Topic: PS3 and X-Box 2
started by: Leisher
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 13 2005,14:03
< To be shown off on May 16th. >
Posted by WSGrundy on Apr. 13 2005,20:52
The Revolution will be there too.Also Xbox 360 will also be show on MTV about a week before on some half hour special event.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 13 2005,22:04
| Quote |
| The Revolution will be there too. |
| Quote |
| Also Xbox 360 will also be show on MTV about a week before on some half hour special event. |
I had heard about that, and there's speculation that Sony will somehow try to beat Microsoft to the punch by announcing PS3 first. It should be interesting.
Personally, I think its Sony's battle to lose despite Microsoft gaining some ground in the last year. (Yet are still behind by about 30 million units.)
I don't get the MTV show. 18-35 year old males are not MTV's core demo. Microsoft is making a mistake putting their big announcement on there. MTV's audience is primarily young female teens, not exactly the biggest gaming crowd.
If Microsoft is smart, they'll have their timeslot locked in and start promoting in during shows on other networks. If I were them I'd advertise during Sportscenter, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Wrestling, South Park, The Chapelle Show, the NBA playoffs, Scrubs, The Office, Survivor, and The Apprentice. Those shows have the X-Box's core demo and it'll get them to tune in.
It just seems like Microsoft's marketing people still have that "video games are for kids" mentality despite all the surveys, sales figures, and studies that have proven otherwise. Its no wonder their console performed so poorly.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 14 2005,05:39
| Quote (WSGrundy @ Apr. 13 2005,11:52) |
| The Revolution will be there too. |
But it wont be televised.
Posted by WSGrundy on Apr. 14 2005,10:10
| Quote |
| At E3, yeah, but that doesn't start until May 17th. |
| Quote |
| Personally, I think its Sony's battle to lose despite Microsoft gaining some ground in the last year. (Yet are still behind by about 30 million units.) |
| Quote |
| I don't get the MTV show. 18-35 year old males are not MTV's core demo. Microsoft is making a mistake putting their big announcement on there. MTV's audience is primarily young female teens, not exactly the biggest gaming crowd. |
It does seem a bit strange but if they want the unveiling to be on TV I'm not sure what other network they can go to. ESPN or Comedy Central would have been my choice but after that not sure where else they could go with beyond MTV.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 14 2005,10:49
| Quote |
| No it will be shown before E3 also. |
| Quote |
| MS will be a big player now |
If Bill Gates is to be believed, "big player" won't cut it. I've heard MS was willing to take a loss on the X-Box (and they did), but if the X-Box 2 doesn't make money, that's it. They'll pull out of the console business.
Posted by Paul on Apr. 14 2005,12:00
I haven't been following the Xbox 2 or PS3 rumors, so I just looked up the difference between Xbox 2 (the only name I'd heard) and Xbox 360.I see now that Xbox is calling the Xbox 2, "Xbox 360" because "2" will sound inferior to Playstation's "3." It's like AMD not naming their chips after their MHz anymore.
Whenever Microsoft officially announces the Xbox 360, PlayStation should name their next product after their processor speed.
Microsoft announces the Xbox 360.
Sony announces the PlayStation 4000.
Or how'bout the Playstation Pn3D!
Posted by WSGrundy on Apr. 14 2005,12:05
| Quote |
| Interesting. I haven't seen that reported anywhere. I love this time of year. E3 is quickly becoming a nerd holiday. |
| Quote |
| If Bill Gates is to be believed, "big player" won't cut it. I've heard MS was willing to take a loss on the X-Box (and they did), but if the X-Box 2 doesn't make money, that's it. They'll pull out of the console business. |
IMO there are enough Americans to make the next Xbox profitable even if Japan ignores it again. The won't sell more then the sony but I could see it being a 41%, 39%, 20% share of the market for Sony, MS, and then Nintendo. Plus is sounds like MS is making the Xbox cheaper this time around by removing the HD or making it a add on that you will have to purchase if you want backwards compatability and such.
