XBox 360 Sells 600,000 in US to Date [Archive]

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 09:07 AM

Salesmunn

01-14-2006, 09:16 AM

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 09:21 AM

There's no penetration of the 360 product. None of the non-gamers in my office have one and I'll bet 3/4 of them don't even know what one looks like.

They know what a PSP is and they'll know what a PS3 is.

Blame the stupid ass add campaign. I remember I was at my grandparents house, myself my grandfather/mother[know of video games and all from me], uncle[casual gamer] and maybe someone else were sitting down. We look up at the tv and its the water balloon commercial, Ive seen it so whatever. They hadnt, whats their reaction? "Hmm I wonder what city thats in." Not "Oh man that looks cool lets go buy one for ouselves or grand children or whatever". I even asked, "You all know thats the new xbox right?", the response "..." Considering they stopped paying attention before the logo came up, not that it would have made a difference.

Yeah I typed that out like crap but its actually true. Its like MS wants to be "hardcore".

Dracula-X

01-14-2006, 09:23 AM

I don't think this is negative news. As rocky as the launch was, with nobody to compete with as yet in the next generation, one can't really call it a failure the way I see it. The demand is still huge and they definitely could have done better to meet it. My only major gripe is *** cutting the XBox life short to rush the 360 to market. They may be squandering the lead they have (unless of course Sony falls behind and launches beyond spring, then these 360 supply problems are of no consequence). I really thought they would have fared better in Japan tho :-/ Once PS3 and Rev are out the gates there, there isn't a chance - which I think will keep *** from the number one spot globally. Sony and especially Ninty can squeeze over 20 million units each out of Japan in the next 5 years, that is going to be really tough for *** to make up elsewhere.

Anyways, I pre-ordered my 360 almost two weeks ago (breaking my vow to wait) from a local shop but they're still waiting for their shipments :) If only Oblivion was out now, the lineup is still fairly mediocre to meh for my tastes. I'll give a few titles a whirl and mack on some cupcakes, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

bone_matrix

01-14-2006, 09:38 AM

Kameo - bleh
PGR - yay nother one...
Condemned - just ok
CoD2 - better on PC
PDZ - decent
Geometry Wars - if youre into it
DOA4 - Not really anything new but yay more DOA

All of the above is based on what most reviews and people seem to say. Sure its not exactly all true but it more or less is. There is no killer app, aside from GW I suppose since I remember some article mentioned that... There are no Halos or exciting new features, aside from a revamped Live, still no big reason to get it.

If you cant even see that whats out and whats coming out is mainly things being remade, recycled or ported then youre blind. Full Auto could possibly be amazing though and Elder Scrolls will be on PC... There arent even many games that are announced that seem to be creating much buzz. Gears of War... yay more dark shoot em ups... I cant even think of anything else which proves my point.
-
Ghost Recon - Uh yay?
Saints Row - GTA what?
Burnout - the fifteenth? More particle effects?!
Splinter Cell - Yay Im in the shadows...
-

Oh and I guess I should have listed a better launch but I dont see why it even matters, focus on this one and how it sucks...

Yay now bicker on about how much you love this game and that feature.

~I just think it was too early for a new console no matter what it was.

And what games are you looking forward to?

Metal Gear Solid 4? yay nother one...
GTA? All the same...

Its a pretty good bunch of games. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they don't appeal to a lot more people. At least they have almost every genre covered and many options. The only game I know of for PS3 is MGS4. What other games will launch?

All the games you listed you are saying are "mainly things being remade, recycled or ported". None of those are. They may be continuations of existing IPs, but thats it (well, except for Burnout, but it is EA, and I'm pretty sure I read COD2 was made for the 360 and ported to the PC).

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 09:44 AM

STOP BRINGING UP WHAT YOU THINK I THINK OF ANOTHER SYSTEM, or its games.

I said nothing about what Im looking forward on any other console coming out. Dont bring it up until its out.

If you read what I said, I mentioned that its based on most reviews and what people seem to say, as a majority.

The Letter 3

01-14-2006, 09:47 AM

No matter how much shit anyone talks about the 360, ps3, or revolution, very few of us will purchase the Phantom (http://www.phantom.net/products/default.asp) or N-Gage. Now that's a slam on those systems!

I'm personally excited about all three systems. Each has some great series returning for another run, there are some intriguing new franchises, and even interesting hardware. This tight competition between three powerful companies will likely bear fruit for gamers. And if I ever feel any company is trying to screw me over, I'll release the phone spiders!

Bydo_Empire

01-14-2006, 09:57 AM

I think the real question is, why did I waste five minutes of my life readng this thread? i knew what the thread would contain when I read the headline. I must really be addicted to EA & gaming message boards. ^^

DoubleUranium

01-14-2006, 10:01 AM

It would have been 600,001 if I could fucking find one.

Yeti2005

01-14-2006, 10:14 AM

Watership

01-14-2006, 10:17 AM

I expected more from EA conversations than this Gamespot-systemwars tripe.
You are so fierce in your belief that the Xbox 360 is a flop you get vague and baseless in your arguements.

Denouncing a game because it's a sequel? Bringing up "better on the pc" arguements for a game that run exactly the same on all 360s perfectly, yet barely runs smooth on only the best pcs? Anyone who doesn't OWN a xbox 360 or played it for a good deal of time has the freedom to say what they want about their impressions. But come on, we both know what your opinion is based on some exterior anger issues and product bias.

It's too early for something new? Stop being a gaming conservative, give up your hate, and have some fun.

Kameo - bleh
PGR - yay nother one...
Condemned - just ok
CoD2 - better on PC
PDZ - decent
Geometry Wars - if youre into it
DOA4 - Not really anything new but yay more DOA

All of the above is based on what most reviews and people seem to say. Sure its not exactly all true but it more or less is. There is no killer app, aside from GW I suppose since I remember some article mentioned that... There are no Halos or exciting new features, aside from a revamped Live, still no big reason to get it.

If you cant even see that whats out and whats coming out is mainly things being remade, recycled or ported then youre blind. Full Auto could possibly be amazing though and Elder Scrolls will be on PC... There arent even many games that are announced that seem to be creating much buzz. Gears of War... yay more dark shoot em ups... I cant even think of anything else which proves my point.
-
Ghost Recon - Uh yay?
Saints Row - GTA what?
Burnout - the fifteenth? More particle effects?!
Splinter Cell - Yay Im in the shadows...
-

Oh and I guess I should have listed a better launch but I dont see why it even matters, focus on this one and how it sucks...

Yay now bicker on about how much you love this game and that feature.

~I just think it was too early for a new console no matter what it was.

bapenguin

01-14-2006, 10:18 AM

Kameo - bleh
PGR - yay nother one...
Condemned - just ok
CoD2 - better on PC
PDZ - decent
Geometry Wars - if youre into it
DOA4 - Not really anything new but yay more DOA

All of the above is based on what most reviews and people seem to say.

PGR3 - 89% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/927245.asp)
Condemned - 83% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/926309.asp?q=condemned)
CoD2 - 90% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/927725.asp?q=cod2)
Geometry Wars - 5/5 (ME)
DOA4 - 91% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928260.asp)

Even though YOU may not like those games...the mass majority of the console ONLY gaming population does. We tend to throw the "oh you can just play it on the PC" argument around here a lot. I read a great article this morning in CPU (http://www.computerpoweruser.com/) regarding this very concept. The reality is a good majority of console gamers don't have access to a gaming PC.

Banacek

01-14-2006, 10:25 AM

Evil, you can thank Suicidal ShiZuru for that donation I just made.

This message is hidden because Suicidal ShiZuru is on your ignore list.

There, this looks much better...

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 10:41 AM

Yay

Ive read multiple magazine reviews giving them average ratings. People I know have just said meh. I said it wasnt me just most reviews and what people say.

Whatever screw this thread I just ranted on because I havent slept Im sure Ill regret it later. Though I am happy that at least one person blocked me. Who the hell blocks forum posts, seriously? "Man oh man I must save myself from reading a sentence that Ill just dismiss as someone being a dumbass."

*** FAILEDZORED AND PS3 WILL ROCKZOR!!!! WOOTZORZORZ!!!Q#!#!@!!!

did that make anyone happy? I hope so

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 10:48 AM

PGR3 - 89% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/927245.asp)
Condemned - 83% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/926309.asp?q=condemned)
CoD2 - 90% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/927725.asp?q=cod2)
Geometry Wars - 5/5 (ME)
DOA4 - 91% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928260.asp)

Even though YOU may not like those games...the mass majority of the console ONLY gaming population does.
How do those numbers mean "the mass majority of the console-only gaming population" likes those games? Considering only 600,000 consoles to play those games are even out there, what exactly do you base that on? The sales figures for those titles don't even have the ability to reach 1,000,000 at this point.

jacktion

01-14-2006, 10:49 AM

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 10:50 AM

How do those numbers mean "the mass majority of the console-only gaming population" likes those games? Considering only 600,000 consoles to play those games are even out there, what exactly do you base that on? The sales figures for those titles don't even have the ability to reach 1,000,000 at this point.

Because a couple hundred people or maybe one sad lonely editor rated them on a crap website so it must be!

jacktion

01-14-2006, 10:55 AM

PGR3 - 89% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/927245.asp)
Condemned - 83% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/926309.asp?q=condemned)
CoD2 - 90% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/927725.asp?q=cod2)
Geometry Wars - 5/5 (ME)
DOA4 - 91% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928260.asp)

And you have to realize that the scale of game reviews only goes from 60% to 100%. Seriously. 50% is not average. That would mean the majority of games reviewed would be around 50%. But the majority of games reviewed are about 80%. So that is average. So yes these games are all average. Reviewers are kind of wussy so they inflate scores habitually. (i said it! what?!)

If you doubt me than look through any game review website. Or quickly flip through the pages of a game magazine. 70, 83, 83, 91, 79, It is pathetic!

Jacob Singer

01-14-2006, 10:56 AM

Because a couple hundred people or maybe one sad lonely editor rated them on a crap website so it must be!

But we should take your word that the "reviews I've read" and "people I know said meh" are the definitive answer?

Sheesh. You're not even bothering to hide your prejudice and lack of any sort of valid argument. "Me and my other fifteen-year-old buddies can't get one, so it sux!" is hardly a devastating critique.

I'm sure there are some threads over at GameFaqs that could use your sterling forensics abilities. Spread your wisdom over there, whydoncha?

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 10:57 AM

Yeah Id like the sum of all opinions please! I love rounded, totally inaccurate things!

baz

01-14-2006, 10:59 AM

MS did miss out on what could have been a massive coup by not having the numbers available for the holiday season buying frenzy. It would have been a lot harder for Sony had MS managed to provide the numbers that people would have bought.

I know lots of people who would have bought one who wont now as they have splurged on something else for christmas. And one more time, for the love of fucking god, lower the game prices in the UK and I will buy some more games for it. I have Condemned, Kameo and PGR3 and will get DoA4 when it comes out here, but I would have bough PD0 and CoD2 for it as well had the game prices been less insane.

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:00 AM

But we should take your word that the "reviews I've read" and "people I know said meh" are the definitive answer?

Sheesh. You're not even bothering to hide your prejudice and lack of any sort of valid argument. "Me and my other fifteen-year-old buddies can't get one, so it sux!" is hardly a devastating critique.

I'm sure there are some threads over at GameFaqs that could use your sterling forensics abilities. Spread your wisdom over there, whydoncha?

Uh, lol? Why hide my prejudice toward something bad? That makes no sense. And pulling age out of your ass with the "I couldnt get it so it sucks" routine is just lame. How about "It sucked so I didnt wait in line for hours with my pre order like I would have otherwise."?

Zanzibar

01-14-2006, 11:04 AM

Here's one way to look at it. Nintendo sold 391,000 DS's in Japan in one week back in December. And Microsoft has sold 600,000 Xbox360's worldwide over a couple months. So it is not a good launch. People are not rushing to get it, (if they could). I would say that since Microsoft has failed completely (and there is really no debate over this) in Japan, then they will have a tough time beating Sony this generation.

The problem seems to be no games. They do not have a killer app. There is no Halo. No GTA. No Final Fantasy. No Mario 64. The first game you buy for a new console is basically a $500 game. So you have to make it worth the money. Do you know what I mean?

Here's another way to look at it. MS sold every X360 they made in the US and Europe. Manufacturing shortages do not mean there is no demand, as our friend Assassin pointed out. How exactly do you know that people are not rushing to get it when there ARE NONE TO GET? I went into my local Gamestop and they still had people asking when the X360s would be available again. Premium X360s are still selling for over $550 on eBay. If supply does not meet demand, people are willing to pay $150 more than retail price, and people are still lining up at stores to get them when they DO arrive, how exactly IS that bad?

As for Japan, you are right, there's no arguing that the X360 just has not generated any buzz. Just for argument's sake, how much of that is people deciding to save their money for the PS3 which Sony said(LIED) was coming in Spring 2006? Kutaragi said himself that 'people will want to save up for it,' I wonder if that was just a ploy to get people to not buy the X360 and save their money instead? Being that the X360 DOES NOT currently have any game that is tailored EXPRESSLY towards the Japanese market, there's little wonder why it hasn't sold well over there.

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 11:06 AM

Its Obvious Is It Not?! Ill try to remember to take the time and put my simple thoughts and opinions into essays from now own so that some simple minded people can fully understand.

...You know, you suck. A lot, like as much as those Animal Crossing: WW guys. You've been nothing but a constant source of suck since you started posting here.

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 11:07 AM

did that make anyone happy? I hope so
I just think it's funny that people are upset that it was stated that 600,000 consoles sold to date and massive shortages equates to a failure (considering expectations and predicitions). I'm not getting into predicting which new console is going to do better, because it's impossible to make an intelligent guess about that right now, but one has to admit this is not what Microsoft was looking for. I mean, they expected to sell 3 million by now. They are way, way off their targeted sales figures. And one can't say it's just because of Japan, because Microsoft didn't ship 3 million units to the Pacific. It's a big factor, but the shortages might be a bigger factor here. This is going to make things all the more complicated for MS once they do have more units out, because if the demand was really hype fueling impulse purchases, then making people wait so long will likely make people look elsewhere to spend their cash and not care as much when that system they were all excited about in October is finally available. It's going to be very interesting to look at the sales figures immediately following the next big shipment to stores.

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:13 AM

...You know, you suck. A lot, like as much as those Animal Crossing: WW guys. You've been nothing but a constant source of suck since you started posting here.

I love you, reading that made me smile. Like :D sort of. Im just cynical, bias and pretty much rude. List other things Im sure there are more.

Its funny how this all started from me just basically saying that MS failed, failed their launch/goal they set for themselves. Is that wrong, no.

~Damn I cant decide to quote you or the dumbass. Decisions decisions.

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 11:18 AM

I love you, reading that made me smile. Like :D sort of. Im just cynical, bias and pretty much rude. List other things Im sure there are more.

No, you just suck. Kelegacy and Borys are cynical, biased, and pretty much rude. But they don't suck. The difference here is that you suck.

Its funny how this all started from me just basically saying that MS failed, failed their launch/goal they set for themselves. Is that wrong, no.

They failed by selling every unit they produced! Oh noes!

~Damn I cant decide to quote you ro the dumbass. Decisions decisions.

No, you ro the dumbass. I don't like roing the dumbass.

Zanzibar

01-14-2006, 11:19 AM

I just think it's funny that people are upset that it was stated that 600,000 consoles sold to date and massive shortages equates to a failure (considering expectations and predicitions). I'm not getting into predicting which new console is going to do better, because it's impossible to make an intelligent guess about that right now, but one has to admit this is not what Microsoft was looking for. I mean, they expected to sell 3 million by now. They are way, way off their targeted sales figures. And one can't say it's just because of Japan, because Microsoft didn't ship 3 million units to the Pacific. It's a big factor, but the shortages might be a bigger factor here. This is going to make things all the more complicated for MS once they do have more units out, because if the demand was really hype fueling impulse purchases, then making people wait so long will likely make people look elsewhere to spend their cash and not care as much when that system they were all excited about in October is finally available. It's going to be very interesting to look at the sales figures immediately following the next big shipment to stores.

