with a launch date that is before the ps3 and the revolution will have a good chance - but if nintendo continues to fight this console war as they have been since the 16bit era then they are doomed... > http://cube.ign.com/mail.html > > Zelda, Revolution, Xbox 2 I don't care much about graphics, whatever platform has the games I want is the platform I'll support. Gameplay wins out over graphics in my book. Wonder how the new nintendo will stack up to PS3 and Xbox2. Gamecube was a flop but mabye with a way different look and a better system nintendo might be back in the race. > http://cube.ign.com/mail.html > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > therefore > probably more powerful than Xbox 2, just going on timetable alone. > Wonder how the new nintendo will stack up to PS3 and Xbox2. Gamecube was a > flop but mabye with a way different look and a better system nintendo might > be back in the race. well it should be interesting. Nintendo's new system, which Nintendo says will be BC with Gamecube games, is coming sometime *after* Xbox 2. therefore the new Nintendo *could* end up slightly or modestly more powerful, since it *may* have a slightly newer ATI gfx chip than the one going into Xbox 2. not to mention more inovative. hense the 'Revolution' codename. I hope Nintendo keeps its word and shows something of it at E3 as they said this past E3. PS3 though, is shaping up to be a BEAST as far as raw performance goes. but that does not mean better, obviously. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.