The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Sony have confirmed it. Blu-Ray will be a featured component in what is set to be their most lucrative bussiness move to date.
For those that don't know, DVD is already becoming outdated. Already you can get view high definition TV, that even surpasses that of DVD. In other words you can be watching Friday Night with Jonathan Ross and it'll look better than the latest Star Wars DVD's.
Does this seem right to you? No indeed it doesn't and 2 major companies also agree this. These 2 major companies have developed 2 new forms of movie media, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
Sony, along with a whole host of other top names, back the Blu-Ray medium to be the next big thing in home entertainment. It is a massive 50GB in size, looks pretty funky and with it being included in the Playstation 3 will autmatically put Blu-Ray in millions and millions of homes worldwide. Hollywood would almost have to support the Blu-Ray system simply because the popularity of the Playstation brand will mean millions will have the ability to play them already. Sony will add pressure with their Tri-star, Columbia and MGM studios... Spiderman, Terminator and Bond already on Blu-Ray. Watch the new system fly.
Unless something incredibly unlikely happens, such as the PSP flops and the PSTwo fails to start then it is likely Sony will be looking at a steam rolling win for the next generation of consoles.
There is one negative aspect of Blu-Ray. Because it doesn't use the simple red laser system for DVD's (something that is now very cheap to implement) and uses Blue laser, it'll mean the cost of the system will be jacked up. Either Sony will have to release it at a high price, wait an extra amount of time or just suffer a loss on the system. The latter isn't something Sony have ever been willing to do.
It is this PS3 decision that makes the Blu-Ray's competitor, the HD-DVD, look bad. Although the system is cheaper to implement the size of the medium is a mere 22GB, under half that of Blu-Ray.
But hope may remain. It is possible that Microsoft's next system, codenamed Xenon, will use it. Microsoft are desperate to release a cheap system out of the box and not to suffer the price point themselves like they are with the X-box. Already they are removing the Hard drive and to incorperate something like Blu-Ray will mean the Xenon will launch at a very high price. In fact Microsoft are hoping to get a years head start (late 2005) on the competiton and Blu-Ray will be even more expensive to use. If Microsoft want a competitive medium HD-DVD may be the only way.
Microsoft with the weaker system is almost a complete role reversal from the current generation.
What of Nintendo? Who honestly knows. No one. Rumours persist that Nintendo will continue to go their own way and buck the trend of the industry. It persists that Nintendo will play down third party support and stick to first party software, that Nintendo will use a totally new system and won't offer movie playback at all.
These rumours are counteracted with the DS almost entirely. Nintendo now base more emphesis on third parties especially with the latest system and the recent GBA Videos indicate Nintendo willingness to develop video viewing means.
But it is also likely that Nintendo will want to fight piracy in such a way that games will be on a totally different form of medium (A.K.A Gamecube/DS) but it is also likely Nintendo will offer a "second medium". Already confirmed is that the Revolution will be backwards compatible. Which points to the inclusion of either very cheap to implement DVD system or slightly more expensive "HD-DVD".
If both Nintendo and Microsoft use "HD-DVD" then there maybe trouble ahead for Blu-Ray after all. Sure Sony may have the sales advantage, but with Nintendo set to launch simultaneously with Sony and Microsoft a year early. It already kick starts a proper war between the two mediums.
On the other hand, with DVD gaining a firm position in society how likely is it that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be replacing it by 2006? Surly it'll take a good 5 years to properly take off? Is Nintendo likely to just stick with DVD movies? Especially as they lack the experience of it. But launching the system next to the Playstation 3 indicates that Nintendo are being really competitive this time, and they will want that to right down to the specifications and what the system offers.
Sony have a brilliant stratagy in place. Something Nintendo and Microsoft will have to be very clever to counteract. Recent reports indicate Nintendo are on the offensive, and it is likely we will see a far more agressive stance from the legendary developer... with the added bonus of brilliant and innovative "DS style" features. Microsoft are stripping down their system and offering in advance of the competiton. It is a surprise risk from Microsoft, hoping that releasing the system early will mean they get a stranglehold on the industry.
Didn't work for the Dreamcast did it.
For those that don't know, DVD is already becoming outdated. Already you can get view high definition TV, that even surpasses that of DVD. In other words you can be watching Friday Night with Jonathan Ross and it'll look better than the latest Star Wars DVD's.
