Xbox 360 hands-on preview
posted October 11th 2005 1:35PM
Ok, technically I was just one of many journalists at yesterday's press preview event, but I did get a chance to spend a couple of hours with the Xbox 360. I wasn't exactly blown away with every title I saw, but overall I walked away impressed. We'll have a full review of the 360 once we get the review unit they've promised us, but for now a few quick initial impressions:
-
The event started off with a lengthy tutorial to show off the ins and outs of the console, particularly Xbox Live and its media capabilities. The integration with Xbox Live is excellent and permeates the entire experience � unlike with the original Xbox, it�s hard to imagine using the console without a broadband connection.
-
They also had iPod nanos on hand to demo the 360�s ability to play audio stored on a portable audio device (it can actually play MP3s or WMAs stored on any USB mass storage device), and how you could listen to whatever music you liked during gameplay.
-
The controller itself felt good in the hand and that button in the middle brings you straight to Xbox Live. You can jump instantly in and out of Xbox Live from any game without messing things if you want to check your messages.
-
The graphics and textures of Condemned were amazing, and Need For Speed Most Wanted was one of the most photorealistic games I�ve ever seen. Project Gotham Racing 3 was pretty sweet, too, the level of detail in each city was mind-blowing.
-
Somehow managed to repeatedly kick Major Nelson�s ass at Dead or Alive 4 (the game�s graphics were a bit too glossy for my taste).
-
Couldn�t get past practice mode in NBA Live 06 because of a bug in the build (we were playing on dev units), but it seems like they�ve managed to eliminate much of the herky-jerkiness in previous generation basketball games.
-
Kameo was a bit disappointing (supposedly it gets better once you�re in deep). Call For Duty 2 was engrossing, but like Dead or Alive 4, it also seemed like it could use a bit more texture.
-
The Xbox 360 doubles as Windows Media Center Extender and the demo I saw ran flawlessly, it was as if a copy of Windows XP Media Center Edition was running natively. They showed the Xbox streaming high def video off of a PC and it was perfect.
-
They also showed off Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Perfect Dark Zero, and King Kong, all of which I wouldn�t mind spending more time with.
Yeah, so the PS3 will probably have the edge over the Xbox 360 in graphics and sheer computational power, but after actually playing some of these games it�s hard to imagine all but the most diehard Sony fanboys holding out for the 5 - 7 months that�ll pass before Sony introduces their console. And at the end of the day that�s what Microsoft is after � to grab as much of the market before Sony enters the scene. Hate to say it, but as of November 22nd the Xbox 360 is going to be only game in town.
Xbox 360 may eventually crash and burn, heres why.
The Games are running off of a DVD format, which only holds so much memory. Memory is needed to store textures, graphics, sound, pretty much everything. 36o is a powerfull system, but it isnt truly next gen because the storage medium for the games isnt next Gen. It really is just an xbox 1.5. You can really only do so much with the DVD format, xbox has already done it, xbox 360 will make it look nicer, but this isnt the next gen.
Sony's Blu Ray technology holds five times more information on disc, up to 50GB. Thats bigger then most peoples hard drives. The games have the possibility to be truly massive and innovative. Once the developers learn the technology the exclusive titles will completly destroy those on the xbox 360.
The amount of texture that you can store on the blu ray as opposed to the dvd, will see that the PS3 titles will be a ten times better the those of the 360
I really do believe that microsoft knows what their doing. They are planning to dominate the Gaming Market, and the 360 is the second step in their conquest. I feel that they will be probably introduce a new system, within the next two years and make the 360 a side option to gamers. Like the Ipod Nano is to the regular Ipod. Just remember that it can happen. Apple puts out a new $400 ipod each year, what makes you think that microsoft wont do the same thing.
People love to make the statement that these are the following reasons why Sony dominated:
1) Release Date
2) Game Titles
3) Fan Loyalty
4) Compatibility
Here's the LowDown:
1) Release Date:
Nintendo Entertainment System was released AFTER Sega Master System. NES dominated.
Super Nintendo debuted AFTER Sega Genesis. SNES dominated.
Genesis AND SNES were released BEFORE Turbo GraphX 16, Panasonic 3D0 and Jaguar, all of which were more powerful. SNES and Genesis outsold all three of them.
PlayStation One was released an entire generation before Dreamcast (a 32-bit system up against our current generation 128-bit systems)...Sony dominated. The more powerful N64 was released thereafter....Sony kept its dominance.
And finally PS2 was released before Xbox and GameCube....Sony again dominated. The point? NEVER in the history of video games has the release date of any system ever correlated with its failure or its success. Hence the Neo-Geo...the Guiness Book of World Record's longest running video game system in history (1991 to 2004).
