Slashdot Mirror
PlayStation 3 To Debut at E3 2005
Yorrike writes "According to the BBC, Sony are planning to officially reveal the PlayStation 3 at the E3 Expo in May 2005. They're obviously not wanting to be outdone by Nintendo, who announced the same plans for the GameCube successor, as well as Xbox 2's rumored debut around that time. Looks like E3 2005 is going to be a biggy." Worth noting that's not the ship date, but when people will see it.
Slashdot's going to cripple the BBC?
I never bought a Playstation 2 because I didn't want to support the thieves at Rambus by buying their memory. Any word on whether they've replaced that vendor for PS3? I think I've beaten "Gauntlet Legends Dreamcast" one time too many by now...
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Hmmm... All that new hardware. I suspect that it's more likely that E3 2005 is going to be a buggy...
Curse you plastic mold maker!
So we're what two years away from another FF game, another DDR series with erm.. better graphics? I understand if you have a problem with PS2s breaking down, but if you buy the next Nintendo console and don't expect the big games to be MarioX, ZeldaX, and MetroidX you're fooling yourself.
I'll just do the same thing I did with this generation of consoles:
1) Buy games for previous generation console dirt cheap when new console is released.
2) Wait for new console to have 3 or more games that I must have.
3) Buy the new console and the 3 or more games.
4) Repeat.
Gee, I wonder why I have 4 consoles and am considering buying a PSOne for the PS1 games I own that won't play on the PS2. This is what taught me:
5) Don't sell the old system until I've tested every single game I already have on the new system (if the new system makes any claims of backwards compatability).
I can buy switches to handle as many consoles as I could possibly collect. I can buy ports (or sequels that manage to replace the games they follow) to reduce my need for older consoles. When I don't play a console very much I can even box it up and store it in a closet until I just need to play that game. I can't get my old games and systems back if I sell them, though, and I see no reason not to preserve these old games for my daughter should she ever show any interest in retro gaming later in her life (though by then she may just be able to zap them all into some VR rig for pennies a ROM).
-PainKilleR-[CE]
The best technology does not always win. OS/2, The Amiga , The Atari ST, and the Mac would have killed Microsoft back at MS-DOS 4.
What matter for consoles is Games. Are they fun. From what I hear from my game nut friends. The PS/2 has the best games followed by the Gamecube. XBox has Halo.
The Single API might also not be an Advantage for the XBox. If every game that I can get on the XBox. To make such a bold claim sight unseen is foolish at best.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, when you're a billionaire, and can afford to finance the R&D required to bring innovative technology to console gaming, you'll be able to solve that problem. Until then, the order of the marketplace dictates that we'll be sticking with what is profitable, not possible.
There are two rather large assumptions here.
1) The console gaming market wants to be like the PC gaming market, or vice versa.
2) Someone will actually develop for the Xbox.
The former is only obvious if you've actually followed the two realms. What makes a good PC game does not necessarily make a good console game, and what makes a popular PC game does not necessarily make a popular console game. It's not just the difference in how you control them, but also a difference in what sorts of games you tend to see. Console RPGs and PC RPGs have diverged quite a bit, for example. So the idea of having a single API for PC and console isn't as huge of an advantage as you'd think, simply because the two groups aren't all that alike, and I daresay won't be all that alike for awhile.
The second is probably a non-issue. Even if Microsoft can't get a dead monkey to develop for Xbox, they have enough cash to keep cranking out new generations for quite some time, or to buy out developers as exclusives (see: Rare).
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
Friend of mine lived in Japan for two years teaching and brought back many fascinating and hilarious stories about the cultural differences between Japan and North America.
I recall that he mentioned that at any trade show or convention they will have an assortment of lovely ladies that when asked questions about the products will give ridiculous answers. It's part of the show, he said.
Some of the weirdest shit comes out of Japan, I swear.
The XBOX has better HDTV support but both are on par for DVD playback.
:)
DVD players are a dime a dozen these days.. may as well make your selection on games and what you want.
Obviously if you have HDTV i would suggest that you get the appropriate equipment to really enjoy HDTV content - like a Bravo D1 upconverting DVD player or similar product or wait a few months until the HD DVD standards are finished.
A console works best as a console
No, but it may be an advantage for the developers of said games. You get the developers, you get the good games, you get the market! my 2c
The Digital Couture Collection
The current consoles are more than powerful enough already. We need better games, not better consoles. All this focus on newer fancier (and more expensive) hardware is misplaced effort. It's just going to turn the video game industry into the same mess that the PC industry has been for years: perpetual upgrade cycle with no time for developers to make software that truly utilizes the current generation of capabilities well.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Based on worldwide numbers, if one of them is doomed its the Xbox. Remember that gaming is a much bigger inustry in Asia than in US, and gamecube kills it there.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Look at what games you'd like, and buy based on that. But counting the GC out just because it doesn't double as a DVD player is a bit silly.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Looks like E3 2005 is going to be a biggy.
Not really. Can you name one title from any of this generation's launch titles that was great, save perhaps Halo? There aren't any, or they're few in number, because the end of a hardware cycle is a thin time for software. If anything, E3 2003/2004 were the best conferences for gamers. Developers have mastered each system's nuances and have reached a plateau in graphics and started to focus more on gameplay. Games released now are refined, honed. Games released for the new systems will be choppy, rushed, and extremely rough around the edges, and in some cases little more than graphical show off stunts.
