• ### Announcements

#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# Who is winning the console wars?

## Recommended Posts

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Dr Chi
What''s the point of the Xbox if it''s the same as a really powerful PC? Just another example of Microsoft''s inevitable domination.

Theres a bloody good point to the XBox, firstly because its a console, developers don''t have to worry about compatibility and can therefore spend more time making the game better than trying to get it to work on all the different graphics cards etc.

Secondly, theres a lot of people, especially teenagers and 20-somethings that can''t afford or don''t want to shell out over a grand for a decent PC to play games on.

As for my opinion on who''s winning, well at the moment sony must be ahead in number of owners, but I think the XBox is the best of the 3 consoles. I also think that the gamecube might be the ''loser'', but I still think it will do well, just not as well as the others. Theres definately room out there for all 3 consoles, and I know I''ll own all 3 of them when they finally come out here in the UK.

-----------------
Black Edge Games
-----------------

##### Share on other sites
>> What''s the point of the Xbox if it''s the same as a really powerful PC? <<

Whats the point of buying any console then? They''re all computers. It''s the exclusive games that set them apart.

Xbox being PC-like isn''t going to change the quality of it''s exclusive titles.

-Janus

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Darjk
As far as I can tell Microsoft and Sony will be down each others throats which will hurt both consoles.

I agree. I swear that it was Sega''s "Anti-Nintendo" slogans that nearly killed them (''nearly'' added to avoid the Pro-Sega flames). The people who liked both systems, back in the day, must''ve got really sick of the "Genesis does what Ninten-don''t" commercials (I know I did). Of course, there''s no real way to prove this, but it''s my personal theory/opinion.

''''You shall be as Gods!'''' Xenogears
''''You handle the salads until you get killed!'''' Space Ghost C2C

##### Share on other sites

der! of course consoles are "computers" but they are different in that they almost never crash, have almost no glitches, never have speed problems, take no time to load (at least the N64 doesn''t) and you can play games in the lounge room with mates without having to crowd around a computer and share a keyboard.

I''m just annoyed that institutions like Nintendo and their games could possibly be shoved out of the way by the power of Microsoft.

Anyway, this was supposed to be about the business aspect, not the raging debate of console superiority.

##### Share on other sites
Sony Playstation takes about the same time to load as a PC.
N64 games are alot smaller, therefor quicker aswell.
I can''t comment on the Dreamcast, never seen or used it.

I''m going to assume X-Box is going to be similar to the Play Station, both of which are basically PC''s dedicated to games.

Nintendo and Sega are the _true_ game consoles of the 90''s.

##### Share on other sites
>> der! of course consoles are "computers" but they are different in that they almost never crash, have almost no glitches, never have speed problems, take no time to load (at least the N64 doesn't) and you can play games in the lounge room with mates without having to crowd around a computer and share a keyboard.

Really? My computer almost never crashes. Is just as fast at loading as an N64(There's a neat little program out that allows you to use your RAM for Hard Drive Space, makes things load up extremely quickly), and I can play games in the lounge room by hooking my PC up to my TV and plugging in my MS Sidewinder's to my USB ports.
So what exactly is the difference...?

Games. Plain and simple. Games.
Game Developers develop for Xbox. Game Developers develop for GameCube. I really see no difference here.

>> I'm just annoyed that institutions like Nintendo and their games could possibly be shoved out of the way by the power of Microsoft. <<

Just because Nintendo was there before Microsoft, then Microsoft shouldn't try to compete with them?

>> Sony Playstation takes about the same time to load as a PC. <<

Depends on the the game, hard drive, RAM, etc., I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

>> N64 games are alot smaller, therefor quicker aswell. <<

N64 games are also on cartridges, which are quite a bit faster then CDs.

>> Nintendo and Sega are the _true_ game consoles of the 90's. <<

True game consoles of the 90's? Not sure what you mean by that. My Playstation and Turbo-Graphix 16 weren't "True Game Consoles"?

-Janus

Edited by - Janus-DG on March 1, 2002 3:40:30 AM

##### Share on other sites
How do you define who would win the console war?

In terms of sales, the PS2 will. In terms of great ''gamer'' games, Nintendo will. In terms of shear power, the X-Box will/has.

I''ve been both impressed and dissapointed by all three systems, but will always buy the great games for each system - I am not bothered by which one sells the most.

BTW I am a Gamecube/GBA developer, but my opinions on gaming HAS to be and IS completely neutral. In fact, my X-Box currently gets most attention ;-)

Marc Lambert
marc@darkhex.com

Gamecube Programmer - DigiGuys:
www.digi-guys.com

Amateur PSone programming:
www.yarozescene.co.uk

##### Share on other sites
>>I am not bothered by which one sells the most.

I think the sales are important because the success/domination of one or two consoles might be to the detriment of others (ie Dreamcast). Nintendo might not be around one day. That is how I define a console war (from a business perspective of course)

>>N64 games are alot smaller, therefor quicker aswell.

do you mean in comparison to PS1 or PS2? I thought N64 games are bigger than PS1 games, and they still load faster.

