Slashdot Mirror
Playstation 3 Already Won the Next Gen Battle?
damyan writes "The BBC are running an article that claims that the Playstation 3 has already won the next-gen battle, since 'The Informa Media Group predicts that Sony will sell more than 30 million PlayStation 3s in Europe by 2010. It puts Microsoft in second place with 10 million sales and Nintendo trailing in third with five million.' If only everyone could see that well into the future."
Until the battle occurs.
I can predict anything. Doesn't make it true.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
never fumble and release a crappy update to an existing game system
Atari 5200 anyone? excellent graphics (for early 80s), awful controllers.
Currently, even though the XBox is closed, there is more development going on to use it w/o MS' software than there is to use Linux on the PS2...
PS2Linux is outdated and apparently not all that worth the money you have to sink into the machine to use it.
Will XBox2 be the same way? No one knows...
And unlike Xbox, which seems intent on turning the console gaming market into the PC gaming market by porting just about every game they make to the PC, Nintendo actually gives people a reason to buy their system.
Nintendo's big problem is a series of bad business decisions they made back in the N64 generation, which caused a number of third party developers to jump to Playstation.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
"Meanwhile, Nintendo seems set to play to its strengths and emphasise game quality and innovation over processor horsepower."
It's interesting they should say that...the Gamecube's games look consistently better than PS2 games in no small part due to the additional power the Gamecube has over the PS2, and the relative ease of developing games on the Gamecube. Then, the article goes on to say Nintendo emphasizes game quality over power, which they already have plenty of! If this isn't a ringing endorsement for Nintendo, I don't know what is.
I wish they were right. Carts rule. No load times. Don't get scratched. Don't need a case. The main advantage of a CD is its storage capacity but all we've gotten out of that are boring cut scenes and an annoying whirr whirr whirr after you beat a boss. Ah well.
I think you're dead on, and probably the reason why these "analysts" could make a prediction at all without knowing anything about the hardware. It seems it's a given that any big house can make a respectable console, so they probably assumed Xbox2 and PS3 would be about the same and focused on the differences. My guess is that the biggest difference is in the network of game developers that these companies have been able to develop. Hence, analyst logic:
:)
3 times as many game developers for Sony => 3 times as many consoles sold.
Kind of like the "FreeBSD is dying" statistics
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
These are video games we're talking about not demo reels. Why is everyone so hung up on how games look and not how they play?
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Nintendo is going to win the 9th generation! And my pet seamonkeys will win the one after that!
Sorry, I just wanted to indulge in random and useless speculation like the authors of the article.
I'm done now, so I guess I'll go play Zelda.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Microsoft seems to have made decent inroads, doubling Ninendo's market share. I know they have the marketing bucks, but my question is why would anyone buy an xBox instead of a PS? PS has more games and better overall quality and reliability.
This is how I hear it from my nephew, the hardcore gamer anyway. I like to play games, but this kid spends 8 hours a day gaming it up on the PC and PS2. The consensus among his set is that the xBox is not even a consideration ...
Why is the hard drive thing still an issue? It shouldn't be an issue at all yet since no specs have been released on the system.
Would an internal 4 Gig flash drive make everyone happy? Because that's not outside the realm of possibility yet.
Also, who predicts something as unpredictable as video game sales? This is a stupid thing to do. Maybe after we see some specs on the consoles in question. But, gamers are getting smarter and more tuned in to what makes a system good and for all we know Nintendo could release a system that simply blows the other 2 away 3-6 months after the other two are released.
All in all, I can't believe somebody like the BBC would run an article like this.
what?
you obviousally didn't play mariokart GC.
it's great that you can put 2 players on each kart. one can smack drivers as they pass and chuck items.
it makes for awesome multiplayer gaming. and is the single most played game in my home, compared to ALL the other consoles... yes I have an X box, it sat there so long unused that it's now a mythtv playback box in the bedroom.
I suggest you play mariokartGC a bit... it's the best racing game across ALL platforms hands down for fun and multiplayer.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It occurs to me that if I ever managed to sell 10, 5 or even 1 million of anything, I'd consider myself pretty damn successful.
