Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

How Important is Gears of War for Microsoft? 105

Posted by Zonk from the very dept.
In todays Opposable Thumbs column at Ars Technica, Ben Kuchera wonders out loud on the importance Microsoft is placing on Gears of War . Despite assurances that 360 games will look better, it's still a toss-up over whether Microsoft or Sony will emerge as the graphical powerhouse of the seventh generation. With ad copy flying fast and only a few weeks until the game's launch, this is Microsoft's last chance to persuade any on-the-fence PS3 fans. From the article: "The question is: does Sony need to beat it? It's not important right now--Sony is delivering what amounts to a paper launch this year; a few people will get systems but the vast majority will be waiting until supplies get a little heavier. It is clear that Sony is going to have to show those early adopters something strong and at least as good as Gears of War in terms of graphics: even thought it's a second generation game against first generation titles, the $200 price difference means people want to see better than 360 quality, and unless we get it now there will be some grumbly early adopters."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Important is Gears of War for Microsoft? More

How Important is Gears of War for Microsoft?

Comments Filter:

  • Sony is screwed (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by zpapasmurf ( 761470 )
    Sony is screwed... I'll still be buying a PS3 though. No 1st gen title will be able to match something as good as gears of war (or as good as it should be). I see no reason for someone to buy a PS3 over a 360 this holiday season unless they already own a 360 (which I'm sure most of the first PS3 buyers will).

    • uhm, Okami? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Travoltus ( 110240 )
      If the PS3 is even compatible with the PS2 version of Okami, GoW (which I've pre ordered for the 360, mind you) may well be screwed.

      If the PS3 has its own Okami or Okami-lookalike, or TES 4 with its new expansion pack, etc., the 360 is even more screwed.

      FYI, Okami is this tres uber cool looking game where your goal is to majorly restore things rather than destroy stuff. It's not MANLY like GoW but it's highly rated, and I even dusted off my old PS2 to play it. There are *NO*, and I repeat *NO* 360 games tha

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Have Blue ( 616 )
        The fact that you had to assume that whoever reads this post has not heard of Okami means that it's not a major factor in the console wars.
      • Okami is certainly very pretty. I do wish more games went for that style of look (cell-shaded goodness, etc.). I did see one game for the 360 that looked pretty promising though: Eternal Sonata [teamxbox.com]. (It's also called Trusty Bell: Chopin's Dreams in Japan, and is releasing there first) When I first saw the trailer for that game, Okami definately came to mind.

        Of course, it'll be a few months (if not a year) before we find out how that game actually turns out to be as good as Okami is.

        Also, there IS an "Okami-look
        • You hit the nail on the head... diversity is the key. Betting heavily on Gears of War or even some game like Okami or whatever, is not indicative of a diversity oriented strategy. That's so much more accurate than what I said.
      • Okami does look like it could be very pretty but I think the things that made it so pretty were probably design decisions and not graphical intensity. I've never played it though so I can't say for sure. All I can do is provide screen shots of both Okami [ign.com] and Gears Of War [ign.com]. In my personal opinion I think that a lot of the North American gamers, myself included, will be thinking that Gears Of War looks better and like a next gen title, and that Okami looks similar to Zelda on the gamecube.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DrXym ( 126579 )
      Sony is screwed... I'll still be buying a PS3 though. No 1st gen title will be able to match something as good as gears of war (or as good as it should be). I see no reason for someone to buy a PS3 over a 360 this holiday season unless they already own a 360 (which I'm sure most of the first PS3 buyers will).

      Sony could be screwed, but the PS3 does seem to shaping up as good as and probably better than the 360. Resistance: Fall of Man looks mighty fine, as does Motorstorm [playstation.com], so I don't think the PS3 has any

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rayde ( 738949 )
      well unless they've never owned an Xbox of any type, have absolutely zero Xbox or Xbox360 games, and have no intention on buying them. A lot of people with big PS2 libraries will buy PS3 as par for the course this generation. Just as a heck of a lot of PSX owners got PS2.