Okay. Last time. Stay with me here.

When Microsoft MANUFACTURES and SHIPS its 3 millionth X360, THEN you can compare the 'targeted sales figures.' Until then, ITS NOT SALES, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT? it's all theoretical, because eBay is STILL rife with people paying WELL OVER retail price (plus shipping) to get them.

Microsoft wanted to sell 3mil within the first 90 days. It's been 60; and Microsoft MAYBE has 1mil units in circuation (600k US, maybe another 400k worldwide, with many of the Japan units unsold). Doesn't it make sense to NOT say 'sales haven't been as good as expected' and instead say 'the shortages have made an impact, but demand is still quite high'?

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:23 AM

No, you just suck. Kelegacy and Borys are cynical, biased, and pretty much rude. But they don't suck. The difference here is that you suck.

They failed by selling every unit they produced! Oh noes!

No, you ro the dumbass. I don't like roing the dumbass.

God damn youre a prick. I made a typo oh noes make fun! I fixed it right after posting considering all of the wannabes here take proper spelling and grammar a bit too serious at times. They[ms] say they want to sell ten trillion units but only produce and sell a small portion of the said number. How is that not a failure? Please explain this I beg of you. No wait, they just lied their balls of to create hype? Maybe that!

and for clarity lets jsut round up! they sold 1million units, truly 1 million people own the system worldwide and play it at home! Less than one fourth of what they wanted! zomg zomg hackz!

Im just an arrogant piece of shit who posts what he wants and thinks to himself "fuck you, dumbass, I winz". Is that better?

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 11:24 AM

God damn youre a prick. I made a typo oh noes make fun! I fixed it right after posting considering all of the wannabes here take proper spelling and grammar a bit too serious at times. They[ms] say they want to sell ten trillion units but only produce and sell a small portion of the said number. How is that not a failure? Please explain this I beg of you. No wait, they just lied their balls of to create hype? Maybe that!

Im just an arrogant piece of shit who posts what he wants and thinks to himself "fuck you, dumbass, I winz". Is that better?

We r Da WAnnabEs!!!!.1.1.1.1

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:25 AM

I was going to say something else, referring to wannabe ___ but changed my mind and forgot to fix my sentence. ruh roh.

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 11:28 AM

I was going to say something else, referring to wannabe ___ but changed my mind and forgot to fix my sentence. ruh roh.

wANNNANANANBEEEEESSSSSsssss! We RRRRRRR dAAAA wANNANANAAAAABEEEESSSSssss!

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:29 AM

Hahahahahahahahahaaaaa.

Keep going! Write a song!

jacktion

01-14-2006, 11:31 AM

Despite Suicidal Shizuru's unpopularity, he is approximately correct in his basic assessment of the facts. Microsoft said they would sell 3 million units in a certain time frame. They have sold about .5 million and that time frame has almost expired. You can argue the reasons all you want, but the fact remains that Microsoft failed to meet its sales goals. There appear to be two schools of thought on why this is.

1. Everyone thinks the Xbox 360 is the stinky poo and they are waiting for the PS3.

2. Everyone loves the Xbox 360 but Microsoft didn't make enough so no one can get one.

Either way, Microsoft fucked up.
People have been saying that it is a success because they sold every one they made (in the us and europe). But is that all it takes to equal success? What if they had only made 100? If they all sold than would you shout "success"?

Let us attempt to "keep this real".
Microsoft wants to sell 360s. They have not sold very many 360s. So I would not call it success.

(and damn, you guys need to chill out, it's just a message board)

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:34 AM

(and damn, you guys need to chill out, it's just a message board)

No way man youre wrong, this is LIFE. LIFE!

Seriously just read his comments and a few other peoples. Same basic point as me but without the amazingness that is me.

Banacek

01-14-2006, 11:35 AM

Perigon, I can't ignore him if you keep qouting him :)

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 11:35 AM

Okay. Last time. Stay with me here.

When Microsoft MANUFACTURES and SHIPS its 3 millionth X360, THEN you can compare the 'targeted sales figures.'
What? No. Those targeted sales figures were not for the life of the 360, they were for a set period of time, which is often how "targeted sales figures" are presented. Microsoft wanted 3 million in the homes in 3 months. They will not achieve this by a long shot. That is what is being discussed, not whether the 360 as a system is a failure (which is impossible to say right now).

Doesn't it make sense to NOT say 'sales haven't been as good as expected' and instead say 'the shortages have made an impact, but demand is still quite high'?
I don't know where the demand is, and neither does anyone else. Because of how severe the shortage has been, it's very difficult to tell whether their demand is coming from their already-established consumer base, or whether they are starting to bring those other millions of console games out there that own Nintendo and Sony consoles. If it's only coming from people that only like the X-Box in the first place, then that is very bad (considering what the size of that install base is compared to the other two companies). As I said already in my post (which you seemed to ignore), it's going to be interesting to see what sales look like once they start shipping units again. The 360 had a ton of hype going behind it (which I am not saying is bad--this is how you get people to buy your merchandise, after all), but hype fades once people have a good idea of what they're getting. The other problem with this launch is the whole reason they rushed the 360 out of the gate is because of their (false) belief that the PS2's lead is what helped them sell 100 million consoles and easily outsell the competition. 3 million sold by the summer is not a paritcularly big lead.

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:36 AM

This message is hidden because Suicidal ShiZuru is on your ignore list. Tee hee.

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 11:39 AM

Perigon, I can't ignore him if you keep qouting him :)

I'm sorry... I guess I must be a wANNNANNANANANABEEEEeeeee :(

I say we give him a new name. "ShiZuru, Slayer of Posts."

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:41 AM

Now youre a wannabe wannabe! Wow youre on a roll!

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 11:42 AM

I'm sorry... I guess I must be a wANNNANNANANANABEEEEeeeee :(

I say we give him a new name. "ShiZuru, Slayer of Posts."
I'm finding this sparring between you two oddly entertaining, as I wait for the Seahawks/Redskins game to start. Keep it going!

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:45 AM

I guess Perigon cant think of anymore ways to spell wannabe with too many letters... shame.

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 11:45 AM

I'm finding this sparring between you two oddly entertaining, as I wait for the Seahawks/Redskins game to start. Keep it going!

I can't... for I am a WwwwAAAnnananaAAAabeee... So sayeth the slayer of posts, reaper of news, perversion of EA.

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:46 AM

Ha, thats a badass title for myself. Ill be the stuff of legends shortly. :o

Magnanimous Gnome

01-14-2006, 11:49 AM

Please name me a stronger launch game-wise.

EDIT: That sounds really defensive, and I really don't care. I just think that game-wise, the only way MS could of done better was have DOA4 at launch.

Actually EGM did a comparison in their latest issue of the past five console launches (Xbox 360, Gamecube, Xbox, PS2, Dreamcast) and only the PS2 had a lower overall average score for it's launch titles. The DC, GCN, and Xbox all had higher scoring launch titles overall. I really don't get the argument that the Xbox360 had the best launch of a console ever - I call BS on that. No killer app and mostly ports from the other systems does not equal "BEST LAUNCH EVAR!!11!"

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:50 AM

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 11:54 AM

Actually EGM did a comparison in their latest issue of the past five console launches (Xbox 360, Gamecube, Xbox, PS2, Dreamcast) and only the PS2 had a lower overall average score for it's launch titles. The DC, GCN, and Xbox all had higher scoring launch titles overall. I really don't get the argument that the Xbox360 had the best launch of a console ever - I call BS on that. No killer app and mostly ports from the other systems does not equal "BEST LAUNCH EVAR!!11!"

Ya... but that only covers last generation. Now I think the 360 launch was pretty damn strong, but I really enjoyed Kameo. The GC had an uber launch, that's a given, but I'd really be interested to know what the Dreamcast had at launch to compete with PD0, Kameo, CoD2 and DoA4. Don't get me wrong, they had a lot of great games later on, but I didn't think it's launch was that great. I say that as one of the few people who liked Sonic Adventure A LOT.

The PS2's launch was pure, and utter shit... But then again, it was even harder to get than the 360. I guess it was a failure too, huh Shizbuzel?

Then we take a look at previous system launches. The N64 had Mario 64, Shadows of the Empire, Pilotwings 64, and I'm pretty sure that's all worth mentioning. The PS1 launch doesn't even have anything that I really remember, but then again I didn't buy one until the year after they came out.

Magnanimous Gnome

01-14-2006, 11:58 AM

And you have to realize that the scale of game reviews only goes from 60% to 100%. Seriously. 50% is not average. That would mean the majority of games reviewed would be around 50%. But the majority of games reviewed are about 80%. So that is average. So yes these games are all average. Reviewers are kind of wussy so they inflate scores habitually. (i said it! what?!)

If you doubt me than look through any game review website. Or quickly flip through the pages of a game magazine. 70, 83, 83, 91, 79, It is pathetic!

Actually EGM is pretty good about using the whole scale. You're right about most of the other sites though - it's pretty sad. IGN is one of the worst in this regard. "This game got hype - 9.7!!"

Perigon - The two highest rated DC launch titles were Soul Caliber and Sonic Adventure. If I remember correctly Soul Caliber is one of the few games that they've given a perfect score to.

The N64 launch was a really good one in my opinion - Mario 64 alone simply rocked, and I know many people really enjoyed Pilotwings and Shadows of the Empire. It's s shame there hasn't been another Pilotwings on the Cube.

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 11:59 AM

Pff Perigon shut up. The Colecovision launch was a failure!!! Man it was like! TEH SUCK and stuff!!

Vandenh

01-14-2006, 12:00 PM

>Actually EGM did a comparison in their latest issue

Oh please....

http://jasoncross.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6192351&publicUserId=5694478

The 360's launch games are weak: Actually, the overall quality of the launch games is the second strongest of the last round of major consoles. It is the PS2, undisputed market leader, that had a whole pile of garbage games.

Anway... developers make a console. I see shitloads of support for the 360. Nuff said. B

Banacek

01-14-2006, 12:01 PM

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 12:02 PM

And you have to realize that the scale of game reviews only goes from 60% to 100%. Seriously. 50% is not average. That would mean the majority of games reviewed would be around 50%. But the majority of games reviewed are about 80%. So that is average. So yes these games are all average. Reviewers are kind of wussy so they inflate scores habitually. (i said it! what?!)

If you doubt me than look through any game review website. Or quickly flip through the pages of a game magazine. 70, 83, 83, 91, 79, It is pathetic!

The problem with that is that the games aren't evenly distributed. You get a lot of crap that should be in the 5's, 6's, and 7's in the 8's. But then you get the stuff that should be in the 8's too, and sometimes even the things that should be 9's just so they can look like they are hardcore. So really, reviews are worthless if you take them as a simple number value.

Zanzibar

01-14-2006, 12:03 PM

Well, by ShiZuru's reasoning, the PS2 was a 'failed' launch as well.

I still think this console war is going to hinge on one thing, and one thing only: Halo 3.

The more Sony delays the PS3, the more chance Bungie will finish Halo 3 in time for the PS3 launch. If Halo 3 hits the shelves the same day as the PS3, then it will be over.

Think about it. Holiday 2006. Sony WILL have similar to the same shortages that we're seeing with the X360. Microsoft will have sold 5mil or so X360s by then, and will have plenty on the shelves, next to an empty shelf where the PS3s should be. Mom or Dad walk in to buy Junior a $499 PS3. None to be found. Oh - but, here's the X360, newly priced at $299 for a Premium package, and Halo 3? Plus one or two other games, for the same price as the PS3? Look at those kiosks - the second-gen X360 games actually look BETTER than the first-gen PS3 games? Sold! (Repeat ad nauseum.)

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 12:03 PM

When was the last launch that had a killer app? I'd guess it was N64 with Mario 64, but I could be wrong.

Halo doesn't count as a killer app?

Zanzibar

01-14-2006, 12:03 PM

When was the last launch that had a killer app? I'd guess it was N64 with Mario 64, but I could be wrong.

Halo, Xbox.

Suicidal ShiZuru

01-14-2006, 12:06 PM

All launches have been failures. I mean seriously. All stores didnt have a supply of at least ten thousand. What the hell! Thats simply not enough to supply the whole world with a sytem! F-A-I-L!! :( :( :(

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 12:06 PM

The PS2's launch was pure, and utter shit... But then again, it was even harder to get than the 360. I guess it was a failure too, huh Shizbuzel?
The PS2 sold over 500,000 in one day. Comparing what the 360 is doing to what the PS2 did in 2000 only makes this launch a bigger sales failure. And don't get it wrong, what was being discussed was sales, not whether the software lineup was "strong," which is an entirely different debate.

Banacek

01-14-2006, 12:07 PM

Halo doesn't count as a killer app?

Oh man, I didn't realize Halo was available at launch. Silly me.

EDIT: (Forgot the rest of my post)

But shouldn't Xbox Live count as something? It's not a game, but it's definitely worth something to the launch.

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 12:10 PM

The PS2 sold over 500,000 in one day. Comparing what the 360 is doing to what the PS2 did in 2000 only makes this launch a bigger sales failure. And don't get it wrong, what was being discussed was sales, not whether the software lineup was "strong," which is an entirely different debate.

Here is what I know about the PS2 launch: It sold out, and I wasn't able to get one. So I got a Dreamcast instead, and all was good. I know the PS2 was sold out for at least three months after it's launch, and I didn't end up buying one until after I got an XBOX and Gamecube. I'm betting the 360's first 90 days will be pretty similar to the PS2's, except the 360 actually has games worth playing.

Magnanimous Gnome

01-14-2006, 12:14 PM

When was the last launch that had a killer app? I'd guess it was N64 with Mario 64, but I could be wrong.

Well you could count Super Smash Bros on the Cube - it came out a week or two after launch. If you only count day one though, then I'd personally say the 64 and Mario, although I know quite a few people bought the DC for Soul Caliber. Some of course also consider Halo to be a killer app on the Xbox.

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to bash the Xbox 360 out of some hatred for the console, MS, or potato salad. This would be a whole lot clearer if my internet connection was fudging up and making it difficult to post coherently. :(

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 12:19 PM

Well you could count Super Smash Bros on the Cube - it came out a week or two after launch. If you only count day one though, then I'd personally say the 64 and Mario, although I know quite a few people bought the DC for Soul Caliber. Some of course also consider Halo to be a killer app on the Xbox.

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to bash the Xbox 360 out of some hatred for the console, MS, or potato salad. This would be a whole lot clearer if my internet connection was fudging up and making it difficult to post coherently. :(

I think we're also forgetting how bad the DS and PSP launches were. The DS had like one game worth playing, and it was a port from the N64. The PSP had Lumines. Both were pretty barren for a long time, and the PSP still doesn't have more than a handful of games that could be called 'good'.

Magnanimous Gnome

01-14-2006, 12:27 PM

I think we're also forgetting how bad the DS and PSP launches were. The DS had like one game worth playing, and it was a port from the N64. The PSP had Lumines. Both were pretty barren for a long time, and the PSP still doesn't have more than a handful of games that could be called 'good'.

They were both terrible launches - hence why I didn't buy either at launch. I finally bought the DS a month ago now that it has some titles worth owning. I doubt I'll be getting a PSP though.

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 12:33 PM

They were both terrible launches - hence why I didn't buy either at launch. I finally bought the DS a month ago now that it has some titles worth owning. I doubt I'll be getting a PSP though.

Yup, I went out and bought the DS on the first day after my pre-order fell through. All because of the many great games they were showing me... but only one was there at launch. The others either fell flat, or didn't come out for a long, long time. I'm still waiting on Metroid Prime Hunters. Between the time I got Mario 64 DS, and the time I bought Kirby Canvas Curse, I didn't buy even one game for my DS. That's like eight months, give or take.