Posted by WSGrundy on Apr. 14 2005,12:09
| Quote (Paul @ Apr. 14 2005,12:00) |
| I haven't been following the Xbox 2 or PS3 rumors, so I just looked up the difference between Xbox 2 (the only name I'd heard) and Xbox 360. I see now that Xbox is calling the Xbox 2, "Xbox 360" because "2" will sound inferior to Playstation's "3." It's like AMD not naming their chips after their MHz anymore. |
Yeah for awhile it seemed to be that it was going to be Xbox Next to avoid the whole 3 is greater then 2 thing that you mentioned but when Nintendo announced that their new console was going to be called Revolution they moved to 360 to cover the whole 3 is greater then 2 problem that they saw and a jab at Nintendo since 360 degrees is a revolution.
I guess I can kind of see the not wanting to name it 2 thing since there are enough stupid people out there but I would just go with names and ditch the whole number thing to begin with. PS3 sounds so boring.
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 14 2005,12:16
They should call it the "XBox if you don't own this you're a big pussy" or something.
Posted by Paul on Apr. 14 2005,12:46
Xbox 1337.A lot of grannies get this for their gandkids at Christmas, and 1337 is bigger than 3 so it's obviously better.
Posted by Vince on Apr. 17 2005,12:51
| Quote (WSGrundy @ Apr. 14 2005,10:10) |
| MS will be a big player now but even if sony just sits around their past success will be enough to hype them through one more generation. |
That's what the folks at Word Perfect, Lotus and Novell thought, too.
Posted by you wish you new on Apr. 22 2005,22:57
you people are so stuped i would like for anyone to come up with one spec that the ps2 was suposed to have that when it came out it did do you remeember what the megapixels were supost to be 66 millon what did they do 7 so if you take the bull crap that there fedding us this time you should get something that workes like a tolit set the olny thing its good for is to open it up and crap in it as for the game cube they said 8 and with the new zelda the are pushing 18 they allways give a conservitev number so when you buy it and you start playing it you say WOW this is alot better than i thought and so you like it and then theres the MS i shur hope that they make a bigger profet than last time and for yalls info they lost 500 dollers on every one that they sold am shur glad they they had a lot of good and exlusive title that came out for it o what never mind they just had 2 over rated ones hole1 and 2 and as for who won the consol race this time im sorry guys but we have to enclude profet made off the system MS lost money so that would be last sony sold over 30 million i do have to give them some credite for selling that many but then theres nintindo who solled about 10 million and they made WAY more money then sony so yea i would have to say that nintido won that because if you look at how would stay in bussniss longer it what be nintendo and they have proven it they are the longest lasting game hardware compeny ever and if you look what has come and gone in the whay of hared ware that is huge not even billgates has been able to make a profet in the market but the big N can and they dont even have to sell that many and i am really looking forward to a new way of playing a game because the last new thing to come out that has not just been a bost in graffics is ps1 and 64 and sorry guys but thats all xbox 360 and ps3 will be and all of you have to admit that we as a gaming comunity should be ready for somthing new and the only nex gen that will give it to us is nintindo and if we really support it then it may teach sony and ms that they to need to be looking at new ideas for game play not just a new graffics chip because thats all your getting and for more money
Posted by Ogre on Apr. 23 2005,06:54
I'm sure that whatever you said, I disagree with. I mean, I struggled through the first few lines and didn't have any disagreement with what you stated. But seeing that the entire looooong paragraph was going to be a gramatical nightmare where you weren't even going to try to follow the rules of punctuation, I had to quit.Today's lesson: When you hold down the shift button, and press a key, it capitalizes that letter.
Once you get that down, I'll teach you about punctuation marks. Or perhaps you'll get to that in 6th grade.
Posted by thibodeaux on Apr. 23 2005,12:36
What in God's name?
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 24 2005,05:55
Dunno, but Ogre got a little wordy.
Posted by Troy on Apr. 24 2005,10:21
What the deuce?
