dothackers.net

I'd be much more concerned with EA controlling the market someday, not Microsoft. However, neither of those are going to happen.

I don't believe the market can be owned by just one or two companies. Mainly because there are so many different developing studios and it's not just one region. So in order for a "mother company" to rule over everyone, it would have to take control of America's, Europe's, Japan's, AND Austraila's videogame studios.

Bill Gates almost monopolized the computer market, what makes you think His microsoft cant figure out a way to monoplize the game market lol.

Ignus wrote:Bill Gates almost monopolized the computer market, what makes you think His microsoft cant figure out a way to monoplize the game market lol.

The computer market is as you said not monopolized yet, nor will it ever be (especially with what Apple is doing) and the game market simply can't be monopolized. Too many big companies. EA Games won't dominate it either, since there's a company like Ubisoft.

Remember I said almost. Not to mention Gates had to go against the govt.

Ignus wrote:Remember I said almost. Not to mention Gates had to go against the govt.

Yeah, i said "like you said" ;)

You know its strange both PS3 and Wii have slow starts (even the games for ps3 suck and I only see CoD3, TP, and RS worth getting for the Wii)

Remember last console wars? It was like an all or nothing thing. This one just seems it may go...drawn out?

Ignus wrote:You know its strange both PS3 and Wii have slow starts (even the games for ps3 suck and I only see CoD3, TP, and RS worth getting for the Wii)

Remember last console wars? It was like an all or nothing thing. This one just seems it may go...drawn out?

Well, it was kinda different then.
To begin with, there already are some high-quality games out in what we call the "next gen", which is basically what defines this console war (Gears of War being a great example of this) AND the fact that they're very low on stock and many who have actually gotten one are ebaying it without doubt.

The Wii is what i suppose would be called a "bystander", but that's more for the fact that it's so different(focusing on it's abstract gameplay over state of the art graphics), is plentiful in stock and is much cheaper. Plus, it's true as you say that not many games for it seem very interesting right now. In fact, i pretty much see TP as the current main reason for getting one (aside from the fact that the concept of Wii is kickass ^^).


Well, one can still question how much of a "war" this is going to be with games like Rainbow Six and Assassins Creed(HOTTEST GAME EVER) being multi-console. Most games will probably end up multi anyway. Atleast most quality games.

Akunaeru wrote:

Ignus wrote:You know its strange both PS3 and Wii have slow starts (even the games for ps3 suck and I only see CoD3, TP, and RS worth getting for the Wii)

Remember last console wars? It was like an all or nothing thing. This one just seems it may go...drawn out?

Well, it was kinda different then.
To begin with, there already are some high-quality games out in what we call the "next gen", which is basically what defines this console war (Gears of War being a great example of this) AND the fact that they're very low on stock and many who have actually gotten one are ebaying it without doubt.

So do you think this console wars should have been delayed another year? Because it seems as though the companies wanted the gamers to get the consoles first.

Gears of War is a high quailty game. I have a friend whos dying for me to try it online. Says thats the best part about it (which thats what everyone else is saying).

Akunaeru wrote:The Wii is what i suppose would be called a "bystander", but that's more for the fact that it's so different(focusing on it's abstract gameplay over state of the art graphics), is plentiful in stock and is much cheaper. Plus, it's true as you say that not many games for it seem very interesting right now. In fact, i pretty much see TP as the current main reason for getting one (aside from the fact that the concept of Wii is kickass ^^).

I will try to get the Wii tom if I can and ill tell all what its like playin TP with it. Still...even though its way too early to judge (since graphics will undoubtly go up for the Wii anyway) Do you think it wouldve been better to have better gameplay and graphics? To me it seems gameplay all the way right now (but its still early you know what I mean?)

Akunaeru wrote:Well, one can still question how much of a "war" this is going to be with games like Rainbow Six and Assassins Creed(HOTTEST GAME EVER) being multi-console. Most games will probably end up multi anyway. Atleast most quality games.

