The Tech Of The Next-Gen Console Wars

Sergey writes "Ars Technica has an inside look at the next-gen console wars, with a focus on what we know about the hardware in the PS3, Xbox 360, and the Nintendo Revolution. In particular, the coverage of the Nintendo's Broadway processor is the most thorough and best-compiled available right now, and I think it shows that the Revolution won't be nearly as weak as its opponents suggest." An interesting sidenote from a Eurogamer article: the Revolution's specs may never be fully revealed by Nintendo. They consider the information irrelevant.

Comments

Specs ARE irrevlent.

[kinglink]

Look at AMD and Intel, both are now going in different ways to say "we're better". AMD has used more multipliers, and Intel is trying to get more gigs.

I mean why does my 2.4 AMD run faster then a 3.0 Intel?

At the same time tell me why I'm stilling playing PS2 and not interested in the Xbox or GCN games (I own a GCN but I buy easily 10 times as many games for PS2) PS2 brings out hit after hit yet it's a weaker system? odd.

The fact is the game is what matters, NOT the hardware. Apple has constantly been a better computer number wise then a PC, Great for graphical and physics but let me ask you this? why is it that all "gamers" own PCs? Because the Mac doesn't have the software. Yes they get some games, but rather then have a couple games why not get access to all the games that come out. Why is it that Japan doesn't by the more powerful Xbox over both the GCN and PS2? Because they get many many more games for BOTH systems then the Xbox.

So I have to say that Nintendo's opinion is pretty correct. That the Specs doesn't matter. I think the big hurdle Nintendo has is to prove the worth of the controller, and they can to most but the most stubborn fanboys, as long as they get the games this time. Once they accomplish that, it should be an easy ride, and COMPLETE backwards compatibility? definatly going to make fans happy.

Nintendo

[Phantasmo]

As I get older, I find my tastes in games changing. When I was a kid, I'd be perfectly happy with good graphics and lots of blood (Doom). In my early teens, I favoured games with great online play and lots of mods (Quake, UT, HL).
Now I'm 21 and I want games that:

• load quickly
• have elegant controls
• have great music
• can be played for an hour, then set aside for later
• and are consistently fun, with low grind
• 
  My first thought when I saw the Revolution promo was, "Man, Wario Ware is going to be awesome." This is not a series that is known for fantastic graphics.
  So, I think Nintendo is going to be okay if they stay just behind the cutting edge in the graphics department. Especially if it lets them seriously undercut MS and Sony.

You know

[DingerX]

Everyone here seems to be concentrating in Nintendo vs. the world crap.

But damn, that there's a truly insightful article. I mean, I know that it's Sony vs. Microsoft for control of the living room, vs. Nintendo for video games, and I know that Sony's position as pure content and closed-system appliance provider dictates their system, while Microsoft, as pure medium (soft or hard), has to cut a different path, but this here article spells out what their strategies translate to in real terms.

Yeah, this is a "me too" post, but come on folks, y'all are talking like you got statues of mario in your backyard. Yes, the article here gives a big window for Nintendo, lets Microsoft have a shot, and suggests that Sony's gonna be selling a White Elephant. But like any good journalism, it leaves that interpretation open to the reader. Who knows? It's Sony's game to lose after all.

I'm glad I don't play consoles (yet). Watching them come to market is entertainment enough.