... And here comes the six-monthly PS2 is ugly, Xbox is huge, GC is purple whingingthread....
Xenon info?
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
- Status
And here I thought you guys would appreciate my leet hw testing methods.Chryz said:
Anyway, in my defense, the current PSP kits are prototypes, which means SCE lets us borrow them for free. I'd be more carefull with stuff company is actually paying for.
And besides, the stories I heard of some other studios and what they do to their development hw (any hw, not just Sony's), makes all I wrote about look downright innocent.
Actually yes : 2x - 3.5x smaller to be exact, depending on what part of the year 2002 you're referring to.jarrod said:
Granted that's worldwide, in US the advantage is smaller, but PS2 was still bigger back there also.
Hey, I tried my best to derail itLondon Boy said:
Spidermate
Regular
Johnny Awesome said:
You're right. These things COULD happen. But, there is no guarantee in the world that says IT WILL. A lot of these speculated assumptions could so easily take a turn for the worst or they could continue over into the next-generation. We don't know this yet and probably never will. However, it would be wise to keep an open mind to both sides. Neither side got where they are for nothing, and they're damn sure aren't pushovers in their territories.
Spidermate
Regular
PC-Engine said:
PS2 looks clunky and fugly too even though it's slighty smaller than Xbox.
Anyway regarding marketshare. I predict MS and Nintendo will gain while SONY loses marketshare.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but let e remind you that people "predicted" a lot of things before the Game Cube and Xbox launched and settled on store shelves.
Besides, easy to predict MS and Nintendo will gain market share.
First of all, unless they do, they're OUT. Second of all, they will both release before Sony, so they'll have at least 50% market share for some time, before PS3 comes out.
First of all, unless they do, they're OUT. Second of all, they will both release before Sony, so they'll have at least 50% market share for some time, before PS3 comes out.
jarrod said:
OK OK... IF it gets released before PS3
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Fair points Spidermate. I'm not the anti-Sony guy I once was and I'm really looking forward to PS3, but also enjoy discussing all the various scenarios as well.
Just to answer an earlier question: Microsoft shipped 4 million units of Xbox from Nov. 01 to June 02. It's not too hard to imagine them going into holiday '06 with an install base of 5-6 million if they launch in Nov '05.
Just to answer an earlier question: Microsoft shipped 4 million units of Xbox from Nov. 01 to June 02. It's not too hard to imagine them going into holiday '06 with an install base of 5-6 million if they launch in Nov '05.
Dear Vince,
They are pushing it for the benefit of BOTH platforms. It's not only in working in a single direction. What's your problem exactly? What wrong with a company that is already entrenched in creating developer tools with making MORE tools that will make porting easier between the platforms they support?
Diametrically opposed to what exactly? Do you mean opposed to the idea that MS will fail and/or go away? Opposed to the idea they MIGHT actually do better in the next console race? Opposed to the idea that MS should be looked at as a money making opportunity in a business I've been involved with for over 10 years?
Am I arguing in support of MS? Or am I simply not blind enough to realize this is going to help me in some way? I really don't see how you can even argue this as being a bad idea when YOU aren't the person going out and trying to make money selling games you worked on.
Even still if I didn't have to deal with publishers in this fashion and worked some where I was sheletered from having to consider stuff like this I may have a totally different opinion. However for now, I simply don't.
You're totally wrong Vince! When was the last time YOU tried to negotiate a game development deal with a publisher? Oh that's right never! Or when was the last time you worked on a PC port of a game project Vince? Oh that's right, NEVER. If the transition from PC to Xbox or ANY platform for that matter is a "degenerative process" then why in gods name are companies making money doing this??
Just as an example. Remedy entertainment developed Max Payne on and for the PC without a single though of porting it. Rockstar saw there was money in porting that game to both PS2 and XBOX. The PS2 port team (guys I happen to know and have worked with) went through 8 months of pure hell trying to get that game running on the PS2. They had a big team working on it and Rockstar spent quite a lot of money getting it out the door. The Xbox version took a fraction of the time to port (less than 1/4) with a team almost half the size. The PS2 version of course sold over a million units in North America, with the Xbox version reaching the around 600 (possibly higher I forget the final numbers).
So what you are trying to tell me, is that the port from PC-Xbox wouldn't bring in as much money - ROI - (due to the user base) as the PC-ps2 port, and becuase of this it's not worth it in the long run? You're telling me it's not worth it even though the Xbox port took less than a quarter of the time compared to PS2 with half the team size, there by reducing the overhead on the port, and it's still not worth it? That's idiotic man.
