Microsoft is trying to buy RARE

[Jeremy]

Clash Master, fu-cking hell man, try to make sense and use some of these new-fangled things called complete sentences.

[Korly]

If you like Rare, or you don't like Rare, I don't see why you wouldn't want Microsoft to buy EVERYONE. X-Box has the best hardware of all 3 systems, so wouldn't it make sense that we'd want as many games as possible to be exclusive to that platform? For instance, GC is getting the best version of PSO, and I HATE that, because now I have to buy a modem and some cracked out keyboard controller for a system that may or may not do anything else online for months. BUT, if it was on X-Box, it would have XBLive support, and it would support voice chat. Not to mention, it would have the potential for greater graphics, and more downloadable content (due to the hard drive). AND broadband only would allow for a greater online experience.

The only reason we like one console over another (I hope) is it's library of games. So why don't we want all the best games, to come out for the best hardware, and take full advantage of it?

[Saint of Killers]

Maybe because the Xbox 2 might not be the most powerful console of the next hardware generation?

Also, competition is good.

[SearchManX]

Originally posted by Korly

The only reason we like one console over another (I hope) is it's library of games. So why don't we want all the best games, to come out for the best hardware, and take full advantage of it?

I don't want to get into this whole argument again, but I would not prefer to see all games being developed for the Xbox. For one reason, Microsoft having complete control over the console industry scares me, they don't have enough experience to completely take over the reigns. Second of all, innovation comes from competition, not a monopoly. That's why we get some cool looking controllers, gadgets, doo-hickeys, and what-not. Some of them may be useless, some of them could be great for the gaming in general, we'll have to see how the E-card reader takes off and see what effect the Wavebird will have in the gaming industry.

[Clash!]

I guess I thought I was making sense, the entire paragraph is about Rare and how long they take on games. I re-read it, did not seem so crazy to me.

[Javon_McCloud]

Maybe a few spaces inbetween thoughts clash_master. And stop stealing my bike.

I love my x-box, but I just don't understand MS need to OWN everyone and not be content with just letting them make games for them.
Rare is obviously an exception(for now), but sega and the rest are doing a fine job of supporting the box as it stands.
I guess owning everyone would give them more exlusives, but I guess I just like things the way they are for the most part.

[burgundy]

Originally posted by Korly
If you like Rare, or you don't like Rare, I don't see why you wouldn't want Microsoft to buy EVERYONE. X-Box has the best hardware of all 3 systems, so wouldn't it make sense that we'd want as many games as possible to be exclusive to that platform? For instance, GC is getting the best version of PSO, and I HATE that, because now I have to buy a modem and some cracked out keyboard controller for a system that may or may not do anything else online for months. BUT, if it was on X-Box, it would have XBLive support, and it would support voice chat. Not to mention, it would have the potential for greater graphics, and more downloadable content (due to the hard drive). AND broadband only would allow for a greater online experience.

The only reason we like one console over another (I hope) is it's library of games. So why don't we want all the best games, to come out for the best hardware, and take full advantage of it?

I don't think the hardware argument applies when you're debating between Nintendo and MS. While MS has the hard drive and the ethernet jack, Nintendo has the GBA and the e-Card Reader. Graphically, maybe the Xbox is a smidge more powerful, but I don't think we've seen a game on the Box yet that couldn't be done on the Cube. The best version of PSO couldn't come out on the Box because it wouldn't hook up the the GBA, and the NiGHTS game is more important to me than voice chat.

See, now we just have different preferences, and the "best" console isn't so clear. Unlike the PS2, which does approximately nothing better than either of the other two. I wouldn't mind living in a world without the PS2 (and all its games brought to the other two consoles), but that's not a market reality. I wouldn't want to have only one console (with only one console maker in charge) because innovation would be stifled. If Nintendo had its way, we'd still be playing the NES.

[lithium]

Originally posted by Rumpy
Whether you like Rare or not, their games tend to sell very, very well for Nintendo, and that's all MS is interested in.

But does average joe blow (ie, the vast majority of those sales) even know who Rare is? Why do I get the feeling the average person on the street thinks Banjo and Golden Eye are Nintendo games?

I wonder how well Rare games would sell without that Nintendo name backing them up. They've shown pretty handily they can only come out with an actually good game once in a blue moon.

[MechDeus]

Why do I get the feeling the average person on the street thinks Banjo and Golden Eye are Nintendo games?

Market them the same way Perfect Dark did; "By the makers of Goldeneye," or tack PD on there. Doesn't matter what system it's on, that'll be enough to make people buy it.

[lithium]

On the N64, Rare was just one of the very few games in town. Add in the fact they were second party and their games got boons they rarely deserved.

On the XBox, Rare's got to compete against Capcom (at least, more than they did on the N64), Sega, EA, Tecmo, Bungie, etc etc. Perhaps not exactly the PS2 we're talking about here, but certainly much more 3rd party competition than the N64 saw. I have doubts that even an MS marketing budget could help propel Rare above the crowd. IF MS could work that wonder, why can't they work that wonder with the system itself?