Xbox 360 ...rushed?

I was just wondering if anyone else shared my sentiment that the XBox seems a bit rushed?

I mean, the PS3 and the Revolution aren't coming out until mid-2006...if the XBox 360 is supposed to be as powerful (ie. next-gen), how can it be finished so quickly? how long has it been in production?

I know i'll be watching it when it launches, eager to see the reaction of the public, I can't shake the feeling that they banged together a machine with parts superior to that of the original XBox but without much thought or care.

Anyone else feel the same?

(ps. not based on any evidence, it just seems strange to me for it to come out so quickly)

shortys94

Same with me, I feel exact same way, how can they release a console so much earlier then the competitors, I mean they must of thought long and hard about this as they wont get another chance to release another console for a few years.

But I think with the xbox 360 being the only next gen console being released before xmas they are hoping to get as many sales before the PS3 becomes more widely advertised as many people I talk to do not even know what the PS3 looks like.

CiDeRmAn

Thought and care? I erckon the boys at MS saw the next gen battle coming an decided to simply be first, someone has to be, last time it was the PS2, don't remember too many people expressing the opnion that it was "rushed", nope, the machine seems just fine, just need to play a few games on it now.
Not too sure what exactly you are expecting from this next gen though, are you awaiting new gameplay innovations and awesome new experiences? Well if that is the case you may have to wait a while, Revolution seems to be the only machine capable of opening up new gaming avenues thanks to its controller, the PS3 and 360 will have a far more traditional game experience, maybe a year or two into their lifetimes then we will see some risk taking on the part of developers and publishers, but given the cost of creating games for the new machines in the first place, they may well play it very safe.
At least the Revolution has ease of developing at the forefront, anyone who can create a title for the gamecube can do the same for their new machine making games cheaper to make and so permitting more creativity on the part of the developer.
And as for the 360 being finished so quickly, its been in development for what 2 years or so, hardly a quick gestation period.

Fair enough, 2 years in production, it was well worked on.

But did they create this machine simply to have a new "next-gen" machine (i.e. slightly better than the last one, giving the impression that it's completely state-of-the-art) and have it out just in time for Christmas (getting many people to suddenly hop on the MS bandwagon)?

Or did they genuinely create a new, powerful machine worthy of purchase at this early stage in the next-gen console battle?

I probably won't buy any of them until all 3 are available (i'm in no rush, have the DS to keep me happy for a while, roll on mario kart!) and then see...it'll be interesting to see how the 360 performs on launch.

bizmark

Microsoft wants to be the next Sony in regards to consoles so imho they can’t afford to mess up or take the gaming public for a ride plus its not like Microsoft can’t just throw money at R and D to get it done faster with out a drop in quality.

Nietzschean

...sony arn't exactly lacking in funding either....

I doubt the early release of the xbox360 is going to make it inferior...its a simpler system to code for and probally produce/design...
(triple core PPC vs cell+PPC core) , and nvidia were brought in late in the game to design the gfx chip for it so there could be delays there...

still i'll be waiting on a ps3 probally...nothing about the xbox360 has taken my fancy yet....not least it looks stupid

The games aren't really anything special at this stage, are they?

Nothing to really entice you to go there, unless Perfect Dark 0 floats your boat (again, be interesting to see how that performs).
Other than that, most of the games will probably be available on PS3 anyway.

jesus_thats_gre

The Xbox 360 has been designed as a next generation machine. It is incredibly powerful machine and there is no doubting it has been designed with the PS3 in mind. The list of games at launch, while not incredible, is not bad at all and is considerably better than the launch titles available for previous console launches.

PGR3 in particular seems to be a pretty amazing game going by the early reviews. COD2 and Quake 4 are also good titles for the people who enjoy FPS titles but cannot afford the incredibly powerful PC required to run them. The remaining EA sports titles basically cover the remaining bases!!

Lemlin

I've heard alot of reports that Perfect Dark Zero is very rushed and isn't going to live up to the franchise name. I hope this isn't so because the rest of the line-up doesn't look all that awe inspiring to me.

That said, the PlayStation2 launched with some very poor launch titles and its sales weren't affected. I agree with CiDeRmAn's point that it always takes a good year or two into a console's life time until we see what its really capable of.

