Qroach said:
Not exactly, but something along those lines. I'm saying that you'll see more PC ports of console games with the common tool set and vice versa.
So Microsoft is pushing XNA for the benefit of the PC... right. As much as you claim I'm set in my ways for Sony, you're diametrically opposed in support of MS.
Q said:
How many games go from Console to PC? What is the net revenue gained relative to the inverse. What structural, fixed, costs must be added due to the open-ended design of the PC? I don't see this proposition as favorable.
You just proved my point. This is exactly why MS wants to have a common development system to remove the numerous technical problems related to "porting". The easier the port, the less it costs.
No, I proved that it's a failed concept because the net revenue just isn't there. The transition from the PC to the XBox is a degenerative process, you're narrowing the potential externalities and associated costs. Going to the PC is the inverse and immensely expensive in fixed ways that aren't related to "porting" or the code-base. Saying "the easier the port, the less is costs" doesn't mean anything holistically if you move the threshold by 1/10th the amount necessary to see a positive net ROI.
Going to the PC from a Console just isn't a very attractive deal unless your game is on the level of a GTA or Halo. And it's not for the reasons that XNA address, it's intrinsic to the platform.
Q said:
like i said I didn't want to get into this as I think you'd look at it from the wrong perspective IMO. This is something that should be attractive to publishers and developers. publishers can have more sku's to release on the market, with less time between versions. Developers can easily add a PC version along with the console versions to increase their profit margin. It's about making money and being attactive to the people in the business that want to make money. It has nothing to do with "if your losing" at all.
I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective?
Quincy, if I can target a single closed platform with a userbase of 100Million or a closed-platform of 20Million and an unknown number of PC's that have unique platform attributes that require fixed cost expansion to cope -- which do you choose?
It has everything to do with "
If you're losing" -- Microsoft, as tuttle has pointed out, isn't gaining from Sony's developer stables. They're playing the market cannobilization card, regardless of if you believe their ostensibly helping WGF or not.
Q said:
First of all what the heck does some IBM employee know? in an odd way they just proved what I was saying, it's not about the hardware it's about the software. MS did NOT have full support of the development community, they entered the market when a LARGE portion of it was already taken by the PS2 with it's numerous games and full stable of developers.
And the XBox situation differed from Sony's in 1994 how? Secondly, saying it was
"already taken" is analogous to how it was
"already taken" by Sega and Nintendo previously.
Well, we shall see how Microsoft does my friend. And they could very well do worse, they just might. You're opinion seems to be that the platform's success is reducable to the games on it and that developers want the Microsoft model. I don't necessaily agree, I believe there are several dynamics in play next generation that will be intrinsically positive for Sony. If they play their hands right, they can end this.
And I just stated that the only way it's different is in them legally owning the architectures. What I also stated, that you didn't address, is how this is different outside of what is strictly a fiscal matter -- how is the engineering different? The GPU is a PC derivative, the CPU looks to be an offshoot of the 65nm Power designs... where's the difference in architectural design? Did ATI and IBM and Microsoft form a group and work together?
