Slashdot Mirror
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.
I suspect that technical specs only really matter to one group of people: the developers. I need to know the specs of my PC so I know what games it's capable of. A console has a defined specification that doesn't change during its lifetime (unless you buy a "core" system....), so you know a game for that console will run on the one you have at home. Also, much of the specs released for the Xbox360 and PS3 are gibberish to laymen. Having said that, I do like to know little things like this, but then I'm a developer. If Nintendo's console is more powerful than rivals are suggesting maybe they should release them and say "Told you so!"?
And why shouldn't they? You're not going to be hacking into the Revolution to make it run Linux; I'd suspect the controls would make for a slightly wacky computing experience. You're never going to need to upgrade the system.
More importantly, as the last gen showed us, power doesn't mean much anymore. The three systems were able to offer very comparable experiences with the consoles differing in power, save for the fact that the Xbox versions of titles tend to be prettier than PS2 or GC ports. Hell, there were plenty of tri-console titles even in the last generation; even if the PS1 version of Spider-Man, for instance, was uglier, it still played the same as the Dreamcast version. If the specs didn't matter then, why should they now?
If I buy a console, it's for the games. Not for the specs. The era of classifying systems by bits is over.
Goo goo g'joob.
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.
Now I'm 21 and I want games that:
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.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience