The first Playstation is now 6 years old not five. It amazes me games are still coming out as well.

I think you've already made your decision, but I would hang onto the PS2, especially since you've already invested in games. Even if the XBox has superior hardware, right now, at this instant, PS2's game lineup blows it away. EA Sports games, GTA3, MGS2, DMC, SH2... there are just so many right now. They will definitely keep you happy for a little bit. Maybe invest in an XBox later when the game lineup has caught up.

I'm certain that there won't be an exclusive MGS sequel on the X-Box. Why would they do that, when Sony is making MGS the biggest game of the holiday season?

But, yes, it will probably be a port of MGS2, with an extra optional sublot that adds a couple extra hours of gameplay, and it will probably not be out for the next year, considering that we've neither seen nor heard anything at all about it since around the time the X-Box was announced, when Kojima said he'd probably do MGSX. I'm not even sure this title has been officially announced.

Anyway, I don't think Silent Hill: Restless Dreams is much of a deal, considering that it will be 4 months old when it shows up on X-Box. It was a good game to maybe play, before GTA3, Devil May Cry, and MGS2 came out.

And, yeah, X-Box will get GTA3, eventually, this summer, if it isn't delayed for some reason. By then, it will be on the PS2 sale list, selling for $29.99 at the highest. Games don't go for full price when they're 8 months old. I wouldn't want GTA3 on the X-Box for the same reason I wouldn't want Half Life, Max Payne, or Deus Ex on PS2. Why pay $49.99 for a port of a game that's $19.99 on the original platform?

And if X-Box has nothing better to offer this summer than the PS2 lineup from this Christmas season, then why the heck would anyone want an X-Box?

If you ask me, the PS2 exclusives are more compelling than the X-Box exclusives. What the X-Box isn't getting steers me away from it, and what it is getting makes me nervous. Take a look:

Microsoft touts the stable of third parties supporting their platform. But what do they really get?

Konami gives them a fairly quick port of Silent Hill.
Capcom gives them Dino Crisis.
Sega gives them Jet Set Radio

But MGS goes to PS2
Resident Evil goes to GC
And VF4 goes to PS2, and Sonic goes to GC.

The X-Box is getting the second stringers, and all the high profile franchises are going elsewhere. Meanwhile, the fact that Nintendo is shipping more units than Microsoft could be decisive in the battle for Christmas, and if MS comes out of this in third place, they probably won't rebound. MS has a stronger launch than GC, but GC has more high profile franchises in their lineup for the next year.

If Microsoft can't beat their nine games now with Halo and DOA3, then I don't know how you can expect the X-Box to compete with the high profile stuff coming out of Nintendo. When Pikmin and Smash Bros. come out, all the game websites will go wild for them, and a lot of fence sitters may be pushed toward Gamecube.

Also, Gamecube is cheaper, and it's space-saving. That will push high school students, college students, and anyone on a budget towards that. The X-Box has a lot to overcome, if it will succeed.

Meanwhile, PS2 has 20 million worldwide units worth of inertia. It isn't going anywhere. Money spent on PS2 is safe money. The PS2 will be viable as long as this generation of consoles is viable. And the game lineup is awesome right now. Why would you sell that off for the uncertain future of the X-Box, especially after the launch fell flat?

Because it will always have better graphics than a PS2. Just a guess. Not to mention the great 5.1 and progressive scan output.

Check www.gamespot.com for games coming on the consoles because metal gear 2, grand theft auto and silent hill 2 are all coming out on XBOX.
I put off buying PS2 for a whole year to see what was going to happen with XBOX and personally glad I waited because I skipped buying the PS2 altogether since those were very important games for me to play and not only are they coming to XBOX, but some are enhanced versions of the game.
For instance, Silent Hill 2 has an extra 6 hours of play included where you play as another character and how you play with this character impacts how the game unfolds for the main character as he searches out for clues in this creepy town of Silent Hill.
Plus, the included hard drive makes it possible to copy your favorite music onto XBOX and have it play in the background of your games rather than the often dull, stale or just plain "unlistenable" music that is sometimes included as part of some games.
The graphics are stunning.
Being a DVD fanatic (200+ and growing) with 60" tv and surround sound I thoroughly enjoy playing XBOX at home. So far my favorite game is Project Gotham Racing. The graphics make me feel like I'm in the car travelling at outrageous speeds through real New York or other accurate locations. Another "must have" game is Halo, but if you've been following XBOX already I don't need to hype it.
Well, there wasn't a great first release line up for XBOX, but there's plenty to look forward to on the near horizon.
Do what you will, I can't pressure you, but I'm confident that for me, the XBOX was just what the doctor ordered.
I hope this helped some of you
Ciao!

PS1 also has 5.1 (see FFX). And the X-Box does NOT have progressive scan. That feature was removed.

