Slashdot Mirror
Next-Gen Console Rumors Summarized, Discussed
Thanks to GameSpy for their article discussing available information and prospects for Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo's next generation of consoles. Regarding Sony's PlayStation 3, the piece notes: "May 2004's Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) would seem an appropriate time for the PS3 unveiling, but it's unlikely that Sony will want to steal the thunder from its already-scheduled PlayStation Portable (PSP) unveiling", and also muses that "Nintendo's next-gen machine doesn't even have a good moniker yet, as it's unlikely that it'll want to name it after the underperforming GameCube." As for the alleged Xbox Next, the article suggests: "Jostling with Nintendo for the second-place spot worldwide, Microsoft has a bit more [motivation] than Sony to tip its hand early", and claims news of the device is "set to debut at the San Jose Game Developers Conference (GDC) in March 2004." But do those who unveil and launch their consoles first always get the advantage?
Sony's specialized parts ensured that Sony owned all of the rights. Sony's intimate knowledge of the parts and the manufacturing has allowed them to combine silicon, cutting down on overall size and costs. Likewise, the only profittaking is from Sony, and with fewer hands in the pot the margins can be shrunk. Unfortunately for Microsoft, using off-the-shelf parts from different manufacturers ensured that they needed the cooperation (and credits) from different companies. Nvidia, for example, gets a cut on the sales of the hardware, not from the software like ATI gets from Nintendo. Microsoft similarly needs to use faster hardware in their machines as they aren't exactly console-optimized. The 'Cube, again, can get away with running on much slower (read, cheaper) hardware, because it would be a terrible webserver. Say what you will about the XBox OS, it's hardware and interfaces were not originally developed with gaming in mind.
On the other hand, the success of the PS2 can probably be traced to GT3, GTA, Square, Metal Gear Solid 2, Onimusha, and a host of must-have games that were released before the Xbox hit its stride. People buy games and hardware to play those games, not hardware and games to play on that hardware.
As I just wrote in my journal today I predict that what Nintendo will anounce is a portable gamecube that uses the same media. Perfectly possible and it would give the PSP something serious to think about given that there is already a stack of GC software out there. Add in the Gameboy player and you're really cooking.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
I'm gonna guess that it's because Nintendo isn't in the form of the conglomerate business. Sony owns most of the electronics industry and Microsoft owns a good chunk of the computer industry. If you bad talk them, you're likely to be slapped with lawsuits, or worse, when they become the new overlords, they'll remember the harsh words against them.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
I say Dreamcast launched late, given SEGA's history. The Genesis launched to compete with the NES and got stomped on by the SNES. I seem to remember the Sega CD competing with the SNES, just during its late years, and the 32X/add-on du jour/Saturn had to compete with the Playstation, but the Saturn came out around the same time as the PlayStation. Sega's smoked a lot of crack around release time, I guess. Thusly, the Dreamcast was Sega's PSX killer, but Sony started pumped the PS2, and lots of people decided to wait. The Dreamcast does have a thriving (ish) emulation and homebrew scene due to a homemade devkit and a lack of need for a modchip. Software includes DCBlast, my (crappy) baby.
-insert a witty something-
Games aren't original; hardware is. PS2 games are largely the same games we've always played our whole lives. The fun of buying a console vs the emulator is the ability to play on that hardware, using neato controllers. I buy the hardware so I can play games on the hardware. Otherwise, I'd just wait another 5 or so years, get a PS2 emulator, and download ROMs like mad. But I don't want to play those games on my PC. I want to play them on my PS2 hardware.
There are definitely a few innovations, I admit, like GTA:VC, and the newish kinetic/rhythm genre i.e. Amplitude/Frequency/DDR/Eye Toy. But in the examples of DDR and the Eye Toy -- people buy hardware so that they can play a game on that hardware.
When I bought 2 forcefeedback steering wheels for my console, I didn't buy them "to play a game". I bought them to use the steering wheels. I didn't even have a game in mind. (Though, now, it is Burnout 2!)
So.. I have to disagree, for me personally at least.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Frankly, I think the next gen systems are going to be rather underwhelming. The transition from 64 to 128 bit for Sony took a bit of time, as plenty of good games were still released for the PS1, and the first genration for the PS2 was rather underwhelming. (For the most part. Sony got lucky I think).
Every new hardware generation needs a "Killer App.". From the 2600 to the NES, the Killer App was SMB/Mega Man/Side Scrollers. From the NES to the SNES/Genesis, the killer apps were the increased graphical prowness, SMW and Sonic. Then there was the turn at 32/64 bit. For the N64, it was 3d adventures. For the PS1, it was first the arcade ports. That never really caught on. The big killer app was Final Fantasy VII, of course.
When it jumped from PS1 to PS2, the Dreamcast, first, never really had anything to really vault itself. Soul Calibur was great, but the genre was already done on the PS1. It was technically brilliant, but didn't add too much.
My argument is that the killer app on the PS2 is actually a rather overlooked game.
Dynasty Warriors 2.
That really introduced the idea of being overwhelmed in an action game. Not for consumers, but for developers, I think it opened a lot of eyes towards what could be done on the hardware.
Until they have something to launch this on the new hardware, I think that the focus will be on the current generation.
On the other hand, the success of the PS2 can probably be traced to GT3, GTA, Square, Metal Gear Solid 2, Onimusha, and a host of must-have games that were released before the Xbox hit its stride.
The PS2's success didn't have to do with big games. There really weren't any big games for the PS2 until about a year after the PS2's launch - about the same time as the GameCube and Xbox launched. By then, PS2 sales were already about what current Xbox and GameCube sales combined are.
Other than Halo, the Xbox has had very few games to really drive the system sales. Yes, it has some good games, but not standout games. You can get things like good racers for every system.
The GameCube's failure is due to Nintendo waiting until a year after launch to start bringing out their big names - Mario, Zelda, and Metroid. While Metroid came out far better than anyone expected, Mario and Zelda greatly underachieved. Mario Sunshine was very good, but it's rather short if you don't count the very tedious finding blue coins portion of the game. Zelda had the difficulty toned down way too much, and was also very linear (the non-linearity of past Zelda games was a huge factor in what made them so good).