mcv - PS3 concerns ignite Xbox 2 support

[passerby]

Rygar is the only game Tecmo did for the PS2 this whole generation iirc.

Well no. They created the Zero series, which gained recognition on the PS2 - enough for them to launch a subscription-based keitai game(which uses the phone's built-in camera!) based on the Zero series. Gallop Racer is a very, very popular series. They also released Monster Farm 4, and will release Kagero 2 next year.

Obviously these all these are not done by the Team Ninja dev team!

Tecmo simply may not be high on Sony's list, especially since Itakagi's disparaging remarks from way back.

A lot of studios are not high on Sony's list right now. The uncomfortable issue here is that in terms of information to other studios besides the 'key/big' guys, the PS3 is quite behind the PS2's schedule back then. Just ask our resident devs here.

The final result is that we may see more Japanese studios supporting both platforms, instead of just the PS platform.

And of course, the delay also causes the 'spectre of disappointing 1st gen titles' to lurk nearby... At least, I'm sure that those key studios priviledged with official data earlier than others won't disappoint. I hope.

 

[Cryect]

The uncomfortable issue here is that in terms of information to other studios besides the 'key/big' guys, the PS3 is quite behind the PS2's schedule back then.

Which is definately concerning considering how pitiful the PS2 launch was and how long it took for an actual game really worth getting came out (GT3).

 

[one]

I'm still trying to work out what you thought I said to think that was a response to it (and that a "rolleyes" was appropriate).

is my personal favorite, thanks
The place I'd like to respond to in your comment is, mainly financial aspect of things.

With the skyrocketing development costs associated with the move to the next generation, the pub/dev community is probably looking for security more now than ever before.

Now with the skyrocketing development costs associated with the next-gen, why do those who are insecure of their own success have to venture on it in its early stage? Only assorted, established people should be entitled to be there in the next-gen consoles first, rather than those with less cash and less experience that only can produce mediocre titles anyway. How will the audience respond to those bad games that appear on a next-gen console as launch titles? They will piss off overall impression of a next-gen platform itself.

In the last comment I wrote the BC to PS2 for a possible risk-hedging target for those who can't afford the next-gen dev immediately, and now, there's the PSP too if you want to venture on something new with less budget while doing R&D for the next-gen. Those whining 'unnamed sources' are simply sub-par people in the new revised next-gen development scale.

However much XNA reduce dev cost in technological aspect, overall art asset production and other efforts can't be reduced so quickly. You know, XNA is not more than the collection/combination of middlewares which are assured to work together, supplied by multiple third parties.

Rygar is the only game Tecmo did for the PS2 this whole generation iirc.

Nah, they do sell many PS2 games including hit titles at least in Japan. Their Xbox titles are smash hit in the US and modest hit in Japan, but Xbox can't sustain Tecmo singlehandedly. So-called 'Team-Ninja' in Tecmo is not a separated house, most members in the team develop PS2 games too.

 

[pahcman]

When Sony unveils PlayStation3, they won't just be unveiling a more powerful console. They'll be unveiling a vision of the future, a digital home that unites Broadband, HDTV, WiFi, Games and Blue-Ray. That type of $300 vision sells, just as it did with the PlayStation2 over the Dreamcast.

DC have bundled internet browser and gaming, PS2 have subpar video playback. Im sure almost everyone will rank online capabilites higher than videos for digital future. DC lost out for far better reasons. I must say Sony kinda over charged PS2 when you look at the field. The wonders of market strangehold.

Speaking of visions, we know how PS2 visions turned out. Of course that is past, anything still possible.

It does highligths the limits of Playstation format,console and vision. As much as Playstation sells, guys view it as plain videogames, economic game box, like eg DC, N64, PS1, SNES, Genesis, Atari before. Great sales like Nintendo have with GB, like Sega Nintendo once enjoy. Thats about it.

I doubt your wish for a complete "more than a powerful console" digital center by 2005, will be met. Cost will stop Sony, like it did with PS2. There is no cheap $300 vision on grand scheme of things, dont let marketing get to you.

Sony could bite the bullet and make PS3 = PSX2, but with their finance and latest PSP, how much more can they chew. Of coruse we know, biting bullet Ms style is evil. Thats why Sony have PS2 and PSX, and spoken about launching 2 version of PS3. I have no doubt gamers will snap up PS3, but will they want to spend on PSX2?

I expect PS3 to be just a more powerful PS2.

 

[Vince]

DC have bundled internet browser and gaming, PS2 have subpar video playback. Im sure almost everyone will rank online capabilites higher than videos for digital future. DC lost out for far better reasons. I must say Sony kinda over charged PS2 when you look at the field. The wonders of market strangehold.

