What do you guys think about the list of games that were shown at Gamestock? Man, I'm a bit surprised that there weren't more Xbox titles and that they all appear to be so ordinary. I'm also disappointed that a PC version of Halo won't appear for quite some time after the Xbox version is done.

I don't think Microsoft hit a homerun with this show.

I think you're right. I just got the press release, and I saw a bunch of stuff on there that was announced a year ago...

If that's all they have, this thing is DOA. No way those games excite me or long-time console gamers. I don't think they'll excite much of anyone.

That football game looks absolutely atrocious compared to Madden and NFL2K1. Not to mention the fact that NFL2K2 is completely reworked for 2002 on Dreamcast and Madden will likely see a lot of improvement. Once again, Oddworld just doesn't have it. It's a franchise in search of an audience.

--Dave

Well, so far it's pretty underwhelming. A trio of 3rd-person action adventures, a football game, a snowboarding game, and Halo. Looks like a pretty conservative first-party lineup.

One thing I find surprising is that Microsoft doesn't seem to be supporting the console with its OWN big-name license products. Where's Mechwarrior?

I've heard they're working on a Mechwarrior game for Xbox. I think what we're seeing is a console system that is launching before it really should, at least as far as launch games go. I guess they really do have to have it out this year to keep Sony from getting too big of a lead, but it looks like the launch is going to be a bit rushed.

Bungie's never had a huge selling game. Microsoft's really betting a lot on Halo, a game that's primarily been marketed to PC gamers until now.

I'd bet that there will be a few more games at launch, but they really need a system seller like Mario 64, and they don't seem to have one.

I'm also disappointed that Microsoft seems to have so few new PC games in the works. Most of those on the list we knew about.

The lack of an Ensemble game makes me wonder if they're going with a new publisher for their next game? AOE2 came out 18 months ago, didn't it? They have to be pretty far into development of their next RTS game, which I know is using a new 3D engine they've developed.

Also, nothing from Brian Reynolds and Big Huge Games? MS bought into that last September. Not even a title? Last year we at least heard the name Sigma bandied about from Alex Garden.

~Andrew

Actually, I thought the snowboarding game, the driving game from the makers of MSR on Dreamcast (apparently really good), and that Nightcaster game show a lot of promise.

I'll say this: some of the screenshots out there are the exact same ones as from xbox.com, only somehow they totally made them look like crap. Look at xbox.com for decent screens.

The football game, man, I dunno. The play models look very nice (better than Madden PS2 I feel), but the rest of the game seems so...hollow...somehow.

I really need to see more of these games in motion, that's for sure. The little 5-second videos of dubious quality floating around just don't tell me much. And a lot of those games really depend on how they feel for what makes 'em good or not.

Halo looks nice as always. I think it's easily as much of a system seller as PS2 had, or Dreamcast for that matter. We'll have to see how MS markets it in the four months prior to the console's release.

>Bungie's never had a huge selling game.

How much of that is due to them self-publishing them all, I wonder?

>Once again, Oddworld just doesn't have it. It's a franchise in search of an audience.

Funny, when it was a PS2 game all the PS2 fans were ooohing and aahing over it.

Am I the only one who's noticed that everyone is complaining how all the Xbox games look like the kind of normal games everyone's always done before - but at the same time they complain that Munch's Odyssee is too different? "And where the hell is my Metal Gear?" Could we please make our our minds?

I'm a little underwhelmed by the Xbox offerings from gamestock myself. Granted, nobody has Xbox hardware yet and these games all have 5-6 months to go before hitting QA in time for launch. Also granted, none of those games look any worse than any screenshot from a PS2 game shown half a year before it was launched (think October '99).

I'm curious to see what 3rd parties have cooked up - Gamestock is for MS-published games only, so we're obviously not seeing everything in the oven.

It's also a rather small sampling for first-party games. From 24 firt-party published developers NOT INCLUDING studios that Microsoft owns like Digital Anvil and Bungine, they showed 9 games, two of which we've seen before.

They keep saying they're keeping a lid on the games that are going to really change things, and we'll see those when they start talking about those ideas and features and whatnot. I certainly hope so.

I'm buying one anyway, because I generally buy every console. For me, the cost of entry is almost always worth it - there's almost always enough great games I can only play with that system (over a few years) to warrant my $300. But really, let's see something a little more "wow."

I had forgotten about Brian Reynolds. Maybe they'll show something at E3.

It's true that there wasn't really a system seller for the PS2 launch, although Madden was close to being one. The difference is that the PS2 had an open field, more or less. I don't think anyone besides Sega really thought the Dreamcast had a chance. The Xbox may launch and sell a million units its first week. The problem is that may not be enough to close much ground on Sony, which might have 10 million+ installed systems by then.

Yeah, but Sega had Soul Calibur and NFL2K. Those two games broke the mold back then. Sega made it really hard for anyone to top that within a two year timespan. Soul Calibur is STILL cited as reason enough to own a Dremacast and I'd imagine a lot of people paid $99 for one just to play that one game. Those titles were WAY ahead of anything anyone had seen at the time even on the PC and for certain on consoles. Sega's huge launch and quick shot to a million consoles was largely due to these two games and Sonic Adventure.

I think it's a sad reflection on the developers Microsoft has making first party games that Project Gotham (the racer from Bizarre Creations) which definitely looks like a 4 week hack job of MSR on the Dreamcast (note the city, that's the same art and models) is one of the best looking games of the titles they showed and also one of the most promising.

I just don't think you can look at those visuals they showed and read about those games and set them next to the type of things Capcom, Sega, Nintendo and Konami produce and think they have a chance. The Virtua Fighter 4 movie alone was reason enough to make me want a PS2 when that comes out. If you haven't seen that yet, take a look. Somewhere this movie is all in one piece, but I can't for the life of me remember where I got it... Virtua Fighter 4

Did any of you catch the article in NextGen about 4 issues ago which laid out all the developers that were first party for each console maker? Sega and Nintendo easily had the cream of the crop and Sony had one or two to crow about, but Microsoft was extremely weak. These first games prove that article was right on in its assessment of the talent at these developers. It was clear from that listing where the real talent was and Microsoft was not the place.

--Dave

"Yeah, but Sega had Soul Calibur and NFL2K."

Yeah, those were two great games. Sega had a terrific launch. Was the Sonic game available at launch also?

I still don't really understand why the DC didn't make it. Well, I guess the formula that calls for a company to lose money on the sale of every console is pretty brutal. Kind of makes you wonder if three publishers see enough game sales to sustain a business model like that.

I thought gamestock basically sucked. Especailly for the Xbox related stuff. Man I went from very interested to virtually not interested. Yes Halo and the Abe game looked nice. The rest looked the same

FYI Zoo tycoon was under development for Hasbro under the Microprose brand. It was one of the games infogrames decided to not carry over. Im very interested in the game though.

I think it may have been a mistake for Microsoft to make Gamestock an event of importance for the Xbox. Having seen this, I think they might have done better by waiting and launching these games along with 3rd party support at E3 or some later event. This just seems a little... paltry.

Yes, Sonic was a launch game. I came home with the system, an extra controller, a VMU, Sonic Adventure and Soul Calibur on 9/9/99. I had to search high and low to get my Soul Calibur that day.

Also available on launch day were House of the Dead, Power Stone, NFL2K and Ready 2 Rumble along with various less interesting but still good titles such as CART Flag to Flag and Blue Stinger. It was one of the most comprehensive and possibly the best playing lineup of games ever available at a system launch. It really was far ahead of PS2's launch and looks to be more impressive than Xbox depending what comes from third parties.

The business model might be dead. Nintendo claims that you can't do it. Mr. Yamauchi believes that you don't take a loss on the hardware so Gamecube will be sold at cost. They also are the ones touting making the game machine capable of what your internal teams want and not designing by committees of third parties. This also seems like the right choice with the exception of the development environment which must be easy.

But then Sega had all this covered except the costs. The Dreamcast is the easiest to program for, the technology not TOO advanced that it couldn't have been shrunken and brought in line in time. They just didn't have the money to see it through. Though in hindsight, after this showing of Xbox, I'll bet if they were still going we'd see a lot of people breaking down and buying a DC. Even now, if you don't own one, you're missing out on at least 20 to 30 games that you really shold play. Daytona USA is in stores tomorrow and that's got me WAY more excited than Xbox and it's a perfect port of a seven year old arcade game!