  • Especially Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pdbaby ( 609052 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @02:44PM (#16309587)
    What's especially interesting is that this, the first game on the Unreal Engine 3 (an engine that supports OS X, Linux, Windows, Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3), is only available for the Xbox 360. I wonder how much that cost Microsoft!
    • This seems like a weird idea for Epic to do this. Doing something exclusive like this limits the breadth of licensing they will get. If I wanted to license their engine but they said you have to wait 6 months because Xbox360 has exclusive UE3 for the first 6 months, I would be very hesitant I think...

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
        The game is exclusive, not the engine. There's plenty of PS3 projects using it.
    • Near as I can tell, the old version of the unreal engine liscenced for $500,000. The unreal 3 engine is probably not going to be much higher than that, since a high price will drive away buyers.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pdbaby ( 609052 )
        Gears of War is being developed by Epic, the same people who make Unreal Engine 3 - so I'm guessing the licensing fee isn't a factor with them. I hear it's something like $50,000 per extra platform (plus a cut of the gross)... fairly steep. Although I'm sure the studio saves a gigantic amount of money having excellent quality code and tooling available from day 1

  • Yes (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cadallin ( 863437 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @02:45PM (#16309595)
    Sony needs to do so for a variety of reasons. They need to justify their high pricetag. They need to justify their hype. Perhaps most importantly they need to justify their architecture. I think, and I'm not alone, that Cell is going to turn out to be a dog just like the Emotion Engine, Holding back a performance starved architecture. They may be able to cover up for it a bit by having ditched the Cell in favor of an Nvidia graphics chip, so what they have will probably look alright, but I'm not convinced they'll be able to deliver immersive environments capable of competeing with later gen 360 titles due to performance starved physics processing.
    • They may be able to cover up for it a bit by having ditched the Cell in favor of an Nvidia graphics chip, so what they have will probably look alright, but I'm not convinced they'll be able to deliver immersive environments capable of competeing with later gen 360 titles due to performance starved physics processing.

      Physics of all things? You can wonder about Cell's aptitude for a lot of stuff, let's say AI*, but it should do quite well for physics engines because you have a small number of random data (i

      • I think that ultimately the memory limitations of the SPU's (both in terms of capacity and of bandwidth) are going to be severly limiting for the PS3. This combined with the limitations of the single main POWER unit (which can easily be swamped just trying to manage the SPU's, let alone doing actual game logic) means that cell is going to have a lot of trouble doing just about anything but scoring high LINPACK numbers.

        I harbor a suspiscion that the PS3 is going to end up looking like the dog again this

        • I think that ultimately the memory limitations of the SPU's (both in terms of capacity and of bandwidth) are going to be severly limiting for the PS3.

          While the theoretical EIB peak bandwidth of over 200GB/s is, well, theoretical, I've yet to meet someone who shares your opinion that the SPUs will be bandwidth limited (Also I think IBM managed to get almost 200GB/s on a real world application, but I'm not sure). As for capacity, the 256KB seems adequate for the kind of data you'd use a SPU for.

          This combin

  • Look better, but at what performance price? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kannibal_klown ( 531544 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @02:45PM (#16309601)
    OK, don't get me wrong I like my XBox 360. I've decided to primarily game on my 360 and my eventual Nintendo Wii. The 360 is a decent piece of hardware and some of the games are quite fun.

    But I've noticed some slowdown and tearing in certain parts of some games; most noticeably certain dark sections of "Dead Rising" and some portions of the new "Test Drive" game, not to mention multiplayer Full Auto. This is running at 720p.

    Now, my problem is, if the developers already hitting the limits on this, how much further can they go? Sure, as time goes on they learn to optimize their code for the 360 better, but this is still pretty early. How can they expect to make games "look much better" down the line without killing the performance?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MojoBox ( 985651 )
      I'm a little curious myself, it seems back with last gen, we saw games start out at 60fps and work down to sub 30fps range by the end of the consoles life (trying to push more and more graphical effects). Same thing seems to have happened every previous generation too.

      What happens when all the games are chugging right from the start?

    • Re:Look better, but at what performance price? (Score:4, Informative)

      by cybrthng ( 22291 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @02:52PM (#16309703) Homepage Journal
      They're not hitting the limits of the hardware by any means just not coding to the hardware because the maturity of the developers, sdk and frameworks haven't been there. That is why "2nd/3rd" gen games always rock and first gen games have the symptoms you notice.

