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PS2Linux is outdated and apparently not all that worth the money you have to sink into the machine to use it.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.
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?
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...
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 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.
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*
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?
This is how I hear it from my nephew, the hardcore gamer anyway.
And we all know hardcore gamers wouldn't be fanboys for their platform. <rolleyes>
I don't have a console, but I was thinking about getting one a few months ago. I couldn't decide between XBox or PS2; each has its merits. I was going to decide based on who I would most likely share games with, but my peers are split XBox/PS2. I wound up deciding not to spend the money. But it's really hard to find objective opinions among the diehard brand fans.
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.