I think in the end, it's true that the best products often don't succeed. The products that have the right marketing and the right name are the things that prosper. It sucks. I still wouldn't put it past Microsoft to convince the drones that Xbox is "it", but as a guy who plays a ton of games on all platforms, I have to say I will not be buying this box unless there's some grand revelation before the launch.

--Dave

BTW, while Zoo Tycoon looks like kind of a rip off of the RollerCoaster Tycoon brand, the people behind it have a good history. It's some former Papyrus' (racing sims) guys. I remember when they broke away which I think was like 3 years ago now. I had no idea they were working on a Zoo game.

--Dave

"The rest looked the same."

This is basically my issue with all consoles (PC-based MOTS can be a separate post). I have a Dreamcast, and I really like it, but the market mostly just sold me new versions of games I had on my Genesis or 8-bit Nintendo. Instead of Streets of Rage, I have Jedi Power Battles. Instead of RC Pro-Am, I have Re-volt. Instead of Sonic, I have Rayman 2. Instead of Madden '94, I have NFL2K. Newer, prettier, but the same gameplay.

Now, I bought a Dreamcast because they came up with some new games that I found compelling, or were able to bring an arcade game into my home. Crazy Taxi. NBA Showtime. Soul Calibur. I came *this close* to spending $150 for maracas & a copy of Samba De Amigo. That raised my expectations bar even higher.

Unfortunately for Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube, I haven't seen anything that gets them over that bar. The graphics aren't much better, if at all, than my DC (only so much you can do on a TV). The controls haven't changed significantly. The games I've seen so far are just the new console's version of something I already own. They are going to have to do better than that to pry $300 out of my jaded fingers.

> Yeah, but Sega had Soul Calibur and NFL2K.

Soul Calibur was a Namco game though, not first-party. It's not the kind of thing we'd see at Gamestock anyway.

> note the city, that's the same art and models

Well it's still LONDON, but it's definitely not the same textures or models for the background. The trees, big ben, and wall textures here (http://www.xbox.com/games/gotham/assets/gotham-image-1.jpg) look way better than the Dreamcast's. And the DC version certainly didn't have trees or wet roads that looked like this (http://www.xbox.com/games/gotham/assets/gotham-image-7.jpg). Granted, it's the MSR formula souped up, but the same could be said of the "killer app" Gran Turismo 3.

Gamestock stuff looks decent compared to other console offerings, but underwhelming next to Xbox hype. Of course, I really don't expect to be impressed until E3...all the developers on working on "one month with a GeForce3" right now, which isn't like having final Xbox hardware.

I'm hoping that GDC reveals another couple first-party titles and we get a look at some third-party stuff. But really, I don't expect any of that to blow me away either. I don't think games will be to that stage until E3.

One thing we're kind of sheltered to in this country is the true launches of console systems. We talk about what was out there at "PS2 launch" or "Dreamcast launch" but we forget that they REALLY launch 6 months earlier in Japan. The games we see a few months before the system launches in the US are what Japan sees when the system is launched...the stuff that is shown six months ahead of the systems' first availability worldwide is usually terribly unimpressive. Just like with Xbox, developers for other consoles don't get final hardware until four or five months before the first availability and the games just don't look good until two or three months before launch.

"Unfortunately for Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube, I haven't seen anything that gets them over that bar. The graphics aren't much better, if at all, than my DC (only so much you can do on a TV). The controls haven't changed significantly. The games I've seen so far are just the new console's version of something I already own. They are going to have to do better than that to pry $300 out of my jaded fingers. "

I smell a console crash coming on.

Never have so many been in pursuit of cash from so few. And did I mention the PS1 still outsells any other console?

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Just a question - did anyone here actually attend Gamestock? I'm just wondering who's seen the games live and in motion (possibly hands-on), and who, like me, has just seen the shots and crappy short movies so far.

>And did I mention the PS1 still outsells any other console?

I wonder if that's still true? The PSOne (not the original PSX, but the shrunk-down PSOne) outsold everything but the Game Boy Color at the end of last year, but that's the last stats I saw. Given it's price and how it was new and small and sleek, I can see why it sold for Christmas.