      • Re:Look better, but at what performance price? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by powerlord ( 28156 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @03:43PM (#16310477) Journal
        I've especially been wondering about this. MicroSoft abandoned the XBox after a relatively short life, bringing out the XBox360. If they do that again, shortenting the lifespan of the console, in favor of a 'new and improved' version, versus Sony and Nintendo sticking closer to the '10 year lifespan', are they likely to tick off developers who have to redevelop toolchains to handle the new platform?

        Since the toolchains are a sunk cost, you'd think they're more likely to favor longer life platforms (given a choice), with a higher install base.

        Are owners also likely to be swayed more by a console with 'lasting power', instead of jumping to the next generation?

        That said, the PS3 seems like it has more growing room (in terms of hardware capabilities), than the XBox360 (with the Wii taking an orthogonal approach to a different 'hardware experience' :) ).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by miro f ( 944325 )
          you mention that this ticked off developers, but what about gamers? when I buy a console I want it to last a long time, and not have to buy a new one after a few years

          However, at the same time, Microsoft were getting royally worked over by Intel and Nvidia on the original Xbox. I'm not sure if they ever stopped selling them at a loss, but I can understand that they wanted to cut their losses and pull out as quickly as possible.

          If they see more success with the 360 they might not be so eager to jump complete

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cybrthng ( 22291 )
            The only platforms i felt screwed on were Sega but i still bought them platform after platform.

            32x.. Cd, saturn, DC.

            No regrets in the long run.

            I still play my Xbox even though i have the 360 so its not like its life is over.
  • M$ has been lining ALOT of companies pockets to hold off certain projects(Crysis, Alan Wake, etc) to coincide with the release of Vista and their MS live service; which is EXACTLY what they have been doing with Gears of War on the 360...In fact I see the PC release being *delayed* until the Vista launch...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by hansamurai ( 907719 )
      Well, if you had the choice of releasing your hugely anticipated game a few months earlier in August or September, or waiting until the week before your number one competitor was releasing their video game console, what would you do?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by hrrY ( 954980 )
        In all honesty, I would release in October, but M$ != Epic... All the same I don't see Epic getting commission from how many 360's sold or Vista packages purchased. On the otherhand M$ DOES get royalties from the 360 licensing, So I don't particularly see how this benefits both parties. Only M$.

  • Exactly the same (Score:3)

    by WasterDave ( 20047 ) <davep AT zedkep DOT com> on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @03:01PM (#16309829)
    Look, they are going to look *exactly* the same. The 360 and PS3 will be sufficiently close in their performance that it will be practical to use the same game engine and the same art assets hence saving two arms and three legs off total development cost. Exactly the farking same, mark my words.

    Dave

  • Nope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @03:02PM (#16309831)
    Sony doesn't need to beat Gears of War.

    They've got to beat Gears of War, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Forza Motorsport 2, and Blue Dragon. Sony _wishes_ all they had to do was compete against Gears of War. Microsoft is obviously pulling out their AAA game on all fronts (including Japan - they've got a bunch of slick-looking JRPGs coming out), and Sony can't afford to ignore that.

    I don't think _Microsoft_ is relying on Gears of War per se - they've got a lot of good stuff in the pipeline. Whether Microsoft needs to beat Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid is a better question...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      ...and Dead Rising, Uno (surprisingly addictive), GRAW, and God knows how many more great titles coming between now and when they're finally enough PS3's for anyone to actually buy one.

      On the upside, at least they'll have Oblivion.

      -Eric

    • I don't care about Gears of War, Bioshock or Forza Motorsport, FPS/Racing games are not my thing. I'm not partial to the look of Mass Effect I think the screenshots look bad, They seem very artifical and ugly. Blue Dragon might be interesting, but it's nothing that screams "must play" to me.

      Frankly, I find "White Night" more impressive than any of those games.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Erwos ( 553607 )
        From what I understand, White Knight is little more than a tech demo at this point. I'm reminded of Metal Gear Solid 4 - sexiest game ever when everyone first saw it, but once we started seeing "real" gameplay, it was less impressive (albeit still cool!). It's sort of unfair to compare tech demos at the 10% stage of development to games which are 90% complete (notice how I didn't haul out Halo 3?).