Posted by WSGrundy on Apr. 27 2005,16:26
It is being reported that this is what the new Xbox will look like.Not from MS themselves but the more trustworthy Xbox sites have info that they say leads them to believe this is it or close to what the final will look like.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2005,16:49
Heh, I just read this thread for the first time... some newb came in here and flamed in a video game discussion."stuped"
Posted by WSGrundy on Apr. 27 2005,18:27
The new Xbox controllers will also be compatible with the new/next version of Windows.
Posted by Paul on Sep. 15 2005,06:12
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 15 2005,07:01
Would it be fair to say that "consoles are proof that consumers are stupid"?Don't get me wrong. I've owned them and will get the new ones because I will want to play games that come out for them. However, consoles shouldn't need to exist as there are these neat things called PCs that are cheaper (when you really do the math on what you're getting), MUCH more powerful in every way, way ahead of consoles in terms of technology, etc., etc., etc.
Consoles sell for one reason and one reason only, they're plug and play.
Consoles = PCs for dummies.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 15 2005,07:03
I actually haven't purchased a console since the Playstation. The first one. And that's just because I wanted to play Wipeout.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 15 2005,08:12
Last console I bought new was the Atari 2600.Since then I've only bought consoles at garage sales for $20 or less, including games.
Posted by mbilderback on Sep. 15 2005,08:34
I've personally never purchased a console in my life. I got an original Nintendo back when my parents still had to buy stuff for Christmas. My PS1 I got as a bonus for leasing an apartment. Then the PS2 I have was a gift from my wife's parents since they had registered to get 2 and had a spare one.I really don't like consoles much, but you can't get every console game for the PC, and there are some games that you really want.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 15 2005,09:12
I bought a N64 just to play Mario Kart.Find me a PC game that's equal to it.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 15 2005,09:21
I will admit, for mindless racing games like Wipeout, I prefer to sit on the couch with a controller in my hand. But, I think every other genre is represented better on a PC.* *** I can't speak for sports games; never play them.
** Not counting when assholes release an extremely buggy PC game like "Star Wars: Battlefront" figuring they can patch it later. In a Rovian world console game developers would release buggy PC games just to get more peeps on consoles.
Posted by Paul on Sep. 15 2005,09:57
PC games are better quality wise.However, if you buy and Xbox game, you know it will work on your Xbox. You don't have to know about your processor speed, your RAM, or your video card stats. Plus, you can sit on your comfy sofa and play it on your big screen TV, which is generally a lot more comfortable than most computer workstations.
Oh yeah, and I've never seen 4 people try to play the same game on a single PC. 4 people playing in one place almost requires a sofa in front of the screen.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 15 2005,10:17
To most of the comments above, I'm just going to keep quoting myself:| Q U O T E | Consoles sell for one reason and one reason only, they're plug and play. Consoles = PCs for dummies. |
As for genres, technically, everything "could" be done better on the PCs. The chip power, RAM speeds and amount, audio and graphics technologies are just superior there. Plus, the PC community has been doing it online since almost the start, while that's a new technology for consoles. On top of all that, consoles don't have modders and anyone who is a serious gamer knows what beautiful things modders bring to the table.
Still, as it currently stands there are things that stand out for both the PC and consoles. Consoles have better racing games and their sports titles are easier to access and play. However, RTSs and FPSs are a joke on consoles. In the world of RPGs, consoles BY FAR have bigger budgets and take more risks, however some of the all time classics are PC only titles. Party games are MUCH better for consoles as they tend to not be on a desk in the corner. However, games that set a "mood" like Doom 3 or System Shock are typically better for PC as you're usually closer to the screen, possibly wearing head phones, and/or have a better speaker setup that allows for sound to be a bigger part of the game.