The changing of the guard is a purgatory for developers. Games released on older systems will be expected to have lower prices, and therefore will result in lower profits. On the other side of the fence, gamers will have just spent $300 on a new system, not including money towards needed periphereals or forced bundles. In the least, that's six games that they could have bought otherwise. What's more is that it will incite rabid fanboyism in the press, and we'll see a barrage of articles over-evaluating the systems. ("The Xbox2 has 8 vertices to it. The PS3 also has 8 vertices to it. EVALUATION: Corners are great to a system, and always add to the stackability. They're keeping with the console tradition of not using pyramids or spherical shapes. WINNER: Tie.")
If anything, E3 2005 will be a great year for PC gamers if only because the engines (Doom 3 & Half Life 2), which are the PC industry's equivalent to consoles and follow a similar cyclical pattern, will have been released and leased out to developers.
But yeah, I guess if you're excited about seeing graphical demos or launch titles that will never actually see the light of day on the new systems, or will look dated within six months of the system's release, sure. E3 2005 will be a biggy. Have fun at E3'05. Go get your hard on. Hardware on, that is.
Well, I know 3 people with PS2s that ended up not working, and it has nothing to do with modding. It has to do with watching dvds on them. The damn lasers in the PS2 are worthless, the new models are better, but the old ones are horrible. First gen PS2 was a huge pile of crap in a lot of ways (it was noisy and the laser sucked to name a few). After a while, these PS2s quit loading DVD based PS2 games and DVD movies. The still seem to load CD based (blue backed games) without issue in most cases, even though the laser is extremely noisy when loading blue games. Enough evidence for you? Don't get me wrong - I own a PS2, and will also own a PS3. Why? Backwards compatibility. Xbox won't have it, Nintendo never has it, so PS3 it is.
This is called an anecdote, statistical value : little.
Now grab a set of 1000 users and find how many of those untis failed. Adhear to standard data collection methodology. Otherwise it's just a story.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
PS2 has the MOST games, including many of the best.
GameCube has less games than PS2, but the ratio of good games to bad ones (particularly regarding exclusives, but applicable across the entire line as well) is the highest of all current consoles. Many GameCube exclusives are cream of the crop, and stay exclusive to the GameCube. Of course, third-party exclusives are an occasional exception, as with the other consoles.
Microsoft's (*) Xbox has less games than PS2, and a noticeably lower ratio of good games to bad/mediocre games than GameCube. Xbox exclusives don't tend to stay exclusive for long, heading for the Microsoft (*) Windows platform quite often. A lot of exclusives actually turn out to be limited "first version" exclusivity deals on the order of a couple of months, before hitting the PS2 and GameCube.
I guess it all boils down to this: If you go down to a game store and pick up a random video game, most likely it will be a PS2 game. But if you specifically pick up a random game each from the PS2, GameCube, and Xbox sections of the store, the GameCube game is more likely to be a good game than the PS2 or Xbox games (which is not to say that it's necessarily a better game than the others, just that the likelihood that it's a good game is higher).
But most people aren't going to upgrade to HDTV sets over the next five years. Well-off home theater geeks will, but not most others.
Even if HDTV set prices drop to the same price as today's non-HDTV sets, there's not enough incentive (in most people's minds) to purchase one. Okay, the picture is a little sharper. To tech heads this may be a big deal, but to most people it's a minor improvement. Certainly not enough of an improvement to justify throwing $500 or more at a new TV when your current one still works fine. Plus you have to then sign up for something more (expensive) than analog cable service to actually see anything in HDTV.
I predict HDTV won't really take hold for about 15 years, because that's probably about how long, on average, today's non-HDTV sets will last before dying and needing replacement. Replacing a dead TV is the biggest incentive most people have for buying something better at similar prices.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Allow me to correct what I said: very few people are developing exclusives for the Xbox. Those that exist tend to be ported to PC. And Microsoft encourages it... after all, they own most of the PC market. End result: why should I get an Xbox, when there's little advantage over the PC and other consoles which I already have?
In other words: if there are three consoles of comparable power, I'll buy the one with the best games that I can't get on any of the others. (Example: a number of RPGs on Playstation, and Nintendo's first party series on Gamecube.) Multiplayer isn't a big deal because I can get that on PC. In my estimation, that puts Xbox a distant third... your mileage may vary.
You also misunderstand what I said about the console/PC distinction. The games that come out for each are different. They've evolved to that point. Even if, say, tomorrow, all PCs magically used the exact same hardware configuration (like a console), I'm not convinced the two portions of the gaming industry would combine as much as you seem to think.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
Aside from the "who has the best game" argument, I think it is equally important to note that PS3 will be backward compatible while Xbox 2 will be "virtual"ly compatible at best. Going to PPC G5 forces users to abandon their old games or put up with emulation, possibly via Virtual PC.
The only way Microsoft can win the war is that they have yet to make a profit from the xbox. They fact that they can absorb those losses is what is keeping the xbox alive.
Since the new xbox will not run the old xbox games that had better make sure to have new, killer titles ready to go when they launch. If not they are going to crash and burn hard. If they blow it they will have fewer sales than Ballmer has hair.
Hey, since both the xbox and playstation will be running PowerPC chips from IBM maybe this will mean easily ported games to the Mac and maybe even a directx API for the Mac.