        I didn't mention Culdcept Saga and Eternal Sonata (aka Trusty Bell), which are probably going to appeal to fewe

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by xero314 ( 722674 )
          I guess we can all say good bye to the Culdcept franchise, as small as it may be. I just can't help but be reminded of another unique franchise that had an established fan base on a sony console that decided to make their next game on a microsoft console. Last time it lead to the company getting out of the game buisness entirely, lets hope that doesn't happen again. Ah how Oddworld Inhabitants F**ked over their fans. At least this time they moved to a console maker that has a little more than 0% of the
      • It's great that you speak for the gaming community as a whole. Now that we know you don't care about Bioshock, which won three out of four Best Game of E3 awards from the major gaming sites (and runner up on that fourth one), we can move on and lavish praise on the shiny JRPG that presents an effeminite boy protagonist who mighty morphs into a giant robot! Clearly this is a new frontier in gaming!

    • Whether Microsoft needs to beat Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid is a better question...

      I know that "liking" a game is fairly subjective, depending on the tastes of the individual, but Morrowind (and now Oblivion) ruined the Final Fantasy games for me.

      "Why the hell can't I go in that door?" "Why can't I sneak around this guy instead of fighting him?" "I can't kill this annoying NPC? I'm done with this."

      I can't speak to MGS, though...I've never played it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by p0tat03 ( 985078 )

        Sometimes I don't get the hype over the MGS franchise. It's always been pretty boring, and in the odd moment where it's not, it's generally downright frustrating. It's a stealth game that makes you look top-down, so that you have a hell of a time just seeing what's in FRONT of you, so you end up relying on radar most of the time.

        Honestly, if I wanted to use a green circle with moving dots for enemies for navigation, I'd go back to the NES.

        That's a minor gripe though. My main beef with the MGS series is

    • Bioshock isn't a 360 exclusive. It'll be coming out for the PS3. Later. But it will nonetheless. I'm going to get the PC version.

      I think it's a pretty precarious position to be in depending on a genre which plays sub-par on your platform, ie., FPSes are the biggest titles for the 360.

      Mass Effect looks great.

      Forza and GT will remain competitive.

      I don't know a single person interested in Blue Dragon. There's far more interest in JRPGs coming out for the PS2 than there is for everything the 360 has to off

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Erwos ( 553607 )
        "Bioshock isn't a 360 exclusive. It'll be coming out for the PS3. Later. But it will nonetheless. I'm going to get the PC version."

        Bioshock was confirmed as a 360 exclusive at X06.
        • Well, it looks like the exclusivity is for a limited time, but that doesn't mean there will be a PS3 version I guess.

          That's a shame(for Sony), 'cause that game looks great.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Erwos ( 553607 )
            The announcement was pretty clear that it was only coming out for Windows and Xbox 360, period. This seems reasonably plausible given the similarity between the two development environments (in terms of libraries and APIs).
            • Uh, wrong; it seemed intentionally ambiguous. Or are you only following MS's cheerleading boys? Take Two's comments on the matter were exactly as Take Two always words their limited time exclusivity deals.

              Take Two was already working on a PS3 port of the game.

              Whether or not it's dead is anyone's guess. But that's just what it'd be, a guess.

    • Mistwalker Studios (which was bought by and published by Microsoft) is releasing one japanese rpg (Blue Dragon--which looks okay mind you not awesome, it's being hyped a great deal but it doesn't seem particulariy amazing when i see screenshots and possible gameplay). There was one more jrpg (the rest of the content is mostly american).

      White Knight and FF's on the ps3 are more then enough to win the japanese and myself over (specially white knight). I am looking forward to the Lost Odyssey which should be
    • They've got to beat Gears of War, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Forza Motorsport 2, and Blue Dragon.

      Remember, Sony was the winner of the last round of consoles - that means Microsoft has to beat whatever Sony produces, not the other way around - a crucial difference.