Posted by mbilderback on Sep. 15 2005,14:15
Personally, I like consoles out there, it funds a lot of money for game development, and the vast majority of games you can get for a console can be bought for PC.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 15 2005,15:35
| Q U O T E | Personally, I like consoles out there, it funds a lot of money for game development, |
Because if everyone had a PC instead nobody would fund game development?
| Q U O T E | and the vast majority of games you can get for a console can be bought for PC. |
That's not true at all. The vast majority of BIG NAME titles, yes, but not the vast majority. I should also mention that goes both ways.
We could go to Best Buy right now and I'd prove to you that 80% of the Playstation games never hit the other consoles, let alone a PC.
Posted by mbilderback on Sep. 15 2005,15:39
No, they would fund game development, but not to the extent because not as much money would be in it.And 80%? Nah, I'd say it's much lower than that.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 15 2005,16:05
I bet there would be more money in games, not less. The dollars spent on console development don't count, and that's overhead for the consumer that could be spent on more games.
Posted by mbilderback on Sep. 15 2005,16:08
Again, I disagree. The gaming market didn't go near as main-stream as when consoles took off. There's a HUGE contingent of gamers who wouldn't touch a PC but spend hours and thousands on games.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 15 2005,16:20
Hmmmm ... maybe ....But they play stupid games. Research into the latest NFL title is wasted, IMO.
Posted by Paul on Sep. 16 2005,06:13
| (GORDON @ Sep. 15 2005,09:21) | |
| Q U O T E | * I can't speak for sports games; never play them. |
I never play sports games either.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 16 2005,06:33
I'm no fan of sports games, but I used to enjoy the sports-team management style games.
Posted by mbilderback on Sep. 16 2005,07:45
Golf, I have to admit, I play video golf, but mainly because I suck trying to play golf.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 16 2005,08:10
| Q U O T E | No, they would fund game development, but not to the extent because not as much money would be in it. |
Can you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? (movie?)
Seriously though, you missed what I'm saying. I'm talking about consoles not needing to exist. If no consoles existed all gamers would be on PCs, thus the money would be there for funding game research.
Thus my point about consoles existing because they're essentially PCs for dummies. No need for them there fancy new fangled thingamabobs, just plug it into the moving picture box and off you go.
| Q U O T E | I bet there would be more money in games, not less. The dollars spent on console development don't count, and that's overhead for the consumer that could be spent on more games. |
Exactly. One platform not only drops console development costs, but it also drops the cost of making the game. No need to buy development kits for every console.
| Q U O T E | And 80%? Nah, I'd say it's much lower than that. |
And you'd be wrong. Only the big name titles from the big name developers hit multiple platforms? Know why? They have the budget that allows them to do that. A lot of the smaller developers don't have the cash to purchase the development kits for each console. Plus, many developers see the PC as a waste of development money except in the cases of sure things due to the popularity of the game or because that genre does well on the PC.
That goes the other way as well. If the people here on this board combined to make a game, it'd be far easier and cheaper for us to make a PC exclusive game rather than trying to make something for consoles.
Go to the store this weekend and look at all the PS2 games and compare them to the PC shelves. Now bring into it the Gamecube and X-Box games that are exclusive to their systems.
To really pad the numbers you could also add in the Gameboy and PSP games and the huge overseas market where may games are released and never see the U.S. let alone a PC. This is particularly true in Japan.
As a guy who has every single system, I see what's available for them all. Believe me, there are a LOT more exclusive system/console/PC games than you're aware are out there.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 16 2005,08:55
I just want to play Katamari Damacy without having to buy a damn PS2 to do it. 
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 16 2005,09:24
| (TPRJones @ Sep. 16 2005,10:55) | |
| Q U O T E | I just want to play Katamari Damacy without having to buy a damn PS2 to do it. |
You got no idea how much I hate that fucking game. Roommates used to play it ENDLESSLY before they moved.
"I can feel the cosmos." What-the fuck-ever.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 16 2005,09:55
| Q U O T E | You got no idea how much I hate that fucking game. |
You're you, of course we know how much you hated it.
