So apparently Microsoft investors are pressuring them to drop Xbox, E&D division

[DJLegacy2k1]

Wow, now who sounds like a fanboy lol. Some of the most incredible exaggerations I've seen.

Both 360 and PS3 games are well documented to have instances of lag, a quick google or youtube search will prove that.

However, here's what dedicated servers can do-

First one is beta footage-



-game supports 32 players


-game supports 32 players


-game supports 60 players


-game supports 256 players

Name one 360 game that does any of the above, not to mention for free. Read some game forums, reviews, etc. before regurgitating the absurd lag comments. Any second of lag experienced in the above games is pretty insignificant considering 360 games apparently aren't even capable of any of that in the first place.

Yeah they may not be as popular as MW2 but I guess the fratboy, media-slave mentality of most gamers these days clouds their judgement of what a high quality game is.

If I couldnt get through a full 20 person game on Ps3 why would I even want to attempt 250+? I'm sure I can go find complaints about all types of issues with those games due to the size of them but I dont really care enough to do so. I cant even imagine what a cluster fuck dealing with that many people in a game is, and ign only barely gave it a "7" rating, sounds GREAT!

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

If I couldnt get through a full 20 person game on Ps3 why would I even want to attempt 250+? I'm sure I can go find complaints about all types of issues with those games due to the size of them but I dont really care enough to do so. I cant even imagine what a cluster fuck dealing with that many people in a game is, and ign only barely gave it a "7" rating, sounds GREAT!

Yeah it's a wonder any PS3 multiplayer games are even on youtube given that it's so impossible to stay connected! And the point with MAG was, it works. Even the shitty reviews admit it's a technical achievement. Though again, very strange since PS3 games can't even keep an online connection!

Not every game is designed to be noob friendly and for people who need something ZOMG!! happening every 10 seconds.

 

[redsamurai]

One of the dude's I'm working with right now is a big PS3 fanboy and we're gonna game it up here in a few days when we have a day off.......so I'm going to get my first full gaming dose of the PS3. Unfortunately he doesn't have Killzone anymore cause he said it sucked and he hated it....and he's a big FPS dude. When I asked him why he didn't at least keep it for multiplayer even if the single player sucked, he said the online sucked. I'll ask him to elaborate but I assumed he was talking about the quality of the online play.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

One of the dude's I'm working with right now is a big PS3 fanboy and we're gonna game it up here in a few days when we have a day off.......so I'm going to get my first full gaming dose of the PS3. Unfortunately he doesn't have Killzone anymore cause he said it sucked and he hated it....and he's a big FPS dude. When I asked him why he didn't at least keep it for multiplayer even if the single player sucked, he said the online sucked. I'll ask him to elaborate but I assumed he was talking about the quality of the online play.

You know what the biggest complaint has been about Killzone 2's gameplay? That it doesn't play like MW2 or Halo 3. It's more tactical than run and gun, plus it doesn't rely on auto aim in MP which for me is a big plus. Imo it's the first shooter since Black that doesn't feel like every other shooter out there. Gunplay, sound, environments, action, etc. all make more "popular" shooters feel paper thin in their design. I suppose because it's different it falls into a "love it" or "hate it" category. Of course it naturally drew a lot of haters out too because of all the hype and controversy etc.
Basically though, if Sega made it, chances are you'd probably dig it Red

btw, what games does this fanboy have?

 

[redsamurai]

So it plays more like rainbow six or ghost recon? That's actually a plus to me as I prefer those kinds of shooters. To me the half life games still had the best balance of both plus an awesome story that reeled you in like a fish. Tis why it's still my favorite shooter series.

Fanboy has all the fighting games....so I've been promised an assraping in street fighter and tekken. He's got the new UFC game coming in and I know how to play that but I haven't let on yet, that'll be my ace. I beleive he's also got some racing games.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

So it plays more like rainbow six or ghost recon? That's actually a plus to me as I prefer those kinds of shooters. To me the half life games still had the best balance of both plus an awesome story that reeled you in like a fish. Tis why it's still my favorite shooter series.

Fanboy has all the fighting games....so I've been promised an assraping in street fighter and tekken. He's got the new UFC game coming in and I know how to play that but I haven't let on yet, that'll be my ace. I beleive he's also got some racing games.

