270°

Xbox 720: 343 Industries Working On 'Next Gen Halo Graphics'

NowGamer: Halo 5 could be headed to Microsoft's as-yet-unannounced next-gen console successor to the Xbox 360.

Read Full Story >>
nowgamer.com
Walker4237d ago

In this generation graphics at the Halo series was not impressive especially in technical standpoint . Im looking forward for next generation Halo .

Shaman4237d ago

Bungie Halos didn't look very impressive, Halo 4 does.

TheRealSpy4237d ago

Halo Reach looks pretty damn good.

skyward4237d ago

Reach looks nice, but Halo 4 at 720p is immense!

Crazyglues4237d ago

OMG! I would love to be a fly on the wall, just to see what that is looking like...

I mean this halo is looking amazing, so I can only imagine what X720 Halo is looking like... with all this developers saying nex gen could hit Avatar the movie graphics level, which is just crazy - but Wow

can you just picture what that Halo would look like, A Halo with Avatar Graphics -that would be so sick-

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney4237d ago (Edited 4236d ago )

@Shaman

After s http://www.youtube.com/watc... this

halo is not impressive.

Killzone 3 still best console shooter.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

I know disagrees.
I am only talking about graphics here.

Halo now looks like a current gen AAA game that is why halo fans are impressed.

As far as ps4 goes it might have better graphics since sony has some very impressive developers & programmers who squeeze out all the power & MS is more of a third party type of company for the most part. Ps4 only needs to be on par with 720 to look better in that case.

TheRealSpy4236d ago (Edited 4236d ago )

Like Crysis 3 will look 1/2 that good on console. lol.

Also, i don't find Killzone to be a visually impressive franchise at all. I think a lot of people just see what they want to see. Which is aided by Killzone's dramatically limited color palette.

I get so tired of hearing some Sonyheads spout on about how great they think their system and their developers are, and speculating about how PS4 will be the ultimate console because blah blah. It's not getting old...it's been old for years. And you don't get any added credibility just because you outnumber the rest of us gamers on n4g 10 to 1.

A Libertarian at the DNC isn't any less right just because he's surrounded by liberals.

Or lets put it another way. Get 4 cups of water. Fill one with ice cold water, one with room-temp water, and the last 2 with very hot water. Put one hand in the ice cold and one in the room-temp and leave them there for a few minutes. then move them both to the cups with hot water. the hand that was in the warm water won't feel the change in temperate nearly as much as the hand that was in the ice cold water.

in this analogy the PS2 is the ice cold water, the Xbox is the room-temp water, and the ps3 and 360 are the very hot water. Get it?

that change was more drastic, so you notice it more. Bungie's mistake was making Halo 2 look TOO good.

Blankman854236d ago Show
torchic4236d ago

@shutupandtakemymoney

cmon bro you didn't have to derail the comments like that, no need to bring up Killzone here :/

@therealspy

you're either blind or delusional if you really think Killzone 3 was not visually impressive.

Pushagree4236d ago

If Halo 3 was next gen, but looked just like halo 2, which was last gen, doesnt that mean that next gen halo will also look like halo 3, which was next gen but looked like last gen?

I'm confused.

Lvl_up_gamer4236d ago

If we are strictly talking about graphics, then I believe Bungie's Halo looked great...not brilliant but great. Reach is the best looking Halo thus far and it looks great. You have to remember we are not talking about art style here which is where a lot of people get "graphics" and "art style" mixed up.

Killzone 2 and 3 looked brilliant. Plain and simple. The colour pallet was that of a war torn world constructed of metal and rust. Simple as that. So what do you expect. Halo "generally" takes place on a Halo that has not EVER seen war...thus...it's going to have lush environments full of colour. Only makes sense.

However, as a side note, Halo is by far more open and vast. Killzone is extremely linear where most of the gameplay is through tight corridors and hallways. More resources are used to give Halo the vehicles and open world where as Killzone can utilize resources for other less complex gameplay resulting in an overall better "looking" game...not so much "graphically".

It's a pick your poison scenario. Gameplay or Graphics....

I prefer Gameplay. But that is just me.

ado9084236d ago

Lvl_up_gamer

Who's to say that killzone doesn't have as good of a gameplay as Halo? honestly preferences is opinionated and I wish some of you people stop spouting that a game has better gameplay just because of your preferences and spout it out as a fact. I found Killzone 2 to be one of the best FPS game this generation. They set the bar with killzone 2 but killed it with killzone 3. And if anything Killzone and Halo are nothing alike aside from the fact they're both FPS's so idk why you people must bring an exclusive game of an opposing console to an article that has nothing to do with it.