X-Box has progressive scan game output. Possibly 1080i in the future (although it looks doubtful).

I've heard the PS2 has terrible-faux DTS 5.1 (see SSX Tricky).

I think it comes down to the games.

I own both a PS2 and a XBox.

The PS2 in general has more quality games than the XBox, but they did have a year long lead to get that.

The XBox is amazing, and I think it was worth my purchase JUST for Halo. But I do admit, if you don't like Halo, you might want to wait a while for a purchase. I think it will get VERY interesting for the Xbox when the online network is enabled (now rumored to be in March).

Progressive scan is a feature of DVDs ONLY. The X-Box is like a computer (obviously, considering its hardware), the display resolution of the graphics card can be set by software (like how you switch your desktop resolution). But since RAM must be allocated for higher display resolutions, a game developer needs to code with the various resolutions they plan to support in mind. But this is not "progressive scan for games", despite whatever marketing ploy Microsoft is pushing, because there is no such thing. The games on the X-Box are already inherently rendered in higher resolution than other consoles, and is outputted onto the HDTV screen as such.

SSX Tricky isn't really 5.1. EA has been using this technique that simulates 5.1. But there ARE games endoded in 5.1, for example FFX.

No, you're all backwards. The progressive scan is for games only and not movies.

Again, I repeat, *there is no such thing* as "progressive scan" that applies to video games. The term was invented for the line-doubling technique used for DVD technology.

What Microsoft is calling "progressive scan for video games" is merely the rendering in higher resolution. It is *not* progressive scan.

I suggest you thoroughly read the recent AnandTech article on the X-Box which also compares it to a PS2.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561

Cheers!

Nothing in that article contradicts my statement. And I'm not interested in PS2 comparison - that isn't relevant. It is a fact that progressive scan is not available on the X-Box (nor any other consoles).

Number one, there is a lot of power in the emotion engine. A lot more than chip speed suggests. As good as the games look, developers have not topped the thing out yet. The parallel processors, and the vector units are still not being used to maximum efficiency, even in games like Metal Gear Solid 2.

My understanding is that the 733 MHz Pentium 3 processor in the X-Box is not as powerful as the more specialized Gamecube CPU, or the extremely specialized and unconventional PS2 CPU. However, the X-Box has a lot more RAM to work with, and its X chip is more powerful than the graphics hardware in other consoles. Also, the X-Box has a lot more on-chip hardware gizmos to work with, which makes it easier on the developer to do better graphics. These effects have to be software coded on the PS2.

Ultimately, when it comes to graphics, we're only talking about slight differences. When companies port to X-Box, the typically use the same models, but use higher resolution textures. Probably the most drastic difference you'll see is SSX Tricky, where they bump mapped the snow for the X-Box version. It's really not that breathtaking a difference. I hear the difference between X-Box and PS2 is much less than the difference between PS2 and Dreamcast. No developer except Oddworld has suggested that there are games that can be done on X-Box that can't be done on the other consoles.

I can't see how "better graphics" which really only means high resolution textures can justify waiting eight extra months for a game, and then paying $50 for it when the same game is already knocked to $20 on PS2.

No progressive scan for DVD movies on XBOX. As for games, I think the term 'progressive scan' is getting confused with 'high definition'. I believe the XBOX will display the games at high resolution equal of HDTV, but the process is not progressive scan. If you have a widescreen TV, many PS2 games take advantage of widescreen, some anamorphic in fact (SSX Tricky), and they look great still.

The thing with 5.1 sound to the best of my knowledge, there isn't a good way to create 5.1 sound in real time. They are pre-encoded into a file to be to be opened and played. So the only times I ever came across 5.1 sound in console games is during cutscenes and FMVs where everything was prerecorded. That's why games that don't have many cut scenes during the game won't have 5.1, such as SSX Tricky. Metal Gear Solid 2 had 5.1 in like 4 or so cutscenes, but not all. The japanese FFX had 5.1 only in the fully CG video cutscenes. (But for your info, the 5.1 has been taken out of the US version as well as hard drive support) So don't think XBOX games will have 5.1 sound all the time. But I could be wrong, XBOX might be that great?

Where did you hear this info? I don't recall FFX ever supporting the hard drive. Oh well, its not as if 5.1 sound and hard drive support ever had any appeal to this type of game. It never really made any sense to have those features in this game anyway.

*Exactly*. I've been trying to get this through to Gallant Pig for the last few posts.

from the anand article: (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561&p=10)

Basically the terms "480", "720", and "1080" are short hand terms for their resolutions: 640 x 480, 1280 x 720, and 1920 x 1080. 480p and 480i both are 640 x 480, their difference lies in how the information is transmitted to the NTSC television.

This is also from the article:

Maybe I'm confused as hell, but I don't think so. Anyone want to jump in here and add something to this?