Does this seem right to you? No indeed it doesn't and 2 major companies also agree this. These 2 major companies have developed 2 new forms of movie media, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
Sony, along with a whole host of other top names, back the Blu-Ray medium to be the next big thing in home entertainment. It is a massive 50GB in size, looks pretty funky and with it being included in the Playstation 3 will autmatically put Blu-Ray in millions and millions of homes worldwide. Hollywood would almost have to support the Blu-Ray system simply because the popularity of the Playstation brand will mean millions will have the ability to play them already. Sony will add pressure with their Tri-star, Columbia and MGM studios... Spiderman, Terminator and Bond already on Blu-Ray. Watch the new system fly.
Unless something incredibly unlikely happens, such as the PSP flops and the PSTwo fails to start then it is likely Sony will be looking at a steam rolling win for the next generation of consoles.
There is one negative aspect of Blu-Ray. Because it doesn't use the simple red laser system for DVD's (something that is now very cheap to implement) and uses Blue laser, it'll mean the cost of the system will be jacked up. Either Sony will have to release it at a high price, wait an extra amount of time or just suffer a loss on the system. The latter isn't something Sony have ever been willing to do.
It is this PS3 decision that makes the Blu-Ray's competitor, the HD-DVD, look bad. Although the system is cheaper to implement the size of the medium is a mere 22GB, under half that of Blu-Ray.
But hope may remain. It is possible that Microsoft's next system, codenamed Xenon, will use it. Microsoft are desperate to release a cheap system out of the box and not to suffer the price point themselves like they are with the X-box. Already they are removing the Hard drive and to incorperate something like Blu-Ray will mean the Xenon will launch at a very high price. In fact Microsoft are hoping to get a years head start (late 2005) on the competiton and Blu-Ray will be even more expensive to use. If Microsoft want a competitive medium HD-DVD may be the only way.
Microsoft with the weaker system is almost a complete role reversal from the current generation.
What of Nintendo? Who honestly knows. No one. Rumours persist that Nintendo will continue to go their own way and buck the trend of the industry. It persists that Nintendo will play down third party support and stick to first party software, that Nintendo will use a totally new system and won't offer movie playback at all.
These rumours are counteracted with the DS almost entirely. Nintendo now base more emphesis on third parties especially with the latest system and the recent GBA Videos indicate Nintendo willingness to develop video viewing means.
But it is also likely that Nintendo will want to fight piracy in such a way that games will be on a totally different form of medium (A.K.A Gamecube/DS) but it is also likely Nintendo will offer a "second medium". Already confirmed is that the Revolution will be backwards compatible. Which points to the inclusion of either very cheap to implement DVD system or slightly more expensive "HD-DVD".
If both Nintendo and Microsoft use "HD-DVD" then there maybe trouble ahead for Blu-Ray after all. Sure Sony may have the sales advantage, but with Nintendo set to launch simultaneously with Sony and Microsoft a year early. It already kick starts a proper war between the two mediums.
On the other hand, with DVD gaining a firm position in society how likely is it that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be replacing it by 2006? Surly it'll take a good 5 years to properly take off? Is Nintendo likely to just stick with DVD movies? Especially as they lack the experience of it. But launching the system next to the Playstation 3 indicates that Nintendo are being really competitive this time, and they will want that to right down to the specifications and what the system offers.
Sony have a brilliant stratagy in place. Something Nintendo and Microsoft will have to be very clever to counteract. Recent reports indicate Nintendo are on the offensive, and it is likely we will see a far more agressive stance from the legendary developer... with the added bonus of brilliant and innovative "DS style" features. Microsoft are stripping down their system and offering in advance of the competiton. It is a surprise risk from Microsoft, hoping that releasing the system early will mean they get a stranglehold on the industry.
Didn't work for the Dreamcast did it.
Page:
Hopefully I will have a proper job by the time the new generation comes around.
At the moment I have a PS2, Xbox and Cube.
I will buy a PS3 and Xbox 2.
I will never buy a Nintendo console again, I got burned with the Cube and the N64.
Just not enough good interesting games.
I'll stick to the consoles which actually have more quality games than I can afford.
At the moment I have a PS2, Xbox and Cube.
I will buy a PS3 and Xbox 2.
I will never buy a Nintendo console again, I got burned with the Cube and the N64.
Just not enough good interesting games.
I'll stick to the consoles which actually have more quality games than I can afford.
Strafio wrote:
> I still think Nintendo should've let the big boys take risks over new
> devellopment this round, and pushed the Gamecube as a budget
> console.
>
> £50 with a game (the price they could have it down to by the
> time the next generation are released) would make it tempting to
> people who already buying another console.
>
> Also, if new games were cheap - £10 - £15, or even
> £20 for brand new releases and £10 for older games, it
> would take something REALLY special from Sony and MS to make people
> want to pay double for a game.
>
>
> There's so much the Gamecube can do, and Nintendo have said that they
> want to be about fun, family oriented quirky games.