Single player is like Rainbow Six in terms of the cover mechanic, but I think the difference is in KZ2 you stay in first person the whole time. Multiplayer unfortunately doesn't use the cover mechanic though and is more action/objective oriented.

Yeah I haven't played any of those modern fighters. I'm still throwing down in MK2 online ahh what a blast from the past.

You won't find any real difference in those games from the 360 versions, other than the DS3's Dpad perhaps being easier to pull stuff off with in fighters. The recent PS3 exclusives are all that really separate it a bit from the 360.

 

[calveless wonder]

Of course investors want that. They're only concerned about the immediate or not so distant bottom line.

It won't happen though. Why? Because microsoft's presence in the video game industry transcends profitability. Would they like it to be? Sure, but the goal of Microsoft was to expand beyond PC O/S and software development and become even a larger conglomerate than it is. They're shooting for a Proctor and Gamble type approach, which is obviously wildly successful. And aside from that, they've already invested way too much to just shut it down now. It's not a sinking ship. It takes many, many years to become a force in the ultra competitive gaming industry.

What people don't realize is that brand recognition is a huge part of a company's image, and more importantly their brand value. Companies are largely valued based on how big their brand recognition is. P&L and operational profitability doesn't necessarily dictate that in itself. The investors scope of things is very narrow and they're more concerned about dividends and quarterly reports.
Microsoft has a much bigger plan in mind that will take 5-10 years to fully see fruition (assuming it's executed as planned), and shareholders really don't care about that


case in point? Amazon.com

how much money did amazon spend for years while constantly being in the red ? Look at what they've achieved now. The value of the name "amazon.com" alone is worth billions and billions.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Of course investors want that. They're only concerned about the immediate or not so distant bottom line.

It won't happen though. Why? Because microsoft's presence in the video game industry transcends profitability. Would they like it to be? Sure, but the goal of Microsoft was to expand beyond PC O/S and software development and become even a larger conglomerate than it is. They're shooting for a Proctor and Gamble type approach, which is obviously wildly successful. And aside from that, they've already invested way too much to just shut it down now. It's not a sinking ship. It takes many, many years to become a force in the ultra competitive gaming industry.

What people don't realize is that brand recognition is a huge part of a company's image, and more importantly their brand value. Companies are largely valued based on how big their brand recognition is. P&L and operational profitability doesn't necessarily dictate that in itself. The investors scope of things is very narrow and they're more concerned about dividends and quarterly reports.
Microsoft has a much bigger plan in mind that will take 5-10 years to fully see fruition (assuming it's executed as planned), and shareholders really don't care about that


case in point? Amazon.com

how much money did amazon spend for years while constantly being in the red ? Look at what they've achieved now. The value of the name "amazon.com" alone is worth billions and billions.

True. I read a while back though that Microsoft was thinking of scrapping the very name "Xbox" to go with something else. Very strange to think they'd do something like that after spending so much trying to build a brand. I'll have to watch their press conference from today to see what went down.

 

[billfred]

yeah that model works with shitty flash games that any 1st year entry level software eng. student can design for. THat isn't going to work if they get into the multimillion dollar design cost per game console industry. They will suck ass just as hard as microsoft and sony do because they do not intrinsicaly understand gamers. An apple entry into the video game market will be so nauseatingly bland and marketed to such a diverse segment that it won't do anything right.....only half ass lots of things, just like their products now save the ipod's.

What you don't get is game consols are not making any money. Sony lost over $1 billion on their last playstation in 1 yr. Nintendo is the only one that made any money and that is falling fast. MSFT never made a dime.

Aapl is already in the game market without doing anything. Kids are playing Angry Birds or Doodle Jump at school on their phones. Games they bought for $1.99 that Aapl kept 30% of without lifting a finger.

 

[redsamurai]

What you don't get is game consols are not making any money. Sony lost over $1 billion on their last playstation in 1 yr. Nintendo is the only one that made any money and that is falling fast. MSFT never made a dime.

Aapl is already in the game market without doing anything. Kids are playing Angry Birds or Doodle Jump at school on their phones. Games they bought for $1.99 that Aapl kept 30% of without lifting a finger.

the console is losing money but are the software companies? We all know why they lose on teh consoles....but well received games are still making their due. My point was that if apple thinks it can crash the console market with their i-somthing or other business model, they will fail. Which is why I"m not sure they'll even try unless both microsoft AND sony fail. And even then they'd probably try and buy a company like Sega and focus strictly on hardware.