Just saw the E3 movie, might have to buy a Playstation just for this, looked
pretty amazing.
GT4 E3 video sparks PS2 versus Xbox debate
An E3 Gran Turismo 4 movie led to discussion about buying a PS2 just for GT, with many admitting they had done so for earlier GT games. The thread became a long console argument over Xbox versus PS2 graphics, sales figures, backward compatibility and the next-generation Xbox's rumoured PowerPC chip, with Steve Smith and Internet User trading barbs. A report that the Xbox outsold the PS2 in the US in April 2004 was posted.
Automated summary.
"mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Just saw the E3 movie, might have to buy a Playstation just for this,looked
> pretty amazing.
>
>
Bah! hehe
More and more titles are coming out for the XBox. My suspicion (at least I
hope) is that GT4 or later version will be coming to the XBox soon.
I don't think the PS2 is good enough to warrant buying it just for GT4. But
then others I'm sure will disagree.
Alanb
In article <Q4Sqc.7861$zw.1402@attbi_s01>, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>More and more titles are coming out for the XBox. My suspicion (at least I
>hope) is that GT4 or later version will be coming to the XBox soon.
>
>I don't think the PS2 is good enough to warrant buying it just for GT4. But
>then others I'm sure will disagree.
Correct ...
.. some of us disagree :-)
And no, small chance of seeing GT4 on the XBox. But do a search
on "Forza" for the next XBOX attempt at a GT4 clone. Hopefully
much better than Sega GT.
Anyway, latest word is November (for both?), but that is far from
etched in stone.
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Q4Sqc.7861$zw.1402@attbi_s01...
/snip
> I don't think the PS2 is good enough to warrant buying it just for GT4.But
> then others I'm sure will disagree.
>
> Alanb
With you ?
Who would dare ?
Elrikk ;o)
Let it be known that on Wed, 19 May 2004 23:28:52 GMT, "Alan Bernardo"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>More and more titles are coming out for the XBox. My suspicion (at least I
>hope) is that GT4 or later version will be coming to the XBox soon.
That would be pretty amazing, as GT is OWNED by Sony....
>I don't think the PS2 is good enough to warrant buying it just for GT4. But
>then others I'm sure will disagree.
Just for GT4, probably not. But now that a PS2 is only $150, there are enough
other games to make it worth it.
"Crossbone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Let it be known that on Wed, 19 May 2004 23:28:52 GMT, "Alan Bernardo"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
> >More and more titles are coming out for the XBox. My suspicion (at leastI
> >hope) is that GT4 or later version will be coming to the XBox soon.
>
> That would be pretty amazing, as GT is OWNED by Sony....
>
> >I don't think the PS2 is good enough to warrant buying it just for GT4.But
> >then others I'm sure will disagree.
>
> Just for GT4, probably not. But now that a PS2 is only $150, there areenough
> other games to make it worth it.
You can get them for 100 at EB with a 30 dollar rebate...and if you're
willing to buy refurbed.
I read that Turismo 4 will include "all 14 miles of the nurburgring".
--
Mike Beauchamp
http://www.therevox.com - custom electro-theremins and stuff.
http://www.mikebeauchamp.com - mike's personal site.
"mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Just saw the E3 movie, might have to buy a Playstation just for this,
looked
> pretty amazing.
>
>
> I read that Turismo 4 will include "all 14 miles of the nurburgring".
If so it won't be the first console game to feature it...
Damien Evans wrote:
>> I read that Turismo 4 will include "all 14 miles of the
>> nurburgring".
>
>
> If so it won't be the first console game to feature it...
>
It apparently will be the first PS2 game to feature it. From what I've
been reading, it's a much more difficult feat to pull it off on the PS2
vs. the XBox due to RAM and drive-streaming implications.
Admittedly, I haven't been following it that much, but many of my
friends who are really into console racing have been very impressed that
they were able to pull it off on the PS2.
And just to confirm, GT4 does feature it, watched someone race it at E3
(in a McLaren F1 w/ the Fina paintjob, no less).
I bought a PS2 a year ago for $200 just to play GT3.
Well.... GT3, World Rally Championship, Paris-Dakar Rally and Need For Speed
HPII which was optimized for the PS2 and rated much, much better than the
same game on the XBOX, or PC.
So...I could see someone paying $150 for a PS2+GT4. Then again, I used gift
certificates from Christmas 2002 plus a little cash I had saved up to buy
it, so I really didn't feel all that guilty about the purchase ;-)
As for the full 14 mile Nurburgring... The XBOX exclusive game, Project
Gotham Racing II has it, but... there are no cheat codes so you have to
unlock EVERY challenge/championship before you can run the entire 14 mile
track :-(
(Unless you have an action replay or similar cheat device, and load someone
else's completed game).
That's one thing I really like about the Gran Turismo series.
With cheat codes or an Action Replay you can unlock portions of the game,
like all tracks, all cars, etc, etc so that you can hotlap or race any car
on any circuit. With the XBOX you only have the ability to load someone
else's saved game, with all the championships/challenges completed. You
can't just unlock certain aspects of the game, yet still go through the
championship on your own.
"Swervo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (21 lines)
> Damien Evans wrote: > > >> I read that Turismo 4 will include "all 14 miles of the > >> nurburgring". > > > > > > If so it won't be the first console game to feature it... > > > > It apparently will be the first PS2 game to feature it. From what I've > been reading, it's a much more difficult feat to pull it off on the PS2 > vs. the XBox due to RAM and drive-streaming implications. > > Admittedly, I haven't been following it that much, but many of my > friends who are really into console racing have been very impressed that > they were able to pull it off on the PS2. > > And just to confirm, GT4 does feature it, watched someone race it at E3 > (in a McLaren F1 w/ the Fina paintjob, no less). > >What's TRD2 like on PS2? I've seen it on a friend's Xbox and I can't
imagine it looking anywhere near as good on a PS2. It would be an
impressive feat if they could mimic the pixel shader effect etc on a PS2.
> I don't think the PS2 is good enough to warrant buying it just for GT4.But
> then others I'm sure will disagree.
>Why not? I bought a PS2 just for GT3! Apart from NFS:Underground, don't use
it for anything else!
Iain
"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Le8rc.123$1D4.103@newsfe4-gui...
> > I don't think the PS2 is good enough to warrant buying it just for GT4.
> But
> > then others I'm sure will disagree.
> >
> Why not? I bought a PS2 just for GT3! Apart from NFS:Underground, don'tuse
> it for anything else!
> Iain
>
>
If you want to pay $180, then I have no problem with it. I wouldn't do it.
Not meaning to start a console war here, but I prefer the XBox. If I was
meaning to buy an XBox, then I'd get the latest racing title with it. But
I'm not sure I'd just decide, on a whim, to buy an XBox just for one game.
Alanb
I bought my first pc for X-WING, TFX, INDYCAR1 and DOOM,
got the PS1 for gt1, and got the ps2 for gt3.
just bought a Logitech Driving Force Pro for N2003, and it turns out its the
wheel designed for GT4 :)
cool!
pez
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:0e8rc.13207$zw.3584@attbi_s01...
>
> "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:Le8rc.123$1D4.103@newsfe4-gui...
> > > I don't think the PS2 is good enough to warrant buying it just forGT4.
it.
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > But > > > then others I'm sure will disagree. > > > > > Why not? I bought a PS2 just for GT3! Apart from NFS:Underground, don't > use > > it for anything else! > > Iain > > > > > > If you want to pay $180, then I have no problem with it. I wouldn't doQuoted text (7 lines)
> Not meaning to start a console war here, but I prefer the XBox. If I was > meaning to buy an XBox, then I'd get the latest racing title with it. But > I'm not sure I'd just decide, on a whim, to buy an XBox just for one game. > > Alanb > >And just for the record, I too purchased a PSX just for GT (and
then GT2) and a PS2 just for GT3. While I can certainly see
someone questioning buying a machine for one game, I'm happy with
my decision. And I did so when the damned thing was ~$300. At
$150, I'd say YES, BUY IT!
XBOX? I finally broke down and got one of those too now that it
is $150. PGR2 is a fun game. Driving the 'Ring with cars ranging
from Miatas to Enzos is a blast. While the physics model isn't on
par with GT3, it is decent. You do have to drive the track
managing cornering with throttle. It is just pretty exaggerated
in terms of oversteer/understeer transition with throttle as well
as grip being too high. Lap times do come out reasonably. And
they did a pretty nice job modeling the track (judging from videos
and partial recollections of my half-dozen laps on the real
thing). The graphics are very nice, the sound is excellent.