That is good for us but would it kill the console's...how should I say definition? Because to me Xbox was famous for online games such as halo. Now it seems there sharing traits with the others like mmorpgs such as FFXI.

But thats no biggee with me. Id rather get a 400$ console that is worth the buck than a 600$ one. Wouldnt you say?

No, i'm rather saying i don't think there'll be as much of a "war" than people say.
Gears of War is truly an amazing game (i played through the whole singleplayer story for the first time together with a great guy on xbox live, which truly was way more fun than it would've been playing alone). You should indeed try it ;P


As for graphics contra gameplay, i don't really know. If you think about it, the best would obviously be having both and looking at Gears of War, Assassins Creed, Rainbow Six: Vegas and so on, i find myself seeing games that have both of those.
Wouldn't this basically mean that what the Wii is doing is a bit stupid? As much as i love the Wii, you just made me question if their path of "adequate graphics, focus on immersive and good gameplay" is such a smart thing. Isn't it basically "we're cutting down on the graphics", with these other games that have great gameplay AND graphics coming around?
I bet it'll still kick ass though xD


Yes, all good games being multi would kinda tear down the walls between the consoles, but they're still significantly different in looks, price, controllers and the general system for how it works (how the dashboard and how xbox live works isn't ripped to the ps3 as far as i know).
Plus there will always be a bunch of interesting exclusives. Still, the multi-games seems more interesting as of now.


400$ that's worth the cash over 600$ that isn't? That sounds like an obvious choice. But do you know if the 600$ one is worth it then? Or are you simply saying "both are worth it. 400 is cheaper than 600, so i pick it instead"?

Akunaeru wrote:
400$ that's worth the cash over 600$ that isn't? That sounds like an obvious choice. But do you know if the 600$ one is worth it then? Or are you simply saying "both are worth it. 400 is cheaper than 600, so i pick it instead"?

Why not wait till the technology and games develop and wait for the price to drop within 2 months. The PS2 did, sure you'll be the cool kid on the block turned into the laughing stock of the century.

It all depends on the games, no matter how much they sugar coat the technology if there are no games on it, the thing is dead period. Unlike any other sort of technology, consoles can be considered as safe as technology is concerned, since they dont need too much of an upgrade in hardware wise.

I dont know which company is worse, Microsoft or Apple? I know everyone hates Microsoft for their software, but Apple with their shoddy Ipods and the nice support they recieve in the newspaper about how their Ipods are made?

By saying "everyone hates Microsoft for their software," are you saying there are no good titles for the 360? If so, I'd have to completely disagree, unless you're talking about computer software.

Luckydan wrote:

Akunaeru wrote:
400$ that's worth the cash over 600$ that isn't? That sounds like an obvious choice. But do you know if the 600$ one is worth it then? Or are you simply saying "both are worth it. 400 is cheaper than 600, so i pick it instead"?

Why not wait till the technology and games develop and wait for the price to drop within 2 months. The PS2 did, sure you'll be the cool kid on the block turned into the laughing stock of the century.

It all depends on the games, no matter how much they sugar coat the technology if there are no games on it, the thing is dead period. Unlike any other sort of technology, consoles can be considered as safe as technology is concerned, since they dont need too much of an upgrade in hardware wise.

I dont know which company is worse, Microsoft or Apple? I know everyone hates Microsoft for their software, but Apple with their shoddy Ipods and the nice support they recieve in the newspaper about how their Ipods are made?

What you need to note: the 360 DOES have good games out already.

Oh and one company getting big doesn't HAVE to be a bad thing.
EA Games would be a bad thing though, since they force the studios to rush, resulting in worse games. Apple or Microsoft doesn't have to be bad. May be, but not necessarily.

Ignus wrote:So do you think this console wars should have been delayed another year? Because it seems as though the companies wanted the gamers to get the consoles first.

If the "war" was to be delayed another year, then we would see a lot more positive outcomes for all systems. Microsoft would have released a less buggy 360 launch and nobody would have gotten shot over the PS3.-_-

Although since Microsoft did release the 360 despite it's small problems, Sony had no choice but to launch to keep pace with the 360. It seems the Wii is the only one who isn't going through any marketing problems. But like a football season, it's to early to tell who gets to be king. Still, I do think the "war" should have been held back.