In the long run Rockstar could have potentially made more money on the Xbox port version then they did on the PS2 version, due to the port job being easier. So if MS is releasing tools to make this easier than it is currently? Good for them I'm certianly not going to find ways to complain about it.
There are plenty of games that have been ported from console to the PC because it's looked like extra revenue (depending on how easy the job is). If it requires a big team to port a game from console to PC, then it may NOT be worth it. If you can do it with a very small team, the return on investment could be excellent. Especially when you consider a single PC game sold can generate MORE profit than a single console game sold, due to the fees paid to MS, SONY or Nintendo.
If transitioning from ANY console to the PC is a degenerative process, then why do some of the biggest publishers out there, EA, UBISOFT, Rockstar, Vivendi, even bother porting most of their products to the PC? Why? ....Becuase there's freaking money to be had. Anytime you don't need a full team to create a port, and you don't need to spend a year on it, there's a chance you can make additional money.
So please don't try to imply, or tell me, "it's not worth it", when you clearly don't know all the factors involved other than what you gleaned from the internet.
That's nonsense imo. You obviously haven't talked to any publishers lately or been paying attention to what I'm saying. Publishers aren't all interested in paying for 4 million dollar single SKU games. For 4 million dollars they want version of the game running on multiple platforms. A port from console to PC "is" attractive if it doesn’t cost you (the developer or publisher) more that you sink into it. The entire concept behind having a unified toolset is to minimize the need to write different sets of code. If this "toolset" saves you money/time on porting, then it's worth it's weight in gold.
For one thing, XNA's usefulness isn't really evident right now, as they are pushing this as a tool for next generation of PC and console. If it indeed does what it says it will, then I'm all for it. What doesn't make sense, is people like you, that are completely removed from development spinning this into an argument that "it's because they are loosing" or "it doesn't make financial sense". What you don't realize is that many companies are making money ONLY because they can support multiple platforms.
Once again, I think you're looking at this wrong. It makes far more sense to target ALL of the platforms available, providing the costs associated with porting doesn't out way potential profit. The numbers you are using are of course skewed to how you feel depsite the fact Xbox 2 and PS3 have yet to release (and they were the topic of discussion until you decided to go off in a different direction).
Anyway, you aren't going to sell 100 million units on any platform despite
the "world wide" user base numbers. You might sell 2 million out of 100
million potential buyers. 600,00 out of 20 million potential buyers, and
300,000 on the PC. Even still the PC may sell less uits, but you can make
(On occasion) three times more money on a PC sale, as there are NO license fees attached.
"If" you look at it from a "fan" perspective then that argument "might" makes sense. From the standpoint of someone that wants to make money, I could care less how you want to spin it honestly. I know if it makes my life easier when porting, it's certainly worth it. This is especially true for small development teams. If you look at it from a pure development point of view where ports and multiple skus will make you additional money by adding value for a publisher, then it's pretty darn hard to argue. You olbviously never had to deal with a publisher or budget to develop a game title and realize there's no money left over at the end of the project, unless you add in ports to different platforms.
In 1994 Sega was already floundering with the Sega Saturn. It was both difficult to develop for and lacking developer support. Sega was actually surprised by the PSX and panic by adding additional hardware to their platform. Nintendo hadn't even released the N64 yet, and when they did it was also a platform that couldn't compare to the ease of development (not to mention cost of development) on the PSX. Not only that but a lack of CD support wasn't a good sign for Nintendo. Sony entered the market at a perfect time when the competition wasn't as stiff as it is now. Sony is far more entrenched than either of those competitors were at that time (with regards to the start of a new console generation). Sony slowly gained lots of developer support and rightfully so, they had an easy platform to develop for.
Now note how I say it's certainly possible for Microsoft to do worse, I can't see it happening, but it's possible. However what irks me is you jumping down my throat when I say it's "also" possible for MS to do better.
Yes there are several dynamics at play, I know them well and been screwed over by them regarding contracts. What I've been saying is the approach MS is taking to their hardware design is similar to Nintendo's approach. So even if MS doesn't gain any ground next generation, it would be possible for them to make money.
How so? Look at Nintendo's costs and hardware design, and then come back and tell me that the approach MS is taking is all that different to what Nintendo did this generation. Despite Nintendo not legally owning the architectures, they still have hardware that costs the least to manufacture.
They are pushing it for the benefit of BOTH platforms. It's not only in working in a single direction. What's your problem exactly? What wrong with a company that is already entrenched in creating developer tools with making MORE tools that will make porting easier between the platforms they support?