> Well people just don't want to pay £40 for that sort of thing,
> but if they lowered the price, they would have their market, and it
> WOULD be out of direct competition with the big boys.
>
> What d'you make of that Biggles?
I kind of agree with you actually. Like Bonus said, really, if we're honest, then Nintendo can't compete with the R&D and hardware that Sony and MS are doing. They have far more resources and - this is the clincher - different aims. If Nintendo reposition themselves slightly in the market then they won't be a direct challenger to the PS2 or the PS3 when it arrives. People would more likely buy the Gamecube as a second console. My mate Algy for instance, loves Viewtiful Joe. But he isn't going to spend £80 on a console then buy the game.
But if he could pick it all up for £50 or £60, then he would. He isn't the only one like that either. (Although he is the king of spontaneous purchases, as his guitar and coat collection show...) Also if Nintendo repositioned themselves like that it would mean that they could keep the Gamecube out for longer, say 2007, thus making more money on the Gamecube through vastly increased software sales and then being a year or two behind the PS3 and Xenon they could bring out a more powerful console.
At the moment, Nintendo are trying to keep their family focus and compete with Sony and Microsoft at the same time. It isn't really working that well. The handheld market is different, they rule that market. But by continuing to compete with Sony and MS, Nintendo are having their hand forced and it will cost them on two levels, development of the Revolution and in lost sales for the Gamecube. A move on their part would enable them to become the console equivalent of the 14" portable TV - everybody has one in addition to a bigger better glitzier TV.
The same could be said of the Xbox, after all the Xbox and Gamecube have very similar console unit sales world wide. But the difference is, the Xbox is going head to head with the PS2. It lost this generation like it always would, but the next generation of consoles will be a more level playing field. Microsoft have the money to throw at the Xenon, something that Nintendo don't really have with regard to the Revolution.
Bonus wrote:
> If we are going to get into the specs of the new consoles, Xbox two is
> going to be the best.
>
> 3 cores, amazing graphics, it will see Quake IV on a console no
> problem at all. It will still be abstract running Windows API for
> multithreading on the concurrent cores and will use the new Windows
> Graphics Foundation no doubt and put everything we have ever seen on
> a console into orbit.
>
> The Cell will be new and will take a while to get up to speed,
> especially, if like the PS2, assembly coding is required to make it
> work properly.
>
> Microsoft will also have XNA libraries making development really
> easy, only problem they have is actually turning a profit if people
> don't buy the thing.
>
> Nintendo, should just give up, make games for Microsoft, and keep
> making hand helds, they are not a company with the funding, knowledge
> and industry contacts to make anything which will compete with the
> big boys, ever, they know it and are focussing on
> "innovation" rather than actualy hardware competition.
>
> If anyone starts on me I will just have to laugh at them, tell me I
> don't know what I am talking about and I will make you cry with my
> multi-threaded virtual machine project for uni (which would be
> exactly what is needed to get the most out of the Xbox 2, and I can
> do it now :D).
>
> No one knows what the PS3 or Revolution will be bapable of yet, but
> the fact that the PS3 is a brand new architecture and the GC is going
> to have an IBM processor les powerful than the Xbox 2, makes MS a
> winner in hardware already.
>
> If you haven't seen any shots of Quake 4 yet, go look, the Xbox will
> be able to do that as soon as it is released, dribble :D
Agreed. The Cell is promising, but is a new architecture and is a general purpose chip as opposed to a dedicated processor. Admittedly so was the processor in the Xbox, but X86 is old and inefficient, the only saving grace being that the architecture is well known, and hence well exploited. And of course [at the time] it had a high clock speed.
Really, the hardware just emphasises how Sony and MS are going for power; graphics, physics, sound will all be taken to the next level. And it will be a hard level to surpass. Nintendo are more gameplay focused. So why bother competing hardware wise?
I don't know that quitting the hardware business is quite the right move for Nintendo yet, but it could be. I'd leave the Gamecube out there as a budget console, see if it can keep generating sales and then if it does, then consider releasing another console. If not, jump ship. One benefit of vastly more powerful consoles from MS and Sony would be the ability to write middleware games that still look pretty damn good. XNA is a good example of that.
> I still think Nintendo should've let the big boys take risks over new
> devellopment this round, and pushed the Gamecube as a budget
> console.
>
> £50 with a game (the price they could have it down to by the
> time the next generation are released) would make it tempting to
> people who already buying another console.
>
> Also, if new games were cheap - £10 - £15, or even
> £20 for brand new releases and £10 for older games, it
> would take something REALLY special from Sony and MS to make people
> want to pay double for a game.