Graphically Killzone 2-3 are superior than any Halo game out and Halo 4. There is seriously no denying this and if you are then you must be delusional or something is wrong with you. As a gameplay perspective point of view I prefer Halo more because of it's multiplayer but from the story I dislike both. The campaign in killzone 2 is incredible but Killzone 3 made no sense and was just dumb. In my opinion I never cared for Halo's campaign and never cared for any characters Master chief, Miranda, cortana ECT... But it's the games multiplayer and forge that outshine most FPS's.

Lvl_up_gamer4236d ago (Edited 4236d ago )

@ ado908

"Who's to say that killzone doesn't have as good of a gameplay as Halo?"

About roughly 22 MILLION people. That is approx the difference in sales between the 2 franchises this gen.

I won't even bother with average meta scores from the industry.

If Killzone had great gameplay, people would not only have bought Killzone 2 but also Killzone 3.

Killzone is in the highest selling and most popular genre of this generation. What possible reason for low sales could there be if the franchise is on par with Halo on a gameplay standpoint? What are the excuses...

Marketing? - Overplayed excuse, yet I saw tons of KZ2 and KZ3 commercials let alone what was on the internet and word of mouth.

Competition? - Halo has the same competition as Killzone yet it still sells between 8-12 million.

Sony has more 1st party games to choose from? - Redundant argument, KZ is in the highest selling and most popular genre this gen. If people wanted LBP2 over KZ2, then that is simply because consumers didn't feel that KZ was worth their money and chose to go with a different 1st party IP.

Maybe to YOU KZ stands above the rest, but you are in a very very very small group of people that believe that. I am not saying your opinion is wrong, I am saying your opinion is not shared by the masses.

There really isn't any excuse other than the franchise is just not appealing as other titles that share the same genre.

It's VERY well known that many many people were turned off of KZ2 because of it's "heavy gun" feel input when shooting. Killzone 3 is also well known for stripping away some of the more popular muliplayer features that were in KZ2.

Lack of co-op. Limited game modes etc. I am not going to bash Killzone, it is what it is and I enjoyed KZ2 very much, however in your quick defensive ways to come to the aid of Killzone, you seem to ignore what makes Halo the franchise it is to sell approx 27 million copies this gen.

HappyTrigger4236d ago (Edited 4236d ago )

Why are people even comparing Halo and Killzone? Yeah sure they are in the same genre, but they have completely different gameplay mechanics and technical direction. Halo has always been known to render HUGE open spaces with lots of AI & vehicles.

The first level of Halo: Reach (Winter Contingency) is a prime example of open-world sandbox gameplay (You can actually choose your path and you can end the first part of the level in two different places). Couple that with 4 player split-screen AND online co-op. FORGE WORLD itself was a BIG technical undertaking for the Halo franchise. http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Killzone on the other hand relies on a more linear path where players are usually fighting in a small space. Killzone 2-3 do look absolutely beautiful, but shares nothing in common with Halo other than being in the same genre.

srcBFMVBMTH4236d ago (Edited 4236d ago )

@Lvl_up_gamer

Lol @ using sales to justify quality. Guess the Gran Turismo franchise absolutely curb stomps Halo considering it sold almost 20 million more units than the entire Halo franchise. And it's not even shooter. lol

"Marketing? - Overplayed excuse, yet I saw tons of KZ2 and KZ3 commercials let alone what was on the internet and word of mouth."

If you honestly think Killzone had even a FRACTION of Halo's marketing. Then that it just retarded.

"Competition? - Halo has the same competition as Killzone yet it still sells between 8-12 million."

and

"Sony has more 1st party games to choose from? - Redundant argument, KZ is in the highest selling and most popular genre this gen. If people wanted LBP2 over KZ2, then that is simply because consumers didn't feel that KZ was worth their money and chose to go with a different 1st party IP."

More like competition between it's own exclusives. I mean what games in 2009 did Halo 3 Odst have to compete against that were exclusive to 360. Forza 3 and Halo Wars? Wow, pretty obvious which game 360 owners would pick.

Now compare that to which Killzone 2 had to compete with in 2009. Uncharted 2, Infamous, Demon's Souls, and Ratchet & Clank: A Crack In Time.

You got a 60+ million user base (That mostly consists of shooter fans) choosing between 3 games. One a shooter, one a racer, and one a RTS. Compared to a 60+ million user base choosing between 5 games.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which between the 2 shooters will sell more.

Same exact thing with Killzone 3 in 2011. It had to compete with Uncharted 3, Infamous 2, Resistance 3, and LittleBigPlanet 2. Yet Gears of War 3 managed to outsell ALL OF THEM. But if you take a look at how better marketed Gears 3 was and it's competition. Which was basically only Forza 4. It's really no surprise.