Of course, now I own five games for it, not including GBA games I've bought since getting a DS :)

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 12:37 PM

Well, by ShiZuru's reasoning, the PS2 was a 'failed' launch as well.
500,000 in one day. Stop bringing up the PS2. It's a bad comparison and has little to do with this subject.

I still think this console war is going to hinge on one thing, and one thing only: Halo 3. The more Sony delays the PS3, the more chance Bungie will finish Halo 3 in time for the PS3 launch. If Halo 3 hits the shelves the same day as the PS3, then it will be over.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say if Halo 3 and PS3 launch at the same time, you're more likely to see record video game sales than you would see the same sales focused only on one product. The idea that Halo 3 somehow stops Sony's installed user base from buying a PS3 is much more marketing than fact. There's nothing out there that really supports this claim. You have to consider the kind of gamers that buy an X-Box vs a PS2. How many PS2 owners care about FPS in the first place? And how many of those can't have a PS3 and a 360? Most FPS players are computer game players, so I think it is reasonable to assume most of them have enough disposable income to afford two consoles (they certainly spend enough on video cards). It's hard to say right now, because no one knows when the PS3 is going to launch, when Halo will launch, and what the buzz will be around either as their release is impending, but I would be a bit surprised if Halo 3 has the effect people have been clamoring about.

Think about it. Holiday 2006. Sony WILL have similar to the same shortages that we're seeing with the X360.
Why? Sony never claimed they are attempting a worldwide launch. Sony has never had those sort of shortage issues (to this degree) at launch before. Just because Microsoft fucked up doesn't mean other companies MUST do the same.

Microsoft will have sold 5mil or so X360s by then, and will have plenty on the shelves, next to an empty shelf where the PS3s should be. Mom or Dad walk in to buy Junior a $499 PS3. None to be found. Oh - but, here's the X360, newly priced at $299 for a Premium package, and Halo 3? Plus one or two other games, for the same price as the PS3? Look at those kiosks - the second-gen X360 games actually look BETTER than the first-gen PS3 games? Sold! (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Wow. Where are you getting 5 million from? That's bolder than Microsoft's preditiction of 3 million in the first three months (you should remember, consoles typically sell the most consoles at once during a launch and during the holiday season). You're also assuming here that Microsoft will be able to drop the price of their just released console by this winter. You are also incorrectly assuming that just a year after launch you're going to see second-generation games. Not to mention that Halo 3 will be done by the end of the year. What kind of game do you think you're going to get if Bungie rushes the game to be out by December? I hope you like Halo 2.5.

Banacek

01-14-2006, 12:41 PM

Not to mention that Halo 3 will be done by the end of the year. What kind of game do you think you're going to get if Bungie rushes the game to be out by December? I hope you like Halo 2.5.

Well, since Halo 2 was really 1.5, would that make the third one Halo 2 then? :)

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 12:47 PM

Well, since Halo 2 was really 1.5, would that make the third one Halo 2 then? :)

New graphics, new gameplay, new story, new levels, online play, and new multiplayer maps aren't good enough for Halo 2 to be a sequel? You must have really high standards. I'd hate to be a Resident Evil fan, they're on what, Resident Evil 1.498? Metal Gear Solid 1.2? Katamari Damacy 1.02? The Legend of Zelda 2.306? Final Fantasy 3.0XXX1?

Magnanimous Gnome

01-14-2006, 12:50 PM

New graphics, new gameplay, new story, new levels, online play, and new multiplayer maps aren't good enough for Halo 2 to be a sequel? You must have really high standards. I'd hate to be a Resident Evil fan, they're on what, Resident Evil 1.498? Metal Gear Solid 1.2? Katamari Damacy 1.02? The Legend of Zelda 2.306? Final Fantasy 3.0XXX1?

No no, we've finally hit Resident Evil 2.0. I'd say that 4 was evolved enough to be considered a real sequel.

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 12:51 PM

I tell ya what, I'm looking forward to Mario 3.03. That looks like hot shit.

Magnanimous Gnome

01-14-2006, 01:00 PM

I tell ya what, I'm looking forward to Mario 3.03. That looks like hot shit.

Indeed.

In all seriousness you can't expect sequels to differ too much from their predecessors. Then again I'm tired of this year sequel stuff we've been seeing so much of lately, mainly from EA, Activision, UbiSoft, and Sony. Give it a rest guys!!

Banacek

01-14-2006, 01:05 PM

New graphics, new gameplay, new story, new levels, online play, and new multiplayer maps aren't good enough for Halo 2 to be a sequel??

This is an old argument that neither side is going to change their minds. I thought there was a lot wrong with Halo 2 on the single player side of it. Multiplayer online kicks all sorts of ass.

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 01:08 PM

This is an old argument that neither side is going to change their minds. I thought there was a lot wrong with Halo 2 on the single player side of it. Multiplayer online kicks all sorts of ass.

Shit, I thought Halo 2 was a big step down from the original Halo, but it's still Halo 2 :p

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 01:17 PM

Indeed.

In all seriousness you can't expect sequels to differ too much from their predecessors. Then again I'm tired of this year sequel stuff we've been seeing so much of lately, mainly from EA, Activision, UbiSoft, and Sony. Give it a rest guys!!
And Sony? Sony's biggest profile releases of 2005 were Shadow of the Colossus and God of War.

EA has been spitting out sequels for years now, that isn't anything new. The numbers bear out, sequels sell better than original IP enough of the time that it's worth it to have a franchise you can keep going back to.

Heretic Machine

01-14-2006, 01:26 PM

MasterKwan

01-14-2006, 01:26 PM

Hmm, I love my 360. Walked into a Target here in VA to buy a CD and saw them in the display case. $600 later I walked out with it, a controller and a couple games. My only complaint is PGR3's a bit laggy online but, that could be because of the servers I'm on. Other than that, I'm perfectly happy.

O yeah. F'ers at Microsoft won't let me use my beloved S-Controller on the 360. You know they had to purposely prevent it from working. Hook it up with an adapter cable and the 360 doesn't even acknowledge it's presence. So, I guess I'm not 100% happy, I think the S-Controller is better than the 360 controller.

crashedout

01-14-2006, 01:31 PM

Am I the only one who is questioning this data? NPD even said they only track 2/3 of retail. We had an estimate of 1.3 million a few weeks ago. I feel it was closer to that but the only one who knows for sure is MS. It just feels a little low to me.

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 01:33 PM

I'm not a person who has a problem with sequels... If I like a game, chances are good that I would like to have more of the same. Sure, new games are great, but it's also great to have more of a game I already love, and that's what I expect sequels to do. Give me more of the same thing that I love.
I wouldn't say I request "more of the same" from my sequels, but I also have no issue with them. I do expect my sequels to make more than superficial enhancements to the preceding instalments. Most of my favorite games are probably birthed out of sequels (though they didn't all start out that way).

Zanzibar

01-14-2006, 01:41 PM

500,000 in one day. Stop bringing up the PS2. It's a bad comparison and has little to do with this subject.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say if Halo 3 and PS3 launch at the same time, you're more likely to see record video game sales than you would see the same sales focused only on one product. The idea that Halo 3 somehow stops Sony's installed user base from buying a PS3 is much more marketing than fact. There's nothing out there that really supports this claim. You have to consider the kind of gamers that buy an X-Box vs a PS2. How many PS2 owners care about FPS in the first place? And how many of those can't have a PS3 and a 360? Most FPS players are computer game players, so I think it is reasonable to assume most of them have enough disposable income to afford two consoles (they certainly spend enough on video cards). It's hard to say right now, because no one knows when the PS3 is going to launch, when Halo will launch, and what the buzz will be around either as their release is impending, but I would be a bit surprised if Halo 3 has the effect people have been clamoring about.

Why? Sony never claimed they are attempting a worldwide launch. Sony has never had those sort of shortage issues (to this degree) at launch before. Just because Microsoft fucked up doesn't mean other companies MUST do the same.

Wow. Where are you getting 5 million from? That's bolder than Microsoft's preditiction of 3 million in the first three months (you should remember, consoles typically sell the most consoles at once during a launch and during the holiday season). You're also assuming here that Microsoft will be able to drop the price of their just released console by this winter. You are also incorrectly assuming that just a year after launch you're going to see second-generation games. Not to mention that Halo 3 will be done by the end of the year. What kind of game do you think you're going to get if Bungie rushes the game to be out by December? I hope you like Halo 2.5.

Hmm. Well, to start with, Sony sold 500k first day because there were 500k available. X360 sold 300k first day because there were 300k available. Neither system was able to meet demand for it. I fail to see why it's a bad comparison.

I'm not saying that Halo 3 will 'prevent' anyone from buying a PS3; I'm saying that it will boost sales of the X360 if people go in to buy a PS3 and can't. Halo 2 sold 2.4 MILLION units on the first day. You don't think that kind of buzz will help sell the system?

As for 'worldwide' launch, Sony said they were gonna ship Spring 2006. I think it's safe to say they're going to miss that. So why can't they launch in Japan in August and hit the US at Christmas? And you must have forgotten the shortages that the PS2 launch had, which is WHY I AM MAKING the comparison. US 500k first day, virtually NOTHING for the rest of the year afterward.

Microsoft wanted 6 million units sold by June. They're going to miss that by quite a bit unless Oblivion comes out and is a killer app. GoW may very well be a killer app, which will boost sales as well. There's going to be a few games that will get incredible word-of-mouth and I think that as word gets out about Xbox Live and the solid release schedule people will pick it up over the course of the year. So, I'm guessing that 5mil is a reasonable estimate for Christmas 2006.

1 year after the Xbox launch, there were incredible-looking games like Wreckless, Splinter Cell, Steel Batallion, Unreal Championship, DOAX. As developers get the final hardware, they start finding new and incredible ways to get horsepower out of them. 1 year is PLENTY of time to improve the graphics engine of a new platform. Just look at the PS2 titles for 2001 compared to 2000 - they're significantly better-looking.

Norse

01-14-2006, 02:16 PM

X360 launched 300k units in US and Europe and sold out first day. MS have shipped 300k more units it US and these are also sold out also. Here in Europe we have received shipments on a regular basis since launch and I guess we're close to 600k units total here as well. Still it's basically sold out everywhere. For me this looks good. I love MS for launching the 360 at almost the same time in US and Europe. Sony/Nintendo always ignore us Europeans and wait forever to launch here. They can burn in hell :).

Personally I couldn't care less how successful this launch is. I got one and love it. That's the only thing I care about...

Reanimated

01-14-2006, 02:19 PM

bapenguin

01-14-2006, 02:20 PM

How do those numbers mean "the mass majority of the console-only gaming population" likes those games? Considering only 600,000 consoles to play those games are even out there, what exactly do you base that on? The sales figures for those titles don't even have the ability to reach 1,000,000 at this point.

They don't. The mass majority of console gamers comment was in regards to the CPU article. Those numbers were simply proving a point to the poster who shall not be named that just because he didn't like the game, most reviewers did.

mister_slim

01-14-2006, 02:23 PM

I would like to thank those who contributed to this thread for wasting my time.

mister_slim

01-14-2006, 02:25 PM

I figure that 360 production will be ramped up by April just in time for the Halo 3 buzz that will come from E3. I don't think they'll have a problem reaching their 5.5 mil worldwide goal by the end of June. The real test will be the coming holiday season. The PS3 is likely to have a very weak launch lineup going up against the 360's second gen titles.
Do you guys really think Halo 3 is going to only take 2 years to develop, while 2 took 3 years and the original took even longer? Is that what you guys want?

Zanzibar

01-14-2006, 02:37 PM

Do you guys really think Halo 3 is going to only take 2 years to develop, while 2 took 3 years and the original took even longer? Is that what you guys want?

From what I hear, yes, it could be ready by Christmas of this year. As opposed to the switch from Halo 1 to Halo 2, I hear that they are using the same basic toolsets as Halo 2 to design Halo 3, just with higher res textures and more polys. They may even be re-using a lot of the existing Halo 2 animations, level geometry and models, just with tweaks to the normal maps and better realtime lighting in the engine.

This is conjecture on my part, but they already had to have had Halo 3's storyline developed at the same time they worked on 2's. There's no way that the ending of 2 could have been structured that way unless they knew where 3 was going to end.

Evil Avatar

01-14-2006, 02:40 PM

Zeal

01-14-2006, 02:56 PM

EA.com went from pro-Microsoft to faggoty ass Nintendo Land.

Dracula-X

01-14-2006, 02:59 PM

One thing to keep in mind... NPD only reports numbers back from a small number of retailers these days. They don't report back numbers from some of the largest retailers including places like Walmart. I don't even think they track numbers from EB or Gamestop any more.

So if they are saying 600,000... the real number might be as many as a million or more.
NPD extrapolates missing datas from retailers like Walmart and come up with an approximate figure (as reasonable as possible based on other market data, shipments, etc) to include in their final assessment. If Walmart doesn't divulge sales of a particular product they can make assessments from manufacturers/shipments/buyers&agents, for example. They're usually pretty good with their estimates.

Magnanimous Gnome

01-14-2006, 03:15 PM

And Sony? Sony's biggest profile releases of 2005 were Shadow of the Colossus and God of War.

EA has been spitting out sequels for years now, that isn't anything new. The numbers bear out, sequels sell better than original IP enough of the time that it's worth it to have a franchise you can keep going back to.

I was referring to the yearly Rachet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, and Sly Cooper games when I mentioned Sony.

I don't mind sequels either - I just don't like seeing them every year. I love the fact that Nintendo gives me a new Zelda every few years, but I loathe the fact that a new Mario Party hits the shelves every year. Yearly sequels are ridiculous, and I don't buy any of them.

Twigz'N'Berries

01-14-2006, 03:55 PM

What is amazing is how people love one company and want to skull hump the corpse of the other.

The MS launch has been far from a f-a-i-l. If what EA said was true, MS has had a good launch sales wise...because you can't forget about the Euro market where they sold out of systems as well. So, they may be well into the millions at this point.
Those complaining about game selection, its true. There are not a lot of games for the 360 right now....but when you compare it to previous launches, there is a lot more variety than ever. There are several good games coming out on the horizon (I should say games that interest me). id no one mention that Fight Night 3 will be here in Feb? If no one has played the download from Xbox Live, that game will rock! I loved the demo and still play it.
Personally, I hate the arrogance and practices of Sony. They have no problem denegrating the products of their rivals and trying underhanded tactics to give them any advantage. I do however think they have done well with the PS2 and are masters of marketing...but this thread didn't have SH_T to do with the PS3, but once again it was brought up.
MS definitely had supply problems and that hurt their cause this Christmas. They had screwed up with the core/premium business. They let many of their premiere titles slip until 4 months after the launch. But to fail, they would have to have their product sitting on shelves all over the world, not just Japan. I believe that had more to do with culture and the crappy launch titles more than anything. MS basically showed the Japanese consumer that it couldn't trust MS...again. If all of the sudden, there was a Gizmondo 2 launch, would any of us rush out to get one when the first one failed so dismally...and the new one has shown all of the symptoms of being the same way? To 'fail' would mean that people were greatly unhappy with their product and didn't want to use it anymore. Most people that have one (check the polls) are happy they have it.

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 03:56 PM

Hmm. Well, to start with, Sony sold 500k first day because there were 500k available. X360 sold 300k first day because there were 300k available. Neither system was able to meet demand for it. I fail to see why it's a bad comparison.
It's a bad comparison because, for one, the 500,000 units were not all that was left. There were shortages for sure, but I didn't wait a year to get my PS2. I was originally told I would have to wait until March to get my PS2, and ended up getting it in November or December. Further, the PS2 sold almost a million units in ONE WEEKEND in Japan. The demand for the 360 is clearly not on par here. My point is that Sony EXPECTED that sort of demand and sales, and they got it, therefore it was a success. Microsoft expected the same, and did not/could not meet it. That is why it is a failure. Failure can only be measured by perceived expectation.