>
>
> There's so much the Gamecube can do, and Nintendo have said that they
> want to be about fun, family oriented quirky games.
> Well people just don't want to pay £40 for that sort of thing,
> but if they lowered the price, they would have their market, and it
> WOULD be out of direct competition with the big boys.
>
> What d'you make of that Biggles?
I kind of agree with you actually. Like Bonus said, really, if we're honest, then Nintendo can't compete with the R&D and hardware that Sony and MS are doing. They have far more resources and - this is the clincher - different aims. If Nintendo reposition themselves slightly in the market then they won't be a direct challenger to the PS2 or the PS3 when it arrives. People would more likely buy the Gamecube as a second console. My mate Algy for instance, loves Viewtiful Joe. But he isn't going to spend £80 on a console then buy the game.
But if he could pick it all up for £50 or £60, then he would. He isn't the only one like that either. (Although he is the king of spontaneous purchases, as his guitar and coat collection show...) Also if Nintendo repositioned themselves like that it would mean that they could keep the Gamecube out for longer, say 2007, thus making more money on the Gamecube through vastly increased software sales and then being a year or two behind the PS3 and Xenon they could bring out a more powerful console.
At the moment, Nintendo are trying to keep their family focus and compete with Sony and Microsoft at the same time. It isn't really working that well. The handheld market is different, they rule that market. But by continuing to compete with Sony and MS, Nintendo are having their hand forced and it will cost them on two levels, development of the Revolution and in lost sales for the Gamecube. A move on their part would enable them to become the console equivalent of the 14" portable TV - everybody has one in addition to a bigger better glitzier TV.
The same could be said of the Xbox, after all the Xbox and Gamecube have very similar console unit sales world wide. But the difference is, the Xbox is going head to head with the PS2. It lost this generation like it always would, but the next generation of consoles will be a more level playing field. Microsoft have the money to throw at the Xenon, something that Nintendo don't really have with regard to the Revolution.
Bonus wrote:
> If we are going to get into the specs of the new consoles, Xbox two is
> going to be the best.
>
> 3 cores, amazing graphics, it will see Quake IV on a console no
> problem at all. It will still be abstract running Windows API for
> multithreading on the concurrent cores and will use the new Windows
> Graphics Foundation no doubt and put everything we have ever seen on
> a console into orbit.
>
> The Cell will be new and will take a while to get up to speed,
> especially, if like the PS2, assembly coding is required to make it
> work properly.
>
> Microsoft will also have XNA libraries making development really
> easy, only problem they have is actually turning a profit if people
> don't buy the thing.
>
> Nintendo, should just give up, make games for Microsoft, and keep
> making hand helds, they are not a company with the funding, knowledge
> and industry contacts to make anything which will compete with the
> big boys, ever, they know it and are focussing on
> "innovation" rather than actualy hardware competition.
>
> If anyone starts on me I will just have to laugh at them, tell me I
> don't know what I am talking about and I will make you cry with my
> multi-threaded virtual machine project for uni (which would be
> exactly what is needed to get the most out of the Xbox 2, and I can
> do it now :D).
>
> No one knows what the PS3 or Revolution will be bapable of yet, but
> the fact that the PS3 is a brand new architecture and the GC is going
> to have an IBM processor les powerful than the Xbox 2, makes MS a
> winner in hardware already.
>
> If you haven't seen any shots of Quake 4 yet, go look, the Xbox will
> be able to do that as soon as it is released, dribble :D
Agreed. The Cell is promising, but is a new architecture and is a general purpose chip as opposed to a dedicated processor. Admittedly so was the processor in the Xbox, but X86 is old and inefficient, the only saving grace being that the architecture is well known, and hence well exploited. And of course [at the time] it had a high clock speed.
Really, the hardware just emphasises how Sony and MS are going for power; graphics, physics, sound will all be taken to the next level. And it will be a hard level to surpass. Nintendo are more gameplay focused. So why bother competing hardware wise?
I don't know that quitting the hardware business is quite the right move for Nintendo yet, but it could be. I'd leave the Gamecube out there as a budget console, see if it can keep generating sales and then if it does, then consider releasing another console. If not, jump ship. One benefit of vastly more powerful consoles from MS and Sony would be the ability to write middleware games that still look pretty damn good. XNA is a good example of that.
If we are going to get into the specs of the new consoles, Xbox two is going to be the best.
3 cores, amazing graphics, it will see Quake IV on a console no problem at all. It will still be abstract running Windows API for multithreading on the concurrent cores and will use the new Windows Graphics Foundation no doubt and put everything we have ever seen on a console into orbit.