Interesting times, I guess...
It is really stretching to say that Sony has won the next gen battle. Think about it. Sega had the best base w/ Genisis. Nintendo had the league won with SNES. But then sony came out w/ Playstation. Took the lead away based on best games and platform. And that platform is ALWAYS changing. I don't believe console gamers have brand loyalty.
Most of us are assuming that the PS3 will be backwards compatible with the PS2, if not still the PS1.
I'm hoping that Nintendo makes the Gamecube 2 compatible with the Gamecube, but there's been no comment on that.
But the Xbox 2 is looking more and more like it will not be backwards compatible with the Xbox 1, and I'm thinking that might be a huge mistake on Microsoft's part.
It usually takes about 12 months for A list titles to appear on any new console. MS was at least smart enough to put Halo on its release titles, which was a good move, but after that it still took some time for another major "must have" exclusive title.
So if the Xbox 2 isn't backwards compatible, I have the feeling that it will be a harder sell. I have all three systems, and some Xbox games I haven't gotten around to yet (Ninja Gaiden is certain a hard-as-nails blast, though). But if I can't play those games on a new Xbox 2, I'll probably just wait 12 months or so until the price dies down.
If the other two systems (GC2 and PS3) are backwards, then it will be a simple pickup. Old system gets sold on eBay, and new system plays maybe 1 new game for it, and all my old games are still valid.
I don't mind have 3 consoles - but I think 4 is just too many, espeically when 2 of them are by the same manufacturer.
I know - "But in the past we didn't care - look at the SNES to N64, or N64 to Gamecube!". Yes, that's true - but we had only 2 consoles really on the market at a time. Now we have 3, and that actually makes a hell of a difference. And now that Sony has pretty much got us used to backwards compatibility, I think that most buyers (especially their parents who don't want to see $200 in old games unplayed by their children because they 'don't work on the new system") now expect that backwards compatibility.
I could be wrong - it's been known to happen. But that's my opinion.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
The number of people who will use linux support as a criterion for deciding which console to buy is going to be so tiny that you're dreaming if you think it's going to have any impact whatsoever.
I don't know about the first 3 predictions but the fourth has pretty good odds of coming true. Considering the strike slated for next year and the desire for canadians to watch hockey with or without the ridiculous salaries.
Stay tuned for new sig...
I think the issue of backwards compatibility is going to give Sony a huge advantage. In the case of the PS2, the compatibility with PS1 cames gave it a big headstart in terms of supported titles. Given that Microsoft is going to find it hard to maintain compatibility with the Xbox 1, (see article) , Sony should press that advantage for all its worth. It makes the consumer feel like they're getting the most bang for the buck when their shiny new toy works with old games as well as new games.
I think the key difference is that the XBox has a hardrive. Those HD are pretty useful relative to being limited to flash and burned media for storage.
I think that the marketing of their games is going to be a bigger deal next time around.
After all, at this next E3 Nintendo said it will be showing the new console. That is an interesting statement from a company like Nintendo that is not that interested in change.
I believe the next console war will seriously be over on-line play. It has already started, and Nintendo now knows that, and it can't be so insane that it doesn't understand it.
Show a little respect. Nintendo can't purchase Viacom or DirecTV on a whim like Sony and Microsoft can, so for a game company that JUST MAKES GAMES, they're still holding up. Pretty respectable considering that they are going up against the cash cows of all media.
I know I'll buy a Nintendo. The games play well. Microsoft has spent too much money on games like Halo, that I have already played before. Playstation spends money on games that I have no urge to play whatsoever.
Well, that's what happens when the console approaches the threshold of users that ever wanted one and have the means to get one.
I'm looking to get rich. I've got steps #2 (????) and #3 (PROFIT!) planned out, but am having trouble coming up with #1.
This is simply untrue. Tell me how many games MS has ported from PC to the Xbox currently. It's not a large number. If you're thinking games like Counter Strike and Rainbow Six, those weren't made by MS. I know Halo was on Xbox first and its sequel is easily one of the most anticipated games ever.
You're arguing the opposite point, and supporting what he said by using Halo as an example.