Are people still buying it now, though? I wonder...I'd love to see some new data.

>The games I've seen so far are just the new console's version of something I already own. They are going to have to do better than that to pry $300 out of my jaded fingers.

I wonder if that's going to hurt the general public, though? Or are flashier versions of the same old games enough to sell to the masses. We're the gaming cognoscenti - loud voices and early adopters both, and therefore important, but ultimately not a good indication of a console's success (once again...if we were, the Dreamcast would be flying off shelves).

I agree that most consoles just have the same old crap, again. Even Nintendo generally falls into this trap, and while the games are fun, they're just the same old Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong crap over and over. Once a year something really refreshing comes along from them, but I expect Gamecube games to be the pinnacle of "really polished, really tight and fun games we've all seen before." Not necessarily a bad thing.

Sega is probably my favorite developer ever. They manage to make fantastic games in literally every genre (sports, RPG, action, fighting, platform, you name it). They manage to have top-notch tech AND top-notch art AND top-notch content/game design all at once. They manage to keep franchises going with more of the same AND release lots of totally unique and refreshing games every year.

I mean, go here: http://www.stomped.com/published/jcal982781976_1_2.html

Five of the six nominees for "innovation in console gaming" are first-party Sega Dreamcast games. Given that the AIAS nominees actually make some sense this year, that's saying something. They've also got four of the "console game of the year" nominations, more than any other developer.

I'm hoping that E3 gives us a look at some Sega games on Xbox.

"I wonder if that's going to hurt the general public, though? Or are flashier versions of the same old games enough to sell to the masses. We're the gaming cognoscenti - loud voices and early adopters both, and therefore important, but ultimately not a good indication of a console's success (once again...if we were, the Dreamcast would be flying off shelves)."

I agree about the folks around here being the vocal gamer minority, but those are also the traits that make our friends and acquaintances come to us and say, "Should I buy a PS2 or wait for Xbox or Gamecube?" If we aren't sold on a console, will that have some effect on sales? After being underwhelmed by the PS2 (Despite not attending E3, I was able to get into the Sony party & made a point to play the few PS2 games they had running), I talked it down to several people before Christmas. I recommended a Dreamcast & a pile of good games rather than pay $600 for a bare PS2.

Maybe it is like one guy I know who is very good looking and when he was dating, it was one total hottie after another. He was dating a new girl, and another friend asked him if she was good looking. He said, "For you, she is." (We weren't insulted, as we understood his dating life was way out of our league.) The new crop of games for the next generation consoles may well be just great for your average person, but we might not want to touch them with our hands. Without gloves, anyway.

"The business model might be dead. Nintendo claims that you can't do it. Mr. Yamauchi believes that you don't take a loss on the hardware so Gamecube will be sold at cost."

So anyone know if they can deliver a $299 Gamecube at cost? I thought I read at one time that they were hoping to hit $199.

If Nintendo can sell at cost, they might come out as the actual winner in terms of profits, even if they sell fewer systems.

Mark, are you reading the same previews I am?

http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/filters/news/0,10849,6011108,00.html

The *hands-on* for Halo and NFL Fever sound quite good indeed. And the other games all look very solid to me-- for example, the career mode in the snowboarding game was neat-- you're awarded prestige points for who sees you doing what, and your media exposure determines your success.

If you're arguing that there has to be a "blockbuster" title associated with the console at launch-- well, there wasn't one for the PS2. And look at all the good having a "blockbuster" like Soul Caliber did for the Dreamcast. Eg, nothing at all.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"The *hands-on* for Halo and NFL Fever sound quite good indeed. "

where the heck is EA's Madden 2001 (or 2002) for Xbox? thats probably the only game that will get me to buy an Xbox. but were treated with NFL Fever. . . wel maybe itll be ok.

etc

"Well it's still LONDON, but it's definitely not the same textures or models for the background. The trees, big ben, and wall textures here (http://www.xbox.com/games/gotham/assets/gotham-image-1.jpg) look way better than the Dreamcast's. And the DC version certainly didn't have trees or wet roads that looked like this (http://www.xbox.com/games/gotham/assets/gotham-image-7.jpg). Granted, it's the MSR formula souped up, but the same could be said of the "killer app" Gran Turismo 3. "

This is a great point. I have played through most of MSR on the DC and it looks very good but those Gotham shots look awesome. More MSR without the problems of the original sounds like a winner to me.

