Let me just say that they did a MUCH better job than the Xbox.Pretty much.
And Ps3 isn't doing much better anyway...
I don't think that a console will gain the same amount of good games and sales such as the Ps1 or Ps2.
Sony really did it with those consoles.
The only thing that's selling is the Wii. ugh. Wii = Ps2 - the good games.
At this point, with the object of pushing Sony into submission and subsequently acceptance of MS OS and services not looking realistically attainable, Microsoft can either push hard to become the indisputable HD media hub and gaming system market leader, or it can simply let the thing run its course with minimal acceptable effort and loss, and maybe set its sight on the next hardware generation. The former doesn't seem like it'd be appealing to Microsoft. Unless one was to believe that the company has an honest interest in competing on a standalone level, but I doubt that, as I have hard time believing that MS wants to shoulder the overwhelming brunt of responsibility for pushing the market onward. For all its bells and whistles, the platform is just a conduit, and the attitude towards game software development seems pretty shortsighted.I dunno, for the most part they seem to want to let developers decide where the market is going and I like that. It's why developers usually harp on how much they like working on the 360. The only thing is then MS does really stupid shit like the XBLA royalty shit.
At this point, with the object of pushing Sony into submission and subsequently acceptance of MS OS and services not looking realistically attainable, Microsoft can either push hard to become the indisputable HD media hub and gaming system market leader, or it can simply let the thing run its course with minimal acceptable effort and loss, and maybe set its sight on the next hardware generation. The former doesn't seem like it'd be appealing to Microsoft. Unless one was to believe that the company has an honest interest in competing on a standalone level, but I doubt that, as I have hard time believing that MS wants to shoulder the overwhelming brunt of responsibility for pushing the market onward. For all its bells and whistles, the platform is just a conduit, and the attitude towards game software development seems pretty shortsighted.I dunno, for the most part they seem to want to let developers decide where the market is going and I like that. It's why developers usually harp on how much they like working on the 360. The only thing is then MS does really stupid shit like the XBLA royalty shit.
The XBLA stuff is what I worry aboutSame. It's such a great concept and could really be great for small (and even large) developers and consumers alike, but they're really handicapping it.
I'm not talking about ease of development though, but actual development resources. Microsoft has effectively shed itself of its first party development resources in favor of contracting third party (and multiplatform) studios to develop its first party games. A good approach, for a shortsighted business. Microsoft isn't in the game console business for the long haul. While Sony is actively building its internal network of developers, sharing tech and assets across first party development, Microsoft is basically banking everything on the efforts of a multiplatform game and engine developer. Again, great for the short run, and the company has certainly gotten better results than Sony in this regard, but it really doesn't signal a long term interest in the game console business.I think the full effect of their strategy is to be seen. It's clear that the department is halfway into a big reorganization. Also, they just recently opened a new studio if I recall correctly and I think they realized it's a lot more effective to keep your mouth shut about the moves you'll be making. It's done Nintendo very well and I think MS is trying to mimic that strategy.
The one feather in Microsoft's cap is that 3rd parties make money on their hardware.At this point, with the object of pushing Sony into submission and subsequently acceptance of MS OS and services not looking realistically attainable, Microsoft can either push hard to become the indisputable HD media hub and gaming system market leader, or it can simply let the thing run its course with minimal acceptable effort and loss, and maybe set its sight on the next hardware generation. The former doesn't seem like it'd be appealing to Microsoft. Unless one was to believe that the company has an honest interest in competing on a standalone level, but I doubt that, as I have hard time believing that MS wants to shoulder the overwhelming brunt of responsibility for pushing the market onward. For all its bells and whistles, the platform is just a conduit, and the attitude towards game software development seems pretty shortsighted.I dunno, for the most part they seem to want to let developers decide where the market is going and I like that. It's why developers usually harp on how much they like working on the 360. The only thing is then MS does really stupid shit like the XBLA royalty shit.
I'm not talking about ease of development though, but actual development resources. Microsoft has effectively shed itself of its first party development resources in favor of contracting third party (and multiplatform) studios to develop its first party games. A good approach, for a shortsighted business. Microsoft isn't in the game console business for the long haul. While Sony is actively building its internal network of developers, sharing tech and assets across first party development, Microsoft is basically banking everything on the efforts of a multiplatform game and engine developer. Again, great for the short run, and the company has certainly gotten better results than Sony in this regard, but it really doesn't signal a long term interest in the game console business.
