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.
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?
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.