The Cell will be new and will take a while to get up to speed, especially, if like the PS2, assembly coding is required to make it work properly.
Microsoft will also have XNA libraries making development really easy, only problem they have is actually turning a profit if people don't buy the thing.
Nintendo, should just give up, make games for Microsoft, and keep making hand helds, they are not a company with the funding, knowledge and industry contacts to make anything which will compete with the big boys, ever, they know it and are focussing on "innovation" rather than actualy hardware competition.
If anyone starts on me I will just have to laugh at them, tell me I don't know what I am talking about and I will make you cry with my multi-threaded virtual machine project for uni (which would be exactly what is needed to get the most out of the Xbox 2, and I can do it now :D).
No one knows what the PS3 or Revolution will be bapable of yet, but the fact that the PS3 is a brand new architecture and the GC is going to have an IBM processor les powerful than the Xbox 2, makes MS a winner in hardware already.
If you haven't seen any shots of Quake 4 yet, go look, the Xbox will be able to do that as soon as it is released, dribble :D
3 cores, amazing graphics, it will see Quake IV on a console no problem at all. It will still be abstract running Windows API for multithreading on the concurrent cores and will use the new Windows Graphics Foundation no doubt and put everything we have ever seen on a console into orbit.
The Cell will be new and will take a while to get up to speed, especially, if like the PS2, assembly coding is required to make it work properly.
Microsoft will also have XNA libraries making development really easy, only problem they have is actually turning a profit if people don't buy the thing.
Nintendo, should just give up, make games for Microsoft, and keep making hand helds, they are not a company with the funding, knowledge and industry contacts to make anything which will compete with the big boys, ever, they know it and are focussing on "innovation" rather than actualy hardware competition.
If anyone starts on me I will just have to laugh at them, tell me I don't know what I am talking about and I will make you cry with my multi-threaded virtual machine project for uni (which would be exactly what is needed to get the most out of the Xbox 2, and I can do it now :D).
No one knows what the PS3 or Revolution will be bapable of yet, but the fact that the PS3 is a brand new architecture and the GC is going to have an IBM processor les powerful than the Xbox 2, makes MS a winner in hardware already.
If you haven't seen any shots of Quake 4 yet, go look, the Xbox will be able to do that as soon as it is released, dribble :D
I still think Nintendo should've let the big boys take risks over new devellopment this round, and pushed the Gamecube as a budget console.
£50 with a game (the price they could have it down to by the time the next generation are released) would make it tempting to people who already buying another console.
Also, if new games were cheap - £10 - £15, or even £20 for brand new releases and £10 for older games, it would take something REALLY special from Sony and MS to make people want to pay double for a game.
There's so much the Gamecube can do, and Nintendo have said that they want to be about fun, family oriented quirky games.
Well people just don't want to pay £40 for that sort of thing, but if they lowered the price, they would have their market, and it WOULD be out of direct competition with the big boys.
What d'you make of that Biggles?
£50 with a game (the price they could have it down to by the time the next generation are released) would make it tempting to people who already buying another console.
Also, if new games were cheap - £10 - £15, or even £20 for brand new releases and £10 for older games, it would take something REALLY special from Sony and MS to make people want to pay double for a game.
There's so much the Gamecube can do, and Nintendo have said that they want to be about fun, family oriented quirky games.
Well people just don't want to pay £40 for that sort of thing, but if they lowered the price, they would have their market, and it WOULD be out of direct competition with the big boys.
What d'you make of that Biggles?
First up with regard to blu-ray. There is no doubt that as a technology it is superior to DVD. But it is an evolution, not a revolution. DVD isn't even ten years old yet, and it only became the main standard in the past three years. Home media tends to last somewhere in the region of 20 years before replacement. Records were around for years, then tapes, then CDs. Even now CD is still the main format, despite having it's twentieth birthday lately. VHS is a bit older still, and only now dying out. DVD has just become popular, so it won't disappear yet because too many people have the technology and don't want to change it yet. The same reason that Laserdisc, that Video CD and a few other formats failed. People were just not ready to change.
Ah, but millions of people will have one if it is in the PS3. True. But no studio is going to alienate the vast majority of its customers by ending DVD production. Things will stay DVD oriented for just now. Maybe some folk will buy Blu-rays of Star Wars etc, but chances are they'll stick to DVD to be compatible with friends and family. Lower unit sales will keep the prices on Blu-rays up, creating a cycle of not buying them. As a format, the only likely application where it can expect success is in PCs, where the extra capacity will be appreciated for back up purposes.