I would bet my entire game collection. That if Killzone had the SAME EXACT AMOUNT OF MARKETING as Halo or Gears, and LESS COMPETITION BETWEEN IT'S OWN EXCLUSIVES such as Killzone vs. ONLY Ratchet & Clank, and LittleBigPlanet that year. It would be doing Halo and Gears numbers bro.

And don't even get me started about how crazy Halo 3 was marketed. LMAO.

Anyways, not saying Killzone is better than Halo. I'm aware of Halo's achievements and props to Microsoft for it.

But just the fact that you are trying to downplay marketing and competition, BOTH WHICH GREATLY AFFECT how well a shooter sells (Or any game for that matter) is pretty stupid IMO.

SixZeroFour4236d ago (Edited 4236d ago )

"More like competition between it's own exclusives. I mean what games in 2009 did Halo 3 Odst have to compete against that were exclusive to 360. Forza 3 and Halo Wars? Wow, pretty obvious which game 360 owners would pick.

Now compare that to which Killzone 2 had to compete with in 2009. Uncharted 2, Infamous, Demon's Souls, and Ratchet & Clank: A Crack In Time.

You got a 60+ million user base (That mostly consists of shooter fans) choosing between 3 games. One a shooter, one a racer, and one a RTS. Compared to a 60+ million user base choosing between 5 games.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which between the 2 shooters will sell more."

wait, why does one choice of a game depend on the exclusives released on the same year, rather than the games (both multiplat and exclusive) from the same genre?

in 2009, halo wouldnt have been going against forza or halo wars for sales, it would have been going against the latest CoD or whatever fps at that time...an FPS gamer isnt necessarily going to buy a racing game, but will consider buying a different fps game

same goes for killzone, regardless of the fact that there were many exclusives sold around the same time, an fps gamer isnt necessarily going to have to choose from among those choices to make his/her decision, a hardcore gamer would

why is it that you think exclusive games are only in competition with other exclusives? halo is in competition with EVERY 360 FPS game, both multiplat and exclusive, NOT every exlcusive game of every genre...same goes the same with killzone, its in competition with every game in the genre, not every exclusive from every genre

hated to feed this console war, but this part was just illogical

ado9084236d ago

Lvl_up_gamer

So this what you and the rest of the community resort to. Predicting a games enjoyment based on how much it sells. Super mario kart wii sold more than Halo and Killzone put together does that mean the games gameplay is better? My God the ignorant on this site. Saying sales means good gameplay is just as bad as using metacritic as your source.

Also did I not just say I prefer Halo over Killzone in my past comment? Then why are you trying so hard to pull out numbers to defend it to death? How is it that I'm exactly bashing it?

Also for your marketing and sale argument. HALO is MICROSOFT's ICONIC GAME! How do you expect Killzone to compete sale wise when the Halo gets advertised the way it does. When Halo, gears, and forza are the only major exclusive games being released on the 360 for the past couple of years and are pretty much the only focused series on the 360.

If we're talking about the same genre then it would mean COD is also better than Halo and killzone due to the fact the game sells more.....<--- this is your logic and I'm baffled people actually agree with what you said. I have both the 360 and Ps3 I can speak my mind out on these games because owning both gives me the right. XBL GT: Assassingamer36, and psn: Assassingamer136 check my achievments and trophies and it's funny cuz I own another 360 in my other living room.

srcBFMVBMTH4236d ago (Edited 4236d ago )

"wait, why does one choice of a game depend on the exclusives released on the same year, rather than the games (both multiplat and exclusive) from the same genre?

in 2009, halo wouldnt have been going against forza or halo wars for sales, it would have been going against the latest CoD or whatever fps at that time...an FPS gamer isnt necessarily going to buy a racing game, but will consider buying a different fps game

same goes for killzone, regardless of the fact that there were many exclusives sold around the same time, an fps gamer isnt necessarily going to have to choose from among those choices to make his/her decision, a hardcore gamer would

why is it that you think exclusive games are only in competition with other exclusives? halo is in competition with EVERY 360 FPS game, both multiplat and exclusive, NOT every exlcusive game of every genre...same goes the same with killzone, its in competition with every game in the genre, not every exclusive from every genre

hated to feed this console war, but this part was just illogical"

They are going against other exclusives, and multiplats as well.

Think of it like this.

A guy is on a budget, and only has enough to buy one exclusive. Either Halo 3 Odst, or Forza 4. Which one will he most likely choose?

I'm not talking about multiplats right now though. If I did, it would be

A guy with only a 360 has to choose between

Halo 3 Odst
Forza 4
Halo Wars
Some Muliplats

Another guy with only a PS3 has to choose between

Killzone 2
Uncharted 2
Infamous
Demon's Souls
Ratchet & Clank: A Crack In Time
Some Multiplats

Like I said, it's obvious between the 2 groups which will sell better. The one with not as much competition with other exclusives and better marketing. Hence why Halo 3 Odst, will sell better than Killzone 2.

andibandit4236d ago (Edited 4236d ago )

@srcBFMVBMTH

You owe me your game collection, i've played both and will admit KZ looks good, but thats where the comparison ends. In Halo theres often a billion ways to play a map where as in killzone......you are like sheep in a pen...being led to the slaughter and all you do is Ooo'ing and AAaa'ing at how beautiful it looks.

So it isn't hard to choose, want a game where you can gung-ho it on normal difficulty, and on higher difficulties have to plan your attack(what weapons,vehicles, from what side, and who to take out first) OR...do you want to be in the sheep pen being led to your slaughtering

Obviously people choose Halo

srcBFMVBMTH4236d ago (Edited 4236d ago )

@andibandit

"You owe me your game collection, i've played both and will admit KZ looks good, but thats where the comparison ends."

Nice try kid but not really. lol. Think of it this way, if Microsoft created Killzone the same way Sony did, but marketed it the same as they did Halo. Pushing millions and millions of dollars on it for ad campains that could've been used for ACTUAL VIDEO GAMES. It would be doing Halo numbers. There is no denying it. Call of Duty is crap but it sells well because people are being constantly bombarded with ads. You can't really compare quality from sales either. Lol. If that would be the case. Then like I said, Gran Turismo franchise would curb stomp the Halo franchise, despite it not being a shooter.

"In Halo theres often a billion ways to play a map where as in killzone......you are like sheep in a pen...being led to the slaughter and all you do is Ooo'ing and AAaa'ing at how beautiful it looks. So it isn't hard to choose, want a game where you can gung-ho it on normal difficulty, and on higher difficulties have to plan your attack(what weapons,vehicles, from what side, and who to take out first) OR...do you want to be in the sheep pen being led to your slaughtering"

It's really how you play and enjoy the game really. The gameplay is completely different so you can't really compare them. Killzone has that weighted gun hefty Battlefield feel and Halo has that fast paced twitchy Call of Duty feel. (Yes I've played both). As for graphics and atmosphere. Again, it's what you prefer. If you want dark, gritty, and war torn. Killzone hands down. If you want colorful, fruity, and fun. It's Halo hands down.

Kurt Russell4236d ago

Everyone seems to be talking about Killzone? Personally I don't give a rats arse about your opinions on Killzone... I came here for Halo 4 so GTFO.

Kennytaur4236d ago

Halo 2 looked good on the old Xbox. I still remembering being in awe over the shiny textures.

Getowned4236d ago

Killzone isn't even that great >_< ... there I said it(the original was).. I'm a mostly ps3 and PC gamer but Halo is better in every way. Killzone needs to be retired imo, anyone who dosen't think so is a huge sony fanboy or is really really crazily obsessive over KZ which wouldn't even make it in my top 10 shooters this gen. GG games has talent but they need to move on and make a new IP and work on developing better gameplay. How can you even compare Halo and KZ.

Halo 4 looks great, I hope it turns out well I may have to steal my buddys xbox for a weekend :P (waiting for 720 see no point in buying a 360 this late in the game)

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 4236d ago
ALLWRONG4237d ago

"In this generation graphics at the Halo series was not impressive"

Halo 4 is one of the best looking console games to date.

MightyPatapon4236d ago (Edited 4236d ago )

Yes, Halo 4 is one of the best-looking Xbox 360 games.

But there's certain other console that has an exclusive first-person shooter franchise on it that looks exponentially more beautiful than any Halo 4.

Studio-YaMi4236d ago

"Halo 4 is one of the best looking console games to date."

uhh..no it's not!

Walker4236d ago

It has been released? or you are Nostradamus ?

ado9084236d ago

Ahhh so that's why you have that as your display name

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4236d ago
dogoodmatters4236d ago

Halo games are made with more realistic atmospheres so I can see a GPU update benefiting the game. Not a bad thing either.

avengers19784236d ago

who in there right mind didn't think Halo would be coming to the nextbox... seriously it will probably be the first game for it, maybe even bundled with it.

spicelicka4236d ago

Wait, did u say technical standpoint? I think halo games are the MOST impressive from a technical standpoint.

If you're talking about just the visual graphics then ok, but technically i haven't seen many FPS games that come close, handling so many enemies and vehicles on screen in large open landscapes.

solid_si4236d ago

Halo Reach looked 10x better than BF3 on consoles, that game looks nasy. Even COD looked better on my 50inch led samsung 3dtv.

KRUSSIDULL4236d ago

Graphics isnt just about looks. Also Halo Reach is one if not the most impresive game ever to appear on any console.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4236d ago
nchizimbi4237d ago

Obviously, game companies have their Research and Development teams working on current and future technologies.