      Gears of War has to beat Fall of Man. Bioshock has to beat whatever comes out around the same timeframe (we're talking about a year off). Forza has to contend with a new GT. Blue Dragon has to worry about White Knight Story. And so on and so forth
  • Sony actually has to have a "must buy game". Sony will sell millions of consoles in the life time, but that's assured only because of the fact square is making FFXIII for it. However more and more developers are going to the Xbox 360 because it's easier to program for and has a longer install base.

    The next gen war hasn't started but the soliders are already assembled, and Sony is in the valley with no cover, and little reinforcements. Nintendo has already gone home to the beer hall and had a party, and M

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
      Sony is in the valley with no cover, and little reinforcements [..] and Microsoft is rolling a giant ball (Katamari if you will to the edge of the cliff)

      Given that we're talking about soldiers here I'd say rolling an Odama down the hill is more appropriate.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ArwynH ( 883499 )

      I've said it before and I'll say it again: The XBox 360 is doomed in Japan and 2 JRPGs are not going to save it. Maybe if they'd come out a few months ago, or better yet, at launch, they might of had a chance. But the PS3 is launching soon and all the Japanese gamers who would be interested in those new RPGs are looking at the PS3 with big watery eyes.

      Will Sony have a trouble-free conquest of Japan? I doubt it. But the competition will not be MS, it'll be Nintendo. With the Wii coming out in the same time

  • I don't think that this next-gen 'war' will be won or lost on just one title. I think the 'real' differences will be made by variety in what the consumers are offered. Microsoft are clearly going all out to gain as much ground as they ca, and Sony are vulnersble, in the sense that they have a great deal to live up to. I think the real winners could be the punters, all they consoles will want to appeal to as many people as possible, and when there is tangible competition comercially, it is usually the consum
  • When I first read the title of this post, I thought it was going to be an article about the military industrial complex. I remember hearing somewhere that the largest buyer of Microsoft products was the US government, and I know that the largest department of the federal government is the Department of Defense. Isn't the question of how important the US war machine is to Microsoft more important than this story about some game?

    • Not even close (Score:3, Insightful)

      by blueZ3 ( 744446 )
      The Pentagon is by no means the largest department in the federal government in terms of money spent. The DOD budget for 2006 is projected to be $419.3 billion, while the
      Health and Human Services will spend $642 billion, almost 1/3 more.

      Of course, you'll never read about this in the news, since it sells a lot more commercials to talk about how the goverment is spending billions to kill people while millions of children are starving in the streets.

      In any case, why carp about one of the things that the consti

      • The DOD budget for 2006 is projected to be $419.3 billion, while the
        Health and Human Services will spend $642 billion, almost 1/3 more.

        That doesn't include the Iraq war, which has totaled over $323 billion. Nor does it account for the fact that the DOH includes everything from the CDC to the FDA. I'd agree that Health and Human Services is spending too much money, but it doesn't change the fact that our miliatry spending is huge.

        In any case, why carp about one of the things that the constitution says the Fe

        • Why bother making up numbers when 20 seconds of research shows that you're... well... making up numbers.

          US DOD Budget, fiscal 2006: $406 billion

          USSR Defense Budget: $70 billion
          China Defense Budget: $90.0 billion
          NATO Combined Defense Budget: $160 billion

          You're already over, right there.

          In addition, to further refute this ridiculous comment, both Russia and China spend a higher percentage of their GDP on defense. The US spends 3.7% of GDP, while China spends 4.2% and Russia spends a whopping 12% of GDP on def

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtechie ( 244489 )
        Of course, you'll never read about this in the news, since it sells a lot more commercials to talk about how the goverment is spending billions to kill people while millions of children are starving in the streets.

        This is because Medicare, Social Security, etc. are generally efficient programs and a responsible use of the taxpayer's money. Defense spending, OTOH, is mostly a sucking bottomless hole of waste and corruption. Look at "Joint Strike", the most expensive military program in history, costing more
  • how important is gears of war? here is the correct link http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2006/10 /3/5485 [arstechnica.com]

  • Last Chance? No. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bateleur ( 814657 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @03:35PM (#16310363)
    this is Microsoft's last chance to persuade any on-the-fence PS3 fans

    Absolute rubbish. That implies that the release of the PS3 will remove all inclination to purchase an XBox 360. In reality, the opposite is true. I didn't like the Xbox much at all, so wasn't expecting to like the 360. As things stand, it looks somewhat better for my gaming needs than I expected. I did expect to want a PS3 (since I love my PS2), but right now it's worrying me more than enthusing me.