While it isn't GT3, it is quite fun. And hopefully Forza will
live up to the early hype.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>I bought my first pc for X-WING, TFX, INDYCAR1 and DOOM, > >got the PS1 for gt1, and got the ps2 for gt3. > >just bought a Logitech Driving Force Pro for N2003, and it turns out its the >wheel designed for GT4 :) >PGR2 for XBox already has it....and its amazing.
"Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (18 lines)
> I read that Turismo 4 will include "all 14 miles of the nurburgring". > > -- > Mike Beauchamp > http://www.therevox.com - custom electro-theremins and stuff. > http://www.mikebeauchamp.com - mike's personal site. > > > "mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Just saw the E3 movie, might have to buy a Playstation just for this, > looked > > pretty amazing. > > > > > > >Let it be known that on Thu, 20 May 2004 04:07:59 GMT, "Stuart Becktell"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Just for GT4, probably not. But now that a PS2 is only $150, there are
>enough
>> other games to make it worth it.
>
>You can get them for 100 at EB with a 30 dollar rebate...and if you're
>willing to buy refurbed.
Yeah, but if you buy new you can get the network adapter and ATV Offroad Fury.
Any idea when those titles will hit the PC? I'm just not into
consoles...
Mike
On Thu, 20 May 2004 23:07:06 GMT, [email hidden] (Dave) wrote:
Quoted text (18 lines)
>And just for the record, I too purchased a PSX just for GT (and >then GT2) and a PS2 just for GT3. While I can certainly see >someone questioning buying a machine for one game, I'm happy with >my decision. And I did so when the damned thing was ~$300. At >$150, I'd say YES, BUY IT! > >XBOX? I finally broke down and got one of those too now that it >is $150. PGR2 is a fun game. Driving the 'Ring with cars ranging >from Miatas to Enzos is a blast. While the physics model isn't on >par with GT3, it is decent. You do have to drive the track >managing cornering with throttle. It is just pretty exaggerated >in terms of oversteer/understeer transition with throttle as well >as grip being too high. Lap times do come out reasonably. And >they did a pretty nice job modeling the track (judging from videos >and partial recollections of my half-dozen laps on the real >thing). The graphics are very nice, the sound is excellent. >While it isn't GT3, it is quite fun. And hopefully Forza will >live up to the early hype.> XBOX? I finally broke down and got one of those too now that it
> is $150
Just how much better do you think the XBox graphics are compared to PS2? I
only ask because I have my PS2 hooked up to my home cinema which is 16 by 10
feet big and the PS2 graphics are pretty blocky - obviously! Doesn't spoil
the GT3 experience, but better graphics would be a big plus point.
Iain
In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Donnelly Jr <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Any idea when those titles will hit the PC? I'm just not into
>consoles...
Alas, never. Having proprietary apps is one way they generate
console market share. The Gran Turismo series, made by Polyphony
(Sony) has been a PS exclusive since it came out ca, '97-'98.
The PGR series is made by MS and they've shown no sign of making a
PC version. And since Forza is by MS and a similar team, it is
reasonably likely that they'll do the same.
Why no one makes a game equivalent to GT for the PC in depth and
quality (or better!), I do not know. Possibly since they can't
generate enough sales to make the development and licensing
worthwhile.
In article <z_jrc.78$[email hidden]>, "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Just how much better do you think the XBox graphics are compared to PS2? I
>only ask because I have my PS2 hooked up to my home cinema which is 16 by 10
>feet big and the PS2 graphics are pretty blocky - obviously! Doesn't spoil
>the GT3 experience, but better graphics would be a big plus point.
A good question. When I first got XBOX, I compared PGR2 to GT3
back to back. Grpahically, I found I preferred PGR2 in some
ways, and GT3 in others. Overall, I decided in favor of GT3! But
then I purchased a 50" widescreen. I was very disappointed by the
blockiness of GT3, whereas PGR2 looks very nice. The 480p (a few
titles are in 720p) and extra resolution & anti-aliasing make a
marked difference. It makes it hard to go back to GT3. I can't
compare other titles, but understand that the care the developers
take is a key factor.
Yeah, the Xbox has better support for HDTV (you can also use a line-doubler
like the DVDO to put the image on a computer monitor), but until recently
the PS2 had the edge in driving titles like GT3, BAM's World Rally
Championship (1 & 2; the only rally games I've seen that are better than the
old Mobil 1 RC for the PC), NASCAR Dirt to Daytona, World of Outlaws Sprint
Cars, Ferrari and Grand Prix Challenge (2 titles), EA's F1 2002, etc. MS is
desperate to gain market share @ Sony's expense (what did they have to spend
to get EA on board?), so I expect that Xbox will take the creative as well
as the technical lead.
What's going to happen is that the Xbox 2 will be a huge technical payraise
over the present part---and the old titles will be compatible--whereas the
PS3, while an even greater technical leap forward, won't (in the Sony
tradition) be backwardly compatible. And whereas the Xbox 2 will probably
make it to market by this Xmas, Sony (which has a myriad of other probs,
mostly financial) prolly won't get the PS3 out the door until Xmas '05.
In the long run, I'd bet on MS, but short-term, it's gonna be hard to beat
GT4.
"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:z_jrc.78$[email hidden]...
> > XBOX? I finally broke down and got one of those too now that it
> > is $150
>
> Just how much better do you think the XBox graphics are compared to PS2?I
> only ask because I have my PS2 hooked up to my home cinema which is 16 by10
> feet big and the PS2 graphics are pretty blocky - obviously! Doesn't spoil
> the GT3 experience, but better graphics would be a big plus point.
>
> Iain
>
>
"Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:mukrc.228695$[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Donnelly Jr<[email hidden]> wrote:
With Gran Turismo, they'd make a killing if it were released for the PC.
They have to realize that. Thus, there must be other reasons for GT not
appearing on the PC.
Alanb
Quoted text (14 lines)
> >Any idea when those titles will hit the PC? I'm just not into > >consoles... > > Alas, never. Having proprietary apps is one way they generate > console market share. The Gran Turismo series, made by Polyphony > (Sony) has been a PS exclusive since it came out ca, '97-'98. > The PGR series is made by MS and they've shown no sign of making a > PC version. And since Forza is by MS and a similar team, it is > reasonably likely that they'll do the same. > > Why no one makes a game equivalent to GT for the PC in depth and > quality (or better!), I do not know. Possibly since they can't > generate enough sales to make the development and licensing > worthwhile.Let it be known that on Fri, 21 May 2004 18:45:49 GMT, "Steve Smith"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>MS is
>desperate to gain market share @ Sony's expense (what did they have to spend
>to get EA on board?),
Well one thing they did was not make any of their own sports titles this year.
>What's going to happen is that the Xbox 2 will be a huge technical payraise
>over the present part---and the old titles will be compatible--whereas the
>PS3, while an even greater technical leap forward, won't (in the Sony
>tradition) be backwardly compatible.
Eh? What tradition are you talking about? You can play Playstation titles on
the PS2.
>And whereas the Xbox 2 will probably
>make it to market by this Xmas, Sony (which has a myriad of other probs,
>mostly financial) prolly won't get the PS3 out the door until Xmas '05.
Um... no. If the Xbox 2 was going to be out by xmas, they would have announced
it by now.
On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:59:06 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>With Gran Turismo, they'd make a killing if it were released for the PC.
>They have to realize that. Thus, there must be other reasons for GT not
>appearing on the PC.
Its what is known as a killer app, people buy PS2's just so they can
play GT3. If the PS2 didn't have killer apps, then people wouldn't buy
them and Sony wouldn't make money. Simple really.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Yes, and I suppose there's a fool born every twenty-eight seconds or so.
I'd probably do the same (it would take me over a minute, however) if I
didn't already have an XBox or didn't at one time own a PS2.
But get that PS2 bundled with GT4 at about $140, and I might just take the
plunge. When I had a PS2 I played the hell out of GT3. It was a fabulous
game (though any racing game without damage is suspect), but it was to me
all that the PS2 had to offer, game-wise.
It's nice to have the XBox and competing systems. I still think that if
you're looking to racing and sports' games on the console (which is pretty
much all I'm looking for), the XBox is the console to get.