GearSkiN4236d ago

They may have better graphics but will it have a better art design than halo 4? Guess we'll find out right.

wane4236d ago

Halo is more about open area not tight corridor scripted gameplay, also

tehpees34236d ago

I wonder how long it will be before it shows up. I'm guessing 2014.

marcmjm4236d ago

2013 should be reserved for several more seasons of Spartan Ops content in H4, with 2014 leaving room for Halo 2 Anniversary, and finally Halo 5 in 2015. That gives them 3 more years to work on the next Halo title! It just makes so much sense. I wouldn't mind waiting until then so long as they keep the content going for Halo 4 and release an anniversary edition for Halo 2. Who hasn't asked for that anyways?

Show all comments (71)
280°

Xbox's Preservation Step Sets A Much-Needed Example, Especially For Nintendo

Hanzla from eXputer inquires: "If Xbox can care about preserving its games and legacy, what exactly is wrong with Nintendo, trying to kill game preservation single-handedly?"

purple1015d ago

Ahh yes the good old game preservation of saving all your games to a removable hhd on the Xbox 360, taking it round your mates house, setting up multiple tvs to
Be met with “save data corrupted, please re download”

Or how about removing 360 games
From the store
, download them now or else, and, better hope to god that save data doesn’t corrupt, or it’s lost for ever

Nice one ☝️

Zeref4d ago

It's better than what Nintendo and Playstation is doing. It might not be perfect but at least they are TRYING. Unlike the others.

DarXyde4d ago

Trying? Take off the blinders for a moment, mate.

1. A failure to preserve games is just that: a failure to preserve games. Don't try to sugarcoat it: NO ONE is doing it properly. Better than awful is nothing to write home about.

2. At the time of this comment, isn't it the case that you need an internet connection to play Xbox games even if you buy physical discs that are hardly in circulation anymore? I don't have a Series X and I can't verify, but I think that is correct. I'm fairly certain you can at least play PS5 games at version 1.0 (not much of a win really when many games require day one patches). I think Microsoft's all digital, licensing approach is by far more aggressive than anyone else's. They really try to push you to game pass where you lose your entire library by umm.... Skipping a month of payments.

I don't think anyone is doing it right whatsoever. Don't get me started on Nintendo, who goes after anyone looking to preserve their games better than they ever would with extreme litigation.

Don't be a simp for any of these companies. Get it together.

PhillyDonJawn4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

@DarX never speak on Xbox again. You lost all credibility with your internet connection comment. Smh you have 0 clue and misinformed yet speaking on something you don't no squat about.

Einhander19724d ago

What has Sony done exactly? You guys keep deflecting to Sony but I am not actually seeing any results, and ai am certain nothing that you can come up with even comes close to what Microsoft has done and what they have tried and failed to do, like tie all your disks to your account on xbone.

Microsoft removed their whole indie section when they moved to the xbone because they were going to only allow games on the service that came from a publisher, id@xbox started after xbone launched and it only exists because Sony embraced indie and Microsoft was forced to cancel their plans and reverse course.

And every single game that was part of games for windows live including disk games (I have gta 4 on disk that won't work) so hundreds of games that use that DRM no longer work unless the company themselves patched it out which of course very few did.

MrBaskerville4d ago

Not trying. Tried. they killed of the backcomp program years ago. They set something up again, but sounds like it's more of an attempt to save the current library on whatever they are planning next. With luck they save everything and more, but let's see. I could see them killing off parts of the OG xbox and 360 libraries. Can't imagine that they would allow us to play Forza 5-7 in the future.

With that said, I do like what they've done and really wish they could have done more.

shinoff21834d ago

Zeref

So killing off physical media is trying what exactly. Ms don't really give a fk if you think they do your kidding yourself.

Profchaos4d ago

They are not trying this team is established for forward compatability the team is. It interested in preserving Xbox or 360 games.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4d ago
isarai5d ago

Is that why Hellblade 2 is digital only?

Zeref4d ago

Just because it's digital only doesn't mean you can't preserve it. Just put it on an external and you have the exact same functionality of what a disc does.

MrNinosan4d ago

Guess you're trolling, but if you actually think that's how it works, I'd recommend buying some braincells.

mkis0074d ago (Edited 4d ago )

Volitile vs nonvolitile data. A disc will not corrupt either. A drive can be corrupted.

Einhander19725d ago

This is just a scammy PR move to distract from the fact they are going digital only and trying to push streaming and subscriptions only.

No gaming company has pushed harder to remove ownership than Microsoft.

Without discs there is no preservation, preservation can't be done by the rights holders it can only be done by the consumers, anything else is a lie.

5d ago Replies(3)
Einhander19725d ago

Anyone remember xblig which Microsoft removed their whole 360 indie section removing hundreds of games from people?