>>and I can play games in the lounge room by hooking my PC up to my TV and plugging in my MS Sidewinder''s to my USB ports.

oh that sounds really convenient

Just because Nintendo was there before Microsoft, then Microsoft shouldn''t try to compete with them?

sure everyone has a right to compete. but I think it sucks how Nintendo/Sega/etc have been pioneers of the industry but now have to face a multi-billion (or are we up to trillion?) dollar rival who is jumping on the bandwagon, raining on the parade.

##### Share on other sites
who isn''t jumping on the bandwagon. everyone and there grandmother thinks there a programmer these days; just cause they''ve spent 2 seconds developing there personal webpage.

To the vast majority of mankind, nothing is more agreeable than to escape the need for mental exertion... To most people, nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking.

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Dr Chi
Just because Nintendo was there before Microsoft, then Microsoft shouldn''t try to compete with them?

sure everyone has a right to compete. but I think it sucks how Nintendo/Sega/etc have been pioneers of the industry but now have to face a multi-billion (or are we up to trillion?) dollar rival who is jumping on the bandwagon, raining on the parade.

Coincidentally, that statement describes Sony just as accurately as it does Microsoft. Yet I dont seem to recall quite so many people jumping on Sony''s back when they launched the playstation. Then again, after seeing how Playstation hurt(killed?) the Saturn, and then to see the Playstation 2 hurt(kill?) the Dreamcast the next time around, maybe people are just a little more aware of the possible consequences this time around.

##### Share on other sites
many hate microsoft more than sony. it seems we cant do without those cool walkmans.

##### Share on other sites
Actually.. the whole sony thing is completely different. Originally, sony hadn''t even thought of entering the console market, until nintendo came to them and asked for help developing a SuperNES-CD (similar to Sega-CD). Well, about 3/4 of the way finished, and Nintendo backed out of the deal, so sony took what they''d done (basically almost finished a complete console anyways) and finished it up to be a standalone (IE, doesn''t need any super nes to run) and put it to market. It sold amazingly well, so they produced a 2nd version. So, in all, it doesn''t describe sony as it does microsoft, because sony was brought in by Nintendo, and then Nintendo dropped their deal with sony, leaving sony a 3/4 console to either forget about, or make into something.

Billy - BillyB@mrsnj.com

##### Share on other sites
My opinion on this matter is that the PS2 will win the console wars pretty clearly. Why? Games. Playstation has been in the market longer than any of the other consoles, game developers have been developing for it the longest. Any idiot should be able to tell you that right now MOST of the hottest games are out for PS2. When I say most, I mean assuming there are 30 titles considered to be hot, PS2 has 20 of them, and no other console has >= 20 of those titles. Also the hottest coming titles are on PS2 also. In games, there simply is no other competitor.

I know Nintendo fans will be pissed at me for saying that. I know Nintendo develops top titles for their console - but that doesn''t make up more than 2 or 3 of the top 30 titles out. And unfortunately Nintendo doesn''t have many good third party developers on their consoles(like N64). That would be why it(N64) failed. Sure Mario Tennis, Smash Bros., Super Mario 64 were epic, but now someone OTHER than Nintendo needs to make great games...it never happened.

X-Box games...they have some good ones. In fact somen beast ones, a few epic ones. Like a PS2 but less in number.

Graphics, X-Box is obviously the raw winner. But raw winners only win on paper. As far as what the gamers can see, X-Box is not a clear winner. With games on the PS2 like Gran Turismo 3, Ace Combat 4, Final Fantasy X, and Ico, X-Box is still not the clear winner. Though I admit, it is ahead.

Future for all consoles? Many people say GameCube will loose hard. I think not - the graphics for GameCube are still to be disputed. If you look at the Metriod Prime movies for GameCube, you''ll think it was a Halo clone. GameCube will also have some solid and epic titles coming. Remember, we still have Zelda, Mario, Star Fox, and Metroid comin'' people. When they hit the industry, it may not recover for a while. X-Box''s future to me is like PS2...but smaller a lil'' worse. Basically, they will have solid, great, and epic titles. But smaller in number than the PS2 and in the port form a few months after it too. PS2 to me has the brightest future. It rocked this past Christmas season in terms of sales, spite being out for a year and competing against newer consoles(PS2 already proved itself). And it will have the best games coming out for it. With the release of the Dev Kits, Network Adapter, and hard drive - it could(note could) bring endless possibilities.

Note to X-Box fans now pissed at me. I believe the X-Box has a solid/good future, but following behind PS2 in terms of how good it does. I know X-Box has an epic title now(Halo) and its extremely great, but alone you can''t say that it beats out PS2 because it has epic titles, and of which I can name more than just one. Gran Turismo III, Grand Theft Auto III, Devil May Cry, and Ace Combat 4.