Diametrically opposed to what exactly? Do you mean opposed to the idea that MS will fail and/or go away? Opposed to the idea they MIGHT actually do better in the next console race? Opposed to the idea that MS should be looked at as a money making opportunity in a business I've been involved with for over 10 years?
Am I arguing in support of MS? Or am I simply not blind enough to realize this is going to help me in some way? I really don't see how you can even argue this as being a bad idea when YOU aren't the person going out and trying to make money selling games you worked on.
Even still if I didn't have to deal with publishers in this fashion and worked some where I was sheletered from having to consider stuff like this I may have a totally different opinion. However for now, I simply don't.
You're totally wrong Vince! When was the last time YOU tried to negotiate a game development deal with a publisher? Oh that's right never! Or when was the last time you worked on a PC port of a game project Vince? Oh that's right, NEVER. If the transition from PC to Xbox or ANY platform for that matter is a "degenerative process" then why in gods name are companies making money doing this??
Just as an example. Remedy entertainment developed Max Payne on and for the PC without a single though of porting it. Rockstar saw there was money in porting that game to both PS2 and XBOX. The PS2 port team (guys I happen to know and have worked with) went through 8 months of pure hell trying to get that game running on the PS2. They had a big team working on it and Rockstar spent quite a lot of money getting it out the door. The Xbox version took a fraction of the time to port (less than 1/4) with a team almost half the size. The PS2 version of course sold over a million units in North America, with the Xbox version reaching the around 600 (possibly higher I forget the final numbers).
So what you are trying to tell me, is that the port from PC-Xbox wouldn't bring in as much money - ROI - (due to the user base) as the PC-ps2 port, and becuase of this it's not worth it in the long run? You're telling me it's not worth it even though the Xbox port took less than a quarter of the time compared to PS2 with half the team size, there by reducing the overhead on the port, and it's still not worth it? That's idiotic man.
In the long run Rockstar could have potentially made more money on the Xbox port version then they did on the PS2 version, due to the port job being easier. So if MS is releasing tools to make this easier than it is currently? Good for them I'm certianly not going to find ways to complain about it.
There are plenty of games that have been ported from console to the PC because it's looked like extra revenue (depending on how easy the job is). If it requires a big team to port a game from console to PC, then it may NOT be worth it. If you can do it with a very small team, the return on investment could be excellent. Especially when you consider a single PC game sold can generate MORE profit than a single console game sold, due to the fees paid to MS, SONY or Nintendo.
If transitioning from ANY console to the PC is a degenerative process, then why do some of the biggest publishers out there, EA, UBISOFT, Rockstar, Vivendi, even bother porting most of their products to the PC? Why? ....Becuase there's freaking money to be had. Anytime you don't need a full team to create a port, and you don't need to spend a year on it, there's a chance you can make additional money.
So please don't try to imply, or tell me, "it's not worth it", when you clearly don't know all the factors involved other than what you gleaned from the internet.
That's nonsense imo. You obviously haven't talked to any publishers lately or been paying attention to what I'm saying. Publishers aren't all interested in paying for 4 million dollar single SKU games. For 4 million dollars they want version of the game running on multiple platforms. A port from console to PC "is" attractive if it doesn’t cost you (the developer or publisher) more that you sink into it. The entire concept behind having a unified toolset is to minimize the need to write different sets of code. If this "toolset" saves you money/time on porting, then it's worth it's weight in gold.
For one thing, XNA's usefulness isn't really evident right now, as they are pushing this as a tool for next generation of PC and console. If it indeed does what it says it will, then I'm all for it. What doesn't make sense, is people like you, that are completely removed from development spinning this into an argument that "it's because they are loosing" or "it doesn't make financial sense". What you don't realize is that many companies are making money ONLY because they can support multiple platforms.
Once again, I think you're looking at this wrong. It makes far more sense to target ALL of the platforms available, providing the costs associated with porting doesn't out way potential profit. The numbers you are using are of course skewed to how you feel depsite the fact Xbox 2 and PS3 have yet to release (and they were the topic of discussion until you decided to go off in a different direction).
Anyway, you aren't going to sell 100 million units on any platform despite
the "world wide" user base numbers. You might sell 2 million out of 100
million potential buyers. 600,00 out of 20 million potential buyers, and
300,000 on the PC. Even still the PC may sell less uits, but you can make
(On occasion) three times more money on a PC sale, as there are NO license fees attached.
