Fable, Proj. Gotham, and Halo for X2... and the Sky is Blue

[Fox5]

1. DVD Drive $30
2. Shipping
3. a 5.1 sound card which most $20 motherboards dont have. (it maybe possible though)
4. NIC (see #3)
5. WindowsXP home edition OEM $50 easy (laughable, i know)
6. Someone to do the work, if your an average joe.
7. not having to deal with lowest bidders on pricewatch, priceless.

Most games will play on a CD drive, but you can also find dvd drives free after rebate, I have one in my PC right now.
Many places have free shipping.
A $20 motherboard may not have good 5.1 sound, but it will have 5.1 sound.(actually, I recall seeing an nforce1 board for around $20, but obviously any motherboard at that price is left over stock and there's no guarantee it can be bought at anyy time)
I'd imagine just about every athlon xp mobo will have NIC...oh wait, the $20 mobo in my 2nd PC doesn't.....ok well NIC cards can be found free after rebate too, or for $5.
Yep, I forgot windows xp home, but are we really assuming that someone has never owned a PC before and is building one just to play xbox games? They wouldn't be buying their own parts and building their own PC. And I'd imagine that someone capable of building a PC and builds it to just barely achieve around xbox level performance to play some games is likely to warez all their software anyhow, including the games and OS, so this is far from a realistic scenario.(hey, the PC would be cheaper then, modded xboxes add a good amount onto the price)[/quote]

 

[Qroach]

Quincy you can bet MS paid for a lot of the exclusives that weren't from there own studio. So how much more would it have cost to get those games only on XBox rather then XBox and PC?

I really don't see what that has to do with this argument at all.

Look at my list, those are 15 of the very best XBox exclusives. I actually forgot Fable which makes 16 and that game is also coming out for PC.

hardly, you missed lot's of other xbox exclusives just to try and make your argument stonrger. By the time fable comes out on teh PC MS would have already annouced fable 2. really, I mean who cares if fable comes out on the PC a year later. Other then you that is. See if you really wanted fable you would have went out and bought it for Xbox. Waiting for an annoucement you don't know is coming, simply doesn't make sense. Fable was annnouced recently that it is coming to PC, you know why? it sold through it's units and it clearly wouldn't have an impact on the console version.

As I said out of total XBox exclusives the ones on PC may only be 30%, but out of the best exclusives its a lot more then that.

Well that's your opinion isn't it. Saying that's a problem on games you wouldn't have bought an xbox for anyway, is what makes me think you're not being compeltly honest in your argument. I'm sure you haven't played any of the xbox - PC games you listed on your PC anyway.

now could xbox use more exclusives? sure it could, so could the cube for that matter, but to think the having games ported to the PC in anyway has an impact on the console sales, (when it specifically is annouced at a later date when the publisher feels it won't impact console version sales) is a bad assumption. Even a worse assumption for a console you wouldn't purchase anyways.

 

[Fodder]

Pretty faint

Your point being? Halo PC was a poor game that sold through the power of marketing and brand-name recognition. What if, additionally, it had actually been a good game and had taken off in the way something like CS did? I know more than a few XBox owners who would've rather had an online-capable PC version at the tail end of 2001. Due to the PC market, I think Halo had more chance of success as a console exclusive, but there's no denying that had it had a simultaneous launch on the PC it would have hurt Xbox sales, and hence the Xbox as it was the launch title. Halo was crucial to the Xbox's early success, and any dilution would have hurt. IMHO D3 and FC weren't much better either, and you'll notice neither have achieved the de-facto prerequisite for longterm PC FPS sales, which is online takeup.

 

[AlNom]

Your point being?

I believe your statement was:

Halo PC's sales were rather lacklustre because the game pretty much sucked compared to the competition.

How could Halo PC's sales be "lacklustre" if it's been on the top 10 up until a couple weeks ago? Compared to actual recent (new products, that aren't over 3 years old) big titles such as Doom 3, HL2, Painkiller, FarCry, it seems to be doing quite well. Clearly Halo PC's quality based on your opinion has no correlation with its sales "compared to the competition."

Now, you could also be saying that you think Halo PC should be number one on the top 10 list and therefore, it isn't performing up to your grandiose expectations, but something tells me that that is not the case.

