PDA

View Full Version : Luscasarts favoring X-box over PSII



Darth Albeehotep
25 May 2004, 05:00 PM
I myself have had a Playstation II since they came out but lately it seems all the really cool star wars games are only coming out on X-box and i find it trully anoying!!! Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong.short of buying an X-box i'am open to suggestions ?:lukejedi: :sabersml:

Kordeth
25 May 2004, 05:17 PM
Well, the XBox is a superior system, so it's not surprising the SW games come out mainly for XBox. Most of them still come out for the PC, though, as well--and aren't the Rogue Squadron games on Gamecube?

Darth Albeehotep
25 May 2004, 05:22 PM
Not to start and arguement in what way is it a better system?
Graphis look the same to me.
price So So. PS!! is cheeper but only lately they were the same price
games are the same except luscas arts seems to favor X-box
so i really don't know
just confussed
you woulde figure they would want their products to reach all clients
:? :? :lukejedi: :sabersml:

Darth_Cassed
25 May 2004, 08:52 PM
Darth Albeehotep, think of it this way: Xbox is very close to a PC. To get a game on both PC and XBox is a simple transfer. To get a game on Gamecube or PS2 and any other system takes more work and money. In order to get games in PC, it's just simpler to also make them for Xbox and increase the audience for cheaper.

Consider that XBox has the hard drive and XBox Live. Sure, PS2 offers this thing, but it's harder for PS2 users to get those things.

And if you're going to compare them side-by-side by what they have, Xbox is cheaper. Otherwise they are the same price.

Snowtiger
26 May 2004, 02:43 AM
It's a good thing that XBox has the HD, otherwise I'd be up to my ears in Memory cards, because Morrowind saves take a lot of blocks(the one game I'm in farthest is running on 150 blocks now and it tends to get bloated every time I save) and I'm not even sure you can save them on a memory card...

Thus XBox is cheaper and easier on the wallet, as you don't have to buy all the memory cards for your saves and don't have to worry about on which of them the save was. and I think that the Graphics are a lot better than in any PS2 game I've seen, and sounds too Dolby Digital 5.1 cannot be beaten that easily.

Kordeth
26 May 2004, 11:58 AM
As Snowtiger said, the graphics and sound on XBox are definitely superior--when used properly. Sure, there are a lot of ugly games made by fly-by-night publishers for both consoles, but the XBox's hardware is just, plain and simple, superior. That's not an opinion, it's simple fact--look at the consoles' technical specs.

There are a lot of great games for both consoles, and there are a lot of games on PS2 that push the hardware to the limits and look better than a lot of mediocre XBox games--Gran Turismo 3 springs immediately to mind--but developers like LucasArts generally produce high-quality games that have a lot of cool features that require major hardware power--and that's just what the XBox provides. If the PS3 has superior hardware to the XBox Next, I'm sure you'll see a swingback to PS3 development.

And to answer your original question, no, it's not wrong. LucasArts has no obligation to develop games for every single console to keep every single gamer happy. Unless you're rich enough to buy every game console on the market, there will always be a really cool game that's only coming out for that console you don't have--that's been the way it is since the first home video game consoles came out. It's not like LucasArts is deliberately trying to screw over PS2 owners, any more than Square is trying to screw over XBox owners by not putting out Final Fantasy games on the XBox.

Darth Albeehotep
26 May 2004, 02:54 PM
When I originaly posted this thread i knew it would cause a lot of thinking and discusion with all consol gamers but this is my opinion NOT TO CAUSE ANY ARGUMENTS. I wanted info, as for Luscas arts screwing anybody i never thought that but i thought it was wrong to withhold a game for one game system and not release it for the other. a It was called to my attention that square soft did this as well with Final Fantasy, i ALSO agree that this is wrong as well. I was under the impression that these corperations wanted profits and releasing games for all game systems Would incress them.:lukejedi: :sabersml: :sabersml:

Jedi_Staailis
26 May 2004, 03:15 PM
I was under the impression that these corperations wanted profits and releasing games for all game systems Would incress them
Yes and no. Hardware manufacturers are generally interested in having, high profile, successful games on their system exclusively, because some people will buy a system just to play that game. Additionally, people who are now buying a system will often make the choice based on which system has a stronger lineup of games. As a result, manufacturers of game systems will often try to contract game companies to release for their system exclusively.

The other factor is development time versus profitability. It's similiar to the situation with Macs. Yes, games will sell when ported to Macs, but often it's decided that the return is not worth the cost of converting the game to the other system. Although it's not a perfect comparison, the same thing happens with consoles.

Talonne Hauk
26 May 2004, 03:25 PM
I think it should be mentioned that Microsoft is an American company. Not that I think Lucas himself really cares - he films in Britain or Australia - but perhaps some of his execs do. Also, it's a lot easier to go to Seattle from Northern California, as opposed to going to Tokyo.

Nova Spice
26 May 2004, 03:51 PM
I think it should be mentioned that Microsoft is an American company. Not that I think Lucas himself really cares - he films in Britain or Australia - but perhaps some of his execs do. Also, it's a lot easier to go to Seattle from Northern California, as opposed to going to Tokyo.