    There's no way I'm buying an XBox 360 before the PS3 comes out, but once it is out it has to start proving itself worthwhile. If it doesn't then that's when I'll be looking to the 360.

    This isn't Microsoft's last chance at anything.

  • Isn't the console war over ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alexhs ( 877055 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @03:38PM (#16310401) Homepage Journal
    I think the console war is essentially over. Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are targeting different markets :

    • Microsoft : "hardcore gamer" market, for people playing in solo, mainly teenagers and young adults. Lots of FPSes.
    • Nintendo : "social gamer", smaller console you can carry around easily (like the gamecube), for people playing with friends or family on more diverse game genres, mainly kids and teenagers.
    • Sony : it's not a console it's a media center, to put under the familial (HD)TV set. Targeted more towards adults. I feel more adventure games, interactive films.


    • Awesome sig, shame few will understand it...
      • What self respecting geek hasn't read Fermat's Enigma [wikipedia.org]
        • I can no longer respect myself, having never read it.

          The good news, though, is that I now know about it, so I can read it and regain that which I have lost. Thanks for the pointer :-)

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Aadomm ( 609333 )
        I got it and i'm betting a reasonable proportion of the slashdot population did as well, and after all isn't the whole point of a witty sig to be at least slightly exclusive?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by nu1x ( 992092 )
        Few? Are you nuts?

        This is Slashdot, everyone knows Fermat here.
    • Yeah, I definitely see games like "Red Steel" being targeted for kids and teenagers... This is a better breakdown: 360 - For the traditional gamer Wii - For the innovative gamer PS3 - For the rich gamer
    • I don't necessarily agree, IMHO all three want to eventually get the largest installed base possible. Either way it's the games stupid (tm) that ultimately drive console purchases. Nintendo might think they are "targetting" the non-hardcore audience but the fact remains, in order to sell consoles you need people that ARE interested in gaming and most importantly *have the games they want to play*.

      I also think anyone who thinks they are targeting "different markets" is selling something. Consoles are about

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by 500HP ( 1009671 )
      Disagree. The 360 is more "MEdia Center" than the PS3. It is an MCX (Media Center Extender (DVR)), DVD player, HDDVD Player, internet radio, gaming console, etc.
  • Halo 3 was supposed to be the one. Too bad, Billy Boy.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by lophan ( 1005469 )
      Huh? Gears of War is just the first (or second, depending on your view of Oblivion) AAA Xbox360 title coming out (and it looks pretty damn tight). Halo 3 is just the ace in the hole. It would take a pooch-screw of biblical proportions for Bungie Studios to cock-up selling millions of copies and, in turn, millions of 360s.

      Too bad Billy Boy indeed: he's going to need to find some new charities to give away his soon-to-be-growing fortune.

  • For each gamer there is a critical mass of games (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ConfusedSelfHating ( 1000521 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @04:21PM (#16311057)
    I think that every person who is thinking of purchasing an Xbox 360 has certain criteria before they buy. Some people will wait until it falls below $399 for the premium version. Some people are waiting for there to be a sufficient number of games that they desire. Most people will wait for a combination of these factors.

    The question is whether or not Microsoft can change the preference of PS2 owners from Playstation to Xbox. It will take a decent price (I believe $299 for the premium system will really start to sell systems), a large number of high quality games and respectable online play.

    From what I've heard, Microsoft has an install base of about 5 million Xbox 360s. I think if Halo 3 had been released, that would be about 8 to 10 million. Gears of Wars is a bit like a Halo 3 substitute. I'm not saying that it's not an excellent game in its own right, but the Halo franchise is one of the major reasons people buy Xboxes.