The one feather in Microsoft's cap is that 3rd parties make money on their hardware.At this point, with the object of pushing Sony into submission and subsequently acceptance of MS OS and services not looking realistically attainable, Microsoft can either push hard to become the indisputable HD media hub and gaming system market leader, or it can simply let the thing run its course with minimal acceptable effort and loss, and maybe set its sight on the next hardware generation. The former doesn't seem like it'd be appealing to Microsoft. Unless one was to believe that the company has an honest interest in competing on a standalone level, but I doubt that, as I have hard time believing that MS wants to shoulder the overwhelming brunt of responsibility for pushing the market onward. For all its bells and whistles, the platform is just a conduit, and the attitude towards game software development seems pretty shortsighted.I dunno, for the most part they seem to want to let developers decide where the market is going and I like that. It's why developers usually harp on how much they like working on the 360. The only thing is then MS does really stupid shit like the XBLA royalty shit.
I'm not talking about ease of development though, but actual development resources. Microsoft has effectively shed itself of its first party development resources in favor of contracting third party (and multiplatform) studios to develop its first party games. A good approach, for a shortsighted business. Microsoft isn't in the game console business for the long haul. While Sony is actively building its internal network of developers, sharing tech and assets across first party development, Microsoft is basically banking everything on the efforts of a multiplatform game and engine developer. Again, great for the short run, and the company has certainly gotten better results than Sony in this regard, but it really doesn't signal a long term interest in the game console business.
All of Sony's first party studio asset sharing and what not has resulted in what? 10 or so games that have moved 3-400k units a piece, and 2 that passed a million once they got greatest hitsesed and tossed in hardware bundles?
Where as MS has been printing money on the software front by contracting 3rd parties to develop games they publish.
Business model seems to be working for them so far.
I don't see the Sony is going to be successful in the long run because their 1st party games are awesome argument.
I don't see the Sony is going to be successful in the long run because their 1st party games are awesome argument.
Building up internal, wholly owned and totally controlled production resources is rarely a bad idea, unless you're in it for the short run. Of course, it will eventually come down to how its managed, and that has so far seemed pretty miserable. And I thought for sure that it would result in technology sharing with third parties, but as far as I know, that's been pretty slim. :/
Still, honest question here, do any of you actually believe that MS is in this for the long haul, and for the purpose of actually competing in the video game console business? I consider it a conduit, with game playing capabilities in place to serve as an attractive lure. This is not the view I had back in the Xbox days.
I don't see the Sony is going to be successful in the long run because their 1st party games are awesome argument.
uhh it's not like microsoft needs help in getting it's name out there, ffs. why wouldn't ms be in this for the long haul? it's a way to make a shitton of money! the idea that they just kind of jumped in is laughable considering how much time and money they've put into the xbox brand. I of course don't know what their strategy is, but saying that they're just in this for some kind of short-term gain simply because they don't have much in the way of 1st party developers makes no sense. The console is doing well, and they're getting good games on the system, so why invest in something that will cost a lot more but may not give back much?I tend to agree with this. Its an attempt to diversify themselves and all the while they're able to crosspromote their family of products through interoperability.
Yet the PS3 with its lackluster library of failed promises and half-assed online implementation gets to rest on the legacy of a much better system (PS2) and we dont ask the hard questions here. We dont look at the TRUTH that the PS3 was a VEHICLE for the Bluray format.
I think its more the case when you haven't been able to create a batch of good 1st party properties. There's no sense in dumping resources in stuff that probably won't ever pan out when 3rd party groups will gladly do it for you.Also the Weta project called Halo chronicles. Plus the new studio MS formed specifically for Halo titles, where Stinkles jumped to. First project being the collaboration with Weta on Halo chronicles). I think there'll be Halo titles on a more consistent/closer time schedule than we've had the past few years.
At most MS has Halo, and that's pretty much 'over' for a while I think. There's that RTS coming out but thats about it.
who cares, by then X360 saturation will be at its peak and it wont be a system seller anymore. I think its really Sony fans looking for an edge that care about exclusives anymore.
I also dont get why people get so worked up about Bioshock on PS3, its been ages since that came out. Games dont magically become system sellers a year or more AFTER they come out the first time.
Because they don't.
They are making minimum effort right now. It's like they are just letting things go with the flow, fuck that.
Do they even care about exclusives anymore?
Microsoft is doing things that only the nerds with too much time care about. The audience that buys most of the games most likely don't give a shit about any of this crap. Microsoft is wising up and marketing boner games like Halo 3 and Gears 2 because thats whats gonna sell. Gears 2 will get them more console sales then anything on the PS3 this year.??? ??? ???
Basically the argument comes down down to the fact that if you don't own a 360 (or a good pc) this console generation, you're a dumbfuck and you shouldn't be taken seriously when talking about games since you don't particularly care.