But I'll admit: GT4 looks nice. :)
Alanb
Quoted text (11 lines)
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:59:06 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >With Gran Turismo, they'd make a killing if it were released for the PC. > >They have to realize that. Thus, there must be other reasons for GT not > >appearing on the PC. > > Its what is known as a killer app, people buy PS2's just so they can > play GT3. If the PS2 didn't have killer apps, then people wouldn't buy > them and Sony wouldn't make money. Simple really. > --Granted, granted (I meant you couldn't play the older titles on the newer
h/w), and as to yer last point, true...unless they were planning to steal a
march on Sony. Are you willing to put money on Sony being out with the PS3
before the Xbox 2? Me neither. My guess is MS already has the h/w ready to
go (unlike the PS3, they don't have to reinvent the wheel), so whenever MS
senses that Sony's U.S. release is imminent (as telegraphed by the Japanese
release), voila, presenting the Xbox 2!
"crossbone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Let it be known that on Fri, 21 May 2004 18:45:49 GMT, "Steve Smith"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
> >MS is
> >desperate to gain market share @ Sony's expense (what did they have tospend
> >to get EA on board?),
>
> Well one thing they did was not make any of their own sports titles thisyear.
>
>
> >What's going to happen is that the Xbox 2 will be a huge technicalpayraise
> >over the present part---and the old titles will be compatible--whereasthe
> >PS3, while an even greater technical leap forward, won't (in the Sony
> >tradition) be backwardly compatible.
>
> Eh? What tradition are you talking about? You can play Playstation titleson
announced
> it by now.
>
Quoted text (7 lines)
> the PS2. > > >And whereas the Xbox 2 will probably > >make it to market by this Xmas, Sony (which has a myriad of other probs, > >mostly financial) prolly won't get the PS3 out the door until Xmas '05. > > Um... no. If the Xbox 2 was going to be out by xmas, they would haveSteve Smith wrote:
From what I've read, the XBox 2 will not be a PC based system such as
the current Xbox. So it seems unlikely that the next Xbox will be
backwards compatible. It's also unlikely that MS has the hardware in
any kind of finalized form, no more than Sony does with the PS3. That
said, I've read that Microsoft is looking to have at least a 6 month
headstart on Sony which may point to a Christmas 2005 release for the X2.
Microsoft has been crushing Sony in sales for 2004, but that's probably
due in large part to the saturation of the market with PS2's. Ala,
there's a larger market for new Xbox owners than new PS2 owners.
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Granted, granted (I meant you couldn't play the older titles on the newer > h/w), and as to yer last point, true...unless they were planning to steal a > march on Sony. Are you willing to put money on Sony being out with the PS3 > before the Xbox 2? Me neither. My guess is MS already has the h/w ready to > go (unlike the PS3, they don't have to reinvent the wheel), so whenever MS > senses that Sony's U.S. release is imminent (as telegraphed by the Japanese > release), voila, presenting the Xbox 2! >
> Microsoft has been crushing Sony in sales for 2004, but that's probably
> due in large part to the saturation of the market with PS2's. Ala,
> there's a larger market for new Xbox owners than new PS2 owners.
Exactly. Alot of the PS2 owners are buy Xboxs also to have both systems.
True!
I bought a PS2 in January 2003 using gift certificates and a bit of cash,
picked it up after playing GT3 on a friends system a few months prior to
that and realizing that there are some really excellent racing titles out
there for the consoles.
Then last month when the XBOX dropped in price to $150 I did the same thing.
Used a bunch of best buy gift certificates and some left over cash from the
holidays and picked up PGR2 and CMR4 along with a few other racing titles.
I'd be curious to see some example of the actual numbers that MS has been
doing vs. Sony this year, as opposed to simply hearing it word of mouth (so
to speak) here at RAS.
Anyone have a link to some sales stats?
"Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:bq0sc.17198$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > Microsoft has been crushing Sony in sales for 2004, but that's probably > > due in large part to the saturation of the market with PS2's. Ala, > > there's a larger market for new Xbox owners than new PS2 owners. > > Exactly. Alot of the PS2 owners are buy Xboxs also to have both systems. >Jay J wrote:
> I'd be curious to see some example of the actual numbers that MS has been
> doing vs. Sony this year, as opposed to simply hearing it word of mouth (so
> to speak) here at RAS.
>
> Anyone have a link to some sales stats?
>
NPD Funworld (www.npd.com) would be the best place to find numbers, but
they don't seem to publish sales numbers for consoles on their site.
All I see is games and accessories. The numbers I remember seeing from
E3 were something like... XBox 280K, PS2 190K, Gamecube 60K.
After a few searches in google, console sales figures are downright elusive.
What would be the point of XNA if MS didn't envision platform
interoperability? (And why are they interested in commonality? To gain
market share through synergy. It's the Beast of Redmond's way.)
Besides, look at the history: MS sticks w. compatibility to a fault, whilst
Sony is ever ready to throw out compatibility with the proverbial bathwater.
Methinks you read wrong.
"Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Steve Smith wrote:
> > Granted, granted (I meant you couldn't play the older titles on thenewer
> > h/w), and as to yer last point, true...unless they were planning tosteal a
> > march on Sony. Are you willing to put money on Sony being out with thePS3
> > before the Xbox 2? Me neither. My guess is MS already has the h/wready to
> > go (unlike the PS3, they don't have to reinvent the wheel), so wheneverMS
> > senses that Sony's U.S. release is imminent (as telegraphed by theJapanese
Quoted text (13 lines)
> > release), voila, presenting the Xbox 2! > > > > From what I've read, the XBox 2 will not be a PC based system such as > the current Xbox. So it seems unlikely that the next Xbox will be > backwards compatible. It's also unlikely that MS has the hardware in > any kind of finalized form, no more than Sony does with the PS3. That > said, I've read that Microsoft is looking to have at least a 6 month > headstart on Sony which may point to a Christmas 2005 release for the X2. > > Microsoft has been crushing Sony in sales for 2004, but that's probably > due in large part to the saturation of the market with PS2's. Ala, > there's a larger market for new Xbox owners than new PS2 owners.Not much of a challenge.
Yahoo sez Sony claims to have shipped 100 million Playstations thus far
(including 75 mil PS2s and more than 3 million PS1s so far this year).
Here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1504&e=6&u=/afp/20040519/bs_afp/japan_game_playstation_040519073059
Sony also claims to have shipped 35 million copies of Gran Turismo (I'm
working on a story for a car magazine).
For the Xbox figures, check MS's annual report.
"Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Jay J wrote:
> > I'd be curious to see some example of the actual numbers that MS hasbeen
> > doing vs. Sony this year, as opposed to simply hearing it word of mouth(so
elusive.
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > to speak) here at RAS. > > > > Anyone have a link to some sales stats? > > > > NPD Funworld (www.npd.com) would be the best place to find numbers, but > they don't seem to publish sales numbers for consoles on their site. > All I see is games and accessories. The numbers I remember seeing from > E3 were something like... XBox 280K, PS2 190K, Gamecube 60K. > > After a few searches in google, console sales figures are downrightMS has sold about one tenth as many Xboxes, but claims an online community
abt. twice as large (ca. a half million).
'k?
"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Zg9sc.78446$[email hidden]...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1504&e=6&u=/afp/20040519/bs_afp/japan_game_playstation_040519073059
mouth
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Not much of a challenge. > > Yahoo sez Sony claims to have shipped 100 million Playstations thus far > (including 75 mil PS2s and more than 3 million PS1s so far this year). > Here: > >Quoted text (12 lines)
> > Sony also claims to have shipped 35 million copies of Gran Turismo (I'm > working on a story for a car magazine). > > For the Xbox figures, check MS's annual report. > > "Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Jay J wrote: > > > I'd be curious to see some example of the actual numbers that MS has > been > > > doing vs. Sony this year, as opposed to simply hearing it word ofQuoted text (15 lines)
> (so > > > to speak) here at RAS. > > > > > > Anyone have a link to some sales stats? > > > > > > > NPD Funworld (www.npd.com) would be the best place to find numbers, but > > they don't seem to publish sales numbers for consoles on their site. > > All I see is games and accessories. The numbers I remember seeing from > > E3 were something like... XBox 280K, PS2 190K, Gamecube 60K. > > > > After a few searches in google, console sales figures are downright > elusive. > >
"Damien Evans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> What's TRD2 like on PS2? I've seen it on a friend's Xbox and I can't
> imagine it looking anywhere near as good on a PS2. It would be an
> impressive feat if they could mimic the pixel shader effect etc on a PS2.
>
>
TRD2 doesn't look very good on a PS2. It looks very dark.