Halo PC was a poor game that sold through the power of marketing and brand-name recognition.

I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any marketing for Halo PC within the last year. I'd say Doom has more brand recognition just because of a longer history and also being more recent in marketing terms. Half Life 2 should have a pretty wide audience given HL's years worth of mods.

What if, additionally, it had actually been a good game and had taken off in the way something like CS did?

A good game from whose perspective? Yours is not the opinion of the masses.

Halo PC couldn't ever hope to take off in the way Counter Strike did because it's a completely different gametype within the FPS genre. CS is only about multiplayer and mods and hacks. Halo PC is mostly a single player game with online attached just to bring multiplayer to it since splitscreen FPS is not such a good option on PC.

 

[Fodder]

How could Halo PC's sales be "lacklustre" if it's been on the top 10 up until a couple weeks ago?

Sales were lacklustre compared to Halo Xbox (which it could never have matched, but could have been closer), because the game was lacklustre compared to the competition.

I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any marketing for Halo PC within the last year.

No need when they're plugging the Xbox version so hard.

A good game from whose perspective?

From 'hardcore/enthusiast' gamers, it's not as popular as a game like CS. From 'casual' gamers, it's not as popular as a game like The Sims.

Halo PC couldn't ever hope to take off in the way Counter Strike did because it's a completely different gametype within the FPS genre.

Sure, but it completely nosedived, even after Gearbox specifically beefed up the MP component. Far different games to CS (such as BF1942) have been quite successful.

 

[AlNom]

Sales were lacklustre compared to Halo Xbox (which it could never have matched, but could have been closer), because the game was lacklustre compared to the competition.

Well, now that you're actually talking about the Xbox version...

No need when they're plugging the Xbox version so hard.

I haven't seen Halo Xbox ads for over 3 years.

From 'hardcore/enthusiast' gamers, it's not as popular as a game like CS.

I wouldn't ever expect it to be because CS has a head start of several years.

Sure, but it completely nosedived, even after Gearbox specifically beefed up the MP component. Far different games to CS (such as BF1942) have been quite successful.

Yeah, it nosedived from a multiplayer point of view, there's no doubt of that. It just wasn't a large multiplayer phenomenon in the first place; Gearbox had to basically do the online stuff from scratch adding to an already existing game. CS has already had years to mature and developed on it's own not adhering to Half Life's sci-fi theme. Battlefield 1942 was pretty much designed to be a multiplayer "heavyweight" from day one.



btw, my whole point is that Halo isn't doing so bad if it's still selling in the top 10. There is certainly very little on the internet to compel one to buy it as seen by all the complaints about the port job, and there are few ads regarding Halo PC or Xbox these days.




On a side note, a simultaneous PC/Xbox release (at Xbox Launch) probably would not have been feasible from the development point of view of Bungie given that most of the game was largely undone earlier that same year. There just wouldn't be time to optimize for both platforms.

 

[Fodder]

There are plenty of Halo 2 ads over here, which serve to drum 'Halo Halo Halo' into the minds of game buyers. I'm just speaking hypothetically here though, to point out that Halo not being a complete Xbox exclusive at launch would have been a bit of a thorn for MS.

 

[Fox5]

On a side note, a simultaneous PC/Xbox release (at Xbox Launch) probably would not have been feasible from the development point of view of Bungie given that most of the game was largely undone earlier that same year. There just wouldn't be time to optimize for both platforms.

The PC version wouldn't need to be optimized, just depend on beefier system specs of disabling visuals.

BTW, I think a simultaneous release probably would have kept the xbox from ever taking off.

And PC ports do hurt the xbox in that the PC gamers are then less likely to buy an xbox(since it doesn't have as many exclusives), but I think it hurts the PC more, in that most PC games for the past few years have merely been buggier versions of console games.

 

[jvd]

There is no reason why anyone who has a p4 system from the last 2 years can't get top of the line pc graphics without fsaa and aniso (or low lvls )


Figure from the last 2 years a p4 2.6-3ghz with 256-512megs of ram would be standard with intergrated graphics ?

Figure you need 512 megs of ram which is like 50$ and then a 100$ 6200ultra card .

 

[aaronspink]

time. IMO what Xbox did for online play was revolutionary and well worth $4.16 a month ($50 a year).