The hardware. The Cell is over hyped. Sure, it should be very impressive. But I just don't see how they are going to produce something so revolutionary, at least, not without radically altering the architecture of everything before it and thus making it difficult to develop for and utilise that power. I think it was FFF who mentioned Moore's Law about computer speeds doubling every year and a half. Actually, the reality is that wasn't the quote. The quote was that transistors on a chip would double in number every year and a half - it is just that it tends to be the case that more transistors equals more speed.
What is the relevance of that you might ask. Well, quite simply, more transistors means higher power requirements - running your PS3 will cost you more in electricity. Hardly anything admittedly, but the other side affect of high transistor counts is the heat. The Cell is going to be WARM. Expect the PS3 to be either huge or noisy, or both. It will also end up relatively inefficient as it is designed to be used in a variety of different hardware, the problem there being that requires a bunch of other things on a chip to make it multi processor aware etc. It isn't a dedicated video games console processor.
At the end of the day though, it will be a helluva lot more powerful than anything out just now. But don't expect the hardware to live up to expectations, the PS2's Emotion Engine was supposed to make for natural water and lighting effects. Instead it brought us Ridge Racer V.
The Xenon isn't necessarily going to be the least powerful console, I really don't know what suggests that to you. Surely not release date alone? In fact, three dual-core PowerPC processors running in parallel is stupendous amounts of power. The current G5 2.5 GHz chip in the latest PowerMac is more than 8 times better than the latest Pentium 4 in floating point operations. Floating point ops are used an awful lot in games. That coupled with the successor to the ATI X800 XT graphics chip means wonderful graphics power as well. I think I speak on behalf of Bonus, Icky and Spikecast when I say it's arousing.
Talk of the demise of hard disk is also premature. I've heard (fairly credible) rumours that indicate that there will still be some sort of built in drive. Of course Microsoft have been known to have signed an agreement with a flash drive specialist called something like Mtech. They do things like ultra high speed, huge capacity flash drive. Lower production costs and lower power requirements. Good good. Storage fits in with the Live model at the moment as well.
And as for the Revolution, well who knows? ATI do I suppose, as they are the graphics chip maker. Chances are, performance and architecturally, the Revolution will be similar to the Xenon. Of course Nintendo aren't all about the power.
Really, this generation is the generation least about graphics. Graphics have always been a huge part of video game advances, NES to SNES to N64 etc. But they have a limit. You can't get better than real life looking. Whilst we are still many many years away from that, we do now have wonderful 3D with great textures that in some ways look realistic. If all consoles can do that, then each of them needs something unique to stand out. Sony and Microsoft seem to be going down the road of more processor power, to enable life like physics as well as having lovely graphics. Microsoft are heavily pushing online gaming, and with good results.
I don't really know what Nintendo's focus is. Other than being a family oriented company without the blood and guts of more "mature" systems. I don't like Nintendo being so secretive, and really, it is bad for them. Despite Dringo's best efforts, you can't hype something you know nothing about.
There was a comparison between the Xenon and the Dreamcast. In some ways it is similar, the Xenon will likely end up being out before the PS3. But on the other hand, Microsoft don't actually need the Xbox or Xenon to be a success. As long as it damages Sony, great. The other differences are that the Dreamcast, whilst a next gen at the time system, was also a competitor with the N64 and Playstation. It was fighting on two fronts. When the Xenon emerges, it isn't going to be fighting the same battles. The other difference is that people are far less likely to wait for the PS3 compared to waiting for the PS2. People waited for the PS2 because they knew that it would likely be "better" than the Dreamcast. Nobody knew about the Xbox or Gamecube back then.
At the end of the day, each new system should further gaming in its own way. I'm excited about all of them, they all offer lots of new possibilities. But timing of when they come out is irrelevant really, a year from now isn't good in my books. I'll never finish all my Xbox games in time. I've not even started Morrowind yet.
In fact, all of the companies know that it really isn't quite time to move on yet, but they all know that they have to be fairly close together to remain competitive. After all, Sony have had a good four and a half years so far out of the PS2, which is showing its age. They would like to just sit back and rake in millions in royalties like they did with the PS, but that is less likely to happen. The Xbox is chipping away at the PS2 across Europe and North America, the Gamecube taking sales from the PS2 in Asia. Sony unsurprisingly, don't actually like that. They have sold a lot more than MS or Nintendo in this generation, and now want to force their hands by releasing another generation. For MS and Nintendo it isn't good, their systems never had the time to build up as much mass as they would have liked. They too need to compete, and in this case it involves rushing the next generation.
But what happens next is anybodies guess. Nintendo will do well with their traditional franchises, like Zelda and Mario and will probably flounder trying to do much else. Sony will end up with one or two decent exclusives and myriads of repetitive, samey rubbish. MS will likely lack killer exclusives but have excellent online play.