Methinks you guys haven't played MSR too much lately. The only difference I can see is higher polygon count in the car model and the relections in its finish (which I always think looks "fake", I never see cars reflecting everything in the daylight). The car is where they focused in the short time they had obviously because it draws your eye and shows off the system's capability.

Have a look at this... different angle, but that's the same Big Ben. Big Ben

There's also hundreds of images on this page...MSR Review

That Project Gotham is a hack job done in time to have something to show at Gamestock. I'm guessing that MS looked at the rest of the stuff they had to show and got worried. They signed up Bizarre at the last minute and asked them to come up with something fast. They take MSR, get it running on Xbox, and quickly spruce it up and there you have it. I'll bet the final game will look a lot better (and different), but for right now, that's essentially MSR for the Dreamcast running on an Xbox.

--Dave

Who cares even if it is a hack job? It looks amazing and a lot better than an already great looking MSR.

The reflective wet streets and cars are definitely different, as are the addition of trees as Jason pointed out. Also the Corvette and other car (not sure what it is) weren't in MSR so those are new models.

Again, if they can make an MSR2 with graphics like that sign me up.

as much as i think Xbox will be a dud on release. . . it still is a pretty powerful console. . . which is the more surprising that more developers (big name ones) aren't jumping onto it.

I'm still awaiting an announcement for a big name RPG for xbox. . .

etc

> where the heck is EA's Madden 2001 (or 2002) for Xbox?

Well, it sure wouldn't be at Gamestock, since EA is not Microsoft and Gamestock is only for Microsoft published games.

I'd bet an RPG announcement won't happen real soon. It's not usually until around Launch Time that they're announced, because they're big expensive efforts that take a lot of time, relative to fighting and driving type games. I mean, Final Fantasy for PS2 wasn't announced until last March when the PS2 was released, I think.

I'd love a Sega RPG though. Gimme Skies of Arcadia 2 for Xbox!

My opinion on Xbox won't really change if they don't impress me between now and E3. I don't expect them to - where they are relative to launch, no console does (remember that at this point relative to the US launch, consoles are already out in Japan).

If they don't have a game that I just gotta have by E3, I'll be sorely disappointed.

Sometime back in December, there had been rumors of an Ensemble split from Microsoft. As far as I can tell, nothing was officially announced.

If Nintendo can sell at cost, then they hit the break-even point that much sooner. If the Xbox retails below cost, I'm thinking it might be worth dissecting for parts.

Anybody know what Sega is up to these days? I mean, imagine Soul Caliber for the PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, or even *gasp* the PC.

- Alan

From the Core Magazine Gamestock coverage...

---

Quote:

Continuing, Bizarre Creations' XBox racer codenamed 'Project Gotham' was briefly shown. According to several Microsoft representatives, Bizarre has only been working on the XBox for a short time. Specifically, the demo version of Project Gotham shown was said to represent less than four weeks of development. Nevertheless, it featured one London-based track, and a car which incorporated 16,000 polygons.

---

---

Quote:

Sometime back in December, there had been rumors of an Ensemble split from Microsoft. As far as I can tell, nothing was officially announced.

---

---

Quote:

If Nintendo can sell at cost, then they hit the break-even point that much sooner. If the Xbox retails below cost, I'm thinking it might be worth dissecting for parts.

---

---

Quote:

Anybody know what Sega is up to these days? I mean, imagine Soul Caliber for the PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, or even *gasp* the PC.

---

"Soul Calibur is a Namco game as has been noted above. The sequel is already confirmed for Playstation 2 and nothing else along with Tekken 4."

These kinds of games, along with Virtua Fighter 4, make me think it's going to be hard for anyone to catch Sony. Games power the sales of these consoles, and these are some heavyweight games. Microsoft really needs to sign up some of these big name games for their system. Halo just isn't in the same league as these as far as recognition among console fans goes.

I remember Yamauchi once saying "in order for a console to be successful, you have to be prepared to lose $100 10,000,000 times." This was back when the Saturn and Playstation were coming out (at a rediculously high price of $349).

Does anyone have an actual link to where he's saying the economic model no longer works? That would seem odd to me.

