March 2nd...Mircosoft unveals it's new HANDHELD device..

M

MegaDrive20XX

Segatron Genesis... call me the wizard.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_ent...pic_id=24365883

Dubbed .....The Mircosoft "Origami"

It's even seen playing HALO...
 
Same here...good ol' GAMESPIT.com :)

http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=24365883

Try this
 
Im all for competition in the handheld market but they need to stop trying to target the iPod crowd. If you're going to do that then it should be a dedicated MP3/Video player without the games. They should try to keep it strictly for games and create a portable xbox live type of handheld. In my opinion that would destroy the PSP and give the DS a very good run for it's money.
 
Just got a quick news report from a local 4 o clock news channel..

They claim it combines the blackberry, ipod, and Xbox into one...and even more...
 
Ghouls N Ghosts said:
Just got a quick news report from a local 4 o clock news channel..

They claim it combines the blackberry, ipod, and Xbox into one...and even more...
Click to expand...

No point in adding blackberry when it's future is up in the air. They really need to stick to just games and online connectivity. Keep the prices as low as possible and provide a great variety of games.
 
I was waiting for this bomb to be dropped, can't say I'm suprised now that is has been...

However, I am dissapointed. With the way Nintendo treated handheld to console connectivity, I fear the worst now that all three companies are joining both markets. What I fear specifically is that console games will require, in some way, to connect to it's handheld counterpart to get the "full" experience. This is something I have absolutely no tolerance for. With the price of the next gen consoles being what they are, and with the price of handhelds also on the rise (due to their multiple functions) and with the price of actual games going up, I hope that connectivity is not in the mind of developers. I do not want to have to buy a $500 system, plus a $350 handheld, plus a $70 game (all Canadian prices) just to get my money's worth out of that $70 game. Part of the reason I was drawn to the Xbox during the last generation was because they seemed to be focusing solely on their console, and making that experience the best they could. Now that they're coming out with a handheld, I can't help but feel their console will not be getting as much attention as it deserves.

And just on a personal sidenote, is all this competition a good thing? I mean really, the console industry for the first time, in the generation that has just passed, managed to support three big name competitiors, something that simply was not possible a generation ago. Is there really enough room for another big name handheld competitor too? Microsoft better have something up their sleeve, because with the handheld market becoming even more crowded, it's not gonna be easy to break into. Likewise Nintendo better have something up their sleeves, because their long time cash cow of the handheld market is coming under direct fire.
 
stealth toilet said:
I was waiting for this bomb to be dropped, can't say I'm suprised now that is has been...

However, I am dissapointed. With the way Nintendo treated handheld to console connectivity, I fear the worst now that all three companies are joining both markets. What I fear specifically is that console games will require, in some way, to connect to it's handheld counterpart to get the "full" experience. This is something I have absolutely no tolerance for. With the price of the next gen consoles being what they are, and with the price of handhelds also on the rise (due to their multiple functions) and with the price of actual games going up, I hope that connectivity is not in the mind of developers. I do not want to have to buy a $500 system, plus a $350 handheld, plus a $70 game (all Canadian prices) just to get my money's worth out of that $70 game. Part of the reason I was drawn to the Xbox during the last generation was because they seemed to be focusing solely on their console, and making that experience the best they could. Now that they're coming out with a handheld, I can't help but feel their console will not be getting as much attention as it deserves.

And just on a personal sidenote, is all this competition a good thing? I mean really, the console industry for the first time, in the generation that has just passed, managed to support three big name competitiors, something that simply was not possible a generation ago. Is there really enough room for another big name handheld competitor too? Microsoft better have something up their sleeve, because with the handheld market becoming even more crowded, it's not gonna be easy to break into. Likewise Nintendo better have something up their sleeves, because their long time cash cow of the handheld market is coming under direct fire.
Click to expand...

Well I dont think Nintendo has much to worry about since it is their main cash cow. The PSP tried but hasn't been able to beat the DS. This just gives more confidence to them. Competition is always good. Like I said before in the Revolution topic, it's not only a way to learn what works but also to learn what doesn't. I hope MS has learned what makes the DS and PSP successful. As long as it focuses on games then it will do fine. It should not try to do everything and raise the price. I dont think MS or Sony will force you to connect to your console. Sure Nintendo did it but how successful was it? I hope they realize it doesnt work.
 
Pricing's gonna play a major role in this war as well. The PSP was what...$250??? That's way too much for a handheld in my opinion. With all these additions, it looks like Microsoft's going to hit that price limit, and maybe higher. :hh
 
Competition is always good.
Click to expand...

You darned right wing capitalists! :lol

I disagree, to an extent with that. If every company is trying to diversify themselves from the other by offering additional features or by fulfilling different gaming philosophies, then they won't really be competing with each other, and everything becomes so diversified it makes it harder for the consumer to choose which handheld will best suite them, especially if each has it's appeal in it's own way.
 
stealth toilet said:
You darned right wing capitalists! :lol

I disagree, to an extent with that. If every company is trying to diversify themselves from the other by offering additional features or by fulfilling different gaming philosophies, then they won't really be competing with each other, and everything becomes so diversified it makes it harder for the consumer to choose which handheld will best suite them, especially if each has it's appeal in it's own way.
Click to expand...

And I have to disagree with that to a point. It will only be harder for the uninformed consumer. If you dont research and you buy a product you dont like then you can only blame yourself. What's the difference between choosing from three consoles or three handhelds? It's definitly better than a monopoly. I dont just want one company to run the whole show. I like choices.
 
These obviously stem from different political views, but my understanding is this...