By revolutionary you mean: "Exactly what counter strike does", right?

Though, I do agree, it is unforgiveable for any online game to not have integrated voice support.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[Pozer]

time. IMO what Xbox did for online play was revolutionary and well worth $4.16 a month ($50 a year).

By revolutionary you mean: "Exactly what counter strike does", right?

Though, I do agree, it is unforgiveable for any online game to not have integrated voice support.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

No, Counterstrike doesnt provide everyone a headset with its starter kit and require broadband connection to reduce lag. Also CS doesnt have a buddy tracking option to join friends who maybe playing Battlefield 1942. Its not that live has done anything new its that MS has integrated all the best of online PC gaming features into an easy to use package and made it the minimum everyone has.

If CS could require everyone to own a headset, run ICQ, have broadband, buddy lists, online voicemail, vehicle support, and transparent patch installation all from my couch, then I would have declared it revolutionary back in '98

 

[Fox5]

time. IMO what Xbox did for online play was revolutionary and well worth $4.16 a month ($50 a year).

By revolutionary you mean: "Exactly what counter strike does", right?

Though, I do agree, it is unforgiveable for any online game to not have integrated voice support.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

Lots of games have voice speak, and there are 3rd party programs to use.
Anyhow, counterstrike does more, at least it has dedicated servers which xbox live doesn't. What xbox live did do is sort of unify all games under one service...which gamespy sort of does, but people use their PCs for more than just games so gamespy is rarely running, yet a person with their xbox has it on to play games. It's also less of a bother than gamespy is, which is sort of a resource hog, but getting the paid version would probably eliminate much of that as it kills the ads.

If CS could require everyone to own a headset, run ICQ, have broadband, buddy lists, online voicemail, vehicle support, and transparent patch installation, then I would have declared it revolutionary back in '98 Wink

Not everyone on xbox live uses or has a headset.
Xbox live may force broadband(which most pc users have anyhow or they're not playing online), but it doesn't have dedicated servers like PCs.
Vehicle support is in every xbox live game?
Hmm, I suppose diablo 1 was revolutionary, it had a chat system that every user had, transparent patch installation(at least as much as xbox live is), and buddy lists. So it really just lacked the things that required broadband, well that and vehicle support.(which technically, CS did have for a little while, it was just glitchy and really unrefined)

 

[Pozer]

Not everyone on xbox live users or has a headset.

98% do, I havent ran into someone without a headseat that wasnt a splitscreen player in almost a year. Try doing splitscreen in CS when a buddy stops over.

Xbox live may force broadband(which most pc users have anyhow or they're not playing online), but it doesn't have dedicated servers like PCs.

some PC games still allow 56kers to come in and lag up the game depending on the game and netcode. Working at an ISP and maintaining game servers all day I find this to be good thing. Not having your own map rotation is a bummer. But many xbox games will let you host whatever you want, just not dedicated. (atleast the games I own). Most games are dedicated they're just hosted at MS or the devs. Ubi has some great RS3 East Coast servers.

Vehicle support is in every xbox live game?

no, i was referring to CS not having vehicles. I remember when they tried though, no comment there. IMO Halo was the first bought game to impliment fun vehicles in a FPS. (Redline and Codename Eagle were first but nobody bought them. BF1942 was later but I never cared for that game)

Hmm, I suppose diablo 1 was revolutionary, it had a chat system that every user had, transparent patch installation(at least as much as xbox live is), and buddy lists. So it really just lacked the things that required broadband, well that and vehicle support.(which technically, CS did have for a little while, it was just glitchy and really unrefined)

if it had voice that didnt require a seperate app or configuration and a chat/buddy/voicemail system that worked on every PC game than I would agree. Xbox live has been a godsend to me by not having to have 16 friends with Roger Wilco installed and configured and are willing to play whenever I want. I can have roll out of bed at 2am and be online organizing a strategy for CTF in less than 2 minutes.


[/quote]

 

[AlNom]

The PC version wouldn't need to be optimized, just depend on beefier system specs of disabling visuals.

Sorry, I also meant bug fixing as part of optimizing.

 

[Fodder]

IMO Halo was the first bought game to impliment fun vehicles in a FPS.

Tribes?