CiDeRmAn

Regarding Perfect dark zero, no one has been allowed next nor near the games single player mode to review it, so until then any comment on how good it will/will not be are premature.
They did say it will not be Halo or anything like ie, rather its a new game by way of Goldeneye and Perfect dark (N64). As Metroid Prime has shown, there is more to FPS' than just guns and moving targets to shoot.
Anyway, all questions will be answered in a couple of days, just have to hang in there to see the reviews.

Lemlin

CiDeRmAn wrote:

Regarding Perfect dark zero, no one has been allowed next nor near the games single player mode to review it, so until then any comment on how good it will/will not be are premature.
They did say it will not be Halo or anything like ie, rather its a new game by way of Goldeneye and Perfect dark (N64). As Metroid Prime has shown, there is more to FPS' than just guns and moving targets to shoot.
Anyway, all questions will be answered in a couple of days, just have to hang in there to see the reviews.

Gamecentral on Channel 4's Telextext ran a few reports on versions they played and they reckoned it was nothing to write home about. I generally tend to trust their opinions when it comes to games as they tend to see past the hype and get it spot on.

It seems to have good points going for it, Eurogamer seems happy with it, certainly the design anyway (not giving much away on the games front yet, they have to review everything)

http://http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=61744

Wireless controllers seem to be the new thing, Revolution's is wireless, what about the PS3?

The way the whole backward compatibility is handled seems ridiculous, imo...having to download patches to get certain games to work?
Granted, i'm sure most people will want to play next-gen games rather than the old ones, but some people will want to switch back and forth, with the minimum of fuss.

Stephen

Eh, surely once you download the patch for a particular game, it'll keep what it needs on the hard disk? If you think about the backward compatibility, its not ridiculous. The original Xbox's hardware is very PC based - intel x86 CPU (roughly equivalent to a P3-750 if I recall correctly), nvidia graphics chipset that's basically a geforce 3 etc... whereas the 360 has a multicore powerpc architecture. How the hell are the old xbox games going to work on that without:
a) relying entirely on emulation --> crap performance
b) patching/modifying them
?

jesus_thats_gre

MoonHawk wrote:

Granted, i'm sure most people will want to play next-gen games rather than the old ones, but some people will want to switch back and forth, with the minimum of fuss.

I imagine the process will only occur once, i.e. once the patch is applied, you will not have to anything else anytime you want to play it.

ObeyGiant

Did anyone see that show on BBC about the launch of the 360? It was called something like "Xbox 360: Microsoft's Biggest Gamble". In it, the MS representatives basically said "We took a bath because we launched so late last time. This time, we're going to beat everyone to market, even if it means launching without enough supply or even properly finished games."

And I'm not really paraphrasing here, this is almost exactly what they said.

So yes, I think it seems terribly rushed. For example, look at the version of King Kong running side-by-side on the 360 and normal xbox (I think Smyths have this setup still running). The 360 version looks very pretty, but stutters a lot and generally isn't as smooth as its little brother. First-generation titles are generally poor, but this is just taking liberties.

patch

With regards to backward compatability, if a simple patch is needed, why the hell didn't they just put the patches on a disc and throw it in the box? or better yet have them installed on the HD in the first place?
I suspect the process won't go as smoothly as microsoft would have people believe.

Ciaran500

There will be some already on the HDD.

jesus_thats_gre

patch wrote:

I suspect the process won't go as smoothly as microsoft would have people believe.

Why?

My point earlier is that one shouldn't have to download patches, that's where the PS3's ability to play all discs out of the box will affect their market position.

Once you download the patch, it will work but having to download the patch is an extra bit of work, don't you agree (albeit, a small one)?

And what if you buy the non-HD version of the XBox 360?
As I understand it, you can't download the patches (obviously) so therefore you can't play the XBox games.

jesus_thats_gre

MoonHawk wrote:

My point earlier is that one shouldn't have to download patches, that's where the PS3's ability to play all discs out of the box will affect their market position.

Once you download the patch, it will work but having to download the patch is an extra bit of work, don't you agree (albeit, a small one)?