I'm not saying that Halo 3 will 'prevent' anyone from buying a PS3; I'm saying that it will boost sales of the X360 if people go in to buy a PS3 and can't.
If you don't think Halo 3 will take away people who were considering the PS3 and get them to buy a 360 because they really want Halo 3, then I don't understand why you stated Sony would be "finished" if they are released at the same time. Sony will still sell as many consoles as they would have regardless of Halo 3.

As for 'worldwide' launch, Sony said they were gonna ship Spring 2006. I think it's safe to say they're going to miss that. So why can't they launch in Japan in August and hit the US at Christmas?
Because worldwide launches are notoriously difficult, costly, and often result in the issues Microsoft is having now.

And you must have forgotten the shortages that the PS2 launch had, which is WHY I AM MAKING the comparison. US 500k first day, virtually NOTHING for the rest of the year afterward.
I do remember their shortages, and I know for a fact after the first day they did not lack consoles for an entire year. To say you are exaggerating would be an understatement. Read above for the other reasons this comparison isn't appropos.

There's going to be a few games that will get incredible word-of-mouth and I think that as word gets out about Xbox Live and the solid release schedule people will pick it up over the course of the year. So, I'm guessing that 5mil is a reasonable estimate for Christmas 2006.
I don't think so, but we shall see.

1 year is PLENTY of time to improve the graphics engine of a new platform. Just look at the PS2 titles for 2001 compared to 2000 - they're significantly better-looking.
One year from now, yeah. But not this year. You can't expect developers to be making second-gen titles when they're just starting to make first-gen titles.

Goronmon

01-14-2006, 03:57 PM

I don't mind sequels either - I just don't like seeing them every year. I love the fact that Nintendo gives me a new Zelda every few years, but I loathe the fact that a new Mario Party hits the shelves every year. Yearly sequels are ridiculous, and I don't buy any of them.
I don't have a problem with yearly sequels. All you have to do is stagger your purchases. For instance, I usually buy a new football game every few years (last one was NCAA 2003).

Dirty Harry

01-14-2006, 04:03 PM

now Perigon dont get your emo panties in a knot baby <3.

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 04:05 PM

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 04:08 PM

I was referring to the yearly Rachet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, and Sly Cooper games when I mentioned Sony.

I don't mind sequels either - I just don't like seeing them every year.

I didn't play Jak and Daxter or Sly Cooper, but I can tell you each Rachet and Clank was different enough from the last to warrant those sequels. Damn fun game too. I don't see how it would have mattered if they came out a year afterwards or not. Unless they were glitchy or felt incomplete, there's no logical reason behind staggering the release for several years.

Worldcrafter

01-14-2006, 04:10 PM

EA.com went from pro-Microsoft to faggoty ass Nintendo Land.

Once again Zeal has cut through the bullshit to bring us the pure unadulterated facts! Bravo! :rolleyes:

Dirty Harry

01-14-2006, 04:10 PM

The way I have been feeling about some games, I have no idea when I will decide to pick up a new console. Maybe never?
That sums up how i have been feeling about this next generation, might not even buy any of them.

Reanimated

01-14-2006, 04:15 PM

Do you guys really think Halo 3 is going to only take 2 years to develop, while 2 took 3 years and the original took even longer? Is that what you guys want?

I never said it would come out this year. I only said it would be shown at E3 this year.

HOWEVER, I do think it's entirely possible that the game will come out in 2006. You have to remember that it's using the UE3 engine, whereas the first two game engines were built by Bungie from scratch.

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 04:27 PM

Personally, I hate the arrogance and practices of Sony. They have no problem denegrating the products of their rivals and trying underhanded tactics to give them any advantage.
I totally missed this gem. You like Microsoft but dislike Sony for that reason? Are you kidding me? Microsoft is the fucking KING of "denegrating the products of their rivals" and using "underhanded tactics to give them any advantage." Try this for a refresher course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

I guess none of you are Linnux users either, considering how much people get away with accusing Sony of doing shit that Microsoft does to a far greater degree (and with a much higher efficiency), while patting Microsoft on the head.

I do however think they have done well with the PS2 and are masters of marketing...but this thread didn't have SH_T to do with the PS3, but once again it was brought up.
By X-Box fanboys, as always.

MS definitely had supply problems and that hurt their cause this Christmas. They had screwed up with the core/premium business. They let many of their premiere titles slip until 4 months after the launch. But to fail, they would have to have their product sitting on shelves all over the world, not just Japan.
Failure is when you do not meet expectation. If King Kong only made 150 million, it would have been a failure. When a movie like March of the Penguins goes on to make, what was it, 200 million? That's a raging success.

Kelegacy

01-14-2006, 04:28 PM

I figure that 360 production will be ramped up by April just in time for the Halo 3 buzz that will come from E3. I don't think they'll have a problem reaching their 5.5 mil worldwide goal by the end of June. The real test will be the coming holiday season. The PS3 is likely to have a very weak launch lineup going up against the 360's second gen titles.

Kuturagi cries himself to sleep.
I have a feeling Kuturagi sleeps pretty darn well. His PS2 still sells like hotcakes, and he can float on that boat well into this year or next. The PS3 need not hurry, for it will sell just as well as its predecessors.

Microsoft needs all of the head start it can get, and then some.

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 04:30 PM

They don't. The mass majority of console gamers comment was in regards to the CPU article. Those numbers were simply proving a point to the poster who shall not be named that just because he didn't like the game, most reviewers did.
Oh, reviewers, fine, but that's not quite what you said. I think we can agree Project Gotham Racing 3 was critically enjoyed. How the "majority of console gamers" have received it is a different story.

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 04:34 PM

From what I hear, yes, it could be ready by Christmas of this year. As opposed to the switch from Halo 1 to Halo 2, I hear that they are using the same basic toolsets as Halo 2 to design Halo 3, just with higher res textures and more polys. They may even be re-using a lot of the existing Halo 2 animations, level geometry and models, just with tweaks to the normal maps and better realtime lighting in the engine.
If you believed Halo 3 was going to essentially be a prettier Halo 2, what would compel you to believe it will even be received well by Halo fans, let alone people looking for a PS3?

bapenguin

01-14-2006, 04:44 PM

Oh, reviewers, fine, but that's not quite what you said. I think we can agree Project Gotham Racing 3 was critically enjoyed. How the "majority of console gamers" have received it is a different story.

I was really talk more along the lines of the whole console vs PC discussion with games being available on both platforms. People tend to think because a game is available on the PC and is for the most part superior that this somehow makes the console counterpart worthless, when this is simply not the fact.

bapenguin

01-14-2006, 04:45 PM

Do you guys really think Halo 3 is going to only take 2 years to develop, while 2 took 3 years and the original took even longer? Is that what you guys want?

That's under the assumption that there weren't more than 2 teams working on games at Bungie at the same time. Halo 3 could very well have been under development for 2 years already.

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 04:52 PM

That's under the assumption that there weren't more than 2 teams working on games at Bungie at the same time. Halo 3 could very well have been under development for 2 years already.
With what 360 kit? Not that it's absolutely neccessary to have one to start, but not having one would seem like something that would slow down development process, not to mention increase the chances of it not looking like a "killer app."

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 04:55 PM

I was really talk more along the lines of the whole console vs PC discussion with games being available on both platforms. People tend to think because a game is available on the PC and is for the most part superior that this somehow makes the console counterpart worthless, when this is simply not the fact.
Alright, gotta be more clear then. Personally, I don't think PC to console ports lack value, though I do tend to believe that a majority of X-Box owners are PC owners and probably play PC games to varying degrees.

bapenguin

01-14-2006, 04:58 PM

With what 360 kit? Not that it's absolutely neccessary to have one to start, but not having one would seem like something that would slow down development process, not to mention increase the chances of it not looking like a "killer app."

You don't need to have the kit to actually work on quite a bit of the game. The story, the art assets, the level design the sound work. Not only that, you can damn well bet Microsoft gave Bungie the absolute first Alpha kit the day it came off the assembly line.

Look at it this way, 9 months ago Developers had games up and running on Alpha kits at E3. If it took them 6 months of development time before hand, you are already almost at a year and a half.

Remember the Gears of War thread from a few days ago regarding the screenshots? Mark Rein mentioned they were from a demo to Microsoft from November 2004.

Achilles

01-14-2006, 05:00 PM

Here's one way to look at it. Nintendo sold 391,000 DS's in Japan in one week back in December. And Microsoft has sold 600,000 Xbox360's worldwide over a couple months. So it is not a good launch. People are not rushing to get it, (if they could). I would say that since Microsoft has failed completely (and there is really no debate over this) in Japan, then they will have a tough time beating Sony this generationAnd this is the basic problem with this thread, other than the accusations of the 360 having no good launch titles despite it having a greater than 4.1 attach rate on disc games, and an attach rate of like 2.0 on Live Arcade games; If there were no good games people wouldn't buy them in significantly larger numbers than they bought them for any previous console.

There was another accusation that they don't have any great games in the next couple of months. I would counter with the notion that you haven't even tried to look at what's coming out between now and the end of March, and then compare it to what the other systems are shipping.

Regarding Jatation's post. It clearly says in the headline "in the US." It says in the article "in the US." Yet you say "worldwide." That's why I stopped reading after this post. So sorry if I missed someone else pointing out this obvious misstatement, or hopefully you correcting it.

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 05:03 PM

Remember the Gears of War thread from a few days ago regarding the screenshots? Mark Rein mentioned they were from a demo to Microsoft from November 2004.
But how close to ready is Gears of War?

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 05:12 PM

And this is the basic problem with this thread, other than the accusations of the 360 having no good launch titles despite it having a greater than 4.1 attach rate on disc games, and an attach rate of like 2.0 on Live Arcade games; If there were no good games people wouldn't buy them in significantly larger numbers than they bought them for any previous console.
If you tried to buy a 360 before launch, you would have to hesitate after writing that. It's been well publicized how the big retailers, like EB and Gamestop, pushed packages on consumers from as few as one game and a bunch of peripherals to, what, 10 games? There was even a thread on here about that way back. You also have to take into account that the sample size is small, and the 360 has limited backward compatablility. When people were buying their PS2's and not buying any new games (like me), it was in part because we could still play high quality titles from the last system on the new one. Which I think, in turn, is helping out Live Arcade a lot. I feel like it will be successful if the releases don't stagnate, but I don't know how much attention some of these games would be getting if there were other games out there that really piqued the general (360 owner) gamer's interest.

jacktion

01-14-2006, 05:19 PM

http://tinyurl.com/7nhzz

Did you guys see this? It is now a federal crime to annoy someone anonymously via the internet. No shit.
So that means Suicidal Shizuru is going to the Big House! Oh no!

But seriously. This is the police state that Bush wants. He wants to spy on anyone anywhere at anytime. And he wants to start incarcerating us for nothing if we don't agree with him.

(Sorry to change the thread but I thought it applied since people were annoyed earlier and I wanted to warn you so you don't go to jail!)

pps oh yeah I saw that the numbers weren't worldwide regarding my earlier post. sorry. i should have read more carefully. still not a great launch though.

Reanimated

01-14-2006, 05:21 PM

But how close to ready is Gears of War?

It will launch this year... a fact which supports bap's argument.

And you all seem to have skipped over the fact that Bungie is using UE3 engine, whereas the first 2 game engines were built in-house from scratch.

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 05:25 PM

It will launch this year... a fact which supports bap's argument.

And you all seem to have skipped over the fact that Bungie is using UE3 engine, whereas the first 2 game engines were built in-house from scratch.
A lot of games will be using that engine this generation. Does that mean turnaround is going to be a lot faster for the entire industry?

Also, Bap said there was a demo of Gears of war in 2004. Almost two years to get from a demo to the playable game?

Achilles

01-14-2006, 05:33 PM

It's been well publicized how the big retailers, like EB and Gamestop, pushed packages on consumers from as few as one game and a bunch of peripherals to, what, 10 games? There was even a thread on here about that way back. You also have to take into account that the sample size is small, and the 360 has limited backward compatablility. When people were buying their PS2's and not buying any new games (like me), it was in part because we could still play high quality titles from the last system on the new one. Which I think, in turn, is helping out Live Arcade a lot. I feel like it will be successful if the releases don't stagnate, but I don't know how much attention some of these games would be getting if there were other games out there that really piqued the general (360 owner) gamer's interest.Bundles have counted for as large a percentage of game sales as any previous bundle. That's not what's causing the significantly higher attach rate. Neither is backward compatability. The games that are out are extremely good. Many of them are ports but they're better on 360.

Balthasar

01-14-2006, 05:36 PM

Bundles have counted for as large a percentage of game sales as any previous bundle. That's not what's causing the significantly higher attach rate. Neither is backward compatability.
What is your support for this claim?

The games that are out are extremely good. Many of them are ports but they're better on 360.
All you're saying here is that I'm wrong and you're right. You have said nothing to refute my theory.

Achilles

01-14-2006, 06:04 PM

What is your support for this claim?Information from retailers. I would suggest you call EB and GameSpot corporate. Edit: If you don't want to go verify this information, which would probably be a hassle, you don't have to believe it.All you're saying here is that I'm wrong and you're right. You have said nothing to refute my theory.Oookay. The average review score for the 360 launch titles is in the 80s. So reviewers think they're good games. Despite having an install base significantly smaller than the PS2s install base they sold extremely well, selling over 1 million games when there were only 300,000 360s in America. Now no backwards compat would only matter if these people didn't have any other game system wouldn't it? Do you actually think the majority of 360 owners NEEDED to buy the new game on the 360 otherwise they couldn't play it? In fact they had to pay $10 more to play it on the 360.

Now maybe the fact that none of those great games the PS1 got after the PS2 launched had improved ports available for the PS2's launch hurt their sales, but that's Sony's problem. And at this point you're speculating just to try and diminish the great game sales the 360 has gotten.

In November, when the 360 had sold 300,000 units in the US, CoD2 on 360 was number 3 on the sales chart, Madden was number 8, and NFS was number 19. Those games were largely not included in bundles, and 2 of them were available on every platform, yet they made it onto the chart in one of the best selling months of the year.

That's what I've got, now do you have anything to prove there were no good games at the 360s launch beyond your own feelings about what a "good game" is? Or no system sellers beyond what you think sells a system? Because CoD2 and Madden would seem to me to be system sellers.

Reanimated

01-14-2006, 06:25 PM

I hope you're not trying to argue that building a game engine from scratch will take the same amout of time as licensing an engine. Why the hell do you think people license engines to begin with? To cut development time and costs, durrrrrr. Otherwise everyone would just make their own fucking engine.

Magnanimous Gnome

01-14-2006, 06:45 PM

I don't have a problem with yearly sequels. All you have to do is stagger your purchases. For instance, I usually buy a new football game every few years (last one was NCAA 2003).

That works for sports titles (which I personally don't play), but it doesn't really work for the likes of Rachet, Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell, et al. - these games actually build on each other, and I'd rather play all of them or none of them. Of course that's just me. I'm sure some people have no problem with picking up the third game in a series without having played the second.

More than anything it is just a matter of principle to me. These yearly sequels flood the already overcrowded game market, so I just choose to do my best to ignore them. It gets harder and harder the more of them there are though.

Edit - Is Halo 3 really going to use the Unreal 3 Engine?? I must have missed that announcement.

Also, one more question: is there actually going to be an Unreal 3 to show off the Unreal 3 engine? The first Unreal title was actually pretty fun and looked amazing at the time, but some pretty meh reviews scared me away from the second.

Achilles

01-14-2006, 06:56 PM

Also, one more question: is there actually going to be an Unreal 3 to show off the Unreal 3 engine? The first Unreal title was actually pretty fun and looked amazing at the time, but some pretty meh reviews scared me away from the second.I haven't heard about Unreal 3. On the single-player side it would seem to be Gears of War, and for multiplayer it would seem to be UT2006 or whatever, that are their big Unreal 3 engine titles.

I liked Unreal 2 for what it was. Don't get it on Xbox. I liked it better than Doom 3 or Quake 4. I especially liked that they didn't tack on vehicles to add different types of gameplay, instead they had a tactical turret and shield placement part a couple times where you got to set up defenses for a base. It worked well. Problem is that it'll probably look dated now since it didn't use any advanced shaders or anything.

It had the same problem that Quake and Doom had as well, where if you shoot something that isn't an enemy or destructible, nothing happens. If you're lucky you'll get a dynamic projector plopped on top of where your shot hit. It's been 4 years since Halo people, for the love of god throw down sparks when your shots hit a wall, smoke out of the muzzle of your gun that hangs in the air. And streams of concrete dust and wood splinters like CoD and FEAR use. That's all it takes to change your weapons from feeling disconnected to making them feel like they're in the world and really tearing stuff up.

Magnanimous Gnome

01-14-2006, 07:03 PM

I haven't heard about Unreal 3. On the single-player side it would seem to be Gears of War, and for multiplayer it would seem to be UT2006 or whatever, that are their big Unreal 3 engine titles.

I liked Unreal 2 for what it was. Don't get it on Xbox. I liked it better than Doom 3 or Quake 4. I especially liked that they didn't tack on vehicles to add different types of gameplay, instead they had a tactical turret and shield placement part a couple times where you got to set up defenses for a base. It worked well. Problem is that it'll probably look dated now since it didn't use any advanced shaders or anything.

Thanks for the answers. I probably won't bother with Unreal 2 now. I just have my laptop left for PC gaming after seling my desktop to my mom, and it isn't equipped with the best graphics card. I can't run anything that requires more than 16mb of video ram, which rules out a lot of games as you can all probably imagine. I've mostly been playing Age of Wonders on it lately, although I plan on going back and playing some older titles that I never spent much time with, such as Myth 1 and 2. I have several games that I can't even play anymore, but I don't plan on getting another PC upgrade - too many hassles and too much money. It's probably going to be mostly console gaming for me from here on out. I had a great run with PC games, but there are not too many slated to come out that interest me these days.

Achilles

01-14-2006, 07:19 PM

I had a great run with PC games, but there are not too many slated to come out that interest me these days.For fear of completely derailing the thread. You’ll probably be glad to know that what used to be Westwood has envisioned RTS controls for the console. If their experiment works with the new LotR game that’s coming to the 360, than the last great exclusive genre of PC gaming might be coming to console as well.

For others who might be offended by the idea of a console getting RTS games, or the controls being envisioned, I'm not really up for a debate on this since I believe it is possible, and I haven't seen what ex-Westwood has thought up or how well it works.

RMan

01-14-2006, 08:20 PM

The games that are out are extremely good.
I think that's awfully presumptuous, especially considering the reviews of the games seem pretty mediocre to me. Likely the biggest reason for the high attach rate is that the people that have them right now are the most dedicated or wealthy gamers and thus buy an exceptional number of games. To really say it has a relatively great attach rate, we’d need to compare to the first half a million systems from other launches for a few months of sales, but it’s likely going to be impossible to really find those numbers since the Dreamcast and PS2 sold more systems in their first few months (although some comparrison numbers would be fun to see). I think it was a relatively mediocre launch, although they had a bunch of titles available and covered the bases well, they had no must have title (which few launches do, really) and the vast majority of the games were not much better than their PS2/Xbox versions. So obviously those that buy an Xbox 360 are going to buy the 360 version of the yearly sports title release, which is certainly helping their numbers a bit, not sure any system has launched with a complete sports lineup like that (even if they are half-hearted efforts, they’re still going to sell nicely).

Oddly, I’m actually more interested in Geometry wars than any of their other titles, but that’s not nearly enough to get me to buy the system. I’m sure that’s not representative of the common gamer, but it’s interesting that I’m more excited about the smaller online games than I am the stuff they’re chunking gobs of money at. I do get bored of games awfully fast though :).

Achilles

01-14-2006, 08:31 PM

I think that's awfully presumptuous, especially considering the reviews of the games seem pretty mediocre to me.You're probably right about people with money owning the console right now because it's so close to launch, but that's a common thing at console launches so it doesn't make the numbers any less impressive in comparison to other console launches.

About the reviews being mediocre, fortunately that's a metric that we can look up and measure. I’m including DOA4 but you can ignore it if you like. It’s as much of a launch title as SSB was for the GC. According to Gamerankings:
DOA4: 90.5
PDZ: 82.9
CoD2: 90.5
PGR3: 88.9
Condemned: 83.0
Kameo: 81.2
NBA 2k6 81.2
Need For Speed: 84.2
King Kong: 81.8

Those scores are really, really high for launch titles. I don’t know if you’re counting 80s as mediocre, but that’s not generally what they mean.

bapenguin

01-14-2006, 08:34 PM

A lot of games will be using that engine this generation. Does that mean turnaround is going to be a lot faster for the entire industry?

Also, Bap said there was a demo of Gears of war in 2004. Almost two years to get from a demo to the playable game?

The demo was a technology demo. Not even a game. Here's the post from Mark Rein (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=174832&postcount=44) on it.

From what I've been hearing Gears of War should be out by Summertime, but there's really no concrete date.

92miata

01-14-2006, 08:42 PM

i got my 360 at kmart for 399, premium, and haven't stopped playing it yet. but i have a 37" sharp lcd. i have pretty much lost interest in pc and console gaming since the 360 except for the 360 and backwards compatability games for the xbox. hell i would trade my ps2 and xbox for a few games so i can save some space.....:) and i have only rented games and bought pd0. if you hate it you haven't found one. and i have played 8+ hours a day for weeks and had no problems. i love the xbox 360 and it will be happy sitting by my revolution and ps3 when available. i love games, stop chosing sides, chose them all!!!!! we all win with all the consoles, but damn video cards need to come down in price.

take care!

motor

01-14-2006, 09:13 PM

I never said it would come out this year. I only said it would be shown at E3 this year.

HOWEVER, I do think it's entirely possible that the game will come out in 2006. You have to remember that it's using the UE3 engine, whereas the first two game engines were built by Bungie from scratch.

Do you have proof of that? Using another companies engine seriously goes against Bungie's culture. I know that they were evaluating it a year or two ago, but I thought they passed.

RMan

01-14-2006, 09:57 PM

Those scores are really, really high for launch titles. I don’t know if you’re counting 80s as mediocre, but that’s not generally what they mean.
No, 80's are good, but the ones you listed are the ones that made it into the 80's, most did not. I haven't really done the research (and I won't :)) but it doesn't seem far off of what the PS2 had as far as overall scores. Ehh, in the end it's all very subjective, but I bet MS is generally fairly unimpressed but not disapointed with their performance, even disregarding the shortages. I'm sure they expected the sports titles to generally have more effort put into them, which would have helped alot because now they have another year before the next round of them and the existing versions aren't going to do a great deal to push the systems which will hurt them after the shortages are over. They've still got a lot of options though, a strong Halo 3 launch/marketing push and/or pricedrop at PS3's launch will go a long way to taking the steam out of the PS3, so no matter how good or bad their launch is as long as Sony doesn't pull out some really special games they'll be in good shape I think, but MS's dominance is not nearly the lock I thought it'd be (although I still say they'll beat the PS3).

Magnanimous Gnome

01-14-2006, 10:11 PM

For fear of completely derailing the thread. You’ll probably be glad to know that what used to be Westwood has envisioned RTS controls for the console. If their experiment works with the new LotR game that’s coming to the 360, than the last great exclusive genre of PC gaming might be coming to console as well.

For others who might be offended by the idea of a console getting RTS games, or the controls being envisioned, I'm not really up for a debate on this since I believe it is possible, and I haven't seen what ex-Westwood has thought up or how well it works.

Seeing the PC where it is today actually makes me kind of sad. I know this is a really touchy subject on this site, but I honestly think that the Xbox did a lot of damage to the PC platform. More developers and major PC franchises jumped ship during this past gen than ever before - I'd even go so far as to say that this happened more in the last gen than in all the previous gens combined. The vast majority of these developers and properties went to the Xbox, with varying results.

The bright side to my lack of interest in the waning (from my perspective) PC platform is that I can buy a Mac as my next system. The only thing keeping me on Windows is now a non-issue. I won't have to resist a shiny new Apple computer when it comes time to replace this noisy, always way too hot Dell laptop.

mister_slim

01-15-2006, 01:15 AM

I didn't play Jak and Daxter or Sly Cooper, but I can tell you each Rachet and Clank was different enough from the last to warrant those sequels. Damn fun game too. I don't see how it would have mattered if they came out a year afterwards or not. Unless they were glitchy or felt incomplete, there's no logical reason behind staggering the release for several years.
Deadlocked seems like it was too much. Each of the previous games was a major step up, but Deadlocked is just going through the motions. Still funny though.
And this is the basic problem with this thread, other than the accusations of the 360 having no good launch titles despite it having a greater than 4.1 attach rate on disc games, and an attach rate of like 2.0 on Live Arcade games; If there were no good games people wouldn't buy them in significantly larger numbers than they bought them for any previous console.

I think it's too early to put any faith in those numbers. Early adopter skew, people buying games and accessories and then not receiving their 360s, etc. I'll point out that of the early adopter current owners, only 50% have connected to Live, even for free. Let's wait and see.

Achilles

01-15-2006, 02:50 AM

I think it's too early to put any faith in those numbers. Early adopter skew, people buying games and accessories and then not receiving their 360s, etc. I'll point out that of the early adopter current owners, only 50% have connected to Live, even for free. Let's wait and see.50%? That's pretty good actually. Probably skewed because of the fact most early adopters have a spiffier gaming setup than regular folks. It's certainly too early to put any faith in those numbers as a trend, but they're all we've got at the moment.

Balthasar

01-15-2006, 02:54 AM

Oookay. The average review score for the 360 launch titles is in the 80s. So reviewers think they're good games. Despite having an install base significantly smaller than the PS2s install base they sold extremely well, selling over 1 million games when there were only 300,000 360s in America.
600,000, actually.

Now no backwards compat would only matter if these people didn't have any other game system wouldn't it? Do you actually think the majority of 360 owners NEEDED to buy the new game on the 360 otherwise they couldn't play it? In fact they had to pay $10 more to play it on the 360.
That brings me to another theory, which is that gamers buying the 360 more often than not felt compelled to buy at least one game for their system because, as Microsoft advertised, this is the "HD era," and no one had really seen what a game in HD would look like. You get a new toy and you always want to have something to test it out, but all the talk of HD and how much better games were going to look and feel might give people greater reasons to buy a game. When the revolution launches, I can guarantee you right now they will see good software sales with that system. It's pointless not to get at least one new game to see what the "revolution" is going to be like.

And at this point you're speculating just to try and diminish the great game sales the 360 has gotten. In November, when the 360 had sold 300,000 units in the US, CoD2 on 360 was number 3 on the sales chart, Madden was number 8, and NFS was number 19. Those games were largely not included in bundles, and 2 of them were available on every platform, yet they made it onto the chart in one of the best selling months of the year.
3, 8, and 19 are great game sales during a holiday season that was down in general? Sorry, I can't agree with that. 3 is good, but 8 and 19 are not remotely impressive. Also CoD and Madden were included in plenty of bundles. One of my supervisors picked up a bundle that was almost $1000 for something like 7 or 8 games (along with 3 months of live and a gamefly subscription) off Amazon.com. The only reason he paid that much was that it was the only way he could buy the 360 at all.

That's what I've got, now do you have anything to prove there were no good games at the 360s launch beyond your own feelings about what a "good game" is? Or no system sellers beyond what you think sells a system? Because CoD2 and Madden would seem to me to be system sellers.
Madden was terrible, first of all. That aside, I never said there weren't any good games on the system. You're confusing me with some other people. I did agree that there weren't any great games on the system, though. Absolutely nothing there to make me even consider it. I'm sure there will be soon enough, but not at launch. That's the way it is with most launches, though, so I'm not really sure why fanboys get so defensive about this. Launch titles aren't why the 360 launch is a failure.

Balthasar

01-15-2006, 03:12 AM

Deadlocked seems like it was too much. Each of the previous games was a major step up, but Deadlocked is just going through the motions. Still funny though.
I wasn't even considering deadlocked. I never got the impression it was as rooted in the world of Ratchet and Clank as the other three. I guess it wasn't worth it anyway?

I think it's too early to put any faith in those numbers. Early adopter skew, people buying games and accessories and then not receiving their 360s, etc. I'll point out that of the early adopter current owners, only 50% have connected to Live, even for free. Let's wait and see.
There are so many reasons why gamers picked up 360 games. I don't know what the attach rate was for previous consoles, but there are a ton of variables that come into play with this launch that makes it hard to say people bought the games simply because they are good. I haven't even personally seen the sales figures.

mister_slim

01-15-2006, 03:45 AM

50%? That's pretty good actually. Probably skewed because of the fact most early adopters have a spiffier gaming setup than regular folks. It's certainly too early to put any faith in those numbers as a trend, but they're all we've got at the moment.
But your Live Arcade attach rate would then imply that people actually connecting to Live were buying an average of four games. Eh, doesn't really matter.
I wasn't even considering deadlocked. I never got the impression it was as rooted in the world of Ratchet and Clank as the other three. I guess it wasn't worth it anyway?
I'm enjoying it as a rental. Basically, it strips out most of the platforming and exploration and focuses on combat, especially in arenas. Weapons are elaborated on further, in an elegant way. The cutscenes are of the usual high quality, but the story really has no drive. It's just a silly excuse for carnage. Some of the new vehicles are nice. I'm not sure I'll finish it though.

BenSkywalker

01-15-2006, 07:56 AM

Oblivion being pushed back removed all of my interest in the 360.

Honestly- there isn't anything on the system that comes remotely close to being a killer app. Sony did have one with the PS2- it played DVDs. If X360 was a HD-DVD player I wouldn't have needed to tell EB not to worry about filling my X360 preorder. Speaking as a gamer who will, without a doubt, own all the new systems I'm not speaking from a certain loyalistic POV. MS has puked out one of the poorest launches in console history overall as far as gamers are concerned. Don't get me wrong- I think they executed perfectly given the reality of the marketplace. Why have a killer app to sell a system they know they are not capable of producing in reasonable quantity?

Holding off Halo3 is another stroke of genius. Sony could ship several million PS3s on launch day and they are going to all sell out. Push Halo3 out the door on that particular day and you will have a crowd of jubilent X360 owners touting the virtue of their console while the potential PS3 owner will be feeling burned by Sony- truly a brilliant move by MS as long as they don't make any mistake as moronic as say, wasting the very tight supply of X360s to a nation that rates its brand comparable to the WonderSwan.

Reanimated

01-15-2006, 08:15 AM

If X360 was an HDDVD player, you wouldn't have any movies to play on it until May anyway, moron.

Kelegacy

01-15-2006, 08:16 AM

If X360 was an HDDVD player, you wouldn't have any movies to play on it until May anyway, moron.
Who's stupid enough to buy one before May anyway, before the influx of great titles start to form a decent library?

I kid, I kid. :)

Evil Avatar

01-15-2006, 08:19 AM

Thanks to whoever donated just to get the ignore feature. :)

jspeak32

01-15-2006, 03:39 PM

I dont even think its that popular despite all the "hype". I know a lot of people who are Xbox/MS fanboys who dont care to get a 360 simply because the horrible lack of great games. I dont want to debate how good the system is Im just stating that it seems like MS wouldnt even meet the "goal" if all stores had an infinite stock. Yeah theyd sell a hell of a lot more but the whole Nation wouldnt own one...

Yea, I only wish the X360 launch was as good as any of sony's launches...wow, those were all winners. I couldn't get enough Battle Arena Toushinden, Tekken Tag Tournament, Street Fighter EX (whatever the hell it was called), or...what all did the psp launch with besides Lumines again?
Guess I'll go back to playing my stinky ol' Dead or Alive 4 and Call of Duty 2 and Project Gotham Racing 3 and Kameo and my Xbox Live Arcade games.

Reanimated

01-15-2006, 07:29 PM

Yea, I only wish the X360 launch was as good as any of sony's launches...wow, those were all winners. I couldn't get enough Battle Arena Toushinden, Tekken Tag Tournament, Street Fighter EX (whatever the hell it was called), or...what all did the psp launch with besides Lumines again?
Guess I'll go back to playing my stinky ol' Dead or Alive 4 and Call of Duty 2 and Project Gotham Racing 3 and Kameo and my Xbox Live Arcade games.

I like this guy.

Murmillo

01-15-2006, 08:01 PM

For the launch games part of it, Microsoft did a hell of a good job. Sadly a few good games got pushed back, some games you can find on other consoles, but by far, it has the strongest selection of games FOR a launch.

As for the console it's self. Microsoft messed up. They really over estimated Japan. Which of course, makes all the other areas sold out going "WTF Mate.. they arn't selling and yet I can't find one here?" Microsoft really cut themselves into a corner with the number of units they had, and the period they decided to put the console out. I mean, HardCore early adopters do not care when you launch a console, they will buy it the night you sell it. It did Microsoft no good to launch a console for the Christmas holiday, when hardly anybody who wasn't "hard core" couldn't get it in the first place. Had Microsoft waited 2 more months saved up 500,000 more units we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So in short, Microsoft launch games great, Microsoft console release plan fucked up.

Citizen Philip

01-15-2006, 09:26 PM

*sigh* Since I spend the weekend in exclusive company with the lady and turn off my computer, I missed this entire thread.

If at any time you got "excited" by contributing to this thread you are spending too much time on your computer: more specifically you are getting too excited over a game console system.

You have either bought your goddam console, or are waiting to buy your console. If you need your e-friends on the innarweb to form a peer group to feel good about your purchase, YOU SUCK. You've got your system and are happy or wished you waited.

Defending either Sony or Microsoft = fanboy. Both companies will happily gut your bank account for the least amount of effort when it comes to selling you either console or game. So please, a little perspective on the issue. Sheath those e-peens and go get some hot chocolate.

Zanzibar

01-15-2006, 10:33 PM

It's a bad comparison because, for one, the 500,000 units were not all that was left. There were shortages for sure, but I didn't wait a year to get my PS2. I was originally told I would have to wait until March to get my PS2, and ended up getting it in November or December. Further, the PS2 sold almost a million units in ONE WEEKEND in Japan. The demand for the 360 is clearly not on par here. My point is that Sony EXPECTED that sort of demand and sales, and they got it, therefore it was a success. Microsoft expected the same, and did not/could not meet it. That is why it is a failure. Failure can only be measured by perceived expectation.

If you don't think Halo 3 will take away people who were considering the PS3 and get them to buy a 360 because they really want Halo 3, then I don't understand why you stated Sony would be "finished" if they are released at the same time. Sony will still sell as many consoles as they would have regardless of Halo 3.

Because worldwide launches are notoriously difficult, costly, and often result in the issues Microsoft is having now.

I do remember their shortages, and I know for a fact after the first day they did not lack consoles for an entire year. To say you are exaggerating would be an understatement. Read above for the other reasons this comparison isn't appropos.

I don't think so, but we shall see.

One year from now, yeah. But not this year. You can't expect developers to be making second-gen titles when they're just starting to make first-gen titles.

If Microsoft had a million units on the shelves in the US on the first day, they would have sold a million units. Were you at the midnight launch, any of them? I was. A PARADE of cars coming into the lots looking to see how long the lines were at my local Best Buy, Target, Toys R Us, CompUSA stores, and every last one of 'em already had a line twice as long as the supply.

I still do not understand why you are saying that because MS didn't have the supply that there was not the same demand as for the PS2. That is EXACTLY what you are saying. I'm saying we will never know, but to say that somehow Sony's PS2 launch is superior because they sold 500k instead of 'merely' 300k - which was EVERY ONE THEY HAD - is silly. Look at what you wrote above. Because Sony sold a million, the demand for the X360 is 'clearly not on par.' How can you make such a statement? Do you at least recognize the difference between supply and demand??

I said 'finished' because if Microsoft actually INCREASES their lead significantly over the PS3, then it'll be a real problem for Sony to catch up. It happened with the PS2 in 2001 - they came out with GTA3 at the same time the Xbox showed up, the Xbox ran out of units, and instead PS2 sales went ballistic as they bought GTA3. And look where they are now.

Are you saying the PS3 is going to miss Christmas 2006 in the US? My God, give the X360 TWO Christmases of unchallenged US sales? Hoo boy. As someone who hates Sony, let me just say: "Muhahahahahah!"

Just as the PS2 had consistent small shipments heading out weekly, so did the X360. I'll say it again: you cannot find X360s on the shelves anywhere in Europe or the US unless you show up on shipment day. Same as it was for the PS2. It is ludicrous for you to CONTINUE to DENY the similarities between the PS2 launch and the X360 launch and call one a success and the other a failure.

Listen, I'm a developer, I know how the launch-window find-the-horsepower game works. The launch titles were able to do a lot, but not everything. Right now, devs who are slated for Xmas 2006 release HAVE the final hardware and WILL have had it for over a year, as opposed to the launch-window guys who barely had three months to get used to the new 'final' hardware. Believe me, Christmas 2006 titles for the X360 will look damned good, my guess is that they'll be noticeably more kick-ass than the launch-window PS3 titles will look. (That is, if the PS3 even MAKES Christmas 2006, as you insinuate above. ;) )

jspeak32

01-15-2006, 10:38 PM

Defending either Sony or Microsoft = fanboy. Both companies will happily gut your bank account for the least amount of effort when it comes to selling you either console or game.

Well I think we all know that both companies are demons, we're just trying to find out which ones the lesser demon.
Lets see...

Sony is the demon of deception and lies...
Microsoft is the demon of greed and gluttony...
Nintendo is probably some kind of Pokemon demon that turns into a purple boot...

using this analogy, the best company to go with would be the "lesser" one :)
We just need Microsoft to consume Sony, that way we'll have a single system that has the best online experience, plus those games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear...
So all thats left is Nintendo, which i hope won't die because damnit, we need innovation :)

mister_slim

01-16-2006, 01:10 AM

Nintendo is probably some kind of Pokemon demon that turns into a purple boot...
I'm trying to figure out if that would be good or bad.

BenSkywalker

01-16-2006, 05:33 AM

If X360 was an HDDVD player, you wouldn't have any movies to play on it until May anyway, moron.

Cause and effect is clearly lacking in the upper echelon of deep thinkers around here. Of course the studios wouldn't release movies for a new platform that was mainly aimed at gamers- the huge dearth of movies on the UMD format.... wait a minute...

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 05:50 AM

I still do not understand why you are saying that because MS didn't have the supply that there was not the same demand as for the PS2.
Two reasons, which I thought I stated very clearly:
1)1,000,000 units sold in one weekend in Japan. the 360 can barely push 3,800 in a week in Japan,
2)500,000 in ONE DAY in the States. If it were on par with the PS2, their supply would have been expended on launch day (it wasn't), and they would have at least met that sales record (it didn't). The PS2 launch had more energy behind it then any launch before it, and perhaps any launch we will ever see again.

I'm saying we will never know, but to say that somehow Sony's PS2 launch is superior because they sold 500k instead of 'merely' 300k - which was EVERY ONE THEY HAD - is silly.
That Sony was better prepared to meet their demand helped make their launch more successful. It is bad buisness to advertise a product and not be able to sell it.

Look at what you wrote above. Because Sony sold a million, the demand for the X360 is 'clearly not on par.' How can you make such a statement?
How many units are sitting on the shelf in Japan? Pay attention.

I said 'finished' because if Microsoft actually INCREASES their lead significantly over the PS3, then it'll be a real problem for Sony to catch up. It happened with the PS2 in 2001 - they came out with GTA3 at the same time the Xbox showed up, the Xbox ran out of units, and instead PS2 sales went ballistic as they bought GTA3. And look where they are now.
GTA3 is not the reason the PS2 stomped the X-Box in sales, or the GTA3 release would have merely been a spike in otherwise superior sales by the X-Box. The PS2 continues to sell big to this day. Also, GTA3 appeals to a much broader spectrum of gamers than Halo.

Are you saying the PS3 is going to miss Christmas 2006 in the US? My God, give the X360 TWO Christmases of unchallenged US sales? Hoo boy. As someone who hates Sony, let me just say: "Muhahahahahah!"
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Just as the PS2 had consistent small shipments heading out weekly, so did the X360. I'll say it again: you cannot find X360s on the shelves anywhere in Europe or the US unless you show up on shipment day. Same as it was for the PS2. It is ludicrous for you to CONTINUE to DENY the similarities between the PS2 launch and the X360 launch and call one a success and the other a failure.
1,000,000 in Japan in one weekend. Why is that so challenging for you to comprehend? Get off the PS2 launch. It's simply not case. None of the circumstances are remotely similar. The 360 launch much more closely resembles the Dreamcast launch than the PS2 launch.

Listen, I'm a developer, I know how the launch-window find-the-horsepower game works.
Of course you are. So am I. Stick to the merits of your argument.

Citizen Philip

01-16-2006, 07:09 AM

Well I think we all know that both companies are demons, we're just trying to find out which ones the lesser demon.
Lets see...

Sony is the demon of deception and lies...
Microsoft is the demon of greed and gluttony...
Nintendo is probably some kind of Pokemon demon that turns into a purple boot...

using this analogy, the best company to go with would be the "lesser" one :)
We just need Microsoft to consume Sony, that way we'll have a single system that has the best online experience, plus those games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear...
So all thats left is Nintendo, which i hope won't die because damnit, we need innovation :)

If Nintedo is a Pokemon demon, do we want to catch them all?

I believe Unicron the Eater of Worlds would be the best console system ever.

Dracula-X

01-16-2006, 08:05 AM

Defending either Sony or Microsoft = fanboy. Both companies will happily gut your bank account for the least amount of effort when it comes to selling you either console or game. So please, a little perspective on the issue. Sheath those e-peens and go get some hot chocolate.That's a two way street. Defending is sometimes necessary against baseless attacks and infantile trolling. Someone who blindly heralds one company at the expense of the rest is also a fanboy, a far more prevalent problem here.

I'm thankful at least there are many levelheaded, true gamers on EA.

Citizen Philip

01-16-2006, 08:16 AM

That's a two way street. Defending is sometimes necessary against baseless attacks and infantile trolling. Someone who blindly heralds one company at the expense of the rest is also a fanboy, a far more prevalent problem here.

I'm thankful at least there are many levelheaded, true gamers on EA.

Agreed. If people could just enjoy their system without having to feel the need to attack everyone elses choice we'd all be much happier.

Reanimated

01-16-2006, 08:55 AM

Cause and effect is clearly lacking in the upper echelon of deep thinkers around here. Of course the studios wouldn't release movies for a new platform that was mainly aimed at gamers- the huge dearth of movies on the UMD format.... wait a minute...

Hey genius, HDDVD movies don't go into production until May. So irrespective of whether or not drives shipped in Xbox 360's, you wouldn't have any fucking movies until the studios start producing them. This one of the reasons WHY MS didn't put HDDVD in the box - it wasn't ready.

I swear...

Reanimated

01-16-2006, 09:37 AM

Of course you are. So am I. Stick to the merits of your argument.

I'm calling bullshit.

BabyJesus

01-16-2006, 09:41 AM

I know I'm getting more pissed by the day because of the simple fact I can't get one, anywhere.

Dracula-X

01-16-2006, 09:52 AM

I'm calling bullshit.
Nobody gives a shit.

motor

01-16-2006, 10:02 AM

I'm calling bullshit.

I think he's saying he doesn't belive that Zanzibar is actually a dev.

MrMeatshake

01-16-2006, 10:43 AM

Evil, you can thank Suicidal ShiZuru for that donation I just made.

This message is hidden because Suicidal ShiZuru is on your ignore list.

There, this looks much better...

wow! i can improve my life that much just by making a donation!? thanks for the tip!!

making people donate to EvAv... what a guy.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 12:44 PM

I think he's saying he doesn't belive that Zanzibar is actually a dev.
More like, I could care less one way or the other, it doesn't affect the strength of his argument. It's weak logic to think you can just throw a title out there (unverifiable at that) and posit unchallenged statements. Either an argument is valid or it isn't, regardless of the source.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 12:48 PM

Hey genius, HDDVD movies don't go into production until May. So irrespective of whether or not drives shipped in Xbox 360's, you wouldn't have any fucking movies until the studios start producing them. This one of the reasons WHY MS didn't put HDDVD in the box - it wasn't ready.

I swear...
If we're going to draw any comparisons to UMD here, you might remember that when the PSP was released, there were almost no UMD movies out there. Spiderman 2 is the only one I can think of offhand.

MS didn't put HD-DVD in the box because they didn't want to make comsumers pay a higher cost for a potentially (likely) DOA format and addtitionally risk being undercut in price by the PS3. No HD-DVD makes it almost certain that the 360 will be at least the same price as the PS3, if not cheaper. There's no harm in releasing a system with capabilities not yet tapped into. It wouldn't be the first time.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 12:49 PM

I'm calling bullshit.
You're a perceptive one, aren't you?

Zanzibar

01-16-2006, 01:29 PM

More like, I could care less one way or the other, it doesn't affect the strength of his argument. It's weak logic to think you can just throw a title out there (unverifiable at that) and posit unchallenged statements. Either an argument is valid or it isn't, regardless of the source.

The argument is that one year is PLENTY of time to learn enough about the hardware so that the games will look substantially better. As far as I can tell, your argument was that a year is not enough time. Did I misinterpret your argument? I'm saying that I have had firsthand experience with this, and you can believe that or not, but the fact is that games for the 1-year anniversary following launch for ANY system have ALWAYS looked significantly better than the launch titles. How is my argument not valid, exactly - can you prove that games for a 1-year old system do NOT look better? I've already given specific examples - Steel Battallion, Splinter Cell, among others that prove MY argument. Can you prove yours?

Reanimated

01-16-2006, 01:40 PM

I think he's saying he doesn't belive that Zanzibar is actually a dev.

No, I'm saying I don't believe Balthasar is. He's obviously just some random twit with a vendetta and 0 sense.

Dracula-X

01-16-2006, 01:46 PM

Pot, meet kettle.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 02:39 PM

The argument is that one year is PLENTY of time to learn enough about the hardware so that the games will look substantially better. As far as I can tell, your argument was that a year is not enough time. Did I misinterpret your argument?
Yes, you did. I was stating a year from the console's launch, which would have such second gen games coming out next year, not this year (give or take a few weeks). You are talking about games that would have started being developed before the system was launched as second gen, as I understood that part of your argument. Unless you are saying development time on consoles is now less that a year (or half a year at that)?

I'm saying that I have had firsthand experience with this, and you can believe that or not, but the fact is that games for the 1-year anniversary following launch for ANY system have ALWAYS looked significantly better than the launch titles.

I totally agree, and history has borne this out time and again. I think perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. Halo 3, if it is in development, is in development now. That would still place it more likely in what first gen 360 titles will look like than what second gen will likely look like (especially if we're talking about it coming out this year instead of 2007).

How is my argument not valid, exactly...
I'm quite certain you misunderstood, but in case you still don't understand what I am saying, my point there was that appealing to expertise does not persuade me, and that I would rather you just back up your claims. I am not arguing that second gen titles generally appear after a console has been on the market for one year, though. One only has to compare screenshots from PS2 circa 2000/2001 to the stuff that came out in 2002. Huge difference.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 02:44 PM

No, I'm saying I don't believe Balthasar is. He's obviously just some random twit with a vendetta and 0 sense.
I think I'm saying now that you lack higher-level analytical skills. Read my comment again. I know sarcasm is very challenging for denizens of the internet, but I think it's clear to anyone else reading that comment that, at the very least, I am not really claiming to be a developer.

Also, I have no clue what "vendetta" you think I have. Do you even know what a vendetta is?

Zanzibar

01-16-2006, 03:01 PM

Balth, it seems you're trying to have it both ways. You're saying that because Halo 3 is already in development, that it will look more like an X360 launch title than anything more 'advanced', yet you agreed with me that games that come out a year after launch look better because the devs can tweak the game to use more features that the hardware can provide. If Halo 3 comes out a year after X360 launch, why is it exempt from that argument?

Splinter Cell, Steel Battallion, Wreckless are good examples of what I'm talking about - I would consider them 'second generation' Xbox titles, yet they were in development well before the Xbox launched. You have to admit that, at least visually, those games kicked all sorts of ass over the first-gen Xbox titles.

Launch titles, by necessity, get very little time with the 'final' hardware. Titles that ship after launch get significantly more time and a lot more support - all of the 'gotchas' that the first-gen teams ran into get reported to Microsoft developer support, and workarounds are created to improve workflow etc.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 03:13 PM

Balth, it seems you're trying to have it both ways. You're saying that because Halo 3 is already in development, that it will look more like an X360 launch title than anything more 'advanced', yet you agreed with me that games that come out a year after launch look better because the devs can tweak the game to use more features that the hardware can provide. If Halo 3 comes out a year after X360 launch, why is it exempt from that argument?

Are we talking about Halo 3 coming out this spring (less than 6 months after the 360 launch), or spring of 2007?

Splinter Cell, Steel Battallion, Wreckless are good examples of what I'm talking about - I would consider them 'second generation' Xbox titles, yet they were in development well before the Xbox launched. You have to admit that, at least visually, those games kicked all sorts of ass over the first-gen Xbox titles.
I've never heard of titles being considered "second gen" less than 6 months after a console launch. I always considered the first Splinter Cell a first gen X-Box game myself. I dont consider the first game that looks better than a launch title "second gen" either, because launch titles tend to underutilize hardware. Does Oblivion get consideration as a second gen title just because it was pushed back a few months, even though it should have been a launch title (with very similar, if not the same graphics)?

Zanzibar

01-16-2006, 03:19 PM

Are we talking about Halo 3 coming out this spring (less than 6 months after the 360 launch), or spring of 2007?

I've never heard of titles being considered "second gen" less than 6 months after a console launch. I always considered the first Splinter Cell a first gen X-Box game myself. I dont consider the first game that looks better than a launch title "second gen" either, because launch titles tend to underutilize hardware. Does Oblivion get consideration as a second gen title just because it was pushed back a few months, even though it should have been a launch title (with very similar, if not the same graphics)?

I'm making a guess that Halo 3 will be out for Christmas 2006. That's a year after the X360 launch. There's no way the PS3 will launch in the US before Christmas 2006; Spring 2006 launch in Japan was a pipe dream anyways, and the word I hear is that the dev kits for the PS3 just aren't providing the speed that the devs were promised, so until those pipelines get smoothed out, they can't mass-produce it. If the PS3 slips even further, the more likely it is that Bungie will ship Halo 3 to be on the shelves the same day.

The 3 titles I said were all a year after the Xbox launch.

motor

01-16-2006, 03:58 PM

No, I'm saying I don't believe Balthasar is. He's obviously just some random twit with a vendetta and 0 sense.

Sorry, my bad, what I meant was...

I think what Balthasar is say is, he does not believe that Zanzibar is really a developer. If you read it sarcastically (I'm quoting from memory and adding emphasis)...

"SUUURE you're a develop...you know what? So am I!"

He was actually calling bullshit on Zanzibar.

Achilles

01-16-2006, 04:17 PM

I'm making a guess that Halo 3 will be out for Christmas 2006. That's a year after the X360 launch. There's no way the PS3 will launch in the US before Christmas 2006; Spring 2006 launch in Japan was a pipe dream anyways, and the word I hear is that the dev kits for the PS3 just aren't providing the speed that the devs were promised, so until those pipelines get smoothed out, they can't mass-produce it. If the PS3 slips even further, the more likely it is that Bungie will ship Halo 3 to be on the shelves the same day.

The 3 titles I said were all a year after the Xbox launch.Even the games that come out in Spring, like Oblivion, will look a lot better because they got to spend more time with final dev kits. I agree with all the stuff you're saying, just wanted to put that out there. NNN, The Outfit, Oblivion and others are going to look a lot better than the launch titles.

Zanzibar

01-16-2006, 04:21 PM

Even the games that come out in Spring, like Oblivion, will look a lot better because they got to spend more time with final dev kits. I agree with all the stuff you're saying, just wanted to put that out there. NNN, The Outfit, Oblivion and others are going to look a lot better than the launch titles.

I agree. Put 'Blazing Angels' on that list too. I want that game BAD.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 05:12 PM

I agree. Put 'Blazing Angels' on that list too. I want that game BAD.
Yeah, and none of those are second gen titles. To me, first gen titles include launch titles and those titles that come out after launch. Again, I agree it lasts roughly a year, but I don't consider a title "second gen" just because it came out one year after. Second gen titles, I think, are marked by the way in which they begin to push the hardware, to do the more complex things that were not immediately possible without some previous experince with the dev kits or great creativity. A game like Splinter Cell always felt like a first gen title to me because, based on what people were saying about the hardware, I always felt like what that first game did were the standard level of effects one should expect from that system. It was the peak of the "first gen." It's quite subjective on the other hand, because how exactly do you distinguish each graphical generation? How many have the PS2 had?

All of this is quite insignificant anyway, because I don't buy into the theory that Halo 3 will cut into PS3 sales in the first place. X-Box users tend to lean more toward the PC-centric genres than PS2 users, so I don't think too many of the people that want a PS3 at launch will care about Halo one way or another.

Achilles

01-16-2006, 05:33 PM

Yeah, and none of those are second gen titles... Second gen titles, I think, are marked by the way in which they begin to push the hardware, to do the more complex things that were not immediately possible without some previous experince with the dev kits or great creativity.Well you say it like it's a fact that none of those are second gen titles, but then you go and make up your own definition for second gen titles accurately prefaced by "I think". You don’t determine what a second gen title is, but that’s sort of what this part of your argument is based on. You’re saying “no it’s not second gen, here’s what my definition of second gen is, and it doesn’t live up to that.” Nobody can argue with that because you’ve made up your own definition, and qualifications (saying Splinter Cell doesn’t count because you don’t think it does, despite its lighting and the way it used shadows in its gameplay).

Second gen titles are the games that come out the following Christmas. Usually they have improved graphics and new sorts of gameplay. But really they don’t need to. One could say that if they don’t, the second gen titles didn’t show any improvement over the launch titles.

All of this is quite insignificant anyway, because I don't buy into the theory that Halo 3 will cut into PS3 sales in the first place. X-Box users tend to lean more toward the PC-centric genres than PS2 users, so I don't think too many of the people that want a PS3 at launch will care about Halo one way or another.Well it will if there's nothing as interesting on the PS3. Halo 2 sold almost as well as GTA:SA, even though there were 70 million fewer consoles on the market. It has broad appeal in the same way that the Sims and GTA does, and that'll turn some heads.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 05:57 PM

Second gen titles are the games that come out the following Christmas. Usually they have improved graphics and new sorts of gameplay. But really they don’t need to. One could say that if they don’t, the second gen titles didn’t show any improvement over the launch titles.
That makes zero sense. If a console is released on March, everything after December is second gen, just as a console released on November? That renders the term without any meaning.

Further, that Splinter Cell uses shadows differently than previous games before it doesn't make it second gen, it makes it innovative. Did Ico or Shadow of the Colossus ignite a new graphical generation on the PS2? Did Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker do that for the Gamecube? That you likely cannot count how many "generations" of software there are for each console supports the subjectivity of the definition in the first place.

Well it will if there's nothing as interesting on the PS3. Halo 2 sold almost as well as GTA:SA, even though there were 70 million fewer consoles on the market. It has broad appeal in the same way that the Sims and GTA does, and that'll turn some heads.
That's poor logic and you know it. With 70 million more consoles, you're more likely to have a more varied demographic. The more varied your demographic, the less likely they are to all flock to (or shun) one product. Could anyone have expected GTA to have sold 70-100 million copies? Please. Furthermore, GTA:SA is more like GTA3, part 3. I would not be surprised if GTA 3 or Vice City sold more. That series is getting a bit stagnant (and yet it still sells well, like most sequels). It didn't have as much good press, advertising, or buzz around it as Vice City did.

Achilles

01-16-2006, 07:08 PM

That makes zero sense. If a console is released on March, everything after December is second gen, just as a console released on November? That renders the term without any meaning.Well as far as generations go, I would count it by Christmases, since that's the focus for most development teams. That's generally how it's seen. I'd like to hear what Zanzibar thinks about this.
That's poor logic and you know it. With 70 million more consoles, you're more likely to have a more varied demographic. The more varied your demographic, the less likely they are to all flock to (or shun) one product. Could anyone have expected GTA to have sold 70-100 million copies? Please. Furthermore, GTA:SA is more like GTA3, part 3. I would not be surprised if GTA 3 or Vice City sold more. That series is getting a bit stagnant (and yet it still sells well, like most sequels). It didn't have as much good press, advertising, or buzz around it as Vice City did.You're trying to say that Halo 2 doesn't have broad appeal based on what? And of course it would hurt PS3 sales in the same way as the PS3 with GTA:6 exclusive would hurt 360 sales. A significant number of people would want to play the game, and the ability to play that game would decide which system they were going to buy. I guess my logic is just hard to follow.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 08:03 PM

Well as far as generations go, I would count it by Christmases, since that's the focus for most development teams.
You mean, that's the focus for most marketers/accountants.

You're trying to say that Halo 2 doesn't have broad appeal based on what?
Based on genre limitations. Halo and all of its predecessors are firmly FPSs. You either like them or not, and barring some revolution of the genre, most gamers are going to have a decent sense of what they're getting into. GTA3 and it's successive sequels are in a very grey area, on the other hand. You can't really define it as one gameplay type, because you wind up doing so much in the game. That's one of the reasons why it's done so well.

And of course it would hurt PS3 sales in the same way as the PS3 with GTA:6 exclusive would hurt 360 sales. A significant number of people would want to play the game, and the ability to play that game would decide which system they were going to buy. I guess my logic is just hard to follow.
A new GTA (as opposed to another GTA3-engine game) would definitely hurt the 360 if it were a PS3 exclusive because of the reasons I already stated. As I said before, I think there are some significant differences between the PS2 buying public and the X-Box buying public, but a more apt comparison to Halo 3's effect might be something like MGS4. There's probably a comparison a bit more apt, as I think Halo 2 outsold MGS3, but that's the best "killer ap" comparison I can think of with selling power and somewhat strict genre confines (that isn't currently multi-platform).

Achilles

01-16-2006, 08:41 PM

You mean, that's the focus for most marketers/accountants.That's pretty much where dev teams get their money and their schedules from.Based on genre limitations. Halo and all of its predecessors are firmly FPSs. You either like them or not, and barring some revolution of the genre, most gamers are going to have a decent sense of what they're getting into. GTA3 and it's successive sequels are in a very grey area, on the other hand. You can't really define it as one gameplay type, because you wind up doing so much in the game. That's one of the reasons why it's done so well.My point was that Halo has done just as well. Your opinion is that FPSs cannot reach a broad market because they’re FPSs. I disagree with that opinion and would point to Halo’s sales being way higher than any other shooter this gen. Clearly it reached a broader market. Besides your feelings about it, what evidance do you have to say that it hasn't?

MGS3 sold a little over 1 million, which is about 1/8th what Halo sold.

mister_slim

01-16-2006, 09:36 PM

MGS3 sold a little over 1 million, which is about 1/8th what Halo sold.
MGS3 is over 2 million, in the US and Japan (probably another 1 million plus in Europe), which would be about 1/3 of Halo or Halo 2 sales. More interestingly, MGS2 is over 5 million, which puts it pretty close to Halo.

Zanzibar

01-16-2006, 09:47 PM

Well as far as generations go, I would count it by Christmases, since that's the focus for most development teams. That's generally how it's seen. I'd like to hear what Zanzibar thinks about this.
You're trying to say that Halo 2 doesn't have broad appeal based on what? And of course it would hurt PS3 sales in the same way as the PS3 with GTA:6 exclusive would hurt 360 sales. A significant number of people would want to play the game, and the ability to play that game would decide which system they were going to buy. I guess my logic is just hard to follow.

I'll agree, in at least the US, Christmas is the Holy Grail for game and new console development. It's no coincidence that the Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, and Xbox 360 have all launched in the US during the holiday season. When Halo 2 was 'delayed' from the speculated Xmas 2003 date, everybody in the industry knew that it wasn't going to be a 5 or 6 month wait; it was gonna hit Christmas 2004, because if you're going to miss Xmas one year, if it's a AAA title, you better tune the shit out of that game and hit the following Christmas.

I almost replied to Balth's comment about the 'more varied demographics' but I was laughing too hard. Saying that the Xbox has a less varied demographic because it has 'only' 15mil instead of Sony's 100mil and pointing to Halo 2's sales versus GTA:SA as an example just...is...ludicrous. I guess Zogby's polling must be off by a coupla orders of magnitude since they poll 'only' a few thousand subjects, eh? Seriously, while the Xbox was originally sold on the strength of Halo, there's enough good games out there that aren't FPSs (KOTOR, Splinter Cell, DOA, Crimson Skies, Mechassault, Fable, Jade Empire to name a few) plus the 'cross-platform games look better on the Xbox than the other consoles' that just can't support your argument that the focus of the Xbox is squarely on the FPS.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 09:56 PM

That's pretty much where dev teams get their money and their schedules from.
My point was, it's not the developers that care about December. Nor does December have some magical properties that makes games look better. December has nothing to do with it.

My point was that Halo has done just as well. Your opinion is that FPSs cannot reach a broad market because they’re FPSs.
I didn't say can't, I said don't, and likely won't if they stay the same for the next few years (like RTS). Halo players are people who already play or who are curious specifically about FPS games. You can't make that simple a statement about GTA players without getting moronically reductive, such as "GTA players are people who like or are interested in commiting violence."

I disagree with that opinion and would point to Halo’s sales being way higher than any other shooter this gen.
The X-Box has a broader, much more unified (technologically speaking) audience than the PC. It's not an apt comparison at all. There are just too many variables at play.

Clearly it reached a broader market. Besides your feelings about it, what evidance do you have to say that it hasn't?
I agree it has, but I disagree that comparing the PC to the X-Box in this respect is valid. I never even brought up the PC.

MGS3 sold a little over 1 million, which is about 1/8th what Halo sold.

One the other hand, GTA: Vice City sold over 8 million in 3 MONTHS in 2003. Let me put my thinking this way: A person who enjoys Halo is more likely to enjoy GTA than a person who enjoys GTA is to also enjoy Halo. That doesn't mean Halo 3 won't enjoy massive sales. My point is that GTA enjoys far more crossover appeal (that is, it hits a broader audience) than Halo. I'm not clear on why I have to explain why media of a specific genre tend to hit their target audience more specifically than media of an unspecified genre. It's really very basic.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 10:17 PM

I'll agree, in at least the US, Christmas is the Holy Grail for game and new console development. It's no coincidence that the Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, and Xbox 360 have all launched in the US during the holiday season.
If games were only made in the U.S., perhaps the point would have had more validity. When you consider that consoles are released at different times in different territories, the idea loses cohesion. One year for a console in the U.S. could be a year and a half in Japan, and half a year in Europe.

I almost replied to Balth's comment about the 'more varied demographics' but I was laughing too hard. Saying that the Xbox has a less varied demographic because it has 'only' 15mil instead of Sony's 100mil and pointing to Halo 2's sales versus GTA:SA as an example just...is...ludicrous.
This is a blatent Straw Man. I did not bring up that point as you phrase it. Here is the post I responded to:

"Well it will if there's nothing as interesting on the PS3. Halo 2 sold almost as well as GTA:SA, even though there were 70 million fewer consoles on the market. It has broad appeal in the same way that the Sims and GTA does, and that'll turn some heads."

