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?

Comments

Why?

[jabberjaw]

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"?

Next Nintendo

[GreatDrok]

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.

The answer is "No"

[chrismcdirty]

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].

Re:The answer is "No"

[NanoGator]

" 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. "

The Dreamcast didn't die because people didn't want it, it died because Sega couldn't move enough units to stay afloat. The difference may seem subtle at first, but think about it a sec: You have to build the machines before selling them. If you're trying to be competitive with other over-hyped systems, you're being forced to cut too many corners. Eventually it just wasn't profitable enough in the short term for them. Many people weeped over the demise of that system, it wasn't because it was neglected.

On a side note: Side by side, Dreamcast games looked better than PS2 games. The PS2, though technically more powerful, has a nasty little RAM bottleneck that forces them to render at half screen, and interpoplate back up to full screen. The RAM saved was put into textures etc. The DC, however, had an adequate buffer to do full-res video. The result? Clarity. That thing could move textures like mad.

Pity Sony had to be so arrogant with their design. Lots of hardship on the developers in that aspect. I remember the Oddworld game was moved to the XBOX because the PS2 was too limiting on the artists.

What a worthless article...

[scot4875]

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