By the way, I define an epic game as something people will play years from now, and will look back and say "damn, that was a great game..." and it will be compare to games a few years from now, even when it''s outdated.

##### Share on other sites
>> do you mean in comparison to PS1 or PS2? I thought N64 games are bigger than PS1 games, and they still load faster. <<

N64 games are actually far smaller. PSX CD''s could hold 650 megabytes of data.. while N64 carts could hold less then 1/6th if I remember correctly.

>> oh that sounds really convenient <<

It is, considering my PC is in the lounge room to begin with.

>> sure everyone has a right to compete. but I think it sucks how Nintendo/Sega/etc have been pioneers of the industry but now have to face a multi-billion (or are we up to trillion?) dollar rival who is jumping on the bandwagon, raining on the parade. <<

Well, business is business. I think NEC found it sucky when Nintendo monopolized the console world in the 80''s. Practically anyone who tried to oppose them would either work with them or fail. Nintendo''s grip on the console world in the US at the time caused many TG-16 games to not be released here, and thus, the console failed where it might have succeeded. The TG-16(known as the PC-Engine in Japan) actually outsold the NES in Japan. However it had no chance in the US due to Nintendo''s monopoly. And thus, Great PC-Engine games never made it to our shores and the console failed.

And It''s not just the pioneers that are facing them. It''s Sony. Sega itself is developing for Xbox, so I don''t really see how they are facing them.

And I don''t see how it''s considered "Raining on the Parade", competition has shown to be better for the industry. Just take a look at the Gameboy Vs. the Console Industry. No competition and Gameboy had been using nearly the same hardware for what? Over a decade? Can you imagine if Nintendo had no competition in the console world? "GameCube X.0" with slight hardware upgrades every 5 years? Handhelds should further then they are now, and they would be if Nintendo had some real competition in that area.

Competition, especially by big companies like Microsoft, is much better for the consumer.

Besides that, if people want it, why not? And I don''t see Sony or Nintendo offering an "Incubation Program" where small developers can develop an Xbox game. They''re filling a gap left by Sony and Nintendo as well.

>> In games, there simply is no other competitor. <<

All depends on the types of games you enjoy. I have yet to see a Mario/Zelda killer.

-Janus

##### Share on other sites
About my "In games, there simply is no other competitor" statement. Obviously you took that statement a little to literal Janus and didn''t read the stuff around. It. Zelda and Mario are two freakin games. They alone don''t put Nintendo over Playstation in terms of games. And I mean games in general. I know Nintendo may still have the best in this and taht genre, but in general Playstation still owns the market.

Also, I have never seen a Gran Turismo killer, Ace Combat killer, or Grand Theft Auto killer...but that''s just me...

##### Share on other sites
>> Zelda and Mario are two freakin games. They alone don''t put Nintendo over Playstation in terms of games. <<

They do if you''re a Zelda or Mario fan.
I''m not debating that PS2 has more games. I''m just saying PS2 does not have the best games for all people. It just really depends on your tastes.

>> I know Nintendo may still have the best in this and taht genre, but in general Playstation still owns the market. <<

And I''m not debating that.

>> Also, I have never seen a Gran Turismo killer, Ace Combat killer, or Grand Theft Auto killer...but that''s just me... <<

And your point is...? That has nothing to do with the point I made. My point(again) was that PS2 does not have the best games for all people. For most people, sure, but not for all.

-Janus

##### Share on other sites
that''s a good point you raise about competition and the gameboy, Janus. And how competition is better for the consumer in terms of technology and price. I think the Gameboy Advance is a tad recycled since it is regurgitating old SNES games.

But NEC was probably a bigger company than Nintendo which did not have a monopoly (don''t forget the Sega Master System, Atari, etc). The home games industry has never looked so unevenly matched as it does today. It''s like a couple of Davids versus Goliath. Nintendo and Sony have the history but Microsoft has the deep pockets.

If Microsoft lost that court case, they would have been split up into separate departments. And there would be a games division separate from the rest of the co. That would even the playing field I suspect.

btw if N64''s games were smaller in size than PS1''s, how can they be graphically better? compression?

##### Share on other sites
"btw if N64''s games were smaller in size than PS1''s, how can they be graphically better? compression?"

Well, of course that is subjective and depends on the game.
But still, while the PSX had higher res capabilities, it ran the
games at that resolution quite a bit slower. Only in the last
few years(with a couple exceptions) did developers start using
the higher res capabilities of the PSX.

The N64 runs at...what...640x480(or is that 512x384)?
The PSX runs at 320x240, if I remember correctly...
These numbers, of course, BEFORE your tv runs the res down a bit.

-Hyatus
"da da da"

• ### Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
627711
• Total Posts
2978744

• 21
• 14
• 12
• 36
• 30