5d ago
5d ago
Zeref4d ago

Do you know you can put your games on an external and preserve them that way? There are no benefits to discs. ZERO. Idk why some of you are still obsessed with them.

DarXyde4d ago

Because games like Persona 5 exist. It's STILL V1.00. On Playstation, that's a win because 1.00 is installed on the disc—no need to download anything.

If a game does not require any updates, it's all on the disc.

Extremely low bar in the modern era, of course. It's not much of a win by any stretch.

But for now, physical media does have a purpose, at least on Playstation.

Einhander19724d ago

That is factually not how game licensing works, try plugging your hard drive into someone else xbox, It's not going to work, and it won't work if the licensing servers ever go down.

Einhander19724d ago

Anyone remember games for windows live.

I have around a dozen games, some on Steam itself that will not work because Microsoft shut off the licensing servers.

BehindTheRows4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

I do. I STILL have games (Gears of War being the big one) I cannot access because Games for Windows LIVE is total garbage and no one has held Microsoft accountable.

Zeref4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

You don't have an Xbox apparently. Because you can 100 percent plug in your external and play games from it on any Xbox console lol. You just have to be logged in to prove ownership.

Chevalier4d ago

"You don't have an Xbox apparently. Because you can 100 percent plug in your external and play games from it on any Xbox console lol. You just have to be logged in to prove ownership."

Damn how many times do people got to explain your idiocy to you? You can take a copy of Persona 5 like someone used as an example and play that game on ANY console WITHOUT logging in which means I can lend the game to a friend without internet and they can play my game. Can you lend your hard drive to anyone without logging in for them to play? NOPE. That is a huge difference and if you think otherwise then sorry you're an idiot.

Tacoboto4d ago

"No gaming company has pushed harder to remove ownership than Microsoft."

Ubisoft is literally erasing games people bought from their libraries... My PS1-3 discs are useless on modern hardware. Nintendo's re-published and resold almost their entire Wii U library, and the eShop is completely dead with no BC mechanism in the Switch software. Microsoft publishes everything they make today day one on Steam and Xbox/Windows. Sony only brings to PC the titles they think you might want some years later and Nintendo won't even design a functional long-lasting joystick.

You're absolutely trolling and not serious if you think Microsoft today is the worst offender.

shinoff21834d ago

Yay steam

Not everyone fks with computers though. The disc is still the best way as a console player. Period.

Tacoboto4d ago

How do Sony and Nintendo feel about these discs from 2001-2013?

Don't be stupid, you know Xbox is the best at this today.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4d ago
Hofstaderman4d ago

Nobody wants this. Sales or the lack of it in the case of XBOX is very telling. I wonder how the adorably all digital series X will fare. Adorably dismal perhaps?

crazyCoconuts4d ago

Only time will tell, but for from someone like me suspecting that Xbox is trying to gracefully exit the console market, that "forward compatibility" team is trying to get Xbox games playing on Windows PCs. I mean, it's nice that they're not planning on exiting with a "enjoy your games while the hardware still works" message, so that's nice. They still have a brand to protect via Microsoft so probably feel obligated to have a better exit strategy.

Xeofate4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

That is not their plan, their plan is to transfer users accounts to the cloud.

Phil Spencer himself said as much a few months back, plans could have changed but I think people are reading way too much into one statement where Phil said he would allow Epic on xbox because he wants to be able to sell xbox games directly on other platforms. Aka, instead of selling Sea of Thives through PSN he wants to have an xbox store to sell his games on PlayStation without giving PlayStation any money.

Again, it's extremely unlikely that Phil plans to put PC on xbox and licensing would prevent them from just giving out other publishers games purchased on xbox copies of thier games on PC, Microsoft does not own their games.

crazyCoconuts3d ago

The thing that doesn't align with the cloud strategy is the giving up on exclusives. You'd still need strong exclusives for cloud streaming - it's still a "platform" , just with a lower upfront hardware investment. I feel like they've learned what PS learned with PSNow long ago. We're not ready to stream games and it's only gonna lose them money to try at this point

FinalFantasyFanatic4d ago

I would love that, I'd buy up some of the Xbox games if they could run on PC, like the Rare Replay, Lost Odyssey and Dead or Alive Ultimate, probably a pipe dream though.

Show all comments (43)
370°

Could Xbox Soon Become The Next Dreamcast?

Microsoft's future in the video game space is murky right now, so let's break it all down.

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
ApocalypseShadow17d ago (Edited 17d ago )

Not anytime soon. But they're on that path.

One thing not mentioned in the article is Microsoft's money bags. If Sega had Microsoft's money, they would have still been around as a hardware manufacturer. Xbox as a platform only survives because of the money bags. They can continue making consoles for the core and port to PC.