Oh wait, that's because TRD2 was not released for the PS2. :)
It only came out on the XBox and the PC.
Alanb
erm, my PS1 games work on my PS2.
whats with all the PRO MS sentiment here?
pez
"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:6T8sc.305$[email hidden]...
> What would be the point of XNA if MS didn't envision platform
> interoperability? (And why are they interested in commonality? To gain
> market share through synergy. It's the Beast of Redmond's way.)
>
> Besides, look at the history: MS sticks w. compatibility to a fault,whilst
> Sony is ever ready to throw out compatibility with the proverbialbathwater.
the
> PS3
> > > before the Xbox 2? Me neither. My guess is MS already has the h/w
> ready to
> > > go (unlike the PS3, they don't have to reinvent the wheel), sowhenever
X2.
> >
> > Microsoft has been crushing Sony in sales for 2004, but that's probably
> > due in large part to the saturation of the market with PS2's. Ala,
> > there's a larger market for new Xbox owners than new PS2 owners.
>
>
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > Methinks you read wrong. > > "Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Steve Smith wrote: > > > Granted, granted (I meant you couldn't play the older titles on the > newer > > > h/w), and as to yer last point, true...unless they were planning to > steal a > > > march on Sony. Are you willing to put money on Sony being out withQuoted text (12 lines)
> MS > > > senses that Sony's U.S. release is imminent (as telegraphed by the > Japanese > > > release), voila, presenting the Xbox 2! > > > > > > > From what I've read, the XBox 2 will not be a PC based system such as > > the current Xbox. So it seems unlikely that the next Xbox will be > > backwards compatible. It's also unlikely that MS has the hardware in > > any kind of finalized form, no more than Sony does with the PS3. That > > said, I've read that Microsoft is looking to have at least a 6 month > > headstart on Sony which may point to a Christmas 2005 release for theSteve Smith wrote:
You're quoting numbers for the lifetime of the PS2, I was quoting sales
figures for this year (2004). Microsoft has been outselling Sony in 2004.
Quoted text (13 lines)
> Not much of a challenge. > > Yahoo sez Sony claims to have shipped 100 million Playstations thus far > (including 75 mil PS2s and more than 3 million PS1s so far this year). > Here: > > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1504&e=6&u=/afp/20040519/bs_afp/japan_game_playstation_040519073059 > > Sony also claims to have shipped 35 million copies of Gran Turismo (I'm > working on a story for a car magazine). > > For the Xbox figures, check MS's annual report. >Steve Smith wrote:
Last I heard, Microsoft was considering a PowerPC based system.
Methinks I read correctly. Whether they choose IBM, Intel or AMD for
the core processor is known only to Microsoft but they did enter into a
licensing deal with IBM for XBox2 chips.
You really need to climb down off of the Sony bandwagon. Sony is not
the end all, be all of gaming systems.
Quoted text (8 lines)
> What would be the point of XNA if MS didn't envision platform > interoperability? (And why are they interested in commonality? To gain > market share through synergy. It's the Beast of Redmond's way.) > > Besides, look at the history: MS sticks w. compatibility to a fault, whilst > Sony is ever ready to throw out compatibility with the proverbial bathwater. > > Methinks you read wrong.Internet User wrote:
Methinks I still read damn well.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12552
http://www.xbox365.com/news/news.cgi/article/EpyZlZAFputvwpPePy9304
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1371393,00.asp
Quoted text (21 lines)
> Steve Smith wrote: > >> What would be the point of XNA if MS didn't envision platform >> interoperability? (And why are they interested in commonality? To gain >> market share through synergy. It's the Beast of Redmond's way.) >> >> Besides, look at the history: MS sticks w. compatibility to a fault, >> whilst >> Sony is ever ready to throw out compatibility with the proverbial >> bathwater. >> >> Methinks you read wrong. > > > Last I heard, Microsoft was considering a PowerPC based system. Methinks > I read correctly. Whether they choose IBM, Intel or AMD for the core > processor is known only to Microsoft but they did enter into a licensing > deal with IBM for XBox2 chips. > > You really need to climb down off of the Sony bandwagon. Sony is not > the end all, be all of gaming systems.Right. Abt. 4 mil for the former, 3 for the latter.
"Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1504&e=6&u=/afp/20040519/bs_afp/japan_game_playstation_040519073059
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Steve Smith wrote: > > > Not much of a challenge. > > > > Yahoo sez Sony claims to have shipped 100 million Playstations thus far > > (including 75 mil PS2s and more than 3 million PS1s so far this year). > > Here: > > > >Quoted text (9 lines)
> > > > Sony also claims to have shipped 35 million copies of Gran Turismo (I'm > > working on a story for a car magazine). > > > > For the Xbox figures, check MS's annual report. > > > > You're quoting numbers for the lifetime of the PS2, I was quoting sales > figures for this year (2004). Microsoft has been outselling Sony in 2004.But do yer PS2 games work on yer PS1? THAT'S what I meant; sorry if I
phrased it badly.
Pro MS? No me; I think billg is the anti-Christ and often fantasize how I
would garrott him if I chanced upon him in a dark alley.
"Pez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:4qbsc.7745$[email hidden]...
probably
> > > due in large part to the saturation of the market with PS2's. Ala,
> > > there's a larger market for new Xbox owners than new PS2 owners.
> >
> >
>
>
Quoted text (48 lines)
> erm, my PS1 games work on my PS2. > > whats with all the PRO MS sentiment here? > > pez > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:6T8sc.305$[email hidden]... > > What would be the point of XNA if MS didn't envision platform > > interoperability? (And why are they interested in commonality? To gain > > market share through synergy. It's the Beast of Redmond's way.) > > > > Besides, look at the history: MS sticks w. compatibility to a fault, > whilst > > Sony is ever ready to throw out compatibility with the proverbial > bathwater. > > > > Methinks you read wrong. > > > > "Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Steve Smith wrote: > > > > Granted, granted (I meant you couldn't play the older titles on the > > newer > > > > h/w), and as to yer last point, true...unless they were planning to > > steal a > > > > march on Sony. Are you willing to put money on Sony being out with > the > > PS3 > > > > before the Xbox 2? Me neither. My guess is MS already has the h/w > > ready to > > > > go (unlike the PS3, they don't have to reinvent the wheel), so > whenever > > MS > > > > senses that Sony's U.S. release is imminent (as telegraphed by the > > Japanese > > > > release), voila, presenting the Xbox 2! > > > > > > > > > > From what I've read, the XBox 2 will not be a PC based system such as > > > the current Xbox. So it seems unlikely that the next Xbox will be > > > backwards compatible. It's also unlikely that MS has the hardware in > > > any kind of finalized form, no more than Sony does with the PS3. That > > > said, I've read that Microsoft is looking to have at least a 6 month > > > headstart on Sony which may point to a Christmas 2005 release for the > X2. > > > > > > Microsoft has been crushing Sony in sales for 2004, but that'sRight. The PS2 is the technically inferior platform. And GT3 is a game
superior to anything MS ever even dreamed of...from the perspective of one
who has been a car guy all his life, has driven everything from the Oscar
Meyer Wienermobile to the Rover Turbine that ran Le Mans, who raced in the
RW Trans-Am, who was the Editor of Car and Driver in the 60s and the
founding Editor of PC Computing in the 80s, who has reviewed console racing
games for auto magazines going all the way back to Papy's original
Indianapolis 500: The Simulation, and who has written the strategy guides
for CART Racing/ICR2 and Grand Prix Legends. And your credentials are....?
and "Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
whilst
> > Sony is ever ready to throw out compatibility with the proverbialbathwater.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Steve Smith wrote: > > > What would be the point of XNA if MS didn't envision platform > > interoperability? (And why are they interested in commonality? To gain > > market share through synergy. It's the Beast of Redmond's way.) > > > > Besides, look at the history: MS sticks w. compatibility to a fault,Quoted text (10 lines)
> > > > Methinks you read wrong. > > Last I heard, Microsoft was considering a PowerPC based system. > Methinks I read correctly. Whether they choose IBM, Intel or AMD for > the core processor is known only to Microsoft but they did enter into a > licensing deal with IBM for XBox2 chips. > > You really need to climb down off of the Sony bandwagon. Sony is not > the end all, be all of gaming systems.Steve Smith wrote:
I like your writing, but do you ever read the posts to which you
respond? I reply that Microsoft is considering using a PowerPC
processor and you rant about my credentials?
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Right. The PS2 is the technically inferior platform. And GT3 is a game > superior to anything MS ever even dreamed of...from the perspective of one > who has been a car guy all his life, has driven everything from the Oscar > Meyer Wienermobile to the Rover Turbine that ran Le Mans, who raced in the > RW Trans-Am, who was the Editor of Car and Driver in the 60s and the > founding Editor of PC Computing in the 80s, who has reviewed console racing > games for auto magazines going all the way back to Papy's original > Indianapolis 500: The Simulation, and who has written the strategy guides > for CART Racing/ICR2 and Grand Prix Legends. And your credentials are....? >Internet User wrote:
And as far as credentials go... How are you enjoying your PS2 1/2? The
one you were promoting a year ago. You know the one, the redesigned,
more powerful PS2 that supports HDTV and 1080p?
Quoted text (20 lines)
> Steve Smith wrote: > >> Right. The PS2 is the technically inferior platform. And GT3 is a game >> superior to anything MS ever even dreamed of...from the perspective of >> one >> who has been a car guy all his life, has driven everything from the Oscar >> Meyer Wienermobile to the Rover Turbine that ran Le Mans, who raced in >> the >> RW Trans-Am, who was the Editor of Car and Driver in the 60s and the >> founding Editor of PC Computing in the 80s, who has reviewed console >> racing >> games for auto magazines going all the way back to Papy's original >> Indianapolis 500: The Simulation, and who has written the strategy guides >> for CART Racing/ICR2 and Grand Prix Legends. And your credentials >> are....? >> > > I like your writing, but do you ever read the posts to which you > respond? I reply that Microsoft is considering using a PowerPC > processor and you rant about my credentials?"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:xuksc.79975$[email hidden]:
yeah yeah yeah...LOVE-LY titles. Did you know "I" was on Speedvision?
HAH! NNNNNNOwwww how do you feel about all your supposed
accomplishments.
Oh ...and I have personally EATEN an Oscar Meyer Weener. Neener Neener.
dave henrie
Quoted text (11 lines)
> Right. The PS2 is the technically inferior platform. And GT3 is a > game superior to anything MS ever even dreamed of...from the > perspective of one who has been a car guy all his life, has driven > everything from the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile to the Rover Turbine that > ran Le Mans, who raced in the RW Trans-Am, who was the Editor of Car > and Driver in the 60s and the founding Editor of PC Computing in the > 80s, who has reviewed console racing games for auto magazines going > all the way back to Papy's original Indianapolis 500: The Simulation, > and who has written the strategy guides for CART Racing/ICR2 and Grand > Prix Legends. And your credentials are....? >
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
God Damn!!! Another keyboard lost to POTN.
Elrikk
POTN = Pepsi Out The Nose. ;o)
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > yeah yeah yeah...LOVE-LY titles. Did you know "I" was on Speedvision? > HAH! NNNNNNOwwww how do you feel about all your supposed > accomplishments. > Oh ...and I have personally EATEN an Oscar Meyer Weener. Neener Neener. > > dave henrieRight now I'm playing GTx on a debug unit w. a Faroudja deinterlacer (what
used to be called a line-doubler) which produces a razor-sharp 1200x768
image on a 21" NEC monitor, i.e., BETTER than hi-def. Alas, no 7.1
sound...yet.
Also from that ragsheet (the Inquirer) you quoted:
"It's tempting to think that IBM will be supplying Microsoft with a modified
PowerPC chip for the Xbox 2...but there would be a huge number of problems
for Microsoft in switching to that architecture.
"Microsoft would need to port the latest version of its [DirectX-based] Xbox
operating system to PowerPC...a large task just by itself. Then there are
the problems of backwards compatibility, even the latest G5 probably
couldn't run an x86 emulator fast enough to play games from the original
Xbox.
"The biggest firm in console gaming by far is Sony with its Playstation 2.
The juiciest leaks that have appeared about the [PS3's] Cell processor put
that architecture a country mile ahead of any other mainstream processor
performance wise. It looks likely to offer capabilities that will be well
beyond the...PowerPC...when it is released, even taking into account the
latter processors improving considerably over the next couple of years.
"That leaves Microsoft with a big problem. If it chooses PowerPC...it might
end up trying to sell an Xbox 2 that at best offers only half the
performance of the Playstation 3."
At any rate, I wasn't talking abt. chips (frankly, I don't care what's uder
the hood), but abt. the converging commonality between the Xbox 2 and the
PC. I think that bodes well for PC games. If totally separate
architectures (or operating environments) were to prevail, methinks PC games
(including hard-core racing sims) would wither on the vine.
"Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Internet User wrote:
>
> > Steve Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Right. The PS2 is the technically inferior platform. And GT3 is agame
> >> superior to anything MS ever even dreamed of...from the perspective of
> >> one
> >> who has been a car guy all his life, has driven everything from theOscar
guides
Quoted text (7 lines)
> >> Meyer Wienermobile to the Rover Turbine that ran Le Mans, who raced in > >> the > >> RW Trans-Am, who was the Editor of Car and Driver in the 60s and the > >> founding Editor of PC Computing in the 80s, who has reviewed console > >> racing > >> games for auto magazines going all the way back to Papy's original > >> Indianapolis 500: The Simulation, and who has written the strategyQuoted text (11 lines)
> >> for CART Racing/ICR2 and Grand Prix Legends. And your credentials > >> are....? > >> > > > > I like your writing, but do you ever read the posts to which you > > respond? I reply that Microsoft is considering using a PowerPC > > processor and you rant about my credentials? > > And as far as credentials go... How are you enjoying your PS2 1/2? The > one you were promoting a year ago. You know the one, the redesigned, > more powerful PS2 that supports HDTV and 1080p?Or, as extremetech.com (another of your "sources") put it:
"In February, Microsoft bought Virtual PC from Connectix, that allows
X86-designed programs and games to run on Mac PowerPC-based hardware. In
addition, Microsoft's Windows XP Embedded operating system also runs on the
PowerPC, Glaskowsky pointed out. Either piece of software would still entice
developers to write games for the Xbox that they could later port to the PC,
he said."
"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:uMGsc.9667$[email hidden]...
modified
> PowerPC chip for the Xbox 2...but there would be a huge number of problems
> for Microsoft in switching to that architecture.
>
> "Microsoft would need to port the latest version of its [DirectX-based]Xbox
might
> end up trying to sell an Xbox 2 that at best offers only half the
> performance of the Playstation 3."
>
> At any rate, I wasn't talking abt. chips (frankly, I don't care what'suder
> the hood), but abt. the converging commonality between the Xbox 2 and the
> PC. I think that bodes well for PC games. If totally separate
> architectures (or operating environments) were to prevail, methinks PCgames
of
> > >> one
> > >> who has been a car guy all his life, has driven everything from the
> Oscar
> > >> Meyer Wienermobile to the Rover Turbine that ran Le Mans, who racedin
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Right now I'm playing GTx on a debug unit w. a Faroudja deinterlacer (what > used to be called a line-doubler) which produces a razor-sharp 1200x768 > image on a 21" NEC monitor, i.e., BETTER than hi-def. Alas, no 7.1 > sound...yet. > > Also from that ragsheet (the Inquirer) you quoted: > > "It's tempting to think that IBM will be supplying Microsoft with aQuoted text (13 lines)
> operating system to PowerPC...a large task just by itself. Then there are > the problems of backwards compatibility, even the latest G5 probably > couldn't run an x86 emulator fast enough to play games from the original > Xbox. > > "The biggest firm in console gaming by far is Sony with its Playstation 2. > The juiciest leaks that have appeared about the [PS3's] Cell processor put > that architecture a country mile ahead of any other mainstream processor > performance wise. It looks likely to offer capabilities that will be well > beyond the...PowerPC...when it is released, even taking into account the > latter processors improving considerably over the next couple of years. > > "That leaves Microsoft with a big problem. If it chooses PowerPC...itQuoted text (11 lines)
> (including hard-core racing sims) would wither on the vine. > > "Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Internet User wrote: > > > > > Steve Smith wrote: > > > > > >> Right. The PS2 is the technically inferior platform. And GT3 is a > game > > >> superior to anything MS ever even dreamed of...from the perspectiveQuoted text (20 lines)
> > >> the > > >> RW Trans-Am, who was the Editor of Car and Driver in the 60s and the > > >> founding Editor of PC Computing in the 80s, who has reviewed console > > >> racing > > >> games for auto magazines going all the way back to Papy's original > > >> Indianapolis 500: The Simulation, and who has written the strategy > guides > > >> for CART Racing/ICR2 and Grand Prix Legends. And your credentials > > >> are....? > > >> > > > > > > I like your writing, but do you ever read the posts to which you > > > respond? I reply that Microsoft is considering using a PowerPC > > > processor and you rant about my credentials? > > > > And as far as credentials go... How are you enjoying your PS2 1/2? The > > one you were promoting a year ago. You know the one, the redesigned, > > more powerful PS2 that supports HDTV and 1080p? > >Looks more like plain ol' POT to me. (Wish'd I had some.)