What stranglehold? The problem with the comments from people like you, Chappers, and Quincy is that you all have different reasons for why Sony's doing better and better. There is no coherent view from you guys, it's more akin to throwing every negative comment at the wall and pretending the pattern of shit means something.

I mean, you say that Sony "overcharged" for PS2 and the video playback is "subpar," but, yet, the main reason put forward in the past for PS2's sucess was DVD playback. That is, untill everyone started toting the Microsoft sponcered line of, it's because of the 2 year head start.

And we're not talking about a half-assed Internet Browser using console controls Chap... nor do I think Microsoft has a lock on online usage and support going forward -- by a long shot.

I doubt your wish for a complete "more than a powerful console" digital center by 2005, will be met. Cost will stop Sony, like it did with PS2. There is no cheap $300 vision on grand scheme of things, dont let marketing get to you.

Chap, when have you ever expected anything good from Sony though? It wouldn't have Blu-Ray support, Cell was just a network processor, et al.

That's the problem, the coherency on the "otherside" is nonexistent. There was no way Sony could put DVD support and the EE in PS2 and not charge $500. There was No way PSP would cost less than $300. There was no way that PS3 would support BD-ROM and Cell... although you'll still make the argument it'll cost >$300 as if history means nothing.

But it's like you said, it's just about expectations. For some it'll be "just a more powerful PS2" no matter what -- for others it'll be something more.

 

[Qroach]

When was I wrong concerning semiconductor predictions? Even back in 2000 I was right concerning the technology. Granted, there were some economic barriers (ergo the investment comment) that I didn't anticipate concerning 3dfx, but I hardly think you can say I wasn't correct in my knowledge and statements concerning the actual technology.

Did I specifically say you weren't correct on any of those matters? No, so I don't see why you need to get defensive.

And I've been pretty on my game concerning the console buisness and PS2. What's it at... 75Million or something? Even your buddy from Tecmo stated that the XBox is a failure:

LOL, you mean PS2 coming out on top this generation? Who the heck DIDN'T predict that man? I certainly did. It was obvious before the console launched considering the weak competition from Sega. Once again, I didn't say anything about Xbox being a success or anything like that so there's no need to get all defensive.

My buddy? stop being a horses ass for a second ok?I mean seriously. It you can't be a part of a discussion without turning into the OLD vince, then don't bother responding to my posts. You've already given more than enough attitude in this thread, and it's getting old.

How about this. I'll make another prediction. The DS is going to come out the winner in the new portable race. Both in developer support and software/hardware sales.

Well, could fool some of us bud.

Likewise bub.

There isn't one factor. Your statement, IMHO, it intrinsically flawed, incomplete, to attempt a reduction of the success of the PlayStation brand to a single element or factor.

I didn't "ask" what has made the playstation brand successful. I said "What is the one reason that made people want to buy the PS2 instead of any other console?". The PS2 Vince. In fact this CAN be attributed to one reason. It provided the games people wanted to play. Plain and simple. Without those games, and without developer support, the PS2 would NOT have been the success it is this generation. Outside of proper timing and other factors people obviously bought the unit to play games, (or possibly DVD's), but games are what kept it selling.

yet as tuttle has elegently stated, they're failing thus far.

Once again, how can they be failing with the xbox 2 when it has yet to launch? Imo, it's too early to tell.

XNA is an extention of this doctrine by being an attempt to lower the costs of moving a PC title to the X2, it will be a marginal sucess at best.

Or moving an Xbox 2 title to the PC, hence the PC controller standardization and DX10 class hardware as the minimum for requirement for Longhorn.

Sony has yet to publically show its hand, nor does it have to.

I'm not worried when PS3 information will be "publically" available. What is MORE important at this stage in the PS2's life, is when PS3 information will be wide spread throughout the development community.

They'll be unveiling a vision of the future...

What a bunch of nonsense. It seems you already fell for the marketing hype before it really started. I couldn't give a crap about sony's visions for the future regarding other home devices. All I care about is what I need to do to release a game on their damn platform.

By the time E3-2005 ends, Sony will have become the de facto winner of the second round.

Wow, I'm going to store that quote for the future. Talk about bold. If sony has teh same level of cockyness I certianly hope MS or nintendo can take them down a notch.

You keep talking about developers, but in the grand scheme of things they're just pawns (sorry guys). They can talk all they want about X2 now, before most of them know a single thing about PS3, but in 6months to a year they wont be saying the same thing; they'll be coding for PS3 because they want to get payed. Publishers control the marketplace and once Sony starts the blitz, it'll bring the consumers around, which will sway the publishers back to the current equilibrium if not farther.