BTW: The X-Box has excellent 5.1, as they designed the system for this. The PS2 was never designed for 5.1, so they end up using one of the processors to do the 5.1. This ends up taking away from the game in respect to graphics, ai, physics, etc.

Wow, lots of misinformation being swung both ways in the argument. Let me see if I can cut through and correct most of the big ones. Let's start with the Xbox

1) DVD movies are not ouput via progressive.

2) Games can take advantage of a non-interlaced (or what some people are calling progressive) screens.

3) Xbox is capable of doing real time dolby digital 5.1 in game through specialized hardware, but there is a latency bottleneck which could hinder the use in some situations.

Now to the PS2:

1) The system is fully capable of supporting a non-interlaced and progressive screen. If that wasn't possible, I couldn't run Linux off my PS2 on my monitor. However, the system is also capable of taking advantage of NTSC interlaced limitations in which it will store and output info for the displayed lines of an interlaced display rather than waste memory for the non displayed lines.

2) The PS2 cannot output real-time dobly digital 5.1 audio in game and can only offer it in pre-recorded video sequences or during cut scenes where it is known where and when the audio will be used that are in real-time.

3) Final Fantasy 10 does support the HDD and 5.1 audio only in FMV sequences in the Japanese version. It does not support 5.1 during the actual game.

4) Despite not having real-time dolby digital 5.1, it can do DTS 5.1 in real time. SSX Tricky I believe uses 4.1 DTS, and NHL 2002 supports 5.1 DTS. This can be used in real-time game with not much of a hit to performance based on what I understand of how it is being implemented.

And finally just small things that need to be addressed. Excuse me if this is already known but given the discussion here, some of you may not have things clear.

NTSC is an interlaced image of 30 fps or 60 fields. It takes two fields to create a single frame. Each field is either the odd scan lines or the even scan lines. The PS2 can store just the info needed for the specific field and not waste the memory with the data that isn't displayed. When you put these two fields together, you get a whole 640 x 480 image. Regardless if a system is rendering the full 640 x 480 image at the time, the end result is you get half the scan lines on each field. The PS2 isn't the only system that can do this either. However, with VGA monitors and HDTVs with higher refresh rates, you now have a non-interlaced display which is also called progressive. All the systems can take advantage of this too. This is where you are showing 60 images at full resolution rather than the odd or even scan lines that NTSC does. Bottom line, both systems can do either one.


I hope I hit everything I wanted to cuz there was a lot of information that was just a headache to read.

Re: DTS on PS2

From the Anand Article:

BTW: You run Linux off of a PS2?! I heard about that on a DC, but not PS2. That's interesting...

BTW: I can admit I'm wrong about PS2 supporting 480p. I really didn't know that. And no, I wasn't confusing it with 720 or 1080. I just had never heard the PS2 supported. Is there a VGA output for it so I can hook it up to a computer moniter? Do all the games support 480p? I know not all Gamecube games support progessive, Tony Hawk 3 for example.

Lastly, I'm confused as to why the Anand article says this about PS2 and 480p. Can anyone explain?

Thanks

I wouldn't get rid of the PS2 by no means. There are a lot of great games out there for it. Just as I will never get rid of my DC for the same reason. I was hoping that Sony would screen the game companies more to keep the BS games from coming to the PS2 like they did on the PS1, but it looks like the BS game trend for the PS2 is inevitable. It's very possible that the Xbox could have their share of BS games also, but I can only hope that MS will put up a baricade or make stricter standards that will keep the game industry in line on the Xbox.

I hope no ones system has to suffer with BS games like the N64 did when they lost the court case against Midway and Midway ruined their great game Doom with the terrible graphics along with other subpar titles they came out with.

I got a chance to play both systems at a friends house and can say that the Xbox seems alot smoother in gameplay and the game sequences load faster on the Xbox. I've noticed that sometimes there is a slight delay action on the PS2 as if you were playing with one of those old wireless controllers. I saw no delay on the Xbox. JMHO

With the 2002 release of Metal Gear SolidX, I'll be getting an Xbox sometime around the first of the year.

The Xbox must be an outstanding machine for Sony to talk public about a pre-mature release of the PS3 in 2003. But even that's no reason to get rid of your PS2 by no means.

Actually, the idea of speeding up the console cycle was more a threat to Microsoft from Sony than a concession to the X-Box.

Microsoft loses over $100 on each X-Box sold. They're relying on a 5 year cycle for the X-Box to turn a profit. It doesn't even break even until 2004. When the Sony guy said that, what he was really saying was that Sony could afford to pack it in on the PS2 hardware in such a way as to make the X-Box turn into a financial loser, even if MS does everything right, and manages to perform to Microsoft's best projections.

Such a move would obviously alienate Sony's audience, and would be a seriously last ditch effort to drive MS out of the market. I don't think we'll see a new generation of anything before Nov. 2004, at the earliest.