I say PS3 will get 40-45%, and Xenon and Revolution each to get 25-30% of the console market next time round.
Anyway, I've rambled enough. How I got from discs to market share I'm not sure.
Ah, but millions of people will have one if it is in the PS3. True. But no studio is going to alienate the vast majority of its customers by ending DVD production. Things will stay DVD oriented for just now. Maybe some folk will buy Blu-rays of Star Wars etc, but chances are they'll stick to DVD to be compatible with friends and family. Lower unit sales will keep the prices on Blu-rays up, creating a cycle of not buying them. As a format, the only likely application where it can expect success is in PCs, where the extra capacity will be appreciated for back up purposes.
The hardware. The Cell is over hyped. Sure, it should be very impressive. But I just don't see how they are going to produce something so revolutionary, at least, not without radically altering the architecture of everything before it and thus making it difficult to develop for and utilise that power. I think it was FFF who mentioned Moore's Law about computer speeds doubling every year and a half. Actually, the reality is that wasn't the quote. The quote was that transistors on a chip would double in number every year and a half - it is just that it tends to be the case that more transistors equals more speed.
What is the relevance of that you might ask. Well, quite simply, more transistors means higher power requirements - running your PS3 will cost you more in electricity. Hardly anything admittedly, but the other side affect of high transistor counts is the heat. The Cell is going to be WARM. Expect the PS3 to be either huge or noisy, or both. It will also end up relatively inefficient as it is designed to be used in a variety of different hardware, the problem there being that requires a bunch of other things on a chip to make it multi processor aware etc. It isn't a dedicated video games console processor.
At the end of the day though, it will be a helluva lot more powerful than anything out just now. But don't expect the hardware to live up to expectations, the PS2's Emotion Engine was supposed to make for natural water and lighting effects. Instead it brought us Ridge Racer V.
The Xenon isn't necessarily going to be the least powerful console, I really don't know what suggests that to you. Surely not release date alone? In fact, three dual-core PowerPC processors running in parallel is stupendous amounts of power. The current G5 2.5 GHz chip in the latest PowerMac is more than 8 times better than the latest Pentium 4 in floating point operations. Floating point ops are used an awful lot in games. That coupled with the successor to the ATI X800 XT graphics chip means wonderful graphics power as well. I think I speak on behalf of Bonus, Icky and Spikecast when I say it's arousing.
Talk of the demise of hard disk is also premature. I've heard (fairly credible) rumours that indicate that there will still be some sort of built in drive. Of course Microsoft have been known to have signed an agreement with a flash drive specialist called something like Mtech. They do things like ultra high speed, huge capacity flash drive. Lower production costs and lower power requirements. Good good. Storage fits in with the Live model at the moment as well.
And as for the Revolution, well who knows? ATI do I suppose, as they are the graphics chip maker. Chances are, performance and architecturally, the Revolution will be similar to the Xenon. Of course Nintendo aren't all about the power.
Really, this generation is the generation least about graphics. Graphics have always been a huge part of video game advances, NES to SNES to N64 etc. But they have a limit. You can't get better than real life looking. Whilst we are still many many years away from that, we do now have wonderful 3D with great textures that in some ways look realistic. If all consoles can do that, then each of them needs something unique to stand out. Sony and Microsoft seem to be going down the road of more processor power, to enable life like physics as well as having lovely graphics. Microsoft are heavily pushing online gaming, and with good results.
I don't really know what Nintendo's focus is. Other than being a family oriented company without the blood and guts of more "mature" systems. I don't like Nintendo being so secretive, and really, it is bad for them. Despite Dringo's best efforts, you can't hype something you know nothing about.
There was a comparison between the Xenon and the Dreamcast. In some ways it is similar, the Xenon will likely end up being out before the PS3. But on the other hand, Microsoft don't actually need the Xbox or Xenon to be a success. As long as it damages Sony, great. The other differences are that the Dreamcast, whilst a next gen at the time system, was also a competitor with the N64 and Playstation. It was fighting on two fronts. When the Xenon emerges, it isn't going to be fighting the same battles. The other difference is that people are far less likely to wait for the PS3 compared to waiting for the PS2. People waited for the PS2 because they knew that it would likely be "better" than the Dreamcast. Nobody knew about the Xbox or Gamecube back then.
At the end of the day, each new system should further gaming in its own way. I'm excited about all of them, they all offer lots of new possibilities. But timing of when they come out is irrelevant really, a year from now isn't good in my books. I'll never finish all my Xbox games in time. I've not even started Morrowind yet.
