PDA

View Full Version : DreamCast vs. XBox



Punisher
05-11-2002, 07:39 AM
What do you like better??????????????

I pick DreamCast it had better game line-ups.



DreamCast:)

XBox:mad:

CE
05-11-2002, 08:42 AM
definitely Dream Cast.

ECHO THE DOLPHIN!! THINK ABOUT IT!!!

Kool Ranch
05-11-2002, 09:41 AM
The DC is one of the most kick ass systems I've ever owned, and it's line up is waaaaaaaaaaay better than the Xbox's lineup. The DC has some truly amazing games on it, and I don't know if the Xbox will ever have as many good games. Plus, you just gotta love the underdog.:cool:

Punisher
05-11-2002, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by ranemaka
The DC is one of the most kick ass systems I've ever owned, and it's line up is waaaaaaaaaaay better than the Xbox's lineup. The DC has some truly amazing games on it, and I don't know if the Xbox will ever have as many good games. Plus, you just gotta love the underdog.:cool:


I am glad Sega is still making games and I belive Microsoft will be do the same in the near future.:) I might even buy my little sister a Sega DreamCast. I will be getting a GC.:)

Kaneda
05-12-2002, 01:32 AM
What I dont get is why SEGA is basically favoring a crappy american-made console like the X-Box.. SEGA is making a bunch of remakes for the X-Box...arg! Sometimes I just wish Micro$oft and Bill Gates would just disappear of the face of the earth...

Punisher
05-18-2002, 12:50 PM
The poll is over & Dreamcast won. The one person who picked the XBox did'nt tell us why it is better then Dreamcast. Sega Dreamcast people just kicked XBox ass (LOL):D :D



Dreamcast- 4votes

XBox- 1vote

:D

TK
05-26-2002, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Kaneda
What I dont get is why SEGA is basically favoring a crappy american-made console like the X-Box.. SEGA is making a bunch of remakes for the X-Box...arg! Sometimes I just wish Micro$oft and Bill Gates would just disappear of the face of the earth...

Because Microsoft is handing Sega boatloads of money - so much that it's still worth their while to keep making Xbox exclusives even when the Xbox's Japanese sales are so pathetic.

rezo
05-26-2002, 10:45 PM
TKs right about the money. Yu Suzuki doesn't even want Shenmue
on Xbox. guess why its going there?

anyways, they make a definite profit, and, inadvertently, have the game on the most powerful system, so thats cool.


Xbox is getting a lot of good things coming for it. We should start hoping it does good in japan.

TK
05-27-2002, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by rezo
Xbox is getting a lot of good things coming for it. We should start hoping it does good in japan.

No we shouldn't. If it does Microsoft will turn this whole industry into its bitch. I don't see how anyone in their right mind could want the Xbox to succeed...

rezo
05-27-2002, 04:47 AM
you forget(ignore?) how Nintendo made the industry its "bitch" in the NES era. Using the same strong arm tactics that Microsoft fails to use properly because they don't have any credibility. forcing 3rd parties into NES exclusive contracts.

whatever microsoft has planned will only be a repeat of whats come before. I'm not saying they should dominate, but I would like to see the system remain viable.

TK
05-27-2002, 05:16 AM
Nobody forgets that. Thank god Sega competed with them so well in the 16-bit era. But I would much, much rather have Nintendo dominating than MS. Wouldn't you? The obvious difference is that Nintendo is a games company, and they make good games so if they did somehow become the undisputed top dogs again, we would still be getting a bunch of good games (like in the NES era.) MS is not a games company, they are just out to monopolize everything they possibly can in any field of electronics, entertainment or otherwise, so if they were in control of this industry, it would just be another in their collection. I've already been put through enough aggravation because of their stupid operating system monopoly. I really don't want to see a similar thing happen to video games. Really, I would think that you of all people, a fan of old school games, wouldn't want something like the Xbox (which is based solely on the "new" kind of gaming and seeks to push things even more into a "modern" age) to be successful.

rezo
05-27-2002, 06:25 AM
damned if it isn't about to be 5 AM soon x_X

I already said I didn't want MS to dominate the market, and am aware of nintendo being a games company, and the like. I was talking to my cousin today(who worked for microsoft) and he was teling me how their game development section was a joke. Their company isn't structured to handle it properly, and he brought this up, not me.

I don't plan, or care to, play whatever microsoft themselves will bring out. My interest is in the system itself. I don't care for what Sony puts out, perhaps Ape Escape, but I wouldn't want a PS-whatever for their games. In the case of playstation, you get it because of the 3rd party support. A game such as Tekki(Steel Battallion) with the realistic controller for operating your mech is enough of a reason to want the system(Xbox). Granted, it could come out on PS2 in a bastard form, or on GC in a marginally weaker state, but it uses a custom controller, and so the Xbox is the best system to put the game on. If you know me, you would know that I'm also a huge fan of super robots and mecha and the like, so I would not like to see this game on any other system, if it were to be exclusive.

You've seen the shots for Panzer Dragoon Orta. You know how good the Panzer Dragoon games are. To suggest that it should be put on another system, not for the sake of the quality of the game, but other reasons, is not right. Its a common belief that the modern systems can handle whatever is put on them, within reason. This is misleading. A game on PS2, such as Sky Gunner, with a high volume of simple 3D characters, overwhelms the system, just as a top down shooters flood of bullets overwhelmed the SNES(the fault of the 3.5 Mhz processor mostly. . . slowdown is VERY common on the SNES). Put this game on the Xbox, it will not slowdown, or it will slowdown at a much lower rate. The question is, do you tell the developers to limit their games to work on a certain system, or do you wish for them to have the option to have a system that can handle their vision? If PS2 is enough, then you put it on that. If the GameCube's power is necessary, then you put it on that. Currently, the Xbox represents the most powerful system out there. If something needs that power, or someone wants it, whether its nonsense like the DOA volleyball game or the affore mentioned Panzer Dragoon, I would not like to see them avoid it for monetary concerns(ie: not getting any money back) as opposed to ideaological ones.

In that mess I just typed are two basic explanations:

1. Good games are coming out on Xbox, which will not get support for the wrong reasons. Its one thing to lament what is happening. Quite another to support it. A good game, on any system, should be supported, and the games, are the reasons why we should support systems.

2. When necessary, Xbox has an advantage over the other systems, however marginal, that , if needed, should be taken advantage of.




Old School gaming? I have the GBA, which I think is the one system everyone should own, and if you check around, thats the only system that is getting support for "old school" games.
Metroid? Its a First Person adventure. on the GBA, its a side-scrolling "metroid style" adventure. MegaMan X? why its a 3D co-op game. Mega Man Zero? old school 2D action. PS2 Castlevania? Cancelled for a run on GBA. Tactics Ogre hit the GBA, RPGs are still top down with sprite graphics, shining force is coming, Game and Watch collection. .. I don't need a list. The point is, old school gaming isn't be helped along by the PS2, GC, or Xbox. In that respect, I am angry at all of them. Nintendo is likely to make "modern" games that I enjoy, but so will Sega, Capcom, and Konami and various other companies. What were the last "old school" games put out by Nintendo? by Sega? on a modern system? I assume there is "something"(yoshi's Island 64, which is inferior to the SNES rev). But I honestly cannot recall any, and If I do, it will be a minority of their games to a large degree. Same goes for Sega. In this day and age, if you're like me, you're pretty much stuck hunting down games from years ago. Scavenging the import market for what you may have missed. Certainly, you're not getting what you want from the modern systems. Not in respect to the old style of play.


honestly. and I haven't made any sort of rant in regards to this topic in a while. I don't want Microsoft dominating the market anymore than I like Sony's dominance. Nintendo seems content to go for its own goals, because they know that with a small user base, their games will still sell enough to keep the money coming, and for that we should be fortunate. But this isn't a "one or t'other" situation. Nintendo will still exist with a successful Microsoft around. They cannot force themselves into your home as they did with Windows.(case in point. you buy a PC, you get windows. you own it before you even know it, and they have a stranglehold on other software, because people need to be compatible with them). This is not possible in a console market. With consoles, every bit of hardware/software needs to be chosen , for any reason, however foolish. So, if Microsoft does become successful, it won't be with a slipshod product that you have to have as they've done on PCs. that won't work. It would have to come from them shaping up on their end. and given the quality of their system,currently, it seems they have in some respect.

TK
05-27-2002, 09:12 AM
heh, you were up all night too? :P

Well first off, I know no one's making old school games anymore, if they were they wouldn't be old school. Point is that Nintendo is a company from that era, where as Microsoft only knows the "new" kind of gaming which is based mostly on being glitzy enough to sell. Nintendo and Sega are pretty much the last companies in the business (although SNK seems to still be alive somehow, so count them in too) who still really understand the old school kind of game even if they are making modern ones, and Nintendo is the only one of them still making hardware.

Microsoft could concievably completely dominate the market. If they continue with their current trends and reach a high level of success, they will have two things - a very large installed user base and the willingness to throw around very large sums of money in order to obtain exclusives. That will mean a whole lot of exclusives, and the more that happens, the more things will tilt in their favor. MS is still making an enormous profit off their other ventures so they can afford to keep doing this and they will. So you've got a snowball effect. MS gets higher user base, MS gets more exclusives, they get even higher user base, get even more exclusives, etc. Sure, Nintendo and Sony can do this too, but they simply don't have as much money as MS does. If this era's "console war" comes down to a fight to bid highest for 3rd party franchises, Microsoft will win. Now this will not necessarily happen with the Xbox, I imagine it will probably proceed into the Xbox2 or whatever comes next as well. But what it all comes down to is that once MS gains the upper hand - which they most definately could do - they will not stop there, and they won't be satisfied until they have continued their reign of terror to such an extent that they force Sony and Nintendo out of the industry. How do they do this? By doing the same thing: Keep offering to hand money over for exclusives. The most powerful and easy to develop for console out there with the largest userbase and you get PAID to make games for it. That's a deal no company could refuse. Don't think they won't do this. It's exactly what they did in the PC industry. It goes back to what I said before: They are a super-destructive parasite. MS has said that the reason they are doing the Xbox is because they think these "set-top box" type things are the future of home entertainment and they want to get a foothold in that. Home entertainment is a lot more than just Windows. It's your VCR, DVD player, internet browser, and game console, and who knows what else in the future. That's MS's vision. You can see it already. Windows XP requires that you call them, tell them who you are, give them some info, and then they'll set it up for you. It's like they're trying to catalogue the whole human race.

The only thing I can think of that would keep any competition afloat would be Nintendo's guaranteed exclusives with first/second party games, which basically kept the N64 alive against the PS, but is even that always guaranteed to be a success? The more the market changes the more people seem to be getting into this whole new "mature gaming" drivel and forgetting about Nintendo's tried & true games because they aren't "badass" enough.

In essense, what I'm saying is that the way that Nintendo strongarmed the industry, or even the way that Sony did are nothing compared to what Microsoft will do if it gets a chance. It's the difference between having one huge company vastly dominating the competition or having one huge company and no competition. And then someone will point out that it's a monopoly and MS will slip a thousand hundred dollar bills to the judge on the case and everything will be hunkey dorey.

I believe in the support good games philosophy, but not when they are Xbox games, because I'm really thinking of a much greater cause here, that and the fact that I really don't like the idea of supporting Sega's whoring out to Microsoft either. Yeah, maybe they do need the money, but I still can't stand to see them being turned into such a tool. I dunno... call me crazy, but it doesn't seem remotely far fetched to me that MS is a huge danger to video games as we know it.

rezo
05-27-2002, 05:28 PM
and I'm saying Microsoft would cause the same problems we've
already seen, but it would shift to another system being responsible for it. Domination of the console market = controlling third parites. Its what Nintendo did, its what Sony is doing, and its what Microsoft will attempt to do later(their current plans are more humble, because they know where they fit into things currently. Xbox is just out there to get the brand out). The fix? whatever system dominates gets third party support. the developers go to that system, for the most part. The main fault of this? What it means is that the majority of games, will be developed on a different system. that is all. Instead of the NES, it would have been the Master System(which was stronger). Instead of the SNES/PC-Engine, it would have been the Genesis(which was weaker), instead of Playstation it would have been the N64/Saturn. But its the same games, and a different location. A different party is reeping the benefits.

You can't honestly be worried about Nintendo can you? Do you realize that they still have the highest profit margin in the industry? High sells for their games are automatic, to the point where, if they have 1.5 million users, their game will sell 1 million copies, which Sega has done "once" is so many years. N64 was the perfect example of this. with less games coming to the system, their games got all of the attention, and you can feel free to look at the top selling games on that system if you can find a list. They don't need the userbase to survive. If Sega games sold as well as Nintendo(or even half as well), the dreamcast, or DC 2, would be alive and well.


call me crazy, but it doesn't seem remotely far fetched to me that MS is a huge danger to video games as we know it.

its the same danger everyone's leading it too if they get in control.




crazy.

:p

its not a case of all or nothing understand? go for both.

TK
05-27-2002, 10:01 PM
What I'm saying is that MS would be way worse. Microsoft is a company whose philosophy is "make a ton of money by sucking the life out of everything." Nintendo is a company whose philosophy is "make a ton of money by making really good games that everyone wants to play." And it works for them regardless of whether or not they are dominant, as you said. So if you've got Microsoft in charge, you've got video games becoming even more of a "Make it flashy/atmospheric and/or base it on a popular license and it sells" thing, whereas if you've got Nintendo in charge you've still got a focus on making great games. It's like if you could choose between Resident Evil or Super Mario Bros. being the one last series of video games on the planet... I know I'd choose Super Mario Bros. in a flash and I'm quite confident you would too.

As for Nintendo, in the near future I most definately am not worried about them, what you've pointed out is what I usually end up saying to people when they talk about Nintendo getting "beaten" by people. I'm talking very long-term in everything I've said in this thread. Games are still moving ever so steadily in a direction that is quite different from the direction Nintendo is and already has been going in, so it's entirely possible that they could lose the enormous fan base that keeps them in business.

rezo
05-27-2002, 11:33 PM
But there is no ultimatum understand. This isn't a support Xbox, kill Gamecube process. Its about supporting games wherever they show up. companies are going to be suffering from supporting Xbox and decide not to do it, which is fine, unless Xbox is needed to run the game properly, and people are missing the point when they decide to not get a system for reasons other than the games that are on it.


because I'm really thinking of a much greater cause here, that and the fact that I really don't like the idea of supporting Sega's whoring out to Microsoft either.

the only reason to support Sega is if you want to own their games. They are not doing anything wrong by working on Xbox. The only problem you have with Microsofts plan, is that, its the same plan of other companies, but they've been successful.

If we are caring about business tactics so much, can you tell me you would not pick up your favorite NES games if you were in that era now? Likewise, if Nintendo had not been putting out their quality titles, would you not support other companies, such as Technos, or perhaps get Destiny of an Emperor, or the adventures of Lolo?

We have(I have?) seen what happens when one company dominates the console market. Yamauchi, my favorite guy who just stepped down, was known for being a ruthless businessman, who fired his family when he took control, and you can see it in his reaction towards what happened with Square.
While supporting the cart standard, Nintendo charged hefty licensing fees(they monopolized cart production. also known as "evil") and so you would have a company release a 16-Mbit cartridge for $69, and Nintendo would release a 32-Mbit cartridge a week later for much less( my examples: EarthWorm Jim/Donkey Kong Country) they get the licensing fees(standard), they control manufacturing, they have a higher profit margin for carts that are published and they get this higher profit while selling for a lower price. With the N64, Nintendo was able to continue its success by every "big" title that was available was coming from them. They maintained the same benefits of working with the older systems, meanwhile, with the dearth of support, everything they put it gets much more attention than it would have otherwise, and they end up doing that much better.

Honestly, if we're ignoring games produced, you shouldn't support Nintendo either. Likewise, its absurd to only account for the games that the hardware creator produces. I'm not saying buy the games Microsoft is developing. I don't even know what those are? but others are supporting the system, including Sega, and if we're caring about a system because of the games, then it should not matter where those games come from.

You dominate the console market by having 3rd parties develop for your systems. They have shown that, in the days of the NES and playstation, superior hardware is ignored to go to a more commercially viable system. As a result, we have games that would be much better on DC, that playsta shouldn't even be running, but are published on it, because they want to reach the audience. Nintendo did not ruin the market with the NES. 3rd party developers largely defined the quality of that era. Nintendo contributed to it, and they happened to contribute on a system they were responsible for. Sony did not ruin gaming with the playstation. They misunderstood the American market initially(2-fold. first, they released big japanese games like KOF 95, and wondered in astonishment when it did not do well, second, there reaction was that 2D games/RPGs aren't supported over here, so they quelled them. ) but by and large, it has been the 3rd party developers deciding where gaming is going. And their reasons for picking systems are largely superficial, unfortunately. The direction gaming is going is largely unaffected by which systems are there. When more is allowed, people stray from their previous restrictions. What system they do this on, doesn't really matter unfortunately.




Overheard at a Software Etc last week:

"So, uh, when's E3?"

"I think it's in July."

TK
05-28-2002, 12:02 AM
As I said, I'm perfectly well aware that Nintendo has done their fair share of strongarming, which is also evil. But that isn't my point, my point is that Nintendo does not pose a threat to video games becoming bad - therefore I'd support them because they are a gaming company. Should they go back to being in the highest position, yes, they'd almost certainly go back to strongarming, and that would suck for third parties... but games would still rock. Third parties don't really dictate where the industry heads. As you mentioned yourself, it was Sony who discouraged 2D games on the PlayStation. They mass-marketed the system to be a trendy thing, and it was that which brought video games into the mainstream and consequently turned the industry into the hype-based glitz-fest it is today. Microsoft wants to further this. Nintendo does not. This is because the people heading up Nintendo, even if they are sleezy businessmen, are creative video game lovers and they want to make great creative games. The guys heading up MS are just a bunch of officials in suits who probably don't play games, and if they do it'll be the mainstream-ized version that was made possible and encouraged by Sony.

Were Nintendo in charge, their standard of quality would dictate the quality that would be necessary for third parties to sell games. This could create an N64-like situation where the third parties all go somewhere else and Nintendo loses their strangehold, but if Nintendo's system is still the most profitable to develop for when they are in this situation, like with the NES, then this would not be a bad situation at all, just as the NES era was not a bad situation at all. Certainly it could have been better as was proven by the 16-bit era, or the "golden age" when there were two relatively even giants competing savagely the whole time.

Also, Microsoft is much more of a parasite than most other companies. There are not many companies who you see doing something like Windows XP, where they are building themsevles a nice big catalogue of mankind. The intention of Microsoft is to be the end-all be-all of all electronic etertainment. This is not the mission of Nintendo. Their mission is to be the end-all be-all of video games, and that wouldn't bother me much. I cannot in good concience support Microsoft's intentions more than is necessary to have a good computer.

As for supporting games, as I said before, under almost all circumstances I would agree. But Microsoft is an evil empire that's trying to consume just about everything. Even Sony isn't that. Yeah, they'd jump at the chance to monopolize electronics the way MS is trying to, but they don't have the same ambition of controlling. You don't see them trying to sort the entire human race alphabetically. But don't think I don't hate Sony almost as much as MS. But I am willing to support them because even if they are as bad for games as MS would be, at least they are somewhat commited to games, and they have made a few good ones.

rezo
05-28-2002, 02:27 AM
As you mentioned yourself, it was Sony who discouraged 2D games on the PlayStation.

but you misunderstood that section of my post. Their initial intention for what makes a "trendy" machine was to release games like KOF and Sam Sho and Fatal Fury(I believe the last two were cancelled x_X). The audience over here did not want those. ironically, they did not "corrupt" the market( I use corrupt in a nice way), they catered to a corrupted market. Its the sad set of circumstances that what they decided should come here, is what people wanted to come here. The people that decided the great games from a year before were obsolete because a new system was out.


Windows XP? And I am aware of what they're doing, I don't believe its for the reasons people say it is, but there are almost certainly alterior motives. their most devious trick is the integration of IE and the like into windows. Then, in court, they showed that removing IE would ruin windows. But they put it in precisely with that in mind. I don't support Windows XP, and I don't plan on getting it. But that is not Xbox.

More importantly, Microsoft, on PCs, basically defined the graphical operating system. I believe to the degree that they created the initial one used by Apple, and went on to windows later. With internet explorer, they basically tacked it into their successful product, and it gains relative success.

but do you notice? what happened with the microsoft Network? WebTV? Their success in dominating is tied entirely to windows. Their word processor/spreadsheet manager/whatever's success is tied to being optimized for windows to a degree that others can't manage. It is their only advantage. Sony and Nintendo are living with huge stores of money currently, so Microsoft can't simply wait them out. The way they use their money is equal to the way others do. Both Sony and Nintendo are paying money to have games on their system. Nintendo claimed to avoid it at first, but thats basically what that plan that is funding the GBA FF game(is it GBA? or GC/GBA?) is. They buy out second parties, just as Sony put in a foothold with Square, and previously acquired Psygnosis(who they dropped, because they did not know how to make games) and there is not much of a distinction between their practices.

heres the main one:

1. Nintendo attempts to get money from a core group of supporters who will support their games to a very large degree(something like 80% of japanese GC owners bought SSB. So they don't need a large user base)

2. MS and Sony go for the large user base, which marginally helps their in house titles, and they get their money from licenses.

As pointed out, Nintendo's games are a part of their plan, whereas, with MS and Sony, it is primarily a way to establish credibility, precisely because of the criticisms that come from people flocking to Nintendo games. This is why they pick out mascots and the like, and I don't need to explain this to you really, you already know it.

The point is, their practices, and percieved plans, fall in line with what is common for the console industry, and they are limited to a degree that they cannot force dominance as they can with PC software. If Sony , began putting PS2s into all of their TVs, and things of that nature, that would be an example of "pulling a microsoft." MS does not have that luxury, and Sony does not need it. I can't see how they could completely dominate the market. If anything, whatever Sony has, would be switched over to them. And we'd have the same situation under a different name.



"golden age of gaming" was the 16-bit era. but thats misleading.
It was late 80s to early 90s(86-94 is a good pick yes?), and the majority of the games responsible for it were in the arcade. And once again, the developers would not change their tastes simply because a different company had a system that was popular. And if they are, I don't think those are the developers we need to worry about getting quality titles from.

TK
05-28-2002, 11:19 AM
You haven't noticed how third party N64 games have be REALLY good or they don't sell? That's what I'm saying. Nintendo sets a standard for quality on their system, as any first party should do. But any game that you see coming from MS or Sony (well, most games you see coming from Sony) are just money-makers and thus that sets the trend on that system. Resident Evil wouldn't have sold on the N64 (and it didn't when they put it there) because compared to most Nintendo games it's a slow, boring button-tapping fest but on a Sony console that's all the people wanted as long as it had fancy graphics.

And if I'm not mistaken, KOF has never been that big. Sure, it was pretty popular a while ago, but people were still playing SF when SNK had been long forgotten. SFA3 for PlayStation did an awful lot better than any KOF for the system. But regardless, if Sony had been marketing KOF to the American gamers who liked KOF, they probably would have sold just as many copies as it sold on the SNES. The PlayStation was the first console that was designed to be trendy so that Joe Baggadonuts who isn't into video games will want to buy it. Joe Baggadonuts is not into KOF. He is into Resident Evil though.

But anyway, the reason why you don't see Sony completely dominating the industry (the way MS would) is because they don't want to. They've even said before "The next generation console market belongs to Sony and Nintendo." They're quite complacent being #1 and letting it stay like that. That's not the way that MS operates. They *completely* decimate the competition so that they are the only choice. If Sony really wanted to, they could throw a lot more money around and try to obliterate the competition. MS actually would do that and they would have more money to throw around than Sony. Would they succeed? Maybe, maybe not. But I really don't want to find out.

Death Knight
05-28-2002, 11:40 AM
Yeah Dreamcast has better games, its only by sega and came out along time ago. X-Box has more power and is the future of gaming along with 2 others u all know. I choose X-Box.

rezo
05-28-2002, 11:55 AM
KOF hasn't ever been that popular( and it was never on the snes). That was the point. Sony, ignorantly, was going to bring out games that they needed to attract people in japan(where KOF was one of, if not the, biggest title available at the time. I'm not sure of what state VF was in, and people were content with SF, but KOF was still new) and the US audience rejected it. So I can't angrily point a finger at Sony. Its the people that wanted something else.

It wouldn't make much sense to market KOF towards people that are inclined to buy it anyways. It would be like releasing a new Kunio game, and making an effort to get me to buy it. thats a waste, unless its made by drunken monkeys, they'll already have my money. FF7 wasn't marketed to the old very small RPG set. They were interested in it simply because they knew and liked the genre. It was marketed towards people that never were into RPGs, and this can be seen in its (marketing) selling points. being:
Cinemas, pre-rendered BGs, and crazy-bad special attacks. Suikoden was more of a standard RPG release of its time.it came out, and people into RPGs knew about it, and not much else.

3rd party games had to be very good to be big sellers on N64? Like Turok? brand name games like Tony Hawk and Wrestling?
I am genuinely curious of what these games were. Seriously. I am trying to remember them, but keep getting games like Body Harvest, which did not sell too well. how did your Winback do?


Its interesting that you say Sony doesn't want to dominate the market. Their actions to crush Microsoft say otherwise. What that quote actually means is that, they don't consider Nintendo a threat. if your competition says "we will not compete with you", then it doesn't make sense to work against them. Microsoft is not trying to get a stranglehold on the Mac market. Linux is still the viable operating system for programming, and you need to realize that they are willing to let them sit there, once their own presence and place is established. If a new PC operating system comes out to compete with MS, it will have to be compatible with the old MS operating systems to have a chance, meanwhile, when this happens, MS can release a new windows, that changes how things function, so that programs written for the new Windows will not run on the other operating system. This is how they maintain control. As I mentioned earlier, MS became "lucky" with Windows and have been exploiting it for all its worth. That is their only "in". All of their other ventures have been relegated to standard business, and their attempts to dominate are usually stopped short by whoever they're working against. AOL is still number one, WebTV is still a speck in the ground, though Microsoft is being nice and still supporting it(presumably. I've dealt with people on ebay recently who have webtv emails), and without that "in" I mentioned earlier, MS has no real advantage or means to take advantage of a situation, short of money, which all players in the console market have.


If Sony really wanted to, they could throw a lot more money around and try to obliterate the competition. MS actually would do that and they would have more money to throw around than Sony.

As I mentioned earlier, all of the companies are too wealthy for this to be a viable strategy. Microsoft would be throwing its money at something the other companies have already established, and there is also the rule of diminishing returns. There is a limit to how much money is useful in a situation. Overkill can and will be detrimental to your success. They could use it on Sega, in the past,but marketing is really only worth so much, and Nintendo sells games on brand alone. If the new Zelda somehow ends up being a bad game, 2 million people will own it before anyone realizes.

TK
05-28-2002, 05:28 PM
Okay, I'm almost positive I've seen KOF for SNES, but I'll take your word for it, since I didn't even know the name of SNK back when the SNES was actually in the market.

Anyway, KOF was certainly popular among arcade goers for a while. That's really what I meant, I was just pulling the SNES out of nowhere. But my basic point was that Sony couldn't sell KOF because they were trying to sell the PlayStation as something trendy, therefore it didn't interest the people who had been fans of the old systems for the most part.

What I meant by Sony not "completely dominating the industry" is that they would not do what MS did with the PC industry. And I really don't think that the Linux comparison is very accurate. Linux is only used by serious programmer-heads who want to fool around with it for a hobby. If it was somehow even remotely close to getting into use by the average consumer MS would do everything in their power to stamp it out. It's not even a thorn in their side. Linux won't even hurt their sales, because anyone who owns it is almost guaranteed to already have a Windows computer too. And as for that quote, it doesn't mean they don't consider Nintendo a threat, it means they don't consider Microsoft a threat. It was said by the president of the company when he was asked what he thought about the Xbox.

I don't think it's very likely that it would come down to a money contest myself, and if it did it would only be after a very long time of MS battling their way into people's homes so that they got to the point where they had enough weight to throw around to try and muscle the other companies out. All I'm saying is that it could happen and it's what they want to do ideally. If it did come down to that, yes, all 3 companies are very wealthy and it would take forever, but Microsoft would win because they have more. As I mentioned before, MS is in this because they think consoles is where all electronic entertainment is headed. That includes internet browsing, which means if everything heads that way, MS would lose its monopoly unless it had taken over the console market. This is just a belated response to a threat to their power, and I don't think they intend to allow any compromises.

Third party N64 games? The reason why you can't think of many good ones is because there aren't any because it was so hard for them to compete against Nintendo that they rarely even tried. However they do exist. Rogue Squadron. 1080 Snowboarding. San Fransisco Rush. And unfortunately, yes, wrestling X_x These games were all successful and they were all widely considered good games (I have mixed opinions about them myself, but that's beside the point.) Winback did terribly of course, which is truly unjust >=(

rezo
05-28-2002, 07:29 PM
And as for that quote, it doesn't mean they don't consider Nintendo a threat, it means they don't consider Microsoft a threat. It was said by the president of the company when he was asked what he thought about the Xbox.



Sony's also been pre-empting any strategies by Microsoft. Case in point, their price drops. Sony doesn't consider Microsoft a threat, because they aren't planning on letting them have the chance to be one.

The thing about Linux and Macs were my point. What they care about is controlling their share of the market, not controlling all of it. If it was about domination, they would have stamped out Linux, and Windows would be standard on Macs. Or they would have made a big push for that and failed.


about King of Fighters. Fatal Fury had the subline(or whatever they're called) that said "The King of Fighters". that may be what you were thinking of. supposedly its the same tournament, and the "KOF" series started when the "team rule" was revived in the tournament. something like that.

1080 snowboarding, I forgot about that. San Francisco rush? I suppose. . .for other people? Body Harvest. Now that was by Rare yes? and it was quality, and I believe it bombed. no. . .not Rare. . . the GTA people. not Rockstar. . .DMA design I believe. it wasn't about being good games that got 3rd party titles to sell on that system. was 1080 a 3rd party title? I thought it was Nintendo. x_X

TK
05-28-2002, 08:17 PM
Body Harvest was quality? Yeck. I couldn't stand that game X_x Rush was definately quite a success, and it really was pretty much the best arcade racer of its time IMO. As for 1080, yeah, that was published by Nintendo, but it was made by what was at the time a third party (Left Field), so I forgot that Nintendo published it. If it was not quality, what was it, though? Certainly there are some high quality 3rd party games that didn't sell, but I can barely think of any... actually Winback is the only one that comes to mind immediately. I did think of another 3rd party game that was successful because it was good, Rayman 2. Well, I didn't like it, but most other people seem to, and it got awfully good review scores.

As for the MS dominance thing... but they are completely and totally dominant. That was my point. Linux is not even a thorn in their side. It isn't even competition. MS is, however, still stamping out their only real competition, Apple, and they are largely succeeding. I don't think it'll be too long before Apple goes bye-bye. They will do the same thing in the console market if they get the chance. Linux is the equivalent of the homebrew scene in video games. MS won't give a crap about the homebrew scene if they dominate, but they will care if other companies are producing game-playing machines and they will do everything in their power to stamp those out.

rezo
05-28-2002, 08:55 PM
Body Harvest was quality? Yeck. I couldn't stand that game X_x Rush was definately quite a success


booooo boooooo! try it again. but I didn't care much for Rush as I mentioned earlier. .. (different strokes, and all that). . .

but you notice the problem in attempting to find both quality games that were successful, and quality games that were not. There just weren't that many at all. Not from 3rd parties. Mischief Makers did well, by the way.

Linux is a small contender, but Microsoft has been letting Apple go on independently, and beat it out by maintaining its market share. I really don't think they care whether Apple is there or not, save whatever personal vendettas they have. they have a history after all. Remember , Microsoft isn't IBM or whoever is responsible for the PC hardware market, or what have you. IF they want to dominate the market, they would be attempting to get Windows as the standard operating system on macs. thats a bit different.

TK
05-28-2002, 09:01 PM
How and why would they do that? I mean, it's not like Apple is going to just take Windows, they're trying to compete. MS is stamping Apple out in that less and less people are using Apples because more and more software only works with Windows, and the more this trend continues, the more companies will continue it because it will be less and less profitable to make software for Macs.

Yeah, Michief Makers is another good example of a good game that was successful....

rezo
05-28-2002, 09:12 PM
te staunch mac supporters are a constant bunch. Microsoft isn't doing anything actively against Apple. Its the developers that are choosing to put programs only on PCs, just as a game developer may decide to put something on PS2 because of its market share.

TK
05-29-2002, 11:07 AM
That's the snowball effect I'm talking about. It's the reason why the PS2 is so successful in the first place. More users leads to more developers leads to more software leads to more users etc. etc. Even if MS was not going to smush Apple now, they would certainly do so if they started gaining anything and that's almost as bad.

rezo
05-29-2002, 11:31 AM
and you've hit on the main point. it is the developers , who flock to whatever is in control. Sony and MS are both going for the same market share(defined as the controlling share). The effect on the industry would be roughly equivalent no matter which one was dominant, and would be equivalent somewhat to Nintendo's effect but more fitting to our current era.(ie: Sony dominates the -bit era, then Konami would put Contra on a Sony system instead of NES)

the point being, MS isn't trying to snuff out the other systems(their practice in the PC world related to windows can be seen as that[specifically, internet explorer], but as I've said repeatedly, they have no such advantage in the console market, and their other ventures outside of windows have been pedestrian.) The "snowball" effect is a genuine side effect, and whoever dominates will be benefitting in the same manner. Nintendo did, Sony is, and MS could. In that respect, in regards to business practices and endeavors, before Nintendo decided to use a different scheme for money, they are equal.

If you want something to shake your fist at, it should be companies like Square(pre-partial ownership) and Konami(to a lesser extent, but still. . .), who support the dominant system simply because it is dominant, and not for the sake of the games.
It is their actions that are responsible for the snowball. This is why I like seeing Sega going to Xbox, not counting "bought out" games, Sega allowed their dev. teams to pick the systems they wanted to develop for. SmileBit thought the Xbox fit their games best, and thats where their games go. Thats how it should be.

TK
05-30-2002, 09:15 AM
Well if you think I don't get effing pissed at Square and Konami (and a million other companies) all the time guess again, but keep in mind that Sony's dominance wasn't actually the reason most companies switched, it was the ungodly expenses of making games for the N64. But that's beside the point. If it weren't for this snowball effect, Sony would never have been the dominant company. Something had to make them sell enough units to get that started, and it had to keep moving for a while before they actually reached a state of dominance. As mentioned before, it was the fact that they were the only alternative unless you wanted to jump through Nintendo's hoops that got them this start - in essense, they lucked out, just so happening to be in a position to take advantage of Nintendo's biggest mistake ever. MS doesn't have that, but don't think that they aren't looking for a way to start it. The only advantage that the Xbox has over other consoles is a slight difference in power, and that's really not enough to win things over, especially against Sony's huge installed userbase. They'll use money, and that's what they are doing.

But yeah, just to be clear, I most definately do not shake my fist exclusively at MS, that'd be more like everyone except Nintendo and Sega.

rezo
05-30-2002, 11:16 AM
Something had to make them sell enough units to get that started, and it had to keep moving for a while before they actually reached a state of dominance. As mentioned before, it was the fact that they were the only alternative unless you wanted to jump through Nintendo's hoops that got them this start

pretty much, Sega released the Saturn as a "secret". . .which was really really. . .stupid. The other choices, 3DO(too expensive), or Jaguar(never got of the ground), never picked up
any real steam. Other systems,(CDi) we may as well ignore. pretty much, there was nothing in the market, then there was Sony, Toshinden looked cool, and people made it their main choice.It also picked up steam in japan(don't know the factors there), so that a SquareSoft and Konami would support it as their "next gen system of choice".

but I don't really see Microsoft spending too much money on Xbox currently. they did for the launch, which is expected, but I's not heard hide nor hair from them otherwise, save for "buying" games, which all three are doing to some extent.

TK
06-06-2002, 10:44 AM
To some extent yes. Nintendo "bought" Resident Evil from Capcom, Sony "bought" the GTA series from Rockstar... but so far Microsoft has bought Dead or Alive 3, half a million Sega games, Ninja Gaiden, a port of Metal Gear Solid 2, Halo, and who knows how many other games that haven't even been announced yet. They are definately continuing this. I mean, they pretty much have to be because the only way that they could possibly be getting all these new Japanese games when the Japanese sales of their console are so dismal is if they were buying them from developers.

rezo
06-06-2002, 11:35 AM
Sony "bought" Squaresoft(some), enough to pressure any work on other consoles(case in point. the "Square" company for GC is one person, and he acts as an in-between of sorts, as Square can't make GC games. . .something like that.). . .really, we don't need to go over whos buying more, they all do it as they see fit.

Sony does it to establish franchises, it gets games coming to its systems without needing to make offers, but it also wants to keep some games on its systems. They are like Microsoft, but fortunate.

Nintendo relies on its staples, and is somewhat against direct 3rd party competition(Nintendo makes the most profit out of any of them. They "won" the 32-64 bit generation[As far as making money goes], and they did so with a smaller market share, because of their software sales). They may get certain games on their systems to broaden things, but seem to be taking up working with other companies on games instead.

did they "buy" Resident Evil, by the way? I thought it was all Capcom, honestly. Supposedly, . . .uh. . . Mikami? doesn't like PS2.

Microsoft, doesn't have the draw that Sony does, doesn't have the staples that Nintendo does, and so when they put out money for a certain game, it is much more apparent, as there aren't many other prominent games.(and I re-iterate, for the most part, Sega chooses to program for the Xbox. Shenmue was bought, and I am unsure of any others. All your SmileBit games are going to Xbox, because thats what they want. They let their development groups decide what to program for, if possible) And I dare say, they need to get games coming to their system, to a much greater degree than Sony/Nintendo, so this should be expected.

Blood_Warrior
06-06-2002, 02:03 PM
Me Personally,Xbox:)

TK
06-07-2002, 08:22 AM
The way I understood it, the 1-person company acts as a correspondant between the two for Square to actually make GameCube games..?

Anyway, yes, I'm pretty sure that Nintendo did buy ResEvil.

Anyway, Sega would not and could not possibly keep developing for the Xbox if they weren't getting money handed to them for it. They are still trying to get back on their feet, and developing for a system that sells 1000 units a week is NOT the way to do that. They pretty much have to be getting something slipped to them under the table or they'd just be sliding further down.

Yeah, MS does need to break in, and that's why they're mass-buying games. I mentioned that earlier, what with them not having the luck that Sony had and not having the huge first party games Nintendo has. All I'm saying is if and when they do manage to "break in" this way, I find it very, very doubtful that they will stop buying games until they've oblitered all who pose a threat to their power.

rezo
06-07-2002, 10:49 AM
correspondant, in-between, about the same thing.

Sega is getting money from Microsoft. Thats why Shenmue 2 is
coming to Xbox.

but you have to remember, Sega was hurt from continued support
of failing consoles. As far as software is concerned, they'll do just as well on Xbox for their niche games as they would have on their own systems, and would do only slightly better if the game was on PS2.(niche: Space Channel 5, JSR. . .that sort)

Meanwhile, the games they can capitalize with, find their way to
systems with larger user-bases(VF4. . .doesn't count, as it was bought. . .Sonic fits the GC demographic). . .or thats what they should be doing. . . they don't seem to be, actually.

but they wouldn't be sliding further. The cause of their slide, is gone. Remember, JSR and SC 5 both sold poorly, and both are getting/have sequels.

Xbox is higher than 1000 units a week currently, by the way... though its certainly not doing well.

edit: no its not o_O.

edit(again):yes it is.

the sales figures I got were old. here ya go.


Week ending May 26:

Xbox: 7,400 (Annual: 193,000)
GameCube: 2,500 (Annual: 563,200)

Week ending June 2:

Xbox: 5,700 (Annual: 199,400)
GameCube: 5,400 (Annual: 568,700)



Would Microsoft keep buying games if in Sony's position? I seriously doubt it would be at a rate higher than Sony does now.

TK
06-07-2002, 05:29 PM
Oh, I thought you were saying that Square wasn't actually making the games.

Anyway, yeah, 1000 was just a generalization.

Anyway, if Sega were to make those games for PS2 they would sell better even if they are niche games, so it still makes very little sense for a starving company that's trying to get back on its feet to make them exclusively for the console with the lowest user base.

Safer Sephiroth
06-18-2002, 12:58 PM
I like the Dreamcast better it's one of the only systems I ever enjoyed playing.