Slashdot Mirror
Prognosticating Sony's Downfall
Via Evil Avatar, an article on About.com theorizing Sony's defeat at the hands of Nintendo and Microsoft. An interesting piece of speculation. From the