"elrikk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:qtAsc.19357$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (22 lines)
> > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > yeah yeah yeah...LOVE-LY titles. Did you know "I" was on Speedvision? > > HAH! NNNNNNOwwww how do you feel about all your supposed > > accomplishments. > > Oh ...and I have personally EATEN an Oscar Meyer Weener. Neener Neener. > > > > dave henrie > > > God Damn!!! Another keyboard lost to POTN. > > Elrikk > > > > POTN = Pepsi Out The Nose. ;o) > > >Ive got GT4 prologue running through a panasonic ptae500 1280x720 lcd
projector, and it rocks! my only trouble was finding a table to mount my
logitech driving force pro wheel onto in the middle of my living room.
its like Sega rally, but in your house!
pez
"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:uMGsc.9667$[email hidden]...
modified
> PowerPC chip for the Xbox 2...but there would be a huge number of problems
> for Microsoft in switching to that architecture.
>
> "Microsoft would need to port the latest version of its [DirectX-based]Xbox
might
> end up trying to sell an Xbox 2 that at best offers only half the
> performance of the Playstation 3."
>
> At any rate, I wasn't talking abt. chips (frankly, I don't care what'suder
> the hood), but abt. the converging commonality between the Xbox 2 and the
> PC. I think that bodes well for PC games. If totally separate
> architectures (or operating environments) were to prevail, methinks PCgames
of
> > >> one
> > >> who has been a car guy all his life, has driven everything from the
> Oscar
> > >> Meyer Wienermobile to the Rover Turbine that ran Le Mans, who racedin
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Right now I'm playing GTx on a debug unit w. a Faroudja deinterlacer (what > used to be called a line-doubler) which produces a razor-sharp 1200x768 > image on a 21" NEC monitor, i.e., BETTER than hi-def. Alas, no 7.1 > sound...yet. > > Also from that ragsheet (the Inquirer) you quoted: > > "It's tempting to think that IBM will be supplying Microsoft with aQuoted text (13 lines)
> operating system to PowerPC...a large task just by itself. Then there are > the problems of backwards compatibility, even the latest G5 probably > couldn't run an x86 emulator fast enough to play games from the original > Xbox. > > "The biggest firm in console gaming by far is Sony with its Playstation 2. > The juiciest leaks that have appeared about the [PS3's] Cell processor put > that architecture a country mile ahead of any other mainstream processor > performance wise. It looks likely to offer capabilities that will be well > beyond the...PowerPC...when it is released, even taking into account the > latter processors improving considerably over the next couple of years. > > "That leaves Microsoft with a big problem. If it chooses PowerPC...itQuoted text (11 lines)
> (including hard-core racing sims) would wither on the vine. > > "Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Internet User wrote: > > > > > Steve Smith wrote: > > > > > >> Right. The PS2 is the technically inferior platform. And GT3 is a > game > > >> superior to anything MS ever even dreamed of...from the perspectiveQuoted text (20 lines)
> > >> the > > >> RW Trans-Am, who was the Editor of Car and Driver in the 60s and the > > >> founding Editor of PC Computing in the 80s, who has reviewed console > > >> racing > > >> games for auto magazines going all the way back to Papy's original > > >> Indianapolis 500: The Simulation, and who has written the strategy > guides > > >> for CART Racing/ICR2 and Grand Prix Legends. And your credentials > > >> are....? > > >> > > > > > > I like your writing, but do you ever read the posts to which you > > > respond? I reply that Microsoft is considering using a PowerPC > > > processor and you rant about my credentials? > > > > And as far as credentials go... How are you enjoying your PS2 1/2? The > > one you were promoting a year ago. You know the one, the redesigned, > > more powerful PS2 that supports HDTV and 1080p? > >Jay J wrote:
> I'd be curious to see some example of the actual numbers that MS has been
> doing vs. Sony this year, as opposed to simply hearing it word of mouth (so
> to speak) here at RAS.
>
> Anyone have a link to some sales stats?
>
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/05/26/news_6099369.html
Xbox officially outsells PS2 in US
Citing NPD numbers, Microsoft declares its console had a 51-percent
market share in April 2004.
In the time before E3, many analysts were saying that, as a result of
its $149 price drop, the Xbox had begun to outsell the PlayStation 2 in
the US American Technology Research analyst P.J. McNealy told CBS
Marketwatch that Microsoft's console sold 270,000 units during the
month, compared to 200,000 PS2s and 100,000 Nintendo GameCubes.
Today, Microsoft echoed McNealy's assertion, announcing that the Xbox
was indeed America's top-selling console in April. In a press release,
Microsoft claimed the Xbox captured 51 percent of the US console market
in the month following the March 30 price drop, with sales up 135
percent by volume compared to 2003. Comparatively, PlayStation 2 sales
declined 29 percent to hit a 32-percent share, while the Nintendo
GameCube sales dropped 5 percent to a 17-percent market share.
Curiously, Microsoft didn't give specific sales numbers as McNealy did.
However, the company did claim all its figures were from NPD, the top
American game-market research firm whose studies are the industry
standard. Microsoft also cited European data from GfK and ChartTrack,
NPD European equivalents, which said the Xbox's market share increased
from 23 to 26 percent in April in the UK, France, and Germany combined.
"This marks the first time ever that Sony has been knocked off the
leaderboard by another console in this generation," boasted Microsoft's
release, which went on to list various notable Xbox events at E3 2004.
However, questions remain about the longevity of the Xbox's rise in
sales. When its price dropped to $99 last fall, the GameCube enjoyed a
similar boost, also outselling the PlayStation 2 for a short time.
Although, some analysts think the Xbox may see a more long-term gain in
market share, due to exclusives such as Ninja Gaiden and Halo 2 as well
as the recently announced deal to bring Electronic Arts' mega-popular
online games to Xbox Live.
Or, as CNN Money put it:
**********************
Two months ago, Microsoft spoke glowingly of bridging the gap between the PC
and Xbox. Now the company is considering erasing that gap completely.
While Microsoft has publicly avoided discussing its next generation machine,
it has been quietly conducting studies on the consumer appeal of a hybrid
device that would play both PC and Xbox games.
"We would be remiss if we didn't look at consumer scenarios that take
advantage of our strengths," said Peter Moore, corporate vice president of
worldwide marketing and publishing for Microsoft's home and entertainment
division.
The B/R/S Group, a California-based market research company that lists
Microsoft and the Xbox division specifically as clients, has been gathering
consumer feedback on a device it refers to as Xbox Next PC, "a videogame
console system with a hard drive and a built-in fully functional PC."
Mention of the device came on one of several slides shown to focus groups.
One slide describes the unit, which would require a PC monitor or high
definition television, as being *backward compatible* [emphasis added] with
current and next-generation Xbox titles. It would also play PC games and
include a fully functional version of Windows, CD burner, DVD player (with
remote control), built-in access to Xbox Live and a hard drive.
Control-wise, the system would come with both a keyboard and mouse and a
standard Xbox controller. The price point this particular study tested was
$599.
"If you put two and two together, there's no doubt there's a great
opportunity to put the two platforms together," said Moore.
"There will come a day--in the not too distant future--that [PC] games will
be interchangeable between Windows and the Xbox," Moore told me at the
recently completed E3 trade show.
**********************
"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:IZGsc.9675$[email hidden]...
> Or, as extremetech.com (another of your "sources") put it:
>
> "In February, Microsoft bought Virtual PC from Connectix, that allows
> X86-designed programs and games to run on Mac PowerPC-based hardware. In
> addition, Microsoft's Windows XP Embedded operating system also runs onthe
> PowerPC, Glaskowsky pointed out. Either piece of software would stillentice
> developers to write games for the Xbox that they could later port to thePC,
> he said."
>
> "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:uMGsc.9667$[email hidden]...
> > Right now I'm playing GTx on a debug unit w. a Faroudja deinterlacer(what
problems
> > for Microsoft in switching to that architecture.
