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.
Why must the media constantly downplay the gamecube? It is not exactly performing poorly and it is not for lack of good games. Is it because "edgy" titles such as GTA: Vice City and Manhunt are not released for it? Perhaps it is too "cute"?
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!"
Systems that are first to launch are not always the winner. In reality, was PS2 really the first to launch? Yes... if you mean the first of the current systems still in production. But wasn't Dreamcast considered part of this generation? I believe it was a 128-bit system and its capabilities whipped the pants off of PS1 and N64. And look where it is now [in America, at least].
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
The only hard 'fact' in those 3 pages is that the PS3 will use 'CELL' technology. Other than that there's just speculation that the XBox 2 might not have a hard drive, some more Sony marketing hyperbole (PS3 will be 1000 times faster!), and the requisite Nintendo questioning.
There was absolutely nothing in that article to make it worth reading. Of course, it was on GameSpy, so that's not too surprising.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
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.
You're forgetting (or didn't know) a few things about the XBox hardware, though. The CPU, motherboard, video, and sound were modified and/or designed for the XBox. In fact, nVidia gets as big a cut of the XBox as it does because it designed the motherboard (a derivative of which became the nForce, which, oddly enough, was originally for AMD chips). The CPU was modified heavily in it's design not only to fit the specs for the chipset, but also to fit the needs of a console. All of this is why Microsoft has been able to reduce manufacturing costs on the console, but at the same time their payments to nVidia and Intel have not changed, thereby sticking them with a rather large percentage of the manufacturing cost going to those two companies. This is, as you hinted with statements about Sony, why MS announced that they are licensing technology from IBM, which should lead more people to believe they will be manufacturing the processors themselves (or outsourcing it) rather than having IBM produce processors for them as Intel does for the current XBox.
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.
Certainly for me it was a mix of Square, GT3, GTA3, and Tekken, not to mention backwards compatibility. That being said, I was not an early adopter of the PS2, and was disappointed with it's performance relative to the DreamCast which I had purchased shortly after release in 1999.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
And of course, it had nothing to do with the fact that the Xbox had shit all for games when it came out, whereas the PS2 could play all of the Playstation games available in rental and used game shops.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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
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.
Except for the fact that the Xbox is "underperforming" just as much as the GC and MS will indeed name their next console after the Xbox, so I don't see how naming it after the Gamecube would be such a bad thing (though I'd like to see them name it the NES 5, personally).
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.
Care to cite some evidence of the average gamer age? The fact may be that many companies find the 18-30 male demographic enticing to target but, assuming no 18-30 male wants to play any Nintendo games [I say that as a person in that target group who owns and enjoys a Gamecube], there is still a huge void that many companies simply don't hit. The fact is that I can enjoy both GTA 3 and a game like The Wind Waker. You might think because of the graphic style, the Wind Waker is designed for kids. People who think Mario and Zelda are just for the kiddies are missing out on enjoyable game experiences and probably are doing so because they have some strange need to have ultra-violence in all their games. I find this similar to the types of people who are constantly making jokes about others being gay in order to feel more like a man - a scared little girl deep inside there. And don't feel "bad" for inanimate objects. You can feel bad for the folks working at Nintendo [even though Nintendo is making plenty of profit - unlike the XBox division at MS] but not the Gamecube itself. Have a good day.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Basically the comments after each section boil down to "we hate nintendo" - I just don't get it. I don't hope any one company succeeds or fails, I will buy a product that appeals to me [unless it made by microsoft :)] I recently got a gmaecube (I haven't purchase any of this generation's consoles till now) and I did so because it beat the others on price, and on games. The games I want to play are on the GC and I think its because I want to play fun games, not games that throw in violence or sex so they can be 'mature'. (although my first few purchases have had some misteps, "Super Smash Bros. Melee" anyone ?)
I also think the GC joystick design blows away the competition and I hope nintendo sticks with it. But if their next system sucks I wont want it, even if everyone else does, and the same goes for sony.
I just don't get why all the press recently has been so anti-nintendo, it is sort-of like the anti-Howard Dean press, where is very obvious the Republicans are pushing the 'un-electable' angle as hard as they can so that it sticks before he even gets the nomination. Why are game writers so anti nintendo? the game cube is a nice little device and the games they put out are typiclly very high quality.
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).
"May 2004's Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) would seem an appropriate time for the PS3 unveiling"
No, it wouldn't. That time would be 2005. The cycle between consoles otherwise is 5 years. When did they last have complete hardware to show in North America? At E3 2000. When did the PS2 release? Fall 2000.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
a lot of people are whining about backwards compatibility being important. but realistically, how many owners of PS2s are still buying PS1 games? A few, but not many. Once they see games on the PS2, they don't want blocky PS1 games...
How many Nintendo consoles have offered backwards compatibility? The Gameboys. Gamecube has a completely different type of media. Usually Nintendo have stuck to carts, but they're on proprietary CDs.
People are still buying their new games. People aren't complaining that they can't plug their N64 games and their SNES games into the cube...
Same for Xbox. New architecture will just mean a new box. Who gives a toss iff it can't play old Xbox games? Your old Xbox will do that.
If you don't have a current-gen Xbox when the next-gen is released, you're not going to go out and buy old Xbox games. They'll be too blocky, or too low-res.
You'll move on. And you'll accept that.
Don't impel the designers of the next-gen consoles to add backwards compatibility that you won't ACTUALLY use.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
I mean, look at this :
up to 1000 times as fast as the PS2. What that means in real-world terms remains to be seen. We suspect that backwards compatibility is unlikely.
With that much hyped power, I can't understand why gamespy couldn't even think about emulation.
Oh wait, I forgot...
Anyone believing something as stupid as "1000 times as powerfull as a playstation 2, and there will be 4 of them in the box" should be shot. If they made a joke about it, it'd be fine. But they just said it. I just wish they'd go bankrupt.