And what if you buy the non-HD version of the XBox 360?
As I understand it, you can't download the patches (obviously) so therefore you can't play the XBox games.

Assuming the PS3 is backwards compatible with PS2 games. Will it also be compatible with PS1 games?

I'd imagine PS1 games could be played, although, i can't recall reading anything specific regarding that.

That said, would anyone still play them?

mickydoomsux

I reckon the 360 is being released way too early. It's pretty much garaunteed to be down on power compared to the PS3 and Rev by the time they're released.

It's kinda coming out 'between' generations and that's pretty much what killed the Dreamcast.

Personally i'm gonna wait a while after they've all been released and then decide which to get. I still regret getting my Xbox a few weeks after launch because it's been a big disappointment for me.

Laguna

The Dreamcast was the first 128-bit console to launch and was, in my opinion, far better than the PS2 and Xbox. It failed because it didn't have the marketing machine behind it, something which Sony & Microsoft dedicate entire portions of their budget to, all out marketing assaults. I can't see the 360 'failing' in any way, the key to a console and its success is marketing and good word of mouth, the PS2 is vastyly inferior to the Xbox yet it still has a far larger market share of the home console market than the Xbox, why is this?, marketing.

With a company the size of Microsoft behind the 360, they simply won't throw the towel in at the first sign of the PS3, they can afford to produce and sell the 360 at a loss, even if that means not turning a profit in their computer games division until the generation after the 360, they have that much money. Lets be honest now, the 360 whilst expensive is going to have nothing on the price of a PS3 which will be a mooted €750.

I don't care, I refuse to pay €750 for a console, no matter how good it is, Sony risk alienating their main consumer base if they insist on their arrogant attitude of "You'll pay whatever we charge for it", do they think they're producing a console in a financial bracket for international multi-millionaire playboys?. To be honest, I feel Sony & Microsoft could eventually lose out in this market ton the old hand of Nintendo, who realise that the future of gaming is far more to do with innovative gameplay than how many polygons you can throw up on a screen.

mickydoomsux

Laguna wrote:

To be honest, I feel Sony & Microsoft could eventually lose out in this market ton the old hand of Nintendo, who realise that the future of gaming is far more to do with innovative gameplay than how many polygons you can throw up on a screen.

The problem with this is that innovative ideas don't seem to do to well on home consoles. For instance the Gamecube has some of the most innovative games of this generation and yet it performed comparitivly poorly sales wise.

Innovation in control methods and peripherals (such as the proposed Revolution controller) never really seems to catch on and ends up being treated as an underutilised gimmick (Eyetoy, light guns, dance mats, etc). There are exceptions though such as the NDS which appears to be doing well so far.

Basically your average punter wants to play the same game as last year/generation with better graphics, sound, online bits and other bells and whistles. EA are the obvious example here.

Sorry bout the slight off topic rambling.

jesus_thats_gre

mickydoomsux wrote:

The problem with this is that innovative ideas don't seem to do to well on home consoles. For instance the Gamecube has some of the most innovative games of this generation and yet it performed comparitivly poorly sales wise.

Innovation in control methods and peripherals (such as the proposed Revolution controller) never really seems to catch on and ends up being treated as an underutilised gimmick (Eyetoy, light guns, dance mats, etc). There are exceptions though such as the NDS which appears to be doing well so far.

Basically your average punter wants to play the same game as last year/generation with better graphics, sound, online bits and other bells and whistles. EA are the obvious example here.

Sorry bout the slight off topic rambling.

1 - The GC sold nearly as many units at the Xbox - just in different markets.

2 - I feel that controller is an attempt to be innovation just for the sake of it. I cannot imagine wanting to hold that controller in my hand for 2 or 3 hours at a time.

The dual screens of the DS are not a gimmick as such as they are employed in such way that is not inconvenient to use. The Eyetoy, dance mates and light guns are only appealing for the first 2 or 3 uses. They then become a pain in the arse.

MoonHawk wrote:

I'd imagine PS1 games could be played, although, i can't recall reading anything specific regarding that.

That said, would anyone still play them?

I am pretty confident that the PS3's architecture is very different to that of the PS2 and drastically different to that of the PS1's. In order to provide backward compatibility, they would have to implement some sort of intrusive fix similar to that of the Xbox360. Sometimes these things are unavoidable.