It's actually easier to prove that MS is not porting games from the XBox to the PC than to prove that games are not coming from the PC to the XBox (note in the latter I didn't state MS). MS has, in fact, released very few of their XBox titles on the PC, especially if you look at recent titles like Crimson Skies High Road to Revenge, the Project Gotham Racing titles, and the XSN Sports line.
On the other hand, I'd have to say that every console is suffering from the cross-platform development that is now common, in part because of the development costs for a game, and in part because of the number of platforms out there. Each platform has it's must-have games, but the cross-platform games each suffer unique problems because they are rarely optimized for any platform.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Yet the price of the game is still the same if not higher.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Actually, IBM is the winner of the nextgen video game consoles. IBM designs the Cell chip together with Sony. A 64 Bit powerpc will power the XBOX 2. And last but not least, IBM will produce the CPU for the gamecube successor.
But the PS3 is supposed to be backwards compatible with PS and PS2 games while the XBox won't?
That sells me
*DrugCheese rants*
because it's important to pay close attention to BOTH. I love good game play AND good graphics. *I* am more for good game play but I cannot speak for the world w/that statement.
Money, Money, Money, Money, Mooneey, Mooooneey. The margin for games has always been tight. For the game maker the CDs have been a boon in terms of easing the profit margin.
The argument you make also applies to cassettes and VHS tapes. The CDs and DVDs are much cheaper to make these days but is music and video cheeper on the newer media?
Well, slightly offtopic, this points out why MS are where they are.
1. They usually fight a good fight
2. Against a good adversary, they'll get their ass kicked
3. Most of their battles were won against very poor competitors (Netscape, OS/2, WordPerfect, Apple were all but competitive in one or more crucial areas)
So if they are at the top of the software stack right now, that is just because all their competitors sucked ass. So we can see now:
1. On a new market, against a strong competitor (Sony), they stand very little chance, even though they fight bravely
2. On an established market (Servers), against a strong competitor (Linux), they loose ground.
The future is not that dark after all!
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Sorry dude, but you're really off. The only games I can think of off-hand by MS are Crimson Skies (which was more of a new game than a port) and Links (which was more than a port of a new game). Every other game: PGR2, Voodoo Vince (I know, I know), MechAssault are all Xbox-only. This is one of those "sky is blue" arguments. Everyone says it's true, but they don't bother to see if it's cloudy out.
The PS2 linux kit is an add-on accessory, so Sony might actually break even on it. But Xbox linux just uses the existing hardware, so Microsoft almost definitely loses money on it.
Personally the XBox in comparison to PS2 is much better, the graphics are better, it loads quicker, and XBox live is great. PS2 has more games, but that is to be expected, Microsoft is still learning to make console games. I don't think PS3 will be such a big hit as they say.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
As was covered in the earlier thread regarding the Xbox 2's backwards compatibility, while backwards compatibility with the PS2 was a nice feature, it was a far cry from a major selling point. It was only even included because it was so simple, given the PS2's I/O controller is a PS1.
Anyone with games for the PS2 is already going to have a PS2 that can play those PS2 games just fine. And traditionally, backwards compatibility is non-issue amongst successful consoles. The N64, SNES, and NES didn't feature it, nor did the Master System, Genesis, or Dreamcast. Sure, the GBA features backwards compatibility with the Gameboy, but the handheld market's not the same as the console market.
I'm not saying backwards compatibility is a non-issue, but be realistic: it's almost entirely an issue of not wanting to have an additional box sitting next to the TV. It's definitely a convenience for people with a large back library that like to scream with righteous indignation about needing an extra box to play a game, or people just getting into gaming who'd like to try an older game, but are either of those market segments large enough to cause sales to "plummet?"
Not a chance.
Why are the stupid people that makes these predictions allowed to live?
TCPA, DMCA, IP-law IPv6.... oh yes, you can draw an exponential curve, extrapolating the current numbers, without taking notice about those things...
Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed
Yet the price of the game is still the same if not higher.
That's partly because game *production* costs are increasing.
