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."
Is it just me, or is this kind of hokey?
According to the report, the PS3 is expected to sell 32 million units in Europe by 2010, more than the combined sales of the Microsoft and Nintendo machines.
I mean, seriously, what are these so-called analysts basing that on? The article doesn't say.
Probably, the PS3 will do well, but it seems beyond premature to make up numbers like these without supporting them in any meaningful way.
And a Beowulf Cluster?not as stupid either, since Spectrum Magazine Had a report also where some guys put 73 PS2's together and using their graphics processor chip achieved supercomputing proccessor power.
"The quality of life is inversely proportional to the number of keys on your keyring."
That's the one thing that Sony really has going for it... it's the one reason that I think a lot of people want it. There are a lot of very good games out for the PSX or PS2 that many people don't want to stop playing... I still play PSX games on my PS2, because they're fun, not because they're pretty or anything. If the XBox2 doesn't have this, they're going to lose a lot of customers. People want to upgrade, not have tons of different systems from the same company in their house.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
The xbox does have more processing power than the gamecube, but what is it worth? Would you rather have "game quality and innovation," or a few more polys and effects? What's the good of looking at slightly better graphics if the game isn't fun?
At any rate, regardless of technical details and opinions about the current generation of console hardware, I think we can all agree that it's pretty stupid to try and call a winner in the next generation of consoles. Predicting 2010? Give me a break.
[javac] 100 errors
Im still a hardcore nintendo fan, Nintendo does the best games, Zelda, Mario, etc.
And now, after the Squaresoft Enix merge Nintendo will hopefully get the Final Fantasy games where they belong; on a Nintendo Machine.
Lets all hope that Nintendo kicks some serius ass this time.
Only reason i bought an X-box was that is was able play DVDs and you could install Linux on it,
I never once purchased a game for that box.
And I never really liked the PS2 hardware, or any of the games.
Go Nintendo!
One thing I noticed when living in Europe for a while is that people generally didn't give X-box too much of a chance, and Gamecube was very much behind that. Sony must have done a really really good job with the Playstation, because their name recognition was far beyond anyone elses. If one so much as mentioned a gaming console, people would assume it's a Playstation. It's kind of surprising when one considers that Nintendo still has dominance over the handheld market there, yet is very far behind with the GC.
This really isn't that far out a prediction, given that the current console battle was won by Playstation 2 despite that fact that it was (IMHO) the weakest of the three.
Basically I see Microsoft as being the one with something to lose. Nintendo is by all accounts quite happy to sell fewer than the rest of them but turn a tidy profit doing so, while putting out the high quality first-party games they've always done. Of course, the fact that they're still killing in the handheld market probably helps the bottom line...
CD/DVD production costs are an order of magnitude less than tooling a line to print ROM boards, ad printing them.
... hi bingo
Programmer: "Hey, I just managed to save a couple thousand cycles per frame with some clever inlining, loop unrolling and judicious use of PowerPC assembler."
Artist: "Great! I'll bump up the saturation on the 'graphics' by 7%"
Having spent 6 years now in the games industry, I can assure you it doesn't quite work this way.
Oh, and all the other stuff you said too is quite debatable.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Actually the I/O Processor in the PS2 is based on the PS1's CPU - this chip is the one that takes over when you boot the PS2 with a PSOne game. Sony killed two birds with one stone with this "Playstation-in-a-chip": they got an I/O processor and a way to get almost flawless PS1 emulation... the keyword being almost flawless, since there are PS1 games that are incompatible. This wouldn't be the case if Sony had decided to just stick a PS1 inside a PS2.
Anyway, I can see Sony working right now in a "PS2 in a chip" for the PS3 - they have been revising the hardware for the PS2 to reduce the number of components with every new model, just as they did with the PS1, and I expect they eventually will get around to having most of the functionality of the Emotion Engine in a single, cheap chip. We can also expect a smaller, cuter and cheaper PSTwo after the PS3 is launched.
But now that I think about it... Since they are separate chips, will the PS3 be compatible with the PS1? I'd think so, but they would have to use two different chips into the PS3. I/O processor and matemathical co-processor? Or will they integrate the "PS1-in-a-chip" in the new mini-Emotion Engine?