The multiplatform strategy is only the result of arrogance and misguided leadership that blew up in their face. They thought gamers would jump on Xbox in droves if they knew that many of their favorite games would be only on Xbox. But that's not happening at all. Sales didn't increase. They decreased. Why? Because the dumb asses thought giving away these expensively made games in a cheap service would also turn the tide.

Gamers on other platforms are willing to buy quality. They don't need to be handed nearly free games in a service that aren't even finished and sometimes average in their development. Gamers buy Nintendo games. They buy Sony games. Microsoft groomed their base to not buy games. Even the quality ones. It has always been their plan to go digital. But most gamers still like single player gaming. Still like physical releases.

Microsoft's problem has always been that they don't produce high quality games at the same output as Nintendo and Sony. Actually, they should be producing quite a lot more because they're worth over 2 TRILLION. How they don't have more is ridiculous and no excuse. Buying publishers to take away from competition only backfired. Because it still takes millions of dollars to continue to make those games from the publishers they snatched. Their only choice was to crawl back to their competitors to help sustain those developers because Nintendo and Sony platforms were the ones buying games.

Am I sorry for Microsoft? Hell no! They deserved last place for putting in the least effort. They deserved the fallout for buying up the industry and didn't make a single blip on the radar against their competitors where they now need those same gamers they took away games from to support them. Part of it may have been to cash in on their competition. But the result is the slow death of their platform. They may go 3rd party. They may keep making hardware. I don't give a shit about them to worry about it. I only give a shit about the destructive nature of their industry moves that only negatively affect gamers. They could sell and drop out of the industry and I wouldn't blink. Probably laugh. But not blink. They deserve whatever comes to them. At least Sega put in the effort when it came to games. They just had poor leadership. Microsoft has poor leadership and barely makes memorable games. That's a killer combination. And not in a good way.

Cacabunga17d ago

That would be an insult to Dreamcast.. it had a crazy line up of legendary critically acclaimed games.

Crows9017d ago

I was thinking the same. Dreamcast had incredible games in such a short amount of time. It was truly exceptional.

darthv7216d ago

...and yet all those great games were not enough to sway people from the looming release of the PS2 at the time. Sony just has that kind of brand loyalty.

Cacabunga16d ago

Darth

I do not agree.. Sony had even better games thanks to an unprecedented 3rd party support..
DC had amazing lineup but 90% were arcade games..

88316d ago

@darth:
And Sony showed off "The Emotion Engine" and their real time demos that made everyone think they would miss out on REAL next gen 128bit magic if they jumped in before PS2s polygon pushing monster (and early lack of anti-aliasing with a healthy heap of shimmer + DVD playback) stepped up. PS2 was a fantastic system though with amazing games.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 16d ago
blacktiger17d ago

That's not true. Just because Microsoft has the money doesn't mean Microsoft can allow xbox to bleed entire Microsoft money. It doesn't work like they. Also SEC will be watching and investor won't allow it. Lot of reasons why Microsoft can not continue even if they wanted to. SEC regulations is expensive.

fr0sty17d ago (Edited 17d ago )

Exactly this... Microsoft is a publicly traded company, mostly owned by their shareholders (Approximately 59.24% of the company's stock is owned by Institutional Investors, 7.73% is owned by Insiders and 33.03% is owned by Public Companies and Individual Investors.). Their shareholders call the shots on the business decisions, and their shareholders want one thing and one thing only, for their stock price to go up. Losses do not make stock prices go up... so if the division continually posts losses on hardware, but shows profits on software and services (which has been the case with Xbox its entire lifespan, for over 20 years now), the shareholders are going to grow impatient and demand they stop making hardware and focus on the only thing that has ever made them money, software and services.

When Microsoft bought Blizzard and Activision for almost 100 billion, I knew that was the nail in the coffin for Xbox as a console... as the shareholders were going to expect a quick return on that investment, and when it didn't materialize, they were going to be out for blood... out to force Xbox to sell those games on as many consoles as possible, "and while you're at it, sell those first party exclusives that aren't selling well on other consoles as well... hell, just stop making consoles and sell games."

If there is another Xbox console generation, it will definitely be the last, but I doubt there even will be one at this point. I think the Xbox division planning on it just in case, but I don't think the project has been greenlit from Microsoft itself. The rumors that they have not yet even secured the chips needed from the chip fabrication facilities ties into this.

shinoff218317d ago

While I usually agree with you . Alot of what was said can just also be asked before any of that.