It is a lot more expensive to produce a modern 3D game than it was to make an SNES title, which is why Nintendo can get away with selling Metroid Zero Mission (which could pretty much have been done on the SNES) for $30 on release day, but a new PS2 or Xbox game is $50.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Ok, this is simply wrong. I will do my best not to let it propagate.
My current work is leading the XBox port of a PS2 engine for a major upcoming title. The Game Cube port was canceled half way through our development.
The Game Cube does not, _by far_, have the best development kit. Its not as bad as for the PS2, but there is no productivity boost there at all. Quite the opposite. The Cube lacks memory and DVD space; has fewer controller buttons, big endian vs. little endian. Fitting the same game as for PS2 on the Cube is twice the work. The graphics chip and memory cache is quite capable, but thats about it. It is so lacking in installed based and hardware compared to XBox and PS2 that often it does not make financial sense to support it, unless you're Nintendo or an exclusive developer.
The PS2, I've heard from collegues, is like writing a graphics card driver from scratch. You have fine-grained low level control, but you pay for it in complexity and arcane assembly coding. Support and docs are poor.
The XBox has _the best_ development kit, support and documentation. Its better than D3D SDK on a PC. Using an NVidia GPU it can do the most complex texture blending operations. XBox signature look is shiny bump-mapped environment maps and (simple) stencil shadocws. However the PS2 has far more fill rate/bandwidth which clever artists can use to great effet with particle systems, multi-layer polys etc.
Most developers care about the installed base of a platform first, and the PS2 wins hands down.
I love how you just say things like technically the worst. How was WinWord TECHNICALLY the worst,also Windows wasn't competing with MacOS you dolt, Mac wouldn't sell it's OS, they were in different markets, one company selling computers one company selling software.
VHS vs. Betamax, had a lot to do (in 1976) to VHS having a 2 hour recording time vs. the betamax recording time of one hour, plus a year later you could get 4 hours of data on a VHS tape. Considering that meant movies couldn't fit on one Betamax, VHS had a huge advantage there. Plus the visual quality between the two, didn't mean shit to the people at home who couldn't afford a TV that would show the quality difference anyhow.
So, think, before speaking.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
If you'll recall, back when Sony, Sega, and Nintendo were first slugging it out with the Playstation, Saturn, and N64 respectively, N64 carts were running ten to twenty dollars more than their equivalent disc-based games.
Consider also that the amount of data packed on a CD or DVD easily dwarfs what can be economically put onto a cart. That's why those same expensive N64 games generally lacked FMV/prerendered CG sequences and lengthy sound samples (such as speech). So while the overall cost of games has remained pretty much a constant over the past ten years or so, the data-to-dollars ratio has swung wildly in the buyer's favor.
It seems interesting that so many of these issues (OSs, vendors, and so on) are setup as win/lose, especially when some of the "losers" end up doing pretty well. For example, Apple is not the most widely used personal computer, but they continue to survive, innovate, and even turn a profit. Likewise, it seems odd to call Nintendo a "loser" because they sell "only 5 million" units.
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
Would an internal 4 Gig flash drive make everyone happy? Because that's not outside the realm of possibility yet.
Sure, that's possible theoretically. But not if the goal of removing the hard disk to is reduce the cost of the system.
Sure, that's possible theoretically. But not if the goal of removing the hard disk to is reduce the cost of the system.
No, no, no...
The point about making the storage capacity external to the system is that it reduces the perception of the cost of the system... they're not out to save you money, they just want you to think you're spending less on the system than on buying a competitors product...
Game Store: So that's 199 quid* for the box and save cards from 30 quid...Customer: Cool I'll have one of those as well...
Game Store: Ok so that's a 1 unit game save card.
Customer: "1 unit"? er...
Game Store: The basic card can store the details for up to 5 games and one 15 track custom soundtrack...
Customer: Ah...
Game Store: It's cool... you can take your soundtracks round to your buddies and stuff!... and you can get larger ones...
Customer: Aha! Give me the biggest...
Game Store: So that's 199 for the console and 149 for the save card...
Customer: Oh...
[humor] I still play my PS1 games on my PS1, you insensitive clod! [/humor]