    If the PS3 becomes a $599 console you can't buy before 2007 it will help Microsoft a lot. Sure there are going to be people paying $2000 for it on Ebay, but most people want it for a much higher price. The question is when will the PS3 hit $299? That will be the point at which most people will consider buying it. Judging by the PS2 entry in Wikipedia, it took 18 months for it to drop by a third and another year before it dropped in price again. That would make it 2008 before it hits $399 and 2009 or later before it hits $299 for the premium version. If the Xbox 360 followed roughly the same price drops, by the time you can purchase a PS3 in Europe (March 2007) the Xbox 360 premium would be roughly $266. Probably $299 with Project Gotham Racing.

    Microsoft's best strategy for Christmas would be to release a $349 Premium Xbox 360 bundle with Gears of War and Project Gotham Racing in North America and Europe.
  • I don't really think GoW is that relevant. There are very few people who believe 360 will beat PS3 in terms of graphics and this isn't going to change that. Console FPS fans already have a strong leaning towards MS, so they're not going to win many converts there. By the time there are enough PS3s on the market to actually compete with MS, Sony's next line of games (among which are some that people have been waiting on) will be out that will look better than their initial launch.

    I think the Analysts are
  • One game alone is not going to make the majority of the playstation's fanbase or people expecting to initially purchase a PS3 jump ship. A few? Sure. But this isn't the eighties where that might have worked betwen atari and intellivision or nes and sega. Many PC gamers that are also console gamers such as myself will barely mutter an audible pshaw whether GOW sinks or swims. Hello? Halo anyone? Whether casual gamers or people that don't know jack between analog and infared, or fanboys just in it to be in th
  • I don't know that Sony is concerned with GoW, or if Microsoft is counting on GoW to become the next Halo, but there is something to consider here. The quality of the games Epic has released in the past for consoles has been miserable. Unreal Tournament and Unreal Championship 1 and 2 were horrible products that died quick deaths in the console world. One minor exception was the Sega Dreamcast version of UT, which was actually quite good (ported by Secret Level, of course).

    There are two things that play i
  • There's been a lot of real bad-looking games on the 360. The problem isn't that the hardware is bad or even that there's something wrong with the engines: it's that everyone is making ugly games. Take, for example, saint's row: it's good at drawing lots of shiny objects with very many polygons and shadows, at high resolution even. But the artwork is bland, completely devoid of charm and magic (well, a game like that could probably use more grit than anything, but it doesn't even have that - compare to the a

    • There's been a lot of real bad-looking games on the 360. The problem isn't that the hardware is bad or even that there's something wrong with the engines: it's that everyone is making ugly games. Take, for example, saint's row: it's good at drawing lots of shiny objects with very many polygons and shadows, at high resolution even. But the artwork is bland, completely devoid of charm and magic (well, a game like that could probably use more grit than anything, but it doesn't even have that - compare to the a

      • Am I the only one who's never been bothered by the uncanny valley effect? Having grown up on video games I can't say I've ever experianced this supposedly common phenomenon, or had any friends say "gee, that's creepy". Actually, I always sort of assumed only older folk felt it. :-)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jchenx ( 267053 )
          I know a lot of people talked about it when Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within came out. I don't think they used the actual term "uncanny valley", but I had a lot of friends talk about how creepy the movie looked at times. In still-shots, or general action scenes, the movie looked fine. But the more personal and emotional moments, definately felt creepy at times to me and my friends. I still enjoyed the movie, for the most part, so it didn't detract TOO much, but it was certainly there.

          Notice how other CG mo

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by grumbel ( 592662 )

          Am I the only one who's never been bothered by the uncanny valley effect? Having grown up on video games I can't say I've ever experianced this supposedly common phenomenon, or had any friends say "gee, that's creepy". Actually, I always sort of assumed only older folk felt it. :-)

          I would say that so far there simply havn't been all that many games that suffered from it. The effect isn't something that just magically pops up due to advances in graphics, I would say it has far more to do with an imbalance

  • Gears of War has been a very hyped game for the 360 console, but I'm not sure if it really applies in Japan -- at least, as much as Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey. I would think that those two RPGs are the bigger games in the East, particularly given the people involved in their production. So far, there are a handful of nice game on the PS3. The big one for me will be Final Fantasy XIII, but I don't see that hitting North America for a couple years yet, as localization for FF games generally takes many mo

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close