In fact, all of the companies know that it really isn't quite time to move on yet, but they all know that they have to be fairly close together to remain competitive. After all, Sony have had a good four and a half years so far out of the PS2, which is showing its age. They would like to just sit back and rake in millions in royalties like they did with the PS, but that is less likely to happen. The Xbox is chipping away at the PS2 across Europe and North America, the Gamecube taking sales from the PS2 in Asia. Sony unsurprisingly, don't actually like that. They have sold a lot more than MS or Nintendo in this generation, and now want to force their hands by releasing another generation. For MS and Nintendo it isn't good, their systems never had the time to build up as much mass as they would have liked. They too need to compete, and in this case it involves rushing the next generation.
But what happens next is anybodies guess. Nintendo will do well with their traditional franchises, like Zelda and Mario and will probably flounder trying to do much else. Sony will end up with one or two decent exclusives and myriads of repetitive, samey rubbish. MS will likely lack killer exclusives but have excellent online play.
I say PS3 will get 40-45%, and Xenon and Revolution each to get 25-30% of the console market next time round.
Anyway, I've rambled enough. How I got from discs to market share I'm not sure.
What I already said down below.
So what are you complaining?
Dringo wrote:
> lcarus wrote:
> No, in reference to your standard "Nintendo is second, etc.
> " attack followed by a quite detached, reserved post after
> Bonus' quote. Quite pathetic.
>
> "Gamecube is second worldwide" is also a quote.
>
> "Nintendo have the biggest selling system" worldwide is
> also a quote.
>
> "Nintendo have $6.7 billion in liquid assets" is also a
> quote.
>
> "Nintendo raised their fiscal quater predictions" is also a
> damn quote.
>
> Oh and what exactly am I supposed to defend?
Defend? Where did that come from???
> lcarus wrote:
> No, in reference to your standard "Nintendo is second, etc.
> " attack followed by a quite detached, reserved post after
> Bonus' quote. Quite pathetic.
>
> "Gamecube is second worldwide" is also a quote.
>
> "Nintendo have the biggest selling system" worldwide is
> also a quote.
>
> "Nintendo have $6.7 billion in liquid assets" is also a
> quote.
>
> "Nintendo raised their fiscal quater predictions" is also a
> damn quote.
>
> Oh and what exactly am I supposed to defend?
Defend? Where did that come from???
Bonus wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
>
> The NTSC world is much smaller. I think PAL covers places such as
> India etc. where there isn't as much money, but it's still a source
> of revenue going to Sony for 10 year old technology ahead of what is
> going to Nintendo for current technology.
Countries like India and other third world nations cannot afford the more expensive consoles. I remember towards the end of the N64 life span the SNES was released in these countries.
If they are PAL it is unlikely the Gamecube even exists in these countries.
NTSC is a massive market that Nintendo do brilliantly in as is the Asian market.
> Cyclone wrote:
>
> The NTSC world is much smaller. I think PAL covers places such as
> India etc. where there isn't as much money, but it's still a source
> of revenue going to Sony for 10 year old technology ahead of what is
> going to Nintendo for current technology.
Countries like India and other third world nations cannot afford the more expensive consoles. I remember towards the end of the N64 life span the SNES was released in these countries.
If they are PAL it is unlikely the Gamecube even exists in these countries.
NTSC is a massive market that Nintendo do brilliantly in as is the Asian market.
lcarus wrote:
> No, in reference to your standard "Nintendo is second, etc.
> " attack followed by a quite detached, reserved post after
> Bonus' quote. Quite pathetic.
"Gamecube is second worldwide" is also a quote.
"Nintendo have the biggest selling system" worldwide is also a quote.
"Nintendo have $6.7 billion in liquid assets" is also a quote.
"Nintendo raised their fiscal quater predictions" is also a damn quote.
Oh and what exactly am I supposed to defend? I know, you know... my deaf uncle knows that the Gamecube does not sell well in Europe. I can't defend fact. Not that it needs defending, Nintendo are not bad because they home system doesn't sell very well.
> No, in reference to your standard "Nintendo is second, etc.
> " attack followed by a quite detached, reserved post after
> Bonus' quote. Quite pathetic.
"Gamecube is second worldwide" is also a quote.
"Nintendo have the biggest selling system" worldwide is also a quote.
"Nintendo have $6.7 billion in liquid assets" is also a quote.
"Nintendo raised their fiscal quater predictions" is also a damn quote.
Oh and what exactly am I supposed to defend? I know, you know... my deaf uncle knows that the Gamecube does not sell well in Europe. I can't defend fact. Not that it needs defending, Nintendo are not bad because they home system doesn't sell very well.
Page: