Jump to content
Ranger03

Why did developers make more games for the ps2 than the xbox?

Recommended Posts

Now, granted, the PS2 supports progressive scan (of which i will never see because most HD tv's are not compatible, but it has no support for texture filtering or any anti aliasing, so this begs the question: why make any games for it when the Xbox version is superior in (mostly) every way. For every Gran turismo, there is a Medal of honor Rising sun.

 

just curious, and yes i still have my slim. BTW, what HDTV's support progressive scan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the sheer sales numbers, wasn't Xbox and GameCube combined less than a third of the consoles of the ps2?

 

Outside of that, idk. Developers always swore it's custom architecture was much harder to program for than the Xbox. Don't know where the GameCube fell, when trying, developers got as good graphically out of that as xbox, granted those darn mini discs.

 

Ps2 had lots of great games, and bc with psx, so it was a required purchase for me, but any multiplatform game I'd actively get for other hardware, like you said, it was usually better in just about every way.

 

Like I said, probably sales numbers, and developers will follow potential money, even if the hardware isn't as good.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS2 was out sooner, and had about 155mil sales

 

I think xbox or gc was roughly 30mil

 

At the time it was the solid choice if you had to only pick one

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Developers and publishers want to make money. Targeting the platform with the largest user base gives the greatest likelihood they will achieve this goal.

 

Another angle is that not every company or studio has the financial means or manpower to release versions for every available platform. Sometimes a title has to be relegated to a single platform and in those cases it makes the most sense to target the most popular one on the market.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, what HDTV's support progressive scan?

 

All of them?

 

Any HDTV can handle any progressive resolution that the PS2 had to offer (240p with varying degrees of success, as well as 480p). There aren't any 1080p PS2 games, which is a progressive resolution that many earlier HDTV's (And some economy models from the past few years) don't support.

Edited by Atariboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For every Gran turismo, there is a Medal of honor Rising sun.

 

 

Perhaps unwittingly, but you've just answered your own question :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the sheer length it was on the market. I don't know when GameCube ended, but Xbox basically got swept under the rug by 06. They released days apart, both a year after the ps2, and the ps2 was still kicking in like 2012. Short of 2600 (in the US anyways) the longest running console on market. You could still buy new hardware just a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the sheer sales numbers, wasn't Xbox and GameCube combined less than a third of the consoles of the ps2?

Outside of that, idk. Developers always swore it's custom architecture was much harder to program for than the Xbox. Don't know where the GameCube fell, when trying, developers got as good graphically out of that as xbox, granted those darn mini discs.

Ps2 had lots of great games, and bc with psx, so it was a required purchase for me, but any multiplatform game I'd actively get for other hardware, like you said, it was usually better in just about every way.

Like I said, probably sales numbers, and developers will follow potential money, even if the hardware isn't as good.

From what i read at the time, PS2 had the far more complex architecture which meant early games had jaggies and poor textures in a lot of cases, compared to the Dreamcast versions, but the hardware offered you a lot of flexibility.

 

Middleware engines also helped a lot.

 

If you look at late era PS2 games like Black, Burnout III, God Of War II etc you get a clearer vision of how software improved throughout it's life cycle.

 

The Game Cube by comparison was a lot easier to work with and hit the ground running with some stunning looking titles, but there were less tricks to discover and so the system had less wriggle room to find better ways to code? .

 

The thing with Xbox was it was loosing money for MS. .the decision to include a HDD as standard alone proved costly.

 

So once the Xbox brand and XBL had been established, MS killed it off to get a head start in Sony in the next generation race.

 

Pity as games like Far Cry, Doom 3 and HL2 showed what it could do over the PS2.

 

It was a costly generation as i owned a DC, PS2, GC and Xbox.

 

Each had enough exclusives to warrant owning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much "people networking" and demographic experience (7-25 yr olds) had to do with it? Sony has been around forever in entertainment while microsoft was a late 80s OS and productivity software company until the xbox ... a very successful company, but what did they know about teenage gamers? Nintendo got into gaming a few years before Sony and maybe it shows. Their systems always underperform in horsepower, but still appeal to a wide audience. Even the wacky wiimote stayed alive throughout the Wii's lifespan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what i read at the time, PS2 had the far more complex architecture which meant early games had jaggies and poor textures in a lot of cases, compared to the Dreamcast versions, but the hardware offered you a lot of flexibility.

 

Middleware engines also helped a lot.

 

If you look at late era PS2 games like Black, Burnout III, God Of War II etc you get a clearer vision of how software improved throughout it's life cycle.

 

The Game Cube by comparison was a lot easier to work with and hit the ground running with some stunning looking titles, but there were less tricks to discover and so the system had less wriggle room to find better ways to code? .

 

The thing with Xbox was it was loosing money for MS. .the decision to include a HDD as standard alone proved costly.

 

So once the Xbox brand and XBL had been established, MS killed it off to get a head start in Sony in the next generation race.

 

Pity as games like Far Cry, Doom 3 and HL2 showed what it could do over the PS2.

 

It was a costly generation as i owned a DC, PS2, GC and Xbox.

 

Each had enough exclusives to warrant owning.

I remember getting my xbox in 2006, good times, but i have never touched halo. only ever played 1. Mom's orders, i'm 25

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was an expensive generation for me too, as outside of the dreamcast, I bought them all on launch. Had a dreamcast too, but I bought that as it was going out.

 

It was also my favorite generation in gaming. I'm not as much in the modern scene, I still play a dump truck load of stuff, but modern practices keep me from enjoying much of it, not to mention most of what is considered good now, got their start several generations ago.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...