Slashdot Mirror
Next Generation Not Official Until PS3
Gamespot has word that a Wedbush Morgan analyst has advised investors to hold off on throwing money at the gaming market, because the rapid growth prompted by the next generation consoles may not materialize until the PS3 launches late in 2006. He also makes some other forecasts for sectors of the gaming market. From the article: "Elsewhere in the memo, Pachter predicts that console and PC sales will finish the year up 10 percent over 2004, that a price cut for the redesigned PlayStation 2 will be enacted 'no later than fall,' and that the PlayStation Portable and Nintendo DS will have similarly successful years, moving 3.5 million and 3.6 million units, respectively."
If as noted Cell is as powerfull as they say it will be then nothing will be touching the ps3
g -highdef-output graphics are, one thing that most developers have forgotten is how to make a game.
Power is nothing. The PS1 was integer based, non-texture-blending, nasty resolution, bitch to program for. The N64 was FAR superior in every respect than storage. Full screen anti-aliasing, bilinear filtered textures, the works. Xbox is far superior to the PS2. Who's winning?
By the same token: which systems were released first, and won market share? Which systems had a multi-national market? Those are much more important than processing speed, though the systems do have to be roughly comparable.
1:Will cell live up to the hype
No. Cell processing, as an idea and method, are better, but this particular processor are not as powerful as people would like to believe.
2:Can MS market to the japanese crowd
They sure are trying really hard to. With some of the developers they've got, and their system coming out first, they may just win it.
3:What the hell are nintendo up to
Long as it's not another Virtual Boy, I think it's safe to know they're going to stick in the game/toy market, because MS and Sony are obviously trying to reach different types of audiences. Why people even bother comparing Nintendo to MS and Sony is beyond me. As cool as super-awesome-3D-shader-blended-real-time-lightin
Making a game used to be about making it fun. But with the race to make the hardware more powerful to provide a more immersive experience, I think they forgot why they were making games in the first place. They're just making really fancy toys, but most come out like it's this really serious issue. That's not to say that there's no place for that, but what have all the most successful and super-popular games have in common? They're games! Not "experiences". Fun first, atmoshphere last.
Digital Sailor
i honestly don't know how Wedbush Morgan goes about reaching these conclusions, but if i were to guess, it'd be largely a statistical method, perhaps with a little research into the procuding companies. i would NOT expect wm to have the slightest awareness of any of the gaming culture: we're widgets and cattle to them. so laugh while they try to understand our whim.