2) Game Titles.
No. Actually, game developers. Sony simply (like Nintendo over Sega) had more developers making games for them. Sony has more crappy games than Microsoft and Sony also has more hot games than Microsoft. Sony also has more niche/underground titles, imports, rehashes and new-age games than Microsoft. Why? Because more developers make games for Sony than Microsoft. Although I own and adore my PlayStation products till the grave, I'll be the first to admit: With Xbox's superior processing power, had they obtained all the 3rd party support or more support than Sony did....the Namco's, Capcoms and Square-Enix's of the world.....they would have dominated.
3) Fan Loyalty: Please see my closing thought.
4) Compatibility: The DVD Player gave the PS2 minimal leverage when it was released. How so? The general consumer purchases electronics (or any product for that matter) based on his or her market. Gamers buy video game systems to play games. Movie-goers purchase DVD players/recorders to watch movies. Your mom, uncle, or dad, is probably a bigger player and buyer in the market for a DVD. Were moms and dads buying themselves PS2's cuz they wanted to play DVD's? No. They were buying DVD players to watch DVD's because thats what DVD players do. Were gamers buying PS2's to play DVD's? No. They bought PS2's to play games b/c thats what a PS2 does. Case in point, if the PS2's DVD player gave it so much leverage, then it would have been the highest selling DVD player of all time...and only used to watch movies, never games. Today, it is the opposite. More PEOPLE....watch DVD's on their PC's and television DVD players than they do on their PS2. What do people do with their PS2's? What it was meant for. Playing video games.
Final Thought: You see oofRome, there are these things called consumers. Consumers buy what we like to call, products. When does a consumer not buy a product? When he or she does not like the product.We can give all these facts and figures about system dominance, but the basic foundation of global markets no matter what the product is, will always remain constant. People buy what they want and like.
Microsoft in 4 years sold 20 million units. In 5 years (yes 5, as Sony released the PS2 a year early) sold 90 million units. THUS, mathematically, the release date can in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM be a factor of its success as opposed to the general public's liking towards the PS2. Why? Because Sony averaged out more EACH YEAR (about under 25 million systems/yr)than what Microsoft was able to accomplish the ENTIRE TIME the Xbox has been out! Loyal fans u say? People only buy what works. Thats why companies make........products.
In conclusion: If you like GameCube games, u will own one. If u like PS2 games u will own one. If you like Xbox games, u will own one. It all boils down to preference. It JUST so happens that 90 million people across the globe enjoyed more PS2's than any other console....and whether u hate P. Diddy or not....kudo's to him for being a rich man. The same goes for Sony.
Thank You.
some of your stuff made sense (fluid786)
people do buy games consoles to play dvds WHEN they find an advantage.
i dont think any normal consumers would be stupid enough to buy a dvd player which would cost 2-3 times more than a ps2 (back then).
you can see this for blu ray in the future.
the game developer thing. your right ps2 does have more bogus and more great games than others. but theres a reason why people want to develope for ps2, i blieve the user interface is the main reason.
out of all controllers, the x, triange, circle square format is the easiest to pick up and play. there is clear proof, how many copies of this have you seen on the pc?
I agree don_sf. The DVD feature was there and thus, somewhat increased the value of the PS2 (as a gaming system)during a time when the DVD market was on somewhat of a rise.
As far as Blu-Ray goes, I feel as though Sony can win out from a lesser to a greater degree on that issue:
1) A minimum of 25gb of data is needed to record 2hrs of HD video on an optical disc. Xbox 360 runs on standard 4.7 to 8.5gb DVDs leaving developers limited room to implement HD standards (HD cutscenes, cinematics, gameplay output, etc.) in their games. Obviously Blu-Ray holds that advantage from 25 to an already prototyped 200gb amount of storage. 360 has no HD-DVD support either.
2) As of last week or so, a total of 160+ members (this includes applicants who support other competing format(s)) have joined the Blu-Ray Disc Association. Netflix, MGM, Disney etc etc. The HD-DVD forum only has about 63 members, over half of which belong to the Blu-Ray Association as well. Thus, Sony has the backing and support (which provides a wide array of opportunities such as 3rd party funding and development of disk-media and players, pc connectivity, etc, thus making it cheaper for the consumer) for a successful Blu-Ray launch.
3) BD-R players allow for all optical disk formats to be read including DVDs. The only one it doesnt support (for obvious reasons) are HD-DVDs. This speaks for itself as it allows for the general consumer, as they become more familiarized with Blu-Ray over time, to never feel as though their existing optical disk media is ever obsolete.