What I said, in response to that comment, was that with a significantly larger sample size (+70 mil), you're likely to have greater variance in your audience. It's an accepted statistical principle. I did not bring up how much better or worse GTA sold (it's not terribly relevant to my point), nor did I bring up how many of each console has been sold.
I guess Zogby's polling must be off by a coupla orders of magnitude since they poll 'only' a few thousand subjects, eh?
If it were practical for one to observe a population instead of a sample, that would be prefered. You seem to have forgotten (if you know anything about statistics) that video game players are a self-selected population. So already variance is going to be lower than the normal population. When you can get 100 million, you're more likely to have the causal player--the person off on the fringes--where you will see more variance in profile.

Seriously, while the Xbox was originally sold on the strength of Halo, there's enough good games out there that aren't FPSs (KOTOR, Splinter Cell, DOA, Crimson Skies, Mechassault, Fable, Jade Empire to name a few) plus the 'cross-platform games look better on the Xbox than the other consoles' that just can't support your argument that the focus of the Xbox is squarely on the FPS.
I have no clue what you are talking about. If you're just going to make up my argument for me, you might as well stop responding. I never said/insinuated that the focus of the X-Box is the FPS genre. Quote me, or stop.

Zanzibar

01-16-2006, 10:33 PM

My quote is this:

Based on genre limitations. Halo and all of its predecessors are firmly FPSs. You either like them or not, and barring some revolution of the genre, most gamers are going to have a decent sense of what they're getting into. GTA3 and it's successive sequels are in a very grey area, on the other hand. You can't really define it as one gameplay type, because you wind up doing so much in the game. That's one of the reasons why it's done so well.

You're comparing the success of Halo with the success of GTA. Even though the Xbox is soundly outnumbered in number of consoles, Halo 2 came close to GTA:SA's numbers.

My point is that GTA enjoys far more crossover appeal (that is, it hits a broader audience) than Halo.

This quote from you tries to insinuate that GTA has a 'wider appeal' because of whatever gray areas are contained within the gameplay. Yet, even WITH that 'wider appeal', Halo 2 sold almost as well. Again, you're trying to have it both ways, aren't you? You're saying that GTA appeals to a broader audience, which should be borne out in significantly greater sales based on the 100mil PS2s versus 15mil Xboxes. But it's not.

Another few quotes from you:

Halo players are people who already play or who are curious specifically about FPS games.

X-Box users tend to lean more toward the PC-centric genres than PS2 users, so I don't think too many of the people that want a PS3 at launch will care about Halo one way or another.

Being that the PC is the 'home' of the FPS, and that Halo was THE system seller for the Xbox, you'll forgive me if I got the impression that your opinion of the Xbox was FPS-centric, based on your continual observations that insinuate as such.

Balthasar

01-16-2006, 11:41 PM

You're comparing the success of Halo with the success of GTA. Even though the Xbox is soundly outnumbered in number of consoles, Halo 2 came close to GTA:SA's numbers.
Um, no I didn't. That quote says nothing about "success." Please, read again. Try. For me. I know it's hard; it's a complex subject. If you don't understand, just say you don't understand. But don't make stuff up.
This quote from you tries to insinuate that GTA has a 'wider appeal' because of whatever gray areas are contained within the gameplay. Yet, even WITH that 'wider appeal', Halo 2 sold almost as well. Again, you're trying to have it both ways, aren't you? You're saying that GTA appeals to a broader audience, which should be borne out in significantly greater sales based on the 100mil PS2s versus 15mil Xboxes. But it's not.
That something appeals to a broader market does not mean that that it will sell better. Genre items enjoy the advantage of having a clear-cut, target audience, so it's easier to make predictions on sales. There's a "base" that you can count on. And no, I am not saying that it then follows that genre games sell better than non-specific genre games. What I was saying was threefold:

1) Owners of X-Boxes are more likely to enjoy genres more commonly found on PCs than owners of other consoles, such as the PS2 and Gamecube,

2) Halo is very specifically an FPS, which is a PC-centric genre, and

3) The X-Box and Halo's target audience are more closely in sync than GTA3's target audience is with PS2 owners. It is safe to assume, based on the numbers (presented by others!) that if the population of X-Box owners are gamers to some degree, and the population of PS2 owners are gamers to some degree, that there is going to be more variance in the 100 million population than in the 15 million population. Therefore, the profile of a sample of random X-box gamers is likely to be more similar than a sample of random PS2 players.

This helps towards explaining why the ratio of X-Boxes sold to copies of Halo 2 sold is higher than PS2's sold to GTA: SA sold (which I never brought up in the first place, I should remind you). GTA: SA and GTA: VC both enjoyed monster numbers, however. Higher than either Halo game. In addition, both games made their way to the X-Box, and sold well there too (though I don't have the numbers, I can't imagine you would challenge the idea that GTA sold well on the X-Box, would you?).

The final premise here is also that the PS2 has a very large portion of its population that is significantly different than the X-Box population, dispite it's wider variance. This population includes the croud of gamers that really don't play any American made games and are specifically interested in genres enjoyed most in Japan. That is why I say it is more likely that a GTA game (a new one, not a port) would more likely steal potential X-Box buyers than Halo would steal PS3 owners.

If you are familiar with statistics, imagine a bell curve. The difference between a random sample of X-Box owners vs a random sample of PS2 owners is that the X-Box normal distribution is going to be much fatter at the mean and shorter/closer to the mean at the outliers. The PS2 normal distribution is going to be relatively thinner at the mean with longer, less shallow outliers.

I feel like I'm teaching a class here or something. It's not that hard, dude.

Being that the PC is the 'home' of the FPS, and that Halo was THE system seller for the Xbox, you'll forgive me if I got the impression that your opinion of the Xbox was FPS-centric, based on your continual observations that insinuate as such.
I will not forgive you, because that is extremely lazy. Those statements do not logically follow. The PC is the "home" of the RTS as well, so by that logic the X-Box should be RTS centric. Like I said, if this is too much for you, just stop. I'm tired of defending arguments I never made.

jspeak32

01-16-2006, 11:58 PM

I'm trying to figure out if that would be good or bad.

Which is perfect because everyone's always trying to find out if what Nintendo is doing will be good or bad :)

Achilles

01-17-2006, 03:55 AM

You're comparing the success of Halo with the success of GTA. Even though the Xbox is soundly outnumbered in number of consoles, Halo 2 came close to GTA:SA's numbers.I don’t think we’re going to get through on this one.

One last point though: I didn't say can't, I said don't, and likely won't if they stay the same for the next few years (like RTS). Halo players are people who already play or who are curious specifically about FPS games. You can't make that simple a statement about GTA players without getting moronically reductive, such as "GTA players are people who like or are interested in commiting violence."GTA is a mission based 3rd person shooter. It’s not in the violence committing genre. If you think that no people who aren’t curious about the specific genre of FPS rather than Halo as a game are going to play Halo, you’re way off base. The sales point to you being off base. I agree it has, but I disagree that comparing the PC to the X-Box in this respect is valid. I never even brought up the PC.Actually you just brought up the PC, since I hadn’t previously mentioned it. A LOT of FPS games came out on the PS2, and the Xbox that didn’t do as well as Halo. Goldeneye did those kinds of numbers as well, and I wouldn’t describe everyone who played Goldeneye as people interested in the FPS genre.

Thanks for the numbers mister_slim.

Edit: Balthasar, about the second generation titles; Zanzibar and I are telling you what a second generation title is defined as generally speaking. You don't want to know, and would prefer to make up your own definition. Just so you know. This is similar to the "handheld console" discussion a few months back.

phantomhitman

01-17-2006, 04:52 AM

In the end, why the fuck does it matter. Do the people slamming the 360 get a weekly check for doing so or are you guys just pissed you didnt get one, or do you simply hate microsoft, or consoles? Or do you like saying something failed even though the demand is higher than supply. Yes, they could be making even more money if they had more on hand but they dont, big deal.

Balthasar

01-17-2006, 06:13 AM

I don’t think we’re going to get through on this one.
What do you expect when you make up my argument for me?

One last point though: GTA is a mission based 3rd person shooter.
It's also a dating sim/racer/rpg hybrid. That's not a genre. Sorry.

It’s not in the violence committing genre.
Never said it was. Please, please READ.

If you think that no people who aren’t curious about the specific genre of FPS rather than Halo as a game are going to play Halo, you’re way off base. The sales point to you being off base.
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. You just repeated what I said (that people who are Halo players are people who already play or are curious about FPS).

Actually you just brought up the PC, since I hadn’t previously mentioned it.
Please find me the part where I bring up the PC as A MEANS OF COMPARISON to the X-Box. Thank you.

A LOT of FPS games came out on the PS2, and the Xbox that didn’t do as well as Halo. Goldeneye did those kinds of numbers as well, and I wouldn’t describe everyone who played Goldeneye as people interested in the FPS genre.
When I say the population of Gamecube owners are significantly different than X-Box owners, we can extend that to the N64 as well. And I never used any all-encompassing terms such as "everyone." I would never do that.

Edit: Balthasar, about the second generation titles; Zanzibar and I are telling you what a second generation title is defined as generally speaking.
Well, I am saying such a definition doesn't make any sense when consoles are released in different territories at different times of the year. If the following Christmas is when you see second gen graphics, what happens to consoles released in March? They don't see second gen graphics for almost two years, whereas a system released in November sees it in just over a year? It makes no sense.

Achilles

01-17-2006, 06:27 AM

Please find me the part where I bring up the PC as A MEANS OF COMPARISON to the X-Box. Thank you.I simply stated that the only one who brought up PC AT ALL was you. Yet here ya go.

Balthasar

01-17-2006, 06:30 AM

In the end, why the fuck does it matter...or do you like saying something failed even though the demand is higher than supply.
What you are failing to understand is that no one is saying the 360 failed as a console. What is being stated is that the launch itself was something of a failure. The reason, as has been repeated over and over, is because Microsoft expected to sell 3 million units over 3 months, but to date has only gotten 600,000 into the U.S. market to date. This is way, way short of their goals. That the demand is still high doesn't stop it from being a failure because the idea, however you do it, is to SELL.

Balthasar

01-17-2006, 06:34 AM

I simply stated that the only one who brought up PC AT ALL was you. Yet here ya go.
My using the word "PC" was completely unrelated to the comparison brought up of the PC FPS sales to the X-Box FPS sales (which I was also accused of bringing up). I was talking about genres, not success. I was not comparing anything between PC and X-Box, but between X-Box and PS2. READ. Try it. It doesn't hurt.

Achilles

01-17-2006, 06:42 AM

Read, yeah. Let’s read: Clearly it reached a broader market. Besides your feelings about it, what evidance do you have to say that it hasn't?I agree it has, but I disagree that comparing the PC to the X-Box in this respect is valid. I never even brought up the PC.Actually you just brought up the PC, since I hadn’t previously mentioned it. Please find me the part where I bring up the PC as A MEANS OF COMPARISON to the X-Box. Thank you.Ok. So when it first came up, assuming you read what I said up to that point and knew I hadn’t mentioned PCs, why would you state that you disagree (with a point I didn’t make) about comparing PC to the Xbox, and then point out that you didn’t even bring up the PC (at all) when neither did I?

Edit: I'm glad that you finally agreed that Halo reached a broader market though.

phantomhitman

01-17-2006, 07:06 AM

What you are failing to understand is that no one is saying the 360 failed as a console.....

And my point is why does everyone care? You point out the fact that there is not enough 360s, ok, now what? Does everyone that states this get 500 e cool points or something? Virgins are not sacrificed and small farm animals are safe so this "failure" means nothing.

Balthasar

01-17-2006, 07:16 AM

And my point is why does everyone care?
Because this is a message board dedicated to discussing video games news...WITH ATTITUDE! That's what you do here. Something happens, it is discussed.

phantomhitman

01-17-2006, 10:19 AM

jspeak32

01-17-2006, 11:29 AM

So you discuss moot points about something NO ONE knows about except the book keepers at microsoft? Yeah, I like yelling at brick walls to but next time I will try it with ®™ATTITUDE!!®™ to see if that changes anything.

What are the chances of someone here saying, "Oh, I understand now. You are completely right, i was totally wrong"?
I've never seen anyone back down from their standpoint, everyone firmly stands with what they believe no matter what is thrown at them...and realizing this makes arguing about something seem even more pointless because nobody ever comes to an agreement.
I suppose admitting to being wrong at something is seen as weak, or being defeated....not something any gamer wants to happen to them in any situation...
I guess its a gamers natural competitiveness which makes everyone so hard-headed...

Bone

01-17-2006, 11:42 AM

Sony sold 600,000 PSP's in it's first week, you're telling me that the PS3 won't sell twice that many?
Nintendo's sales of the DS (which are amazing) do not correlate to sales of the Gamecube (which are less so).

Along the same lines, I don't think you can extrapolate PSP sales into PS3 sales. The handheld market has been doing very well compared to consoles.

Balthasar

01-17-2006, 01:47 PM

So you discuss moot points about something NO ONE knows about except the book keepers at microsoft? Yeah, I like yelling at brick walls to but next time I will try it with ®™ATTITUDE!!®™ to see if that changes anything.
Too funny.

Look, dude, I'm sorry your precious favored console isn't in the hands of more consumers like it should be, but it's not. If you don't care about this news, well, go read another thread. This entire website is (ideally) focused around presenting gaming-related news, and responding to it. That is what this is. Thank you for acting like a mature adult.

phantomhitman

01-18-2006, 04:40 AM

Dudeguy,
I am a console fanboy now? I own a lot of consoles, but I have played just about the same amount of time on my pc as I have my console games. I could honestly care less about what company sells how many to anyone. That is my point, why is everyone on a bandwagon to either hate or love a company? As you said this is a gaming site that tries to inform everyone about anything game related but all you see is a flame fest in every single thread. Just as jspeak is saying no one here wants to admit that they are wrong, hell, they do not even want to view a topic from another point of view. I just do not understand why there is so much hate in such a "tight knit" community forum.
/maturity

Balthasar

01-18-2006, 05:32 AM

Just as jspeak is saying no one here wants to admit that they are wrong, hell, they do not even want to view a topic from another point of view. I just do not understand why there is so much hate in such a "tight knit" community forum.
People don't like to hear anything remotely negative associated with their buying choices. At it's simplest, you can chalk it up to self-esteem issues. I don't really care, though. I don't think I am in the wrong for agreeing with someone else that this 360 launch was quite mucked up.

overdrivechao

01-22-2006, 08:51 PM

Kameo - bleh
PGR - yay nother one...
Condemned - just ok
CoD2 - better on PC
PDZ - decent
Geometry Wars - if youre into it
DOA4 - Not really anything new but yay more DOA

All of the above is based on what most reviews and people seem to say. Sure its not exactly all true but it more or less is. There is no killer app, aside from GW I suppose since I remember some article mentioned that... There are no Halos or exciting new features, aside from a revamped Live, still no big reason to get it.

If you cant even see that whats out and whats coming out is mainly things being remade, recycled or ported then youre blind. Full Auto could possibly be amazing though and Elder Scrolls will be on PC... There arent even many games that are announced that seem to be creating much buzz. Gears of War... yay more dark shoot em ups... I cant even think of anything else which proves my point.
-
Ghost Recon - Uh yay?
Saints Row - GTA what?
Burnout - the fifteenth? More particle effects?!
Splinter Cell - Yay Im in the shadows...
-

Oh and I guess I should have listed a better launch but I dont see why it even matters, focus on this one and how it sucks...

Yay now bicker on about how much you love this game and that feature.

~I just think it was too early for a new console no matter what it was.

/agree on all

I was amazed when I popped in DOA on our interactive. 7 years i think since it came out on Dreamcast and this is how far they've come? For 60 bucks?

Nah.