"If" you look at it from a "fan" perspective then that argument "might" makes sense. From the standpoint of someone that wants to make money, I could care less how you want to spin it honestly. I know if it makes my life easier when porting, it's certainly worth it. This is especially true for small development teams. If you look at it from a pure development point of view where ports and multiple skus will make you additional money by adding value for a publisher, then it's pretty darn hard to argue. You olbviously never had to deal with a publisher or budget to develop a game title and realize there's no money left over at the end of the project, unless you add in ports to different platforms.
In 1994 Sega was already floundering with the Sega Saturn. It was both difficult to develop for and lacking developer support. Sega was actually surprised by the PSX and panic by adding additional hardware to their platform. Nintendo hadn't even released the N64 yet, and when they did it was also a platform that couldn't compare to the ease of development (not to mention cost of development) on the PSX. Not only that but a lack of CD support wasn't a good sign for Nintendo. Sony entered the market at a perfect time when the competition wasn't as stiff as it is now. Sony is far more entrenched than either of those competitors were at that time (with regards to the start of a new console generation). Sony slowly gained lots of developer support and rightfully so, they had an easy platform to develop for.
Now note how I say it's certainly possible for Microsoft to do worse, I can't see it happening, but it's possible. However what irks me is you jumping down my throat when I say it's "also" possible for MS to do better.
Yes there are several dynamics at play, I know them well and been screwed over by them regarding contracts. What I've been saying is the approach MS is taking to their hardware design is similar to Nintendo's approach. So even if MS doesn't gain any ground next generation, it would be possible for them to make money.
How so? Look at Nintendo's costs and hardware design, and then come back and tell me that the approach MS is taking is all that different to what Nintendo did this generation. Despite Nintendo not legally owning the architectures, they still have hardware that costs the least to manufacture.
Not to nitpick but Saturn had an excellent 1994 thanks to Virtua Fighter. Better than PlayStation in fact.Qroach said:
Saturn was also favored by most western developers as the favorite early on, it had wide variety of support upfront. Sega of course botched the western release though and that coupled with it's insane architecture is what drove away develoeprs in droves (after all America was Sega's stronghold previously). Saturn still retained a healthy market in Japan, and earned more eastern 3rd party support than any previous Sega platform.... things weren't a total loss at least.
PlayStation really didn't start emerging as the top console (versus N64, Saturn was already out of the running by then) until about 3 years after release. Coincidentally with Final Fantasy VII.
jarrod said:
YEs it took a while for PS1 to pick up, but when it did, Jesus, everyone and their granmas knew what it was and wanted/had one...
And in Europe at least, it wasn't because of FF7. More because of "cool" titles like RE and GT and very clever marketing.
PC-Engine said:PS2 looks clunky and fugly too even though it's slighty smaller than Xbox.
Sure I can agree with that (looks are subjective). I wouldn't call it fugly per se (as much as my Xbox is) but it is very stark & cold. Extremely industrial looking which conveys an aura of power. For me it's "ok". But regardless, Sony puts out beautifully designed products and both Nintendo and MS could learn a thing or two from them in this regard. The GCN is cute but ultra fugly if you consider the purple one (I got platnium).
london-boy said:
Not only that LB, but I don't think they could have done worse - i.e. only place to go is up.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
You're absolutely right Qroach.
I would add that MS has a very good chance of gaining marketshare next-generation. I don't believe that people are as attached to the Playstation brand as many people think. The other problem I see for Sony is that if they don't have a killer 2005 lineup on PS2 (hard when MGS3, FFXII, and GT4 will already have shipped), then Xenon will look all that much more enticing for current PS2 owners. I just think that 2005 is the right timing for getting PS2 early adopters on board, which is why Halo 3 probably doesn't need to ship until 2006, when Xbox owners are more likely going to want to upgrade.
The whole thing is a lot more complicated than "MS sucks and PS will always rule". Consumers are a lot more fickle than that.
I would add that MS has a very good chance of gaining marketshare next-generation. I don't believe that people are as attached to the Playstation brand as many people think. The other problem I see for Sony is that if they don't have a killer 2005 lineup on PS2 (hard when MGS3, FFXII, and GT4 will already have shipped), then Xenon will look all that much more enticing for current PS2 owners. I just think that 2005 is the right timing for getting PS2 early adopters on board, which is why Halo 3 probably doesn't need to ship until 2006, when Xbox owners are more likely going to want to upgrade.
The whole thing is a lot more complicated than "MS sucks and PS will always rule". Consumers are a lot more fickle than that.
Readykilowatt
Regular
Spidermate said:
Look at this:
Hiroshi Yamauchi said:
Hiroshi Yamauchi said:
Hmm, interesting, eh?
- Status