> >
> > "Microsoft would need to port the latest version of its [DirectX-based]
> Xbox
> > operating system to PowerPC...a large task just by itself. Then thereare
> > the problems of backwards compatibility, even the latest G5 probably
> > couldn't run an x86 emulator fast enough to play games from the original
> > Xbox.
> >
> > "The biggest firm in console gaming by far is Sony with its Playstation2.
> > The juiciest leaks that have appeared about the [PS3's] Cell processorput
> > that architecture a country mile ahead of any other mainstream processor
> > performance wise. It looks likely to offer capabilities that will bewell
the
the
> > > >> founding Editor of PC Computing in the 80s, who has reviewedconsole
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > used to be called a line-doubler) which produces a razor-sharp 1200x768 > > image on a 21" NEC monitor, i.e., BETTER than hi-def. Alas, no 7.1 > > sound...yet. > > > > Also from that ragsheet (the Inquirer) you quoted: > > > > "It's tempting to think that IBM will be supplying Microsoft with a > modified > > PowerPC chip for the Xbox 2...but there would be a huge number ofQuoted text (11 lines)
> > beyond the...PowerPC...when it is released, even taking into account the > > latter processors improving considerably over the next couple of years. > > > > "That leaves Microsoft with a big problem. If it chooses PowerPC...it > might > > end up trying to sell an Xbox 2 that at best offers only half the > > performance of the Playstation 3." > > > > At any rate, I wasn't talking abt. chips (frankly, I don't care what's > uder > > the hood), but abt. the converging commonality between the Xbox 2 andQuoted text (22 lines)
> > PC. I think that bodes well for PC games. If totally separate > > architectures (or operating environments) were to prevail, methinks PC > games > > (including hard-core racing sims) would wither on the vine. > > > > "Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Internet User wrote: > > > > > > > Steve Smith wrote: > > > > > > > >> Right. The PS2 is the technically inferior platform. And GT3 is a > > game > > > >> superior to anything MS ever even dreamed of...from the perspective > of > > > >> one > > > >> who has been a car guy all his life, has driven everything from the > > Oscar > > > >> Meyer Wienermobile to the Rover Turbine that ran Le Mans, who raced > in > > > >> the > > > >> RW Trans-Am, who was the Editor of Car and Driver in the 60s andQuoted text (19 lines)
> > > >> racing > > > >> games for auto magazines going all the way back to Papy's original > > > >> Indianapolis 500: The Simulation, and who has written the strategy > > guides > > > >> for CART Racing/ICR2 and Grand Prix Legends. And your credentials > > > >> are....? > > > >> > > > > > > > > I like your writing, but do you ever read the posts to which you > > > > respond? I reply that Microsoft is considering using a PowerPC > > > > processor and you rant about my credentials? > > > > > > And as far as credentials go... How are you enjoying your PS2 1/2? The > > > one you were promoting a year ago. You know the one, the redesigned, > > > more powerful PS2 that supports HDTV and 1080p? > > > > > >Steve Smith wrote:
A PC in the living room has been the goal of Microsoft for awhile and
the XBox is their most successfu attempt to date. Whether it's backward
compatible is yet to be seen. The deal with IBM and early reports that
the Xbox 2 will not contain a harddrive indicate that it won't be. But
neither Microsoft nor IBM have discussed the details of the chip deal,
and only the flash memory manufacturer has stated that the next XBox
won't have a hard drive.
To get back to your original argument that Microsoft is all about
backwards compatiblity... Only Sony has *proven* to release a backwards
compatible platform. This being Microsoft's first console, they have no
history for backwards compatiblity. So when you state this...
"What's going to happen is that the Xbox 2 will be a huge technical
payraise over the present part---and the old titles will be
compatible--whereas the PS3, while an even greater technical leap
forward, won't (in the Sony tradition) be backwardly compatible."
It's complete and utter BS. Because Sony has been backwards compatible
on their only two forays into the console market while Microsoft has not.
Quoted text (38 lines)
> Or, as CNN Money put it: > > ********************** > > Two months ago, Microsoft spoke glowingly of bridging the gap between the PC > and Xbox. Now the company is considering erasing that gap completely. > > While Microsoft has publicly avoided discussing its next generation machine, > it has been quietly conducting studies on the consumer appeal of a hybrid > device that would play both PC and Xbox games. > > "We would be remiss if we didn't look at consumer scenarios that take > advantage of our strengths," said Peter Moore, corporate vice president of > worldwide marketing and publishing for Microsoft's home and entertainment > division. > > The B/R/S Group, a California-based market research company that lists > Microsoft and the Xbox division specifically as clients, has been gathering > consumer feedback on a device it refers to as Xbox Next PC, "a videogame > console system with a hard drive and a built-in fully functional PC." > Mention of the device came on one of several slides shown to focus groups. > > One slide describes the unit, which would require a PC monitor or high > definition television, as being *backward compatible* [emphasis added] with > current and next-generation Xbox titles. It would also play PC games and > include a fully functional version of Windows, CD burner, DVD player (with > remote control), built-in access to Xbox Live and a hard drive. > Control-wise, the system would come with both a keyboard and mouse and a > standard Xbox controller. The price point this particular study tested was > $599. > > "If you put two and two together, there's no doubt there's a great > opportunity to put the two platforms together," said Moore. > > "There will come a day--in the not too distant future--that [PC] games will > be interchangeable between Windows and the Xbox," Moore told me at the > recently completed E3 trade show. >On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:33:20 -0400, Internet User <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>It's complete and utter BS. Because Sony has been backwards compatible
>on their only two forays into the console market while Microsoft has not.
What was the PS1 backwardly compatible with?
--
Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
Andrew wrote:
Nothing, it was their first product to market same as MickeySoft. The
PS2 was backwards compatible in *the Sony tradition*.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:33:20 -0400, Internet User <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >>It's complete and utter BS. Because Sony has been backwards compatible >>on their only two forays into the console market while Microsoft has not. > > > What was the PS1 backwardly compatible with?Guess you haven't been reading the posts you respond to, either. (Me, I
only read my own posts.) I made a mistake; I meant to say forwards
compatible--or whatever--i.e., that PS2 games won't play on the PS1. I
apologized for that several times; you must've been in recovery.
Microsoft has stuck with compatibility as a pillar of their corporate
culture. They're afraid that if they brought out an incompatible OS (say)
their huge customer base would dare to compare it with other OS's (Linux,
say) based on performance. MS knows most of their stuff prevails not
because it's good, but because MS is a bully, an 800-ton gorilla, as a raft
of lawsuits here and abroad, um, testify.
Sony, OTOH, arrogantly believes their stuff is so good that people will want
it at any price. Hence, almost anything you buy from Sony, is proprietary.
You buy a Sony camera, you have to buy Sony memory, Sony batteries, Sony
lens accessories, etc. The best example of all this was Betamax. And you
don't think Sony looked back when they abandoned it, do you? If it had've
been MS, their new VHS VCR would've been compatible with all their users'
old Beta tapes.
Fast-forward: MS is working hard to bring all their junk together: PCs,
consoles, set-top boxes. There will probably be at least 4 Xboxes within 2
years: a basic games console w. flash memory, a fancy games console w. a HD,
and a pair of set-top boxes, one with TiVo-like capabilities, and one
without.
Sony, OTOH, has probably bitten off more than they can chew with the
Cell-powered PS3. All the design studios I've talked to have told me that
the new architecture will be a nightmare to program for (and has nothing in
common w. the PS1-2 family). At first, MS thought (like Trip Hawkins' 3DO
before them) that it was all abt. the h/w. Sony has known all along that
it's the s/w, stupid. Over-reacting to each other, they've swapped
positions (hence MS enticing a reluctant EA into the fold). Sony is too
smart to come out with a new console and no s/w, so they have to delay the
debut until they have a decent library (the PS1-2 library has over 7,000
titles).
MS isn't even close to amortizing the $4 billion cost of the Xbox adventure,
but they can afford to roll out new variations on the Xbox every six months
or so until they know the arrival of the PS3 is imminent. Then they'll
strike with a PS3-killer (wannabe), which will have slightly less impressive
specs, but a huge library to put the final nail in Sony's coffin.
Am I right..or left, as the BFG sez....
"Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Steve Smith wrote:
> > Or, as CNN Money put it:
> >
> > **********************
> >
> > Two months ago, Microsoft spoke glowingly of bridging the gap betweenthe PC
> > and Xbox. Now the company is considering erasing that gap completely.