Laguna wrote:

The Dreamcast was the first 128-bit console to launch and was, in my opinion, far better than the PS2 and Xbox. It failed because it didn't have the marketing machine behind it, something which Sony & Microsoft dedicate entire portions of their budget to, all out marketing assaults. I can't see the 360 'failing' in any way, the key to a console and its success is marketing and good word of mouth, the PS2 is vastyly inferior to the Xbox yet it still has a far larger market share of the home console market than the Xbox, why is this?, marketing.

With a company the size of Microsoft behind the 360, they simply won't throw the towel in at the first sign of the PS3, they can afford to produce and sell the 360 at a loss, even if that means not turning a profit in their computer games division until the generation after the 360, they have that much money. Lets be honest now, the 360 whilst expensive is going to have nothing on the price of a PS3 which will be a mooted €750.

I don't care, I refuse to pay €750 for a console, no matter how good it is, Sony risk alienating their main consumer base if they insist on their arrogant attitude of "You'll pay whatever we charge for it", do they think they're producing a console in a financial bracket for international multi-millionaire playboys?. To be honest, I feel Sony & Microsoft could eventually lose out in this market ton the old hand of Nintendo, who realise that the future of gaming is far more to do with innovative gameplay than how many polygons you can throw up on a screen.

I agree with all these points.

The PS3 is hardly going to be €750!?

That's crazy, i'd have thought it would be around €350...there or thereabouts...sure no-one would buy it at that price!

The Revolution controller is class looking and a great idea...in theory...holding it up for 2-3 hours could prove it as a bad idea

In all fairness to the original XBox, it did appear a good bit later on the market than the PS2, so it was hardly a fair contest, this time, the playing field is more level

Retr0gamer

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

I am pretty confident that the PS3's architecture is very different to that of the PS2 and drastically different to that of the PS1's. In order to provide backward compatibility, they would have to implement some sort of intrusive fix similar to that of the Xbox360. Sometimes these things are unavoidable.

The PS3 will include the PS2 chipset in the form of that chip that Sony is marketing and is being put in a variety of electrical goods such as TVs. The backward compatability should be as good as the PS2 compatability with PS1 games. PS1 games should work on it as well. Emulation should be relatively painless unlike with the Xbox 360.

Gummy Panda

I'm looking more forward to the nintendo revolution but the xbox live was fantastic for a console. Hopefully ms can pull it off again but after seen these images that were emailed me, it has me worried

mickydoomsux

Good post Gummy Panda.

Some of those points are silly (e.g. rich bald guy!!!!!), but some of the other points show how MS are employing the same first to market technique that Sega did with the DC. It didn't work for Sega so i'll be interested to see if it works for MS.

Be nice to have a proper competition in the next gen but Sony'll probably steamroll the opposition through sheer brand recognition... again.

Lemlin

mickydoomsux wrote:

Good post Gummy Panda.

Some of those points are silly (e.g. rich bald guy!!!!!), but some of the other points show how MS are employing the same first to market technique that Sega did with the DC. It didn't work for Sega so i'll be interested to see if it works for MS.

Be nice to have a proper competition in the next gen but Sony'll probably steamroll the opposition through sheer brand recognition... again.

Sure just look at Sony's dominance in Ireland. The country had the highest number of PlayStation owners per capita outside Japan a few years ago and I'd say that could still be so.

Jammer

You're all having a laugh, surely?

Its been 3 (or 4?) years since release of the first xbox. They didnt sit there going 'yeah, thats nice, isnt it?'

They have been sitting on this technology since a week after the release of the first XBox. Look at how quickly PC's evolve...Microsoft didnt sit in the dark and miss it all. And, when it all comes down to it, consoles are mini PC's with different operating systems. This system is by no means rushed.

The reason Sony havent come at us with a new console, isnt just because its not ready. I'd say they're sitting on a pretty much final prototype. They havent got the production means to supply demand for a console and psp this christmas. They're known for not meeting demands alot of the time, and they dont want to hurt they're own sales by releasing and not having the units...

The only reason i see this failing is the price. €410 is alot for parents and partners to pay for a christmas present.