How long will the shareholders wait? It doesn't appear long at all

Babadook716d ago

I think I get your point. Like just because MS has money does not mean they are content to throw it away on a dying ecosystem. Xbox has to be profitable or “what’s the point?”

ifinitygamer16d ago

Money bags, yes, but are we ignoring that Xbox actually makes a profit on games and GamePass? Hardware is often a loss leader, and they're probably making profit 4 years into the life cycle, but games and services revenue have been very profitable while other parts of Microsoft's business is struggling. Say what you will about the quality of those games, of course, but this is kind of a reverse Dreamcast situation, where the console was dragging down the company and put it at risk of shuttering entirely. Killing that console saved the business and allowed it to continue to make games on multiple platforms. In this case, the service is very profitable, as are the games, and they're also double-dipping into Multiplatform to extend this further, while their hardware is just sort of what they believe to be the best for gamers and their own titles (whether that is the case or not...)

fr0sty16d ago (Edited 16d ago )

The issue is, they aren't selling enough hardware to make their exclusives profitable, and now that they've bought half the gaming publisher/dev industry, they have no choice but to go third party to make a profit... and that is making their shareholders take a real close look at their hardware division under the microscope... why keep making the hardware if the software is all that is making them money, and they continually, generation after generation come in dead last with hardware sales?

Look at a game like Spiderman 2... if it had been an Xbox exclusive, with the amount it cost to develop, it would have been a huge failure... simply not enough consoles out there to sell it on. They would have been lucky to break even.

ifinitygamer16d ago

@fr0sty agreed completely, which is why they're hedging by releasing other games to multiplatform, plus they have PC to make up for the difference in a lot of ways, which is why their games are not complete money pits. It brings up the question of whether or not those exclusives would drive sales of consoles, though. Let's say Spiderman 2 was an Xbox exclusive, it would certainly have pushed console sales, though who's to say how much is anyone's guess.

fr0sty16d ago

That's why you can't rely on just one exclusive, Sony has always delivered on a wide range of solid exclusives, even this generation (even if they haven't been strong on the first party exclusives, they've made up for it with third party). They don't rely on just one "system seller", they have a portfolio of them.

16d ago
JBlaze22616d ago

ApocalypseShadow To be honest Sony has more of a chance to go 3rd party because like you said Microsoft has money, Sony does not. Sony does not have games, Only games they have come from 3rd party. Sony has been losing money for years and you. Saying Microsoft has been putting the least effort just proves you have no idea what's been going on. All Sony has done is repeat and recycle, never innovating or doing something new. All Sony has is brand loyalty nothing else and it shows.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 16d ago
LG_Fox_Brazil17d ago

Not sure about that. It's been two decades and I still think about Power Stone, Shenmue, Crazy Taxi, Jet Set Radio, Seaman and others, but I'm not sure I'll remember Xbox Series X/S games in a few years from now... Maybe I'll remember about the franchises that the Xbox brand spawned, but I don't believe that the Xbox Series lives up to the late Dreamcast or even to the Xbox name itself. I do have great memories about the 360 with Blue Dragon, Gears 2 and Lost Odyssey though

isarai17d ago

Nah, sega actually makes good games

Becuzisaid17d ago

No, Dreamcast was ahead of it's time and most still have very fond memories of it that had one. It also had some good games on it even in it's short lifespan. Xbox has none of these qualities.

Profchaos17d ago

I remember it coming out at the time in a really bad place they hit the market before the PS2 but it was during this transitional time when Sony was promoting the power of the PS2 and so many of the Dreamcast games were awesome but often third parties simply ported the PS1 version increased resolution and performance but rarely fully utilise the capabilities of the console.

I think in the end bad marketing done it in and like the GameCube so many people are fond of it now but at the time it was looked at in the lense of the day and it didn't stack up.

Personally I miss Sega in hardware they took risks that many companies won't

Becuzisaid17d ago

I never owned it, and got the PS2 right when it launched. But there were certain games it had that I was always jealous of that I didn't have access to - Sonic adventure, crazy taxi, power Stone, code Veronica, shenmue, skies of Arcadia. I always thought it was a really cool machine though. I've never heard a bad thing about it though from those that had it.

FinalFantasyFanatic16d ago

I only ever saw one Dreamcast, and that was one my friend owned, pity I never got to play it, I wonder what games he had for it?

It would be nice if some of those games got ported to modern systems.

Profchaos17d ago

Oh man sonic adventure on the Dreamcast made me so jealous as a huge sonic fan on the mega drive who also moved to PlayStation 2 I never got the chance to play it back in the day either. The Dreamcast in Australia where I am was always relegated to the smallest corner of EB Games it was kind of a strong first indicator that things were not going well at the time.

Show all comments (72)
80°

Microsoft Rewards app on Xbox and weekly streaks to be killed off soon

Microsoft has announced the Microsoft Rewards app on Xbox will be discontinued in April and has confirmed that weekly streaks will also be coming to an end.

Read Full Story >>
trueachievements.com