Still, did you like it the first time you saw it? I've heard good things about it.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 16 2005,10:06
You're a microscopic, humanoid alien-dude whose daddy is the king of the cosmos. The stars get knocked out of the sky & you get to go down to Earth, roll a sticky ball over shit & collect it, getting each ball to a certain diametre or obeying certain rules (like only picking up fish or some such shit). You can pick up ANYTHING. Skyscrapers, giant squids, huge Japanese Godzilla-looking things, clouds, etc., provided you're large enough. The first time I saw it, I wanted to drop another nuke on Japan. Then again, that happens everytime I see anime, too.
Posted by Paul on Oct. 03 2005,09:10
I entered the Pepsi "Every 10 Minutes" game.From < the rules >, it looks like your code/entry is only good for the 10 drawing period you enter it in.
That is, if you put 10 codes in, you have 10 entries into the next drawing. But 10 minutes later you have no entries.
This makes me think that entering around, or just after lunchtime decreases your chances to win, whereas entering at 5:00am would increase your chances, as there'd be fewer people participating in your drawing.
Oh yeah, the drawing is for an Xbox 360.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2005,10:01
I think the way they did it is bullshit. It's too easy to exploit the system and too much work for most consumers. Your code should be good for every drawing. The more you enter, the more chances you have to win.
People would still buy more product and they wouldn't turn off so many customers. I mean, do their ads even hint at the fact that your code is only good for one drawing? No.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Oct. 03 2005,10:07
From what I've heard, it is explained that it is only good for one drawing. You can also pick the ten minute segment you want to participate in. So, if you wanted to participate in the 5am drawing, you specify that. You can see all the drawing times that are available, and how many people have entered codes for that drawing. So, you can pick wich ever time you want and see how many other people have picked the same time. So, you can pick a time with low entries ahead of time. That's not to say that other people won't pick that same time and the number increase.From what I've heard, it's quite fair, and it's easy to create a 1 in 700 chance of winning with only one code.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2005,10:51
Actually, if one person just got enough codes, they could dominate a drawing.Also, I have to imagine that the first hours worth of drawings had the best odds.
Posted by Paul on Oct. 03 2005,11:51
Ends up I didn't enter. I submitted my code, but you have to choose your entry time. It even shows you how many points are entered.I did it ASAP, as I don't expect the odds to get better.
Posted by DictionaryDave on Oct. 11 2005,07:02
| (Leisher @ Sep. 16 2005,08:10) | |
| Q U O T E | Can you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? (movie?) |
Rush Hour
Posted by Paul on Oct. 11 2005,11:11
I played this morning at 8:30 with a cap I found int he parking lot, and there where only 1,200+ entries.I still lost.
Piss.
One good thing about living in a small town though, if I see there was a winner from my town, I can pretty much guarantee that it's me. (Winners get notified 72 hours later or something like that)
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 11 2005,13:29
I've got three caps.Are my odds better to enter one drawing each or throw all three into one drawing?
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 11 2005,13:46
Well, think about it...If there are about 2100 people per drawing, youd either have a 3 in 2100 chance, or 3 chances of 1 in 2100, or 3 in 2100.
Your best bet is to find out which 10 minute period has the fewest peeps.
Posted by Paul on Oct. 11 2005,14:08
Yeah, exactly.The 10:00 drawing is at 10:10. The 10:10 drawing is at 10:20.
What I do is login, and see how many people have signed up for the *soonest* drawing. If it's low, I throw all of my points in there. If there's only a minute left, the number of contestants won't increase significantly.
If you enter a game in the future, the odds could increase significantly, as hundreds or thousands of people join after you. By then it's too late.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 11 2005,14:23
| (Leisher @ Oct. 11 2005,15:29) | |
| Q U O T E | I've got three caps. Are my odds better to enter one drawing each or throw all three into one drawing? |
Yeah. Statisically speaking, you want the highest your points to other points ratio.
Get the period w\ the fewest fuckers in it.
Posted by Paul on Nov. 11 2005,08:00