I've been talking about developers AND publishers. You don't think I know that publishers control the market dude? Come on! Not only that, but you act like publishers don't think there's going to be money that can be made off of X2. Publishers like EA tend to lead the charge when it comes to multiplatform titles because they clearly can tell there's money to be made. Publishers aren't stupid enough to put all thier eggs into one basket. I'm not claiming that PS3 is goign to lose support or anything like that. I'm only talking about Xbox 2 doing better than it did this round.

Give it 6 months and the question will become -- Why Xbox2?

...because there's money to be made. What else...

 

[Qroach]

The problem with the comments from people like you, Chappers, and Quincy is that you all have different reasons for why Sony's doing better and better. There is no coherent view from you guys, it's more akin to throwing every negative comment at the wall and pretending the pattern of shit means something.

Vince you really need to shut up about crap like this as it's bloddy annoying. I mean seriously! What point is there in complaing that two people have differing opinons on something? There's people in here that may agree with you on the PS3 being the winner next gen, yet have totally different reasons for it.

and your implying that I'm claiming to be the all knowing souce of the games business? get off your pedestal!

 

[one]

XNA is an extention of this doctrine by being an attempt to lower the costs of moving a PC title to the X2, it will be a marginal sucess at best.

Or moving an Xbox 2 title to the PC, hence the PC controller standardization and DX10 class hardware as the minimum for requirement for Longhorn.

Nitpicking one two... Longhorn's required 3D hardware is DX9 as of WinHEC 2004, upped from the spec in WinHEC 2003 (DX7). If you don't use Avalon/Aero and stick to the classic mode, it won't need even DX9 probably.

As an innate PC gamer, I'm afraid PC games are done in a console first like Deus Ex 2 or Thief 2. I love keyboard and mouse too, dammit!

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Rygar, DoA2, Fatal Frame I & II, Monster Rancher 3 & 4, many Gallop Racers (popular in Japan), more random stuff...

And while I wouldn't discount their comments offhand, I also wouldn't give them the same credence I'd give larger, more multi-platform (and less aligned-one-way) developers of any orientation. They have more-to-gain/less-to-lose from mouthing off, while others are continually looking at the whole picture.

Ahhh yes. I had completely forgotten about their japanese releases & Fatal Frames, thanks cthellis. That was my initial point in quoting Tecmo, you have put it more succinctly.

 

[pahcman]

What stranglehold?

The strangehold because PS1 did so well, PS2 become the gaming box to buy next. DC is not, GC is late, Xbox is new.

I mean, you say that Sony "overcharged" for PS2 and the video playback is "subpar," but, yet, the main reason put forward in the past for PS2's sucess was DVD playback.

PS2 is overcharged for a barebone console(2 control ports too!) with average dvd video. Dvd playback may be a helping hand(far from main reason) during PS2 poor launch period, but once game start to flow, thats about it. I rate future expectations from PS2 investment as much bigger reason. Like i say, PS2 seen as the safest gaming box to buy, from which we can expect to play big titles and not go extinct. Certainly applies to me. How many actually buy into PS2 seeing it as a "Digital Home Box" that plays DVD! too(only DVD though)?

I still say guys look at PS2 as nothing more than typical game box.

Imho, Sony has chances to change that view, but they missed the boat. "PSX" should be release a year earlier and not conceive and sold all within 7 months iirc. Need not be the redesigned PSX, but a PS2 bundled with USB KB, NA and HDD loaded with clean competent PS OS that runs the web, fetch downloads, IM, popular formats playback ect. Without redesign and tuner/dvdrw, and Sony famous fabbing abilites, i expect it retails no more than 299. Stand alone cheaper PS2 still on sale, and upgrade packs available to current PS2 users if needed. You can throw in USB MS reader and webcam to complete.

This allows Sony to live test their PS OS Digital Platform and get users away from PC and be comfortable using Playstation and TV as gateway for the digital future. That didnt happen, PS2 is still stuck in the confine of plain console like so many before. Much work to do if you expect PS3 to be something more from the start.

That's the problem, the coherency on the "otherside" is nonexistent. There was no way Sony could put DVD support and the EE in PS2 and not charge $500. There was No way PSP would cost less than $300. There was no way that PS3 would support BD-ROM and Cell

I wasnt around much 1998/9 but did people really held onto the PS2 EE $500 problem? Iirc IGN ran 1-2 snippets about rumor exhorbitant prices, apart that, was netizens debate as rigid as today?
PSP price is a suprise, but its costing Sony. PSP vs GB "monopoly" and PS3 "monopoly" vs rest is a different boat too. Can they bleed more, will they want to, do they even need to?
Who "no wayed" to PS3 and BD-ROM? I know i didnt. Many expects BD-ROM at most instead of a those who hung on to full BR abilites.

 

[one]

Imho, Sony has chances to change that view, but they missed the boat. "PSX" should be release a year earlier and not conceive and sold all within 7 months iirc. Need not be the redesigned PSX, but a PS2 bundled with USB KB, NA and HDD loaded with clean competent PS OS that runs the web, fetch downloads, IM, popular formats playback ect. Without redesign and tuner/dvdrw, and Sony famous fabbing abilites, i expect it retails no more than 299.

Ah... isn't it called PS2 Linux Kit?

For PC-like use, Sony already has their VAIO line on MS Windows and doesn't need a cheepo simputer thing as it contradicts with the overall Sony brand image of novel, added-value, non-cheap products. Kutaragi himself once told he never intends to make the PS2 (dedicated console) a PC (generic tool).

Also, PSX is not by SCE, but by Sony Corp. itself, and to make it more complicated, Sony's another division has its own DVD-recorder products which is superior to PSX.

 

[pahcman]

Ah... isn't it called PS2 Linux Kit?

I was thinking alone a more mass produce user friendly kit. Beats buying just a NA and HDD-FFXI, and also since form factor remains the same, lesser confusion. It should have been the case. In fact by all expectations and promises, this should go way back to PS2 launch. At that time Sony was in better shape, have unobstruct competition and very enthusia about digital box idea. In the end, we get only PS2, what happens is a mystery. Could it be lack of foresight? Lack of funds? Lack of competition? I just hope Sony learns from their mistake. I mean, if PS3 = PSX2 @ PS3 prices, who would complain?

For PC-like use, Sony already has their VAIO line on MS Windows and doesn't need a cheepo simputer thing as it contradicts with the overall Sony brand image of novel, added-value, non-cheap products. Kutaragi himself once told he never intends to make the PS2 (dedicated console) a PC (generic tool).

If that is "PC like uses", then what is your idea of the so called vision of the future, the digital home?

Also, PSX is not by SCE, but by Sony Corp. itself,

Incorrect. PSX is the brainchild of Kutaragi, and most of the development was handled by SCE. Does that count as SCE or Sony Corp.?

 

[Evil_Cloud]

Incorrect. PSX is the brainchild of Kutaragi, and most of the development was handled by SCE. Does that count as SCE or Sony Corp.?

It is being released in Japan by Sony's distribution network, not SCEJ's.

 

[pahcman]

Will that a difference?

 

[one]

Also, PSX is not by SCE, but by Sony Corp. itself,

Incorrect. PSX is the brainchild of Kutaragi, and most of the development was handled by SCE. Does that count as SCE or Sony Corp.?

Starting from 03/31/2003, Kutaragi is concurrently the vice president of Sony Corp as well as being the CEO of SCE Before that, he was just one of executive board members in the core Sony Group.

Then 05/22/2003, PSX was announced and SCE expressly commented (original Famitsu article) that PSX is not a product from SCE but from Sony. PSX is a DVD-recorder which happens to have gaming abiliy provided from SCE, not vice versa.

PSX can't be called a success anyway, the next restrained plan of Kutaragi as a Sony executive, not only as the SCE CEO, is the XMB user interface which is put on Sony's TV and PSP and other possible Sony products. Then the Cell comes in the future of course, but it will permeate beyond Sony, in Toshiba and IBM products, and more - the Cell ISA is like TCP/IP in the internet.

 

[Qroach]

Yes we all know of Sony's plans for extending the cell technology to many different devices they manufacture/sell. Honestly I just don't care about Sony's grand scheme. I only care about how "good" PS3 will be as a gaming system, i.e. will it have the type of games I want to play (fro a consumer standpoint) and how I can develop games for it (forma business standpoint). I just don't care about the "unveiling a vision of the future" nonsense.

There's some people here such as Vince and I guess Tuttle (correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that Tuttle) that believe XNA is simply a market cannibalization, yet Cell being designed and used throughout a number of Sony's products in an attempt to interconnect a series of home appliances while leveraging common technology is "not"? It seems to me that Sony is using what SCE started with the Playstation 1&2, and trying to leverage that success into the Sony product lines that aren’t profitable.

If people here believe in some way that this is going to play into the nextgen console race in a meaningful way, IMO I think they will be in for a surprise.

 

[London Geezer]

It's funny how the same people think that we should look at previous generations history on if and when they feel like it and omitting details according to how it suits their "predictions", which are vastly fed by personal preferences of one company over the others.