I think Talonne makes a well thought out point. The X-box console seems to be far easier for adapting games. That, coupled with its location (inside the contiguous US) makes dealing with MicroSoft execs, far more easier than dealing with Sony execs.

And in my own personal opinion, I find people generally are far more enthused about the X-box system than PS2. I realize that this is certainly not the case for everyone. However, in my general area, the X-box is by and large the king of console gaming.

Kordeth
26 May 2004, 03:58 PM
How is it "wrong," exactly? There are a lot of compelling businessreasons to release console-exclusive games, and those have already been covered. If PS2 and XBox were made byh the same company, I can see how you might think that they're trying to force you to buy multiple systems to play the games you want to play (like the OCR/RCR debate that raged on about WotC's update of the RPG), but the two manufacturers are in competition--naturally they each want to encourage people to buy their console, and having games based on a major license like Star Wars is a great way to do that. Neither LucasArts or Sony has any obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise, to provide games for everybody. Yeah, it sucks not having the console that has a lot the new Star Wars games (though there are several older games for PS2, and the new Battlefronts online shooter is coming to PS2), and it's not your fault for picking the wrong system, since as you say, you've had a PS2 since it came out, but them's the breaks.

Developing a video game takes a lot of time and money. Porting a game to another console is nowhere near as simple as just reprogramming the control scheme for a new controller--the actual coding is extremely different between XBox and PS2, and that's not even taking into account the art assets that may have to be re-created (lower-res textures or character models, different shader setups, and the like). In a lot of cases, that's just not profitable--video game players aren't like hardcore movie fans who will buy six different DVD versions of their favorite movie--most will only buy the game for their favorite console. There's a definite law of diminishing returns on the porting of video games from one console to another.

Darth Albeehotep
26 May 2004, 04:04 PM
I think the only way to be happy is to get an X-box and keep my PSII and cover all bases Kordeth and Nova Spice i think your opinion is very logical and insiteful and helped me come to this decision and thanks everyone
:sabersml: :lukejedi:

Darth_Cassed
26 May 2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Darth Albeehotep
this is my opinion NOT TO CAUSE ANY ARGUMENTS.

I remind you Darth Albeehotep that we are not having any arguments. In fact, I think many level-headed PS2 and XBox gamers alike can agree on some of the facts presented here. It's the straight truth, and you are not sparking a console war.

I believe this to be a very valuable and calm discussion about Xbox and Lucasarts here, and I think all of us saw some things we never thought of before.

Darth Albeehotep
26 May 2004, 04:19 PM
Darth Cassed you hit the nail on the head there i really enjoyed this discussion and had many things pointed out to me and truly came to my decision to puschase an X-box to compliment my PSII to enjoy both and have fun
Thank you all for you info and input
:D :D :D :D :lukejedi: :sabersml: :sabersml:

Fingon
27 May 2004, 02:52 PM
For why he's' putting the games on the Xbox, I'd say its altogeather a superior system, both graphically and processing-wise-ly..(?). Anyhoo, it also is newer, more novel, and has better publicity. Also, I'd say its controller is a lot better for shoot-em-up games.

And Darth_Cassed, that is an excellent point.

FangoJett
30 May 2004, 12:52 PM
The reason Lucas Arts is favoring Xbox over PS2, is because Xbox is way better...its as simple as that...:plokoon: plo koon rules

Sithspawn
30 May 2004, 02:18 PM
Well I bought a PS2 mainly for the WWE Wrestling games. I only own 4 games as I don't do much gaming. Now I'd like to play KOTOR. My PC is having all sorts of problems running the game. which is why I have always hated PC games. I would swap my PS2 for an X-Box, but have you played the X-Box wrestling games? Man they are bad compaired to the PS2. I can't afford to own 2 consoles, so I guess I won't be buying many SW games.



The reason Lucas Arts is favoring Xbox over PS2, is because Xbox is way better...its as simple as that.
Just because the console is better doesn't make the games better. I've still got plenty of Commodore 64 games that are better than anything I've ever seen on any modern console.

Treefrog
1 June 2004, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Darth Albeehotep
It was called to my attention that square soft did this as well with Final Fantasy

Actually, the reason why Squaresoft went with PS over Nintendo, is that Nintendo was still fixated on cartridge-based games, while Squaresoft foresaw that CD-based games were the future for their company. Heck, when Nintendo approached Sony about doing the PS, it was originally an add-on for the SNES. Nintendo decided to continue with cartridge-based games, and Sony proceeded with the PS. Only recently has Squaresoft reconciled with Nintendo. (Maybe it had to do with flagging sales of the N64, and DVD-capable consoles).

I have both a PS2, and an XBox. I personally think that the XBox is a superior system over the PS2. I mainly use it for playing old PS1 games than anything else. Not to mention that XBox gets a lot of the cool games, and the PS2 is starting to get the leftovers.

BTW, is the Gamecube even still around?!? (just kidding!)

Treefrog
1 June 2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Sithspawn
Just because the console is better doesn't make the games better. I've still got plenty of Commodore 64 games that are better than anything I've ever seen on any modern console.

In this case, the system does make the games better. I used to have a Commodore VIC-20. I didn't have another computer till I got my first PC, in August 2000. I don't consider the VIC-20 a PC at all. It was kind of like the Atari Jaguar, a flash-in-the-pan.