4) Lastly,...yes it is true. No matter how tasty it looks, this is a risk for Sony. But let's say it doesnt work out. Let's just assume that the general public does not answer to Blu-Ray very well, and they opt for DVDs (as they are used to them) and HD-DVD's when buying movies and blank media. At worst, Sony will still have the largest disk format available for their PS3 games. Blu-Rays may never sell movies, blanks, or PC media.....but just like the GD-Rom for DreamCast and the Mini-Disc for GameCube (I know, both failures), the PS3 will at least have the Blu-Ray option for developers to open up unlimited possibilities.
PS2 games started out on CD and moved up to DVD. Worst case scenario, the same thing happens with the PS3: Games start out on DVDs and move up to Blu Ray. Its possible, considering the PS3 (like all other Blu-Ray players) allows for both formats.
All in all, i think that they'll fare out better than that though.
-Fluid638-
i played call of duty.. nice graphs and sound. i like 360 so and have not encounter the "minor technical cliches" yet... but i'll wait and see how it plays out... it will take some time to test and figure out how much i should and will like the 360.
for all u ppl who think the killzone ps3 trailer was real read dis http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9051
u cant compare both because u havent seen real footage of the ps3. im buyin da 360 because its cheaper and its a good system.
OK OK OK, PS3 is not a good choice, and here is 5 reasons why:
1) PS3 has the hardest architecture to program for, and NO development tools (does it even support DirectX or OpenGL, not sure). It costs more and takes longer to develop for than the 360 (and depending on their money, it will be hard to achieve 360 level graphics).
2) CELL was not built for gaming at all. OH OH and for all the people who think PS3 will be better at physics, BULLCRAP! Only very very low level physics and AI can be used on the SPEs (no branch prediction), and it must be done on the PPE (which is pretty low level compared to the 360's 3). People also think that it will have higher res textures and larger draw distances, but that is impossible because of the god awful system bandwidth (and blu-ray's data transfer rate is unknown, but even if it WAS 54Mbps, that still have minimal effect). You would either have to have large draw distances and crappy textures, or great textures and crappy draw distances. But one thing CELL IS good at is calculating alot of polygons, that is good for games with alot of characters on screen. BUT, CELL is quite a bit more expensive then Xenon, so is it worth the cost?
3) RSX is inferior to the 360 GPU, mostly because of the unified shaders, but not in the way you think. It takes less time to get a intense graphics heavy application running on Xenos than on RSX. Then when I say this, people say "Oh but CELL can calculate DOOM 3 level graphics JUST on CELL!!!", but what about when you are running everything else at once?? And besides, that would take longer and cost more to combine the two chips, the results would not be worth it IMHO (more shaders, higher polys, instead of better physics, better AI ect). I remember reading somewhere that RSX is more expensive, but not positive where (try doing a Google search).
4) Blu-Ray is so expensive, and what is worth it? Less repetetive textures, more HD cutscenes, larger game worlds (probobly not though), less compressed sounds, ect. Not that big of a deal at all, SURE the 360 might have some problems, but ArsTechnica had an article about a patent by Microsoft about procedural synthesis and dynamic worlds, and if this was carried out, it would make disc space a non-issue. Whether or not this is used at all, it is still an option for devs.
5) COST COST COST!!!! Think about it, how could you make PS3 even remotely similar to the 360 pricewise??? Think about it, SD card slots, loads of USB slots, memory stick slots, tons of high speed ethernet ports, 2 HDMI ports (awesome, imagine 720p x 2 or 1080p x 1?? that would be awesome but I doubt the hardware could do that easily), a normal AV port, bluetooth, built in wireless (probobly expensive), CELL, RSX, Blu-Ray drive (one that can recognize practically every format in existence, that can't be cheap), expensive XDR RAM... Practically everything about this system screams "EXPENSIVE", and what do you get for all of your money that makes it so much better than a 360?? I predict the PS3 will be over $600. If they sold it today, it would cost near $1000, and since they are selling it in Japan in March (I am guessing the US would get it in Q4 2006 or Q1-Q2 2007), I cannot see how they could cut costs so easily without losing their life's savings to it.
My Conclusion is, PS3 and 360 will be like the difference between RE4 on the gamecube and ps2, but would you be willing to give up alot for it (not just talking about expenses)? The choice is yours, but I feel the 360 is a better buy. Yup I got an xbox 360, waited 14 hours for it and don't regret a single moment of it! OMFG oblivion is going to be awesome!!