Right now in the console biz people basically choose between Nintendo 1st party games, Sony's wide game selection, and Microsoft's Xbox Live setup. If all of these companies were to amalgamate and "monopolize" the gaming industry then they could make one console that had great first party titles, excellent third party support, and great online capabilities. Would that happen? Probably not, but as far as the handheld market goes, if too many companies start going in too many directions then the consumer will end up having to give up a lot in order to get some of what they want.
 
stealth toilet said:
These obviously stem from different political views, but my understanding is this...

Right now in the console biz people basically choose between Nintendo 1st party games, Sony's wide game selection, and Microsoft's Xbox Live setup. If all of these companies were to amalgamate and "monopolize" the gaming industry then they could make one console that had great first party titles, excellent third party support, and great online capabilities. Would that happen? Probably not, but as far as the handheld market goes, if too many companies start going in too many directions then the consumer will end up having to give up a lot in order to get some of what they want.
Click to expand...

And what would they give up? If something isn't a good purchase then they wont buy it. The company learns from that and so does the competition. Although It would be nice to have that one great system it's just won't produce enough advancement in video games. Companies will be reluctant to push the envelope since they dont have anybody to compete with. I mean if Sony decided not to enter the console race we might not have been blessed with some of the great games and franchises that made their debut on their system. Same goes for MS, would we have Halo and XBL? Companies trying to outdo each other is what pushes innovation. It's gone on since the first Atari system till today. As far as handhelds go, if someone goes into a direction that people dont like then it's going to fail. It goes away and companies learn from it.
 
And what would they give up?
Click to expand...

If you choose a DS you have to give up great graphics. You also have to give up the ability to listen to MP3's, watch movies, etc. etc.

If you choose a PSP you're missing out on some of the best handheld games that are currently out there.

If you choose a Microsoft whatever-it-is then you'll be missing out on what the DS offers, and maybe even some things the PSP offers as well.

Although It would be nice to have that one great system it's just won't produce enough advancement in video games.
Click to expand...

But that's based off of the idea that people's only motivation to create is for money. The fact that there are great freelance programmers who create amazingly simple and fun games, and then post them on the internet for free, is proof enough that innovation is not directly related to monetary incentive. Could not a monopolistic company provide great games and content simply because they take pride in their work and desire to create the best experience possible? Wouldn't the combined minds of Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft be able to advance more quickly working together than divided up? Did Atari create the games they did because they had nothing but dollar signs going through their head? Or did they focus on creating something fun, and then put that on the market with the confidence that people would want to buy fun?

Sure competitive markets spur on innovation, but sometimes companies get so caught up in competing they forget about the customer. And when companies spend more and more on innovating and staying competitive, it's the customer who ends up picking up the tab, and paying more for the company's product.
 
stealth toilet said:
If you choose a DS you have to give up great graphics. You also have to give up the ability to listen to MP3's, watch movies, etc. etc.

If you choose a PSP you're missing out on some of the best handheld games that are currently out there.

If you choose a Microsoft whatever-it-is then you'll be missing out on what the DS offers, and maybe even some things the PSP offers as well.

But that's based off of the idea that people's only motivation to create is for money. The fact that there are great freelance programmers who create amazingly simple and fun games, and then post them on the internet for free, is proof enough that innovation is not directly related to monetary incentive. Could not a monopolistic company provide great games and content simply because they take pride in their work and desire to create the best experience possible? Wouldn't the combined minds of Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft be able to advance more quickly working together than divided up? Did Atari create the games they did because they had nothing but dollar signs going through their head? Or did they focus on creating something fun, and then put that on the market with the confidence that people would want to buy fun?

Sure competitive markets spur on innovation, but sometimes companies get so caught up in competing they forget about the customer. And when companies spend more and more on innovating and staying competitive, it's the customer who ends up picking up the tab, and paying more for the company's product.
Click to expand...

Your comparisons are good but you dont give up great graphics if you choose the DS, sure you dont get the best, but they're not close to crappy either. The DS is the most well rounded handheld with good graphics and great games. That's why it's ahead in sales. You dont really give up much when you choose the DS especially your hard earned money.

There will always be those people or companies who will always do it for the love of video games, but let's face it. Money helps bigger companies innovate more because of the money they earn. Otherwise why bother trying to make new consoles every five years? I wish that they wouldn't and try to push the limit of every single system. I wish it was all for the love of video games, but why do you think MS joined the console wars? Yes they do work hard to give the consumers the best possible experience but they do that because it's profitable, come one now. This is Biil Gates, it's no surprise he wants everyone to use his products. Most programmers who do their work for free still rely on donations and other actual paying jobs. It's not like they only make games and not make any money at all. Money is what gives the freedom to do what they love for free.

Money is always the root of it. It's hard to create something without money. It takes money to make money. How do programmers get their program? Do they go to school to learn their skill? Im sure they create for free so that eventually they can be hired by a big name corporation or make their own company. Personally money isn't everything, but I do want enough to be comfortable and be able to do the things I love to do, and programmers need money in order to continue to do what they do.
 
stealth toilet said:
If you choose a DS you have to give up great graphics. You also have to give up the ability to listen to MP3's, watch movies, etc. etc.

If you choose a PSP you're missing out on some of the best handheld games that are currently out there.

If you choose a Microsoft whatever-it-is then you'll be missing out on what the DS offers, and maybe even some things the PSP offers as well.
Click to expand...

But I think the key word there is "choose." Every consumer has the choice to pick what they want. Some will even choose to get all systems so they don't miss out. It is expensive but ultimately it's up to each individual person to decide what they want. They are not forced either way to get something they don't want.

I would rather make the mistake of getting something and not liking it than getting something because I have no other choice. Like EA buying out the NFL rights....people used to have an option; they could get Madden or they could buy the 2K sports. And now the option is not there. I don't think that's very fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top