> >
> > While Microsoft has publicly avoided discussing its next generationmachine,
> > it has been quietly conducting studies on the consumer appeal of ahybrid
> > device that would play both PC and Xbox games.
> >
> > "We would be remiss if we didn't look at consumer scenarios that take
> > advantage of our strengths," said Peter Moore, corporate vice presidentof
> > worldwide marketing and publishing for Microsoft's home andentertainment
> > division.
> >
> > The B/R/S Group, a California-based market research company that lists
> > Microsoft and the Xbox division specifically as clients, has beengathering
> > consumer feedback on a device it refers to as Xbox Next PC, "a videogame
> > console system with a hard drive and a built-in fully functional PC."
> > Mention of the device came on one of several slides shown to focusgroups.
> >
> > One slide describes the unit, which would require a PC monitor or high
> > definition television, as being *backward compatible* [emphasis added]with
> > current and next-generation Xbox titles. It would also play PC games and
> > include a fully functional version of Windows, CD burner, DVD player(with
> > remote control), built-in access to Xbox Live and a hard drive.
> > Control-wise, the system would come with both a keyboard and mouse and a
> > standard Xbox controller. The price point this particular study testedwas
> > $599.
> >
> > "If you put two and two together, there's no doubt there's a great
> > opportunity to put the two platforms together," said Moore.
> >
> > "There will come a day--in the not too distant future--that [PC] gameswill
Quoted text (25 lines)
> > be interchangeable between Windows and the Xbox," Moore told me at the > > recently completed E3 trade show. > > > > A PC in the living room has been the goal of Microsoft for awhile and > the XBox is their most successfu attempt to date. Whether it's backward > compatible is yet to be seen. The deal with IBM and early reports that > the Xbox 2 will not contain a harddrive indicate that it won't be. But > neither Microsoft nor IBM have discussed the details of the chip deal, > and only the flash memory manufacturer has stated that the next XBox > won't have a hard drive. > > To get back to your original argument that Microsoft is all about > backwards compatiblity... Only Sony has *proven* to release a backwards > compatible platform. This being Microsoft's first console, they have no > history for backwards compatiblity. So when you state this... > > "What's going to happen is that the Xbox 2 will be a huge technical > payraise over the present part---and the old titles will be > compatible--whereas the PS3, while an even greater technical leap > forward, won't (in the Sony tradition) be backwardly compatible." > > It's complete and utter BS. Because Sony has been backwards compatible > on their only two forays into the console market while Microsoft has not. >Steve Smith wrote:
I'm sure this is more myth than reality, but this is interesting.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mmedia/display/20040426094105.html
Quoted text (33 lines)
> Right now I'm playing GTx on a debug unit w. a Faroudja deinterlacer (what > used to be called a line-doubler) which produces a razor-sharp 1200x768 > image on a 21" NEC monitor, i.e., BETTER than hi-def. Alas, no 7.1 > sound...yet. > > Also from that ragsheet (the Inquirer) you quoted: > > "It's tempting to think that IBM will be supplying Microsoft with a modified > PowerPC chip for the Xbox 2...but there would be a huge number of problems > for Microsoft in switching to that architecture. > > "Microsoft would need to port the latest version of its [DirectX-based] Xbox > operating system to PowerPC...a large task just by itself. Then there are > the problems of backwards compatibility, even the latest G5 probably > couldn't run an x86 emulator fast enough to play games from the original > Xbox. > > "The biggest firm in console gaming by far is Sony with its Playstation 2. > The juiciest leaks that have appeared about the [PS3's] Cell processor put > that architecture a country mile ahead of any other mainstream processor > performance wise. It looks likely to offer capabilities that will be well > beyond the...PowerPC...when it is released, even taking into account the > latter processors improving considerably over the next couple of years. > > "That leaves Microsoft with a big problem. If it chooses PowerPC...it might > end up trying to sell an Xbox 2 that at best offers only half the > performance of the Playstation 3." > > At any rate, I wasn't talking abt. chips (frankly, I don't care what's uder > the hood), but abt. the converging commonality between the Xbox 2 and the > PC. I think that bodes well for PC games. If totally separate > architectures (or operating environments) were to prevail, methinks PC games > (including hard-core racing sims) would wither on the vine.Ambitious, maybe, but not beyond belief.
"Internet User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Steve Smith wrote:
> > Right now I'm playing GTx on a debug unit w. a Faroudja deinterlacer(what
modified
> > PowerPC chip for the Xbox 2...but there would be a huge number ofproblems
> > for Microsoft in switching to that architecture.
> >
> > "Microsoft would need to port the latest version of its [DirectX-based]Xbox
> > operating system to PowerPC...a large task just by itself. Then thereare
> > the problems of backwards compatibility, even the latest G5 probably
> > couldn't run an x86 emulator fast enough to play games from the original
> > Xbox.
> >
> > "The biggest firm in console gaming by far is Sony with its Playstation2.
> > The juiciest leaks that have appeared about the [PS3's] Cell processorput
> > that architecture a country mile ahead of any other mainstream processor
> > performance wise. It looks likely to offer capabilities that will bewell
> > beyond the...PowerPC...when it is released, even taking into account the
> > latter processors improving considerably over the next couple of years.
> >
> > "That leaves Microsoft with a big problem. If it chooses PowerPC...itmight
> > end up trying to sell an Xbox 2 that at best offers only half the
> > performance of the Playstation 3."
> >
> > At any rate, I wasn't talking abt. chips (frankly, I don't care what'suder
> > the hood), but abt. the converging commonality between the Xbox 2 andthe
> > PC. I think that bodes well for PC games. If totally separate
> > architectures (or operating environments) were to prevail, methinks PCgames
> > (including hard-core racing sims) would wither on the vine.
>
> I'm sure this is more myth than reality, but this is interesting.
>
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mmedia/display/20040426094105.html
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > used to be called a line-doubler) which produces a razor-sharp 1200x768 > > image on a 21" NEC monitor, i.e., BETTER than hi-def. Alas, no 7.1 > > sound...yet. > > > > Also from that ragsheet (the Inquirer) you quoted: > > > > "It's tempting to think that IBM will be supplying Microsoft with aMake that FIVE Xbox-ish devices, quoth MCV:
***********************
FORGET the rumours about the looming launch of a mobile Xbox device,
Microsoft is already in the handheld sector - and games could well figure in
the mix within the next few months.
Speaking exclusively to MCV, Microsoft�s regional VP, home and entertainment
division, Eduardo Rosini offered a reminder of the firm's Windows Mobile
platform which is already licensed by consumer electronics firms like
Creative and Samsung to create Portable Media Center (PMC) devices. These
products will allow users to playback music, movies and, in theory, games.
"We've been impressed with what we've seen of Nintendo's DS and Sony's PSP,"
said Rossini. "For the time being, we will concentrate on Xbox as we
continue to grow our market share.
However, it is worth noting that we are already in the handheld sector with
the Portable Media Center. And I don't see any reason why games will not
figure in the strategy for that."
Editor of PC Retail magazine Mat Bettinson agrees that Microsoft is very
likely to introduce a gaming element to the PMC devices.
"I think they'd be foolish not to introduce enthusiast gaming into the
platform," he said. "Games are key, but I think Microsoft is keeping its
head down until it can get the devices out into the market and prove
themselves - and then sell publishers on the system."
The first PMC devices will launch in Europe this Christmas.
***********************
"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:2zvtc.15952$[email hidden]...
raft
> of lawsuits here and abroad, um, testify.
>
> Sony, OTOH, arrogantly believes their stuff is so good that people willwant
> it at any price. Hence, almost anything you buy from Sony, isproprietary.
2
> years: a basic games console w. flash memory, a fancy games console w. aHD,
> and a pair of set-top boxes, one with TiVo-like capabilities, and one
> without.
>
> Sony, OTOH, has probably bitten off more than they can chew with the
> Cell-powered PS3. All the design studios I've talked to have told me that
> the new architecture will be a nightmare to program for (and has nothingin
adventure,
> but they can afford to roll out new variations on the Xbox every sixmonths
> or so until they know the arrival of the PS3 is imminent. Then they'll
> strike with a PS3-killer (wannabe), which will have slightly lessimpressive
president
videogame
and
> > > include a fully functional version of Windows, CD burner, DVD player
> (with
> > > remote control), built-in access to Xbox Live and a hard drive.
> > > Control-wise, the system would come with both a keyboard and mouse anda
not.
> >
>
>
