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."
I wonder if this is a bunch related to the people who somehow predicted, and convinced, the old head of Nintendo that optical media in video games was 'just a fad' back during the N64 design phase.
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.
That the BBC can do what no other human has been able to accomplish. Do you think next they'll be giving out lotto numbers?
...Duke Nukem: Forever has already won game of the year*.
*year to be determined.
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.
Or between development and release. Granted, Sony may have the clout, but don't forget there are plenty of ways to mess up when it comes to releasing a new console. The Playstation 2's line up, for example, was pretty weak when released, and if someone makes the rash decision to drop PS1+2 support from the PS3, sales will plummet (though it looks MS may already have made that mistake with X-Box 3 if rumours are to believed.)The Dreamcast, on the other hand, had a very strong line-up, great hardware, but Sega's lack of decent advertising did the console no good. I think this is rather jumping the gun.
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PS2Linux is outdated and apparently not all that worth the money you have to sink into the machine to use it.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...
Playstation Fights Falling Sales. Granted, it's from July 2003, but still....
PlayStation is dying! No, no, wait. PlayStation will dominate!
No, no, wait....
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."
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.
And in other predictions I have determined with a similiar level of scientific accuracy using the same method of bovinefecalius that we'll see:
The Minnesota Vikings will almost win the Superbowl in 2010, but get nuked by a terrorist right before they clench the game.
Manchester United will become a has been team that leases space to danceline competitions to pay for stadium lights.
The New York Yankees won't actually have to play the World Series to win after their payroll exceeds 1 billion dollars to save on wasteful travel costs.
The NHL will fold to be replaced by the CHL and the AHL with the Stanley cup auctioned on Ebay.
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.
"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.
The reason is actually simple: if you make a game that isn't overly dark, you have to focus much more on generating good graphics. More light makes it easier to spot the lack of polygons, and the use of bland or fuzzy textures.
The XBox has the greatest visual capabilities, no doubt about it, and the PS2 has the largest market share. Nintendo's Gamecube has something else: the best game development kit. If you want to create good graphics on the PS2, you have to spend an enormous amount of time compared to the Gamecube. XBox is much better, but you STILL have a much easier ride with the Cube.
Since you can code something up faster for the Cube, you can also spend more time optimizing the code and can therefore offer brighter, more colourful graphics.
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
That 70% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.
That's right, because everyone here will buy a copy to play with the grandkids when they come over. Right?
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
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
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...
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!
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
Dewey defeats Truman!
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
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.
Hates new XBox. Hates it!
Gollum, I didn't know they had XBoxes in Middle Earth?
Never mind, probaly worth -2 for poor joke.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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...
From the story: Playstation 3 Already Won and The Informa Media Group predicts...
So you don't need to actually fight battles anymore, just be predicted to win and you are declared as having "Already Won" ?
I know what my next job will be...
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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]
When you pay your 100 pounds (which doesn't seem too much to me, I have to say!), you get a 40G hard-drive, a 100-base-T ethernet network adapter, and Sony send you an online id so you can play networked games when you're not coding.
As for outdated, well it only runs kernel 2.2 but, frankly, who cares ? The "cool" bits are the vector units (which you have to code in assembly anyway) and the DMA engine.
I've posted about this before, but the PS2 is (when coded properly) a dataflow architecture. It has massive internal bandwidth, relatively little RAM, and 3 processors (Mips R3K, 2 vector units). The idea is to pull data from the RAM into the processors using DMA, work on the data, and DMA it to the rendering engine. You can chain DMA transactions, and the combination of the flexible DMA, the 3 processors, and the bandwidth is what makes the PS2. None of this is in any way dependent on the Linux kernel - all it's really there for is to create a self-hosting environment...
Simon.
The PS2 Linux kit includes a hard drive, that is part of the big price. Also a network adaptor (without modem), a keyboard and mouse, and a VGA output (that requires a sync on green monitor).
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, 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*
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.
It's impossible to tell what's gonig to happen for the next generation, because I'm guessing that the next gen console's are going to be more concept-type devices than the predecessors.
It's looking more and more like Sony is going to do the all-in-one type box. Will they be able to maintain their current market share? What about backwards compatibility? (PS2 compatibility is expected). With the launch titles give enough bang for the buck to get a quick launch? (I actually say no. They're going to stall coming out of the gate).
Microsoft looks to be playing it safe, moving from the HD based system to a more unhackable flash-memory type system. What will this do to sales? As well, MS faces the same problem. What about launch games. They had Halo for the X-Box (Without Halo, the X-Box may have been another N-Gage...)
As for Nintendo..well..they're the wild card..arn't they? What the hell are they planning..everything to speak is in riddles and doublespeak.
My best guess, is that the DS technology is some sort of affordable touch-pad. And they'll use that in their next system, in the controllers.
At worst, you'd be able to see additional information, maps without switching screens. As well, doing basic inventory management, things such as that.
At best? If their next system had the horsepower to feed out a 3d signal to the controller. Imagine being able to look down at your controller, playing Zelda for example, and seeing an overhead view of all the action around you? Or checking out what is behind you in a FPS.
Something like that would be revolutionary if it caught on. Personally, I think that if it's affordable, it's a great idea.
BTW, same problem for Nintendo. They had a bad launch for the GC and that hurt them. They need to launch with some big games right out.
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.
PSOne backwards compatibility wasn't exactly easy; they had to put nearly all the parts an entire seperate PSOne into the PS2 (except the sound chip, as you mention). The 1337est game programmers even use the PSOne system for PS2 games... So what, will they put a PS2 and a PS into the PS3?
Lalala
It's actually a 487Mhz PPC. The real keys are that clock-for-clock the PPC is better than the EE (MIPS R5900 as you mention), the CPU cache is much bigger (256k) on the PPC than the EE (8k), the system bus bandwidth is lower - EE is 128bit but only 150Mhz and RDRAM has a long setup time vs the 1T-SRAM used with the PPC - and core floating point performence is much better on the PPC than the EE (eg. physics, AI).
Most PS2 games are EE-limited. The VUs are great for medium (eg. skinning) and low (eg. transform, clipping, lighting) level vertex processing but that's only a relatively small piece of the total work done by a modern game. They have so little integer and flow control support that you can't do much higher level work on them even if you wanted to deal with writing such things in dual-issue microcode.
Graham
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?