Xbox 2 coming in Nov-Dec 2005 - Revolution could be stronger

[London Geezer]

Wasn't Halo developed in around a year? It was the "big thing" back then, when the ease of development of the Xbox could "allow developers to make their vision come true at very little cost and time", and Halo was the "proof"............ :|

 

[Qroach]

IGN doesn't usually have a clue of what they speak. ...and since when has nintendo ever been known to have the most powerful system? Even still I thought most the more hardcore gamecube fans in this forum were of the opinion that the specs don't really matter? I think next gen, the graphics will be so good that it simply wouldn't matter if one was slightly more powerful than the other. There is the problem of finding ways to use that power, which most PC devs are still struggling ot do with the graphics hardware of today.

All I know about xbox 2 is that MS is having a full compliment of games at launch. Some old franchises, some new. They aren't going ot have a problem with having decent titles at launch becuase they are spending a whole lot of time making those titles.

 

[London Geezer]

IGN doesn't usually have a clue of what they speak. ...and since when has nintendo ever been known to have the most powerful system? Even still I thought most the more hardcore gamecube fans in this forum were of the opinion that the specs don't really matter? I think next gen, the graphics will be so good that it simply wouldn't matter if one was slightly more powerful than the other. There is the problem of finding ways to use that power, which most PC devs are still struggling ot do with the graphics hardware of today.

All I know about xbox 2 is that MS is having a full compliment of games at launch. Some old franchises, some new. They aren't going ot have a problem with having decent titles at launch becuase they are spending a whole lot of time making those titles.

And in the end, even if they go "the dreamcast way", it might be very good for them. In the end, DC had some amazing titles, it was a great system for the time it was released. And MS won't have Sega's financial problems, which means Xbox2 might be a DC that "doesn't die"... If you know what i mean.

 

[Qroach]

Nah, they will never be like the dreamcast providing that EA supports it (and EA has already said they plan on supporting what MS is doing.). That was basically a big reason people wanted a PS2 instead. no madden football on the dreamcast meant a few million unhappy gamers.

 

[London Geezer]

No i meant, i don't mind if the Xbox2 is the next DC, meaning the least powerful but still with some of the best software around. MS will never drop Xbox the way Sega dropped DC, so that will also help them.

 

[function]

mind you, the Gamecube and Xbox launched at the same time, Gamecube can hold its own against the more powerful but less efficent Xbox

How much less efficient than the GC is the Xbox, and how do you calculate that?

IMO, The GC can "hold it's own" against the Xbox in the same way the DC could hold it's own against the PS2. It's clearly not as powerful, but the gap isn't big enough to stop well made games from competing in the market place. That said, Id were quick enough to write the GC off as a destination for Doom 3, so not so much holding it's own going on in that particular instance.

With the 18 or so months to an Xmas 2005 launch, plus what's already gone, I don't see why MS couldn't have a good launch lineup. As good anything that's gone before anyway. How long did DC, PS2 and GC developers have? And how long do people think N5 and PS3 developers will have for launch titles, on what are likely to be less friendly platforms?

And if Nintendo did end up with a more poweful machine (which would be very suprising considering their history and current PR spinnage), surely that'd mean it ended up with worse games, right? Because developers spend too much time on graphics while totally ignoring gameplay, and this crazy push for advanced technology is alienating gamers ...

 

[function]

No i meant, i don't mind if the Xbox2 is the next DC, meaning the least powerful but still with some of the best software around. MS will never drop Xbox the way Sega dropped DC, so that will also help them.

I've speculated before that with a decent financial footing, Sega could have continued with the DC and made it to a clear (but distant) second place against the PS2, well ahead of the Xbox or GC. Even wihout EA onboard. With Microsoft's resources (and the backing of EA), I'm really not worried for the safety of an Xbox 2 that launched at the end of 2005.

I'd also be personally quite happy with another DC, as you put it.

 

[London Geezer]

Yep. Nice, powerful-y, cheap-y, decent games... Then when the full beast comes out 2 years later (as it seems at the moment), time to switch over.

 

[wco81]

I didn't get an Xbox but I'm ready for another system now since I got the PS2 in 2000 and my PC is even older.

XB2 could be the right one, especially with HDTV support. But no doubt by the time XB2 launches, Sony will lay their cards on the table and it will be enticing.

MS needs to drop the whole pay-to-play concept for online gaming however for me to sign on board.

 

[OICAspork]

What is up with this?

What the hell is with all of you and your Nintendo doesn't have a history of releasing the most powerful hardware? NES compared to Atari/Sega Master, SNES was most powerful at its time, and was the bar that other contenders had to aim at/surpass. The N64 compared to Playstation... hell Gamecube compared to PS2/Dreamcast. With the exception of Microsoft and the X-Box Nintendo has ALWAYS been the most powerful console at the time of its launch. I don't get where you people are referring to a history of Nintendo not being the most powerful... Where are you pulling that from?

*shrugs* That all said, I think that Nintendo is striving for something very close to graphical parity this coming round. From their comments I agree that they don't sound like they are striving to beat the competition (but maybe they are referring to Sony in those comments rather than both Sony and Microsoft).

Also another question. When do you guys expect a launch for Microsoft? If it will be launched Christmas of next year, you don't think they'd wait until E3 to start the hype do you? Less than six months between unveiling and roll out?

 

[wco81]

One of the disappointments of this generation was that Mario on the GCN didn't look that different from Mario 64. Not talking about the environments necessarily but the character modeling itself. Of course much of that is due to the art style but Mario Sunrise (not sure of the name) didn't seem to have the same visual impact as Mario 64 did.

As for Xbox2 hype, I'm sure after this Xmas season, MS will talk more about it, so they don't screw up Xbox sales for this Holiday season. E3 in May 05 will be the big unveiling but they will probably show at GDC in March too. Final price and date may wait til E3 however.

 

[accidentalsuccess]

My gut tells me that ~Nov 2005 we'll see xbox 2. "AAA" Launch titles will be: Sims2, TES IV (the elder scrolls--morrowind"2"?), Starcraft 2 ( ), and some yet-to-be-announced FPS that will be quality (MS in-house development). MS has to have a FPS, IMO, because such a huge base of xbox is fps games.

I can't help but think that MS is banking on Unreal Engine 3 tech being portable over to the xbox 2 fairly easily for that series of games, along with games based on the Doom3 and HL2 engines.

I think they'll try to work Halo 3 for a late summer 2006 release corresponding to a price drop in the console.

 

[Pepto-Bismol]

From a business perspective, the worst thing Microsoft Games can do is to inaugurate the next console generation.

Putting foes aside, the move will essentially pit successor against predecessor -- not only for market share but for the same demographic! Furthermore, having to raise two competitors could end up pushing the Home and Entertainment unit even further away from profitability.

Microsoft's more successful core business units, who have been stiffed with Xbox bills, will probably not be as gullible or as longsuffering this time around ... ditto for board members and stockholders.

 

[Paul]

You'll see them launch Fall 05, better believe it.

A upgraded remake of Halo in 1080i would be a nice opener for launch.

 

[thop]

Some shops here are selling the GC for as cheap as 79€ now (99€ recomended price from Nintendo), i've even heard of a shop that sells for 99€ including a free game of your choice. I wonder how much the production cost for the GC is now if they can sell it that cheap and still make money on it (Nintendo and the retailers)

 

[Evil_Cloud]

Some shops here are selling the GC for as cheap as 79€ now (99€ recomended price from Nintendo), i've even heard of a shop that sells for 99€ including a free game of your choice. I wonder how much the production cost for the GC is now if they can sell it that cheap and still make money on it (Nintendo and the retailers)

Production cost is somewhere between 79 and 89 I thought.

 

[Qroach]

What the hell is with all of you and your Nintendo doesn't have a history of releasing the most powerful hardware?

Um, because it's true?

NES compared to Atari/Sega Master

Um no idea why you put atari in there, but anyway, the sega master system was quite a bit more powerful than the NES. It just never had any support..

SNES was most powerful at its time

The Snes was a good system but one could argue tha tit's processors ran too slowly compared to the genesis. Snes is probably the first ssytem I'd say nintendo made that was the most powerfull. However rightfully so as it came out LONG after the genesis.

The N64 compared to Playstation...

I don't think the N64 was more powerful than the playstaiton at all. Most N64 games had trouble maintaining 30fps, and drew far less polygons than the PSX. N64 had some nice graphical features but those didn't make it's games look all that much better.

Gamecube compared to PS2/Dreamcast. With the exception of Microsoft and the X-Box...

Well you have to include the xbox in the current race. Also what about the handhelds. The turbo graphics hand held, atari lynx, game gear, and Nomad were all far more advanced than the gameboy, or even gameboy advanced to some extent.

Nintendo has ALWAYS been the most powerful console at the time of its launch. I don't get where you people are referring to a history of Nintendo not being the most powerful... Where are you pulling that from?

I disagree. Anyway, the only console I'd give the nintendo the most powerfull hardware crown to would be the Snes, so that's 1 out of 5 times. Sounds like a history to me...

 

[Teasy]

True, a year might yield quite an advantage for the latter console from a technologie perspective, but you also have to factor in that each console are working with different cost budget all together.

I wouldn't be so sure:

Multiple software houses involved with "Xbox 2" development stand by rumors the console will not feature a hard drive, which would suggest that it might also not be backward compatible with current Xbox software. "Microsoft needs to make money with this system and so it's going a pretty conservative route," an insider explained, adding, "but that doesn't mean the system is not powerful because it is."

Unlike this generation (where XBox was made to sell at a big loss) it looks like XBox 2 will be made to, at least, break even.

 

[Teasy]

Quincy

IGN doesn't usually have a clue of what they speak. ...and since when has nintendo ever been known to have the most powerful system?

IGN don't lie and make up quotes from developers though. Also I don't think anyone's saying Revolution will be the most powerful of the generation, just more powerful then XBox 2.

BTW N64 was the most powerful of its generation and, arguably, so was SNES.

Even still I thought most the more hardcore gamecube fans in this forum were of the opinion that the specs don't really matter?

If the specs are close then that's very true yes it doesn't really matter IMO. But when MS's first console was sold on being the biggest and most powerful it might not work for them to suddenly be the weakest system out there.

 

[Paul]

BTW N64 was the most powerful of its generation and, arguably, so was SNES.

I thought largely that N64 had games that blew away PSONE games(Visually). Though N64 games never looked realistic, or anywhere near it; although I think this was a design choice for the games.