Akunaeru wrote:As for graphics contra gameplay, i don't really know. If you think about it, the best would obviously be having both and looking at Gears of War, Assassins Creed, Rainbow Six: Vegas and so on, i find myself seeing games that have both of those.
Wouldn't this basically mean that what the Wii is doing is a bit stupid? As much as i love the Wii, you just made me question if their path of "adequate graphics, focus on immersive and good gameplay" is such a smart thing. Isn't it basically "we're cutting down on the graphics", with these other games that have great gameplay AND graphics coming around?
I bet it'll still kick ass though xD

I think that's what makes the Wii just as good, if not better, then the PS3 and 360. Nintendo is actually trying to make a system that plays different, not just look different. The graphics may not be as good as the other two consoles, but you can't say it's crap unless you actually give it a chance. (I'm saying your calling it crap Aku. I'm just answering your question. Don't flame me!=D)

Ignus wrote:But thats no biggee with me. Id rather get a 400$ console that is worth the buck than a 600$ one. Wouldnt you say?

You can't say the PS3 is worthless just on price alone. If you look at what is packed with it like Blu-Ray, internet browser, and a videogame system, the price seems worth it. I'm getting all three systems because I have the money for it. I'm I crazy? Insane? Out of Whack? Maybe, but I may be the few people who are "broke"!

wave killer wrote:

Ignus wrote:But thats no biggee with me. Id rather get a 400$ console that is worth the buck than a 600$ one. Wouldnt you say?

You can't say the PS3 is worthless just on price alone. If you look at what is packed with it like Blu-Ray, internet browser, and a videogame system, the price seems worth it. I'm getting all three systems because I have the money for it. I'm I crazy? Insane? Out of Whack? Maybe, but I may be the few people who are "broke"!

Didnt say it was worthless just that a 400$ is cheaper to get than a 600$ one. Still ill prob get a Wii.

It does somewhat but with that much money I prob wouldve used it for another cpu or graphics card.

Akunaeru wrote:What you need to note: the 360 DOES have good games out already.

Oh and one company getting big doesn't HAVE to be a bad thing.
EA Games would be a bad thing though, since they force the studios to rush, resulting in worse games. Apple or Microsoft doesn't have to be bad. May be, but not necessarily.

Maromi wrote:By saying "everyone hates Microsoft for their software," are you saying there are no good titles for the 360? If so, I'd have to completely disagree, unless you're talking about computer software.

What I meant is actual software not games, should of clairfied it (I tend to view software as non games and games as electronic entertainment (as games are in the toy section in every catalogue)), ala OS etc, you know like Windoze ME everyone's favorite system.

Akunaeru you can state that 360 has good games already but is it worth purchasing a system at a premium price so early in its life. Thats the point I'm trying to make, I tend to dislike American Games unless they are on the computer and eventually all the Xbox games will come to the PC, like Fable, HALO etc.

Remember what happened to the Xbox sure it had good games at the start but it fell flat when PS2 were releasing 2-3 X the current games of XBox. Sure it would of been fine if Xbox games has a Nintendo quality to them, but they had a PC quality and soon were ported over to the PC with no real incentive of keeping the Xbox alive. IF Microsoft done something interesting like support PC to Xbox interaction they would be one step ahead of the console industry but they went to the multimedia hacked way PS1 style to get massive sales. Xbox was easily hacked lots of games preloaded and can update their system for DVD essentially changing the system to a retro-style hacked machine with loads of games and a DVD player that can play any format leaving the games to rot on the shelves.

All I'm saying is just hold on to your wallet a little while wait till the system drops to half price and for the games to develop which will be in 1-2 years.
People called me silly for purchasing FFVII and Castlevania first before the system, but then I laugh at their face when they paid $500 dollars for their PS1 and I only had to pay $200 they never mentioned that fact ever again. Whats the point of being the first to play a non-competitive story book game?