While I don't think Halo was particularly impressive or 'revolutionary' in any way, Xbox Live is a very important step forward, and largely thanks to MS you'll see all three manufacturers pouring huge amounts of effort into their online systems next gen.

 

[Qroach]

he did say "fun" vehicles

 

[Fodder]

Tribes vehicles were fun, nothing quite like kamikaziing scouts into heavies.

Not as fun as the Warthog or the buggies from say Mobile Forces or UT2004 though. It seems like gaming joy is directly proportional to the travel on your suspension and lack of grip on your tyres.

 

[Acert93]

IMO Halo was the first bought game to impliment fun vehicles in a FPS.

Tribes?

• Battlefield 1942
• Desert Combat (BF1942 mod with Gulf War machines... A10s, Apaches, F-15s, AC-130, M1 Abrams, Bradlys, Hummers, Dune Buggys, howitsers, Blackhawks, Harriers, Little Birds, Air Craft Carriers, Subs, Destroyers, Battleships, Landing Boats... did I mention this is just the Coalition stuff, Opposition has their own cool stuff)
• Forgotten Hope (BF1942 mod that makes WWII action more realistic with HUNDREDS of authentic vehicles and weapons, each individual army is unique)

I like Halo and Tribes was cool, but BF has far better vehicles (and gameplay IMO). They all drive different, they are integrated into a Rock-Paper-Scissors type balance, there are usually 10-20 vehicles per map, and there is a ton of variety.

The 2 or 3 vehicles in Halo really cannot hold their own against the massive maps and vehicles in BF. And personally (personally) prefer the Conquest type game style. Much more team oriented and the vehicles actually have some importance other than just killing. Air supperiority and air strikes are important, having arty spamming an outpost you are assaulting can give a big advantage, etc... There is so much to do it appeals to a lot of different gamers.

Definately, BF1942 is my choice for Game with best vehicles 8)

 

[Pozer]

IMO Halo was the first bought game to impliment fun vehicles in a FPS.

Tribes?

• Battlefield 1942
• Desert Combat (BF1942 mod with Gulf War machines... A10s, Apaches, F-15s, AC-130, M1 Abrams, Bradlys, Hummers, Dune Buggys, howitsers, Blackhawks, Harriers, Little Birds, Air Craft Carriers, Subs, Destroyers, Battleships, Landing Boats... did I mention this is just the Coalition stuff, Opposition has their own cool stuff)
• Forgotten Hope (BF1942 mod that makes WWII action more realistic with HUNDREDS of authentic vehicles and weapons, each individual army is unique)

I like Halo and Tribes was cool, but BF has far better vehicles (and gameplay IMO). They all drive different, they are integrated into a Rock-Paper-Scissors type balance, there are usually 10-20 vehicles per map, and there is a ton of variety.

The 2 or 3 vehicles in Halo really cannot hold their own against the massive maps and vehicles in BF. And personally (personally) prefer the Conquest type game style. Much more team oriented and the vehicles actually have some importance other than just killing. Air supperiority and air strikes are important, having arty spamming an outpost you are assaulting can give a big advantage, etc... There is so much to do it appeals to a lot of different gamers.

Definately, BF1942 is my choice for Game with best vehicles 8)

I guess it comes down to personal taste. I really didn't care for BF1942's vehicles and especially disliked the on foot action. I guess I'm in the minority cause I enjoyed Tribes2 alot more than Tribes. I thought the vehicles in UT2004 were awful too. I think I prefer Halos vehicles because of the crazy physics and suspension they have. Nothing like rolling a wathog 5 times and managing to land right side up and keep going. Also the crazy crashes and etc. It may also have something to do with liking using a controller over a Mouse/keyboard for better vehicle control. But my main gripe with BF1942 is the on foot action which I find lacking.

However I wasn't saying Halo has better or more vehicles than 1942 IMO they just integrate into the game better. I was only pointing out Halo came out a full year before BF1942. The makers of BF1942 made an amazing game called Codename Eagle that was amazing to play on a lan back in the day. That and Redline, those were my first fav vehicular fps game.

 

[Fodder]

The handling on BF1942's vehicles is no fun at all. If I can't bounce around on ridiculous suspension or fishtail my way over some hapless sod, it's not the game for me. And yeah, it came out a full year after Halo, which was the topic of discussion.