I remember a recent interview where he said that the third party publishers making their hit games for several platforms is ultimately going to ruin the model, though.

It was in this recent interview at Video Senki which I think Mark linked here at Qt3 also.

Video Senki Interviews Hiroshi Yamauchi.

Here's the quoted section...

---

Quote:

Q: What do you think is an appropriate price point for game systems?

Y: The cheaper, the better. Gamers play games, and not systems, after all. If a gamer wants to play game A and game B, then buying the game system is nothing but a secondary obstacle to that. As a result, the cheaper the hardware is, the easier it is for the users to buy it.
At the same time, though, we have to worry about our costs. Up until fairly recently it was safe to lose money on hardware sales, since you more than made up for it in the software you sold. It's impossible to get a system out the door that way anymore, however. So when you release a system today, you don't necessarily have to profit from it, but you can't afford to lose money on every single console you sell.

---

"This also might be the reason that GameBoy Advance is going for $99 at release. That's awfully high for a handheld and especially one that's essentially a Super Nintendo internally."

Isn't that about what the Gameboy was when it first hit the shelves? I don't know about the GB color, but it sure seems to me that way back when it first became available, it was about a hundred bucks -- but maybe I'm wrong.

---

Quote:

but it sure seems to me that way back when it first became available

---

Yamauchi may have been implying that the old model worked because Nintendo made a lot on games. Remember, they manufactured the carts for everyone and made a lot of money just on that process. Third parties only made money on games sold, but Nintendo made money on every game manufactured, and then reaped more profit when games were sold. Prevailing opinion was that was one of the big factors for them remaining with carts for the N64. They were reluctant to abandon that revenue model.

Here's an interesting article I found on Gaming Age:

http://cgi.gaming-age.com/gaming/news/news.pl?y=2001&m=3&nid=14-84.db

Sounds like Konami's lost a little confidence in Microsoft. Which is interesting, as Konami has shown a willingness to make deals with them in the past.

>This also might be the reason that GameBoy Advance is going for $99 at release. That's awfully high for a handheld and especially one that's essentially a Super Nintendo internally.

Well, it's very similar in terms of capabilities, but it doesn't use the same chips (or even very similar ones) at all.

$99 is damn cheap for something with a reflective TFT screen of that quality and size. DAMN cheap.

The original gameboy was released in 1989 for, as I recall, $129. I'm having a hard time finding info on that. (I remember washing a lot of cars to save up money for it) They shipped a million units to the US, and it was woefully inadequate - they were very hard to come by at first. All original game boys were bundled with Tetris.

(by the way, that's probably the single biggest game sales ever. In three years, Nintendo sold 34,000,000 game boys, each bundled with Tetris. What other game has sold 34 million units on a single platform, bundleware or not?)

Later, the price dropped a bit and they dumped the Tetris pack-in. In 1996, they released Game Boy Pocket, shrunk down and with a better screen, at $59.

The Game Boy Color was $79 until fairly recently, when it dropped to $69.

re: Yamauchi - ah yes, that statement makes sense then. He used to think it was safe to lose money on hardware, but now he doesn't. Likely because third parties make the same game available all over and therefore limiting the return on royalties. It wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo thinks you have to make your money off first and second party games. And in the long run, they may be right.

> Sounds like Konami's lost a little confidence in Microsoft.

That article doesn't surprise me at all...Reuters (a biz site) was doing an interivew with Kazumi Kitaue (Konami's biz guy). He said the bulk of their development would be on PS2 for the next year. And why not? A year from now, Xbox will only have been on sale like 5 months. No matter how well it sells, PS2 will have a much larger installed base than Xbox or Gamecube. It only makes financial sense to concentrate on PS2 for the next year.

Going further out from that, I don't know if Konami even knows. They've got a lot of Xbox development kits (like 500), and they're planning three major titles that they've announced - Metal Gear Solid X (whatever that is), Silent Hill X, and umm...one other I can't remember. But if I were them, I'd have a relatively small crew devoted to those games over the next year (like 10 apiece) and early next year when some PS2 games are finished up I'd shift a lot more people on them.

Any smart 3rd party developer would hedge their bets until next March or so (which is exactly what Konami is talking about).