??? ??? ???
I'm guessing that you meant to say Sony in your first sentence?
Eh, I dunno.*shrugs* I am. Already got Culdcept Saga and Lost Odyssey, NG2 comes out next week, and Infinite Undiscovery, Tales of Vesperia and Fable 2 later on. Gears of War 2 also, but I've never actually played through the first one so I'm not really hyped for it. Then there's all the 3rd party games (Burnout Paradise, DMC4, SC4, etc).
I'm just nowhere nearly as excited for the 360 as I was last year.
And its not just because they had ana amazing lineup last year.
??? ??? ???
I'm guessing that you meant to say Sony in your first sentence?
I meant it in terms of the recent things like removing games and Bioshock console exclusivity (speaking of which, I just tried the demo on my beefy PC and wow, the 360 version is shit in comparison, but what a damn fine game. I might buy the PC version and PS3 version again). I even said later on that Sony was the one who catering to nerds while MS is only caring about the demographic they go after (social gamers) and attempting to get on Wii territory (casual/non games).
??? ??? ???
I'm guessing that you meant to say Sony in your first sentence?
I meant it in terms of the recent things like removing games and Bioshock console exclusivity (speaking of which, I just tried the demo on my beefy PC and wow, the 360 version is shit in comparison, but what a damn fine game. I might buy the PC version and PS3 version again). I even said later on that Sony was the one who catering to nerds while MS is only caring about the demographic they go after (social gamers) and attempting to get on Wii territory (casual/non games).
Yea, I'm sure if the 360 version is shit the PS3 version will be roses.
Yea, I'm sure if the 360 version is shit the PS3 version will be roses.
This occurred to me when they announced that there will be no spring update. It's almost as if they've realized they don't really have to try against the PS3 anymore.the xbox team were pretty tied with the cod4/gta4 updates plus they have been working on the drm fix for a very long time now.
they have 1 unanimously big game in GoW2, against 3 or so from last year
they have 1 unanimously big game in GoW2, against 3 or so from last year
Disagree. I would argue Fable 2 and to a lesser extent Too Human are the three big guns this year.
GoW2 = Halo 3
Fable 2 = Mass Effect
Too Human = Bioshock
or are you just talking about sales?
Its really the only thing that matters right?
C'mon people. We are all here as gamers. Why does one need to bash another platform's followers choice just because you don't own that platform yet or, for whatever reason, require some bravado about it??? Unlike 5 or 10 years ago, there are DOZENS of developers out there making fun games. Play what you want, buy what you want, and be happy. This console war is more about negativity of choice and that is sad. Sad, I say.
Unite as one fellow gamers!!!! I want to know why I should buy a 360 or a wii, not have to justify why I own a PS3. That is counter-productive as is the consolwarz.
rare vomits colors on everything? smh
RARE WUZ COOL WHEN NOT M$ AM I RITE GOOD GAME THAN!
I dunno. The art style is pretty shit outside of the use of color IMO. PDZ has terrible art in general, but I actually liked the colorful look. If only they had someone that could design decent looking characters :(
why is mirrors edge so interesting to people? I thought the trailer was pretty boring.
1. If you've played Crackdown or Assassin's Creed, you might understand.
2. It's by DICE.
3. Shenmue sucks.
it's not that MS doesn't care anymore, it's that some of you care too much
has rare even made a good game?
oh right. there's viva pinata and uhhh donkey kong country 2. that's really it.
it's not that MS doesn't care anymore, it's that some of you care too much
Rare is a one hit wonder.
Goldeneye is certifiably classic.
The rest of their catalog is above average to poor.
Basically the argument comes down down to the fact that if you don't own a 360 (or a good pc) this console generation, you're a dumbfuck and you shouldn't be taken seriously when talking about games since you don't particularly care.
qft
If you only have a Wii and/or a PS3 this generation (and dont wish you had a sweet pc or 360.. money is an issue for some), youve fucked up pretty bad imo
I can understand only having a Wii as its a cheaper option and if you dont play many games to begin with, but PS3 only is the most distinguished mentally-challenged gaming 'solution' ever. It seems a lot of people love being raped and eating Sony's shit all the time.
And Im with Smooth on denouncing the whole Sony 1st party software argument. Not one Sony franchise is worth a handful of shit. Shit games, shit company, shit system = PS3
why does MS seem like they don't care anymoreAre you calcifer?
well microsoft has always been a piece of shit company making pieces of shit products( 360 being their shittiest products yet).
then you have their lowlife uneducated pieces of shit fans(mostly evilbore members) together you have a company that give a shit with fans that dont give a ......... i'm confused :-\