The next gen becomes a "new starting point, it starts from zero so previous gen un/successes don't count" only when they need to downplay companies with various degrees of success, or lack of thereof, in previous generations, However according to the same very people, certain "episodes" or aspects of the same history get carried over, only when they need to give their arguments any sort of meaning. Unsuccessfully i must add.

Just be coherent people.

 

[Sonic]

To put it in the most simple terms. If Sony is able to make dev tools that are easy to use then that will make the lives of developers much easier. If the PS3 has no documentation and poor support from Sony from the beginning then yes you can expect many 3rd parties to play a wait and see approach like they usually do. If Sony or IBM manages to deliver the tools the devs need to make life easy for them then it will be all good.

I will reserve judgement on XNA when Xbox 2 comes out and when I see developer journals regarding the use of it.

 

[Qroach]

The next gen becomes a "new starting point, it starts from zero so previous gen un/successes don't count" only when they need to downplay companies with various degrees of success, or lack of thereof, in previous generations, However according to the same very people, certain "episodes" or aspects of the same history get carried over, only when they need to give their arguments any sort of meaning. Unsuccessfully i must add.

Well if you're going to attempt to be "coherent", you should be displaying both sides of this argument. As there are clearly people that think because of previous success, the future is guaranteed, when in reality it's NEVER guaranteed. It's just that type of complacency that you can't have in a market like this.

If you want to be coherent and use the past generations to prove how Sony is going to continue it's reign, then you can't discount how Nintendo and Sega have fallen from tough competition. Each generation actually is a new starting point IMO. Sales are not guaranteed. Pleasing the public is not guaranteed. It's a hit driven business. I think Sony will be number 1 again next gen possibly, but not by the same margin they were this gen. Not with two competitors releasing slightly before or at the same time.

Besides, I think you've taken the wrong point from things I or some others in this thread have said. Nobody here is saying MS is going to "win the war" based on a different approach, or anything like that in this thread. Some people here (the ones with an open mind imo) are saying that there's a distinct "possibility" that MS will do better in the second round, by correcting mistakes they made (mistakes like focusing on an expensive hardware race they couldn't win, instead of the software that drives system sales) and a number of other areas. We're saying it's "possible" when a few others say it's "not possible", so who out of the two groups is the one with the open mind?

 

[London Geezer]

Well if you're going to attempt to be "coherent", you should be displaying both sides of this argument. As there are clearly people that think because of previous success the future is gaurenteed, when in reality it's NEVER guarenteed. if you want to be coherent and use the past generations to prove how sony is goign to continue it's reign, then you can't discount how nitnendo and esega have fallen from tough compeition.

Each generation actually is a new starting point IMO. Sales are not gaurenteed.

Besides I think you've taken the wrong point from things I or some others in this thread have said. Nobody here is saying MS is going to "win the war" or anything like that in this thread. Some people here (the ones with an open mind imo) are saying that there's a distinct "possibility" that MS will do better in the second round, by correcting mistakes they made (mistakes like focusing on an expensive harware race they couldn't win instead of the software that drives system sales) and a number of other areas. We're saying it's possible when a few others say it's "not possible", so who out of the two groups is the one with the open mind?

Why would you think i was talking about you?

Also, i have not made one single comment on this thread so the bolded part of your post was uncalled for. I was retaining a broad mind and that's why i made no names (people in here or companies supported) in my post.

People in here twist reality and spin their arguments according to how they feel it's going to put their preferred company in a better light.

The same people saying PS3 will be hard to program for, that it will be another failure from Sony because (1) they think PS2 was a failure and (2) they think Sony's "vision" of the PS2 gen was never accomplished, are also the same persons saying that the real failure of MS and Nintendo of this generation (cause let's face it, it is, whatever way you look at it, whatever territory they did better than others) will not be carried over next gen because we'll be strarting from zero.

How coherent is that?

The same goes for "the other side" too, to be honest, and that's why i made no names in my previous post.

The same people saying that Sony will totally win the next gen because it's "impossible" for them to lose, are also the same people who think we shouldn't look at previous generations when talking about PSP and how Nintendo will "go down".

Then there are the ones talking about how the next offerings from MS or N will be easy to program for while PS3 won't, just because it happened to be like this in the current generation, and only because they will feature GPUs from ATI. I don't think in the next generation we'll have anything that could be called "easy to program for" at all to be honest, with the Xbox's 3 CPUs and a whole lot of power that needs to be harnessed and used correctly and efficiently.

Thing is, we know so little, that it's kinda useless to argue over what could happen, especially sales-wise. Or we could just keep arguing on speculation or personal opinions, if that's what you guys consider fun.