Sony vs Microsoft: HD-DVD To Die Soon

Honestly, Microsoft shareholders are more important than you or I in this case. This is because of corporate governance and the basic fact of modern capital which is to "increase shareholder value".

All the talk of "games as art" and "games as a cultural force" is subsumed by "increasing shareholder value".

Now, the Xbox family may well be a loss-leader to get Microsoft products and services into the home. But there is only so much loss that an annual general meeting full of financial institutions will bear.

it would be sad if MS in the future pulled the plug on the 360 & being part of the gaming console world. But i'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. End of the day gaming is a business, & i agree with you somewhere @ some point MS have got to turn this around, but i dont think MS are gonna be going anywhere for a while, having just put down a billion dollars to back the faults & extend the warranty of all 360's. MS are gonna be in this for the long run & i really hope they do.

I certainly hope that Microsoft is in the 'game' for the long haul as well. The more the merrier when it comes to successful platform holders.

Competition is good for us all, the better Sony do the more MS improve there services, & the more innovation that Nintendo bring to gaming the more MS & Sony have to think outside their comfort zones. I love all forms of gaming & cant wait to see what the future holds, just think how far games has come in my gaming life time (25 yrs)!? its gone from playing Combat with your mate on the Atari 2600 to playing Call of Duty 3 on line with 24 people from all over the world!, its amazing.

Can I add another fold to that? :-)

End of generation games are always miles better than start of same generation games. This is because the new hardware is still having its power tapped by developers whereas at the end of the generation, devs are fully up to speed with the consoles.

Just look at the PS2 games that have come out recently, God of War, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus - those games looked really good because the devs have had the time to get to grips with the hardware.

If you want a fair comparison, compare first run games on each generation. Then you are seeing the hardware difference.

I disagree, the difference between first gen games is only that, the difference between first gen games.

*gen here being within a console, as opposed to console generation

a fair comparison within a console generation would consist either of comparisons of exceptional multiplatform titles where the devs spent an equal amount of tiime optimizing it for each console OR a comparisons of first party or exclusive titles from a similar time period, well into the development of all consoles considered in the comparison(2nd gen or better).

The reason why last-gen PS2 games looked so good has more to do with very well applied art-design then anything technological. Knowing the system so you can apply such great art does help offcourse, but more tapping in the technology took a backseat when it came to those last-gen PS2-games.

The reason why some say the leap isn't as big is because a lot of developers are too focused on churning out what they call "realistic" graphics while everything looks like it's made out of plastic.

I like Mario Galaxy's look a lot more then Cysis look to be fair. You can feel the energy and love they put in all that stuff while with Crysis the "nice...you made a 3D-world based on photographs...how....uterlly uninspiring" feeling is very huge.
Artdesign can do wonders, trowing bloom-effects around wihout some artistic goal just looks like crap, no matter how much CPU-power it takes to do it.

For these reasons i will adhere from reviewing game that have so-called realistic graphics. Because i will stamp the game as bland, boring-looking, uninspiing and more.

Now whre is my matue anime-based cel-shaded Zelda-movie goddamnit!

i completly agree with this, sure i love gears of war and it looks `f**king yeah!` but it has its place and to see a game like mario galaxy with love, attention and real passion for design is great, its why i prefer windwaker to twilight princess, its about time that we got more fantasy worlds with stylised graphics and great gameplay than another FPS with totally photo realistic graphics, dont get me wrong they need to be there with great graphics and gameplay but devs need to take a step back and get some of these so called kiddy games put back where they stood up high on megadrive/snes where platform games ruled, and why arent we seeing these imaginations from the 8-16 bit era recreated in glorous passion on next gen/current gen consoles? rehashed sonics and hundreds of rayman and crash bandicoot clones ports and general crap dont cut it, we need those games dreamt from nothing more than a crazy japanese designers mind put back into consoles, too many film-game franchises have spoilt the genres that we loved as kiddys, and our dads would sit and watch us play secretly enjoying the crazyiness of mario, or ghouls and ghosts, or alex kidd, and kid camelion i miss the excitment of a new game with a new adventure and i want some dev to stand up and take a risk at bringing this genre/style back into games.

Yeah, I was trying to come up with a fair comparison of the relative power of the consoles between consecutive generations.

Obviously the best way is to compare best of breed of a genre over the whole lifetime of the consoles in question. Compare GT2 (PS1) to GT4 (PS2) for example. However that means you have to wait until a console generation is over to make the comparison.

My take was that in order to see the relative power of a new generation (PS3/360) in comparison to its predecessor (PS2/Xbox) you should compare first run games. That way you get a quick comparison of like-for-like instead of comparing last run games on the previous generation to first run games of the new one.

I like your idea of comparing first-party games, they would have the devs with the best knowledge of the hardware working on them so should represent the best of the first run games.

Shouldn't you compare trend-setting games in all the generations with each other?
Trend-setting game being defined as broadly as possible. From Super Mario 64 to Parrapa (spelling?) the Rapper to DDR and back again. What game started what trend in what generation and why in that generation and why not earlier on? Also what game tried to start what trend in what generation and why didn't it work then...but did work later on.

Every generation does create significant trends, or am I taking this to historical and is the goal something else?

Your point is well made, certainly as far as deciding things like the "most influential" console and "most innovative" console. However the original point in this thread was with regard to graphics and the difference between generations.



In that context, I believe that you should compare like-for-like, either "best of breed" on each platform or first-run first party titles.

Well, if you are talking about graphics, the first thing you should consider is how you're going to look to graphics. From a technical standpoint, a artistic standpoint or a realism standpoint.

What i mean is, do you want to compare graphics between plaforms and generations on their technical achievements(the bump maps, the poly's, the vertex shaders and so forth), their artistic achievements (making fantasyworlds come to life and so forth) or on their achievements to represent real life (by polygonizing pictures or by using optical illusions, impressionistic style and so forth) and maybe some other form of achievement.

Offcourse combining them all is the best but nevertheless, some games do spring out for their technical achievement and others for their artistic achievement. Maybe on the tech-side you should compare 2nd-3rd generation first party titles while on the artistic they all comply...

Scientific debate about games...who would have known...

Back to the Sony rant on MS, I feel this Somny mouthpiece is just sounding his frustration out. Blu Ray or HD-DVD are yet to get a real foothold. PS3 and its ten year cycle, i'm tired of hearing that crap. It'll be a ten year paperweight if those muppets at Sony don't cut it to a reasoanble price. If MS can sell 360 Elite for about £330 with an 120gb drive, why can't Sony?

As for the other topic woven in, I'd like to add that we are living in a lucky time. Games can be so much more than they once were. However the persistence of play it safe attitudes to design is hurting and holding back the industry. Games like Okami, Wind Waker, God or War 1 and 2, show what is capable with good design in mind, and that having photo realisms isn't the and all be all of gaming. Graphics are nigh on the summit of perfection, but what happens once the flag is planted and the expedition go home? Bringing hand helds up to the same plateau will be next. We all know it'll be a sad day when all games look the same, but that day is fast approaching.

Two consoles buck the above trend, Wii and DS, and its damn good they do, because then the focus is more on gameplay over looks.

Only one area really bucks this trend and that's in japan. A place where 2d and 3d games are created, cherished and attempted more, despite how crazy their concepts might be. Ia lot of work its a good thing we have Live for this now, but its still needs work and improvement.

As for HD-DVD, the fate of that is down to when we ditch normal dvd, which isn't anytime soon, possibly due to the multiregion nature of them. Which ironially is why these companies want to ditch normal dvd. Weird isn't it?

Sony vs Microsoft hd DVD vs blu ray
i love both consoles that have good points they have dad but that's like life and we get on with it and don't complain
the reason that DVD took off and i now 99.999% of us all watch em is that the ps2 came out it was cheaper and did more things than all other more expensive DVD players if you walked down tec town japan bake when ps2 came out the ps2 was sold as a DVD player you did not have offers with games you had em with DVDs Sony and Microsoft are trying it again but in diff ways you got Sony doing it the Sony way in the box don't have to add any thing (bar the hdmi cable) and you got Microsoft selling hd DVD as an extra box more money harder to get the films go in to any games store have a look lots of blu ray not many hd DVDs block busters have no hd DVDs but have blu rays Microsoft are losing a war that they are f-ing up by not getting the software out for people to get hold of and before we all come out with i don't give a s**t as many have come out with time and time again its a fight that is going to be won by the gamers not the film buffs as they are happy with there up scaled DVD that they are running at 720p/1080i the ps3 will price drop and people will get like the ps2 and ps1 Sony are all ways s**t on sales the fist year
the other prob with hd DVD is the fact that the film companies are going with blu ray not hd DVD look at what you can get on bur ray and look at what you can get on hd DVD and say i am wrong

Somebody buy this man a period. ;)

I have an HD-DVD drive and love it. There are MANY worthwhile things to own on it especially if your willing to order from amazon in other countries. Terminator 2 from France is fantastic. The UK actually has a lot that the US doesn't and even Japan is a good source for some good stuff. Admittedly there are more studios "supporting" blu-ray but they aren't really put out very many movies the way warner is and they support both. I'm getting 300 next month along with the new TMNT (yea go ahead and laugh that fight scene in the rain makes it worth it) so I'm a happy camper. And before you go "i don't wana import" your probably also the same kind of person who doesn't want to spend 600 dollars on a next gen video player so I don't really care :P
_____

at the end of the day, HD-DVD vs BluRay doesnt really come into gaming (At the moment) this is all really about movies and sony likes to flaunt to BluRay vs HDDVD out as much as possible, who can blame them they have put a lot of money into the format, but really come on, is Rainbow 6 any better because its on Bluray? is Oblivion any better because its on Bluray? we all know its not, and really who cares? If in the future HD Discs become a better media for games then great, but right now its not effecting anything, in fact it will be interesting to see (Maybe GTAIV may show some good use for HD Media Vs DVD), really though the future is in digital distribution and the next next gen consoles will all have that and pyshical media would with the 16 bit carts, and 3.5" floppy discs.

I just think you have to at least give them the first generation to figure out the wrinkles and at least partially negate any temporal advantage gained by being the last one to release said 'first run' games. This generation the question is complex. For instance, comparing a 360 launch game with a PS3 launch title not only deprives the PS3 game of the time necessary learn how to properly utilize the more complex Cell processor, it provides a temporal advantage by being released later and potentially having access to newer more refined techniques and practices.

No, them coming out a year later provides the temporal advantage, not our judging of the console. MS chose to jump out a year ahead of sony this time because sony did so well come out a year before them last time. Release date is indeed integral to the console. The gamecube for example cost less than the ps2 but was for all intents and purposes more powerful because of the extra year it had in dev. If I want to know which system had better graphics, be it poly count, shaders or whatever, then I don't feel the need to add or subtract "points" because of their release year. Right now the 360 looks to have a good solid lead on the PS3 but the Wii looks to easily over take the 360 in the not to distant so their success and worth is determined irrespective of their release dates.

I matters not to the average consumer how much MS lost on each xbox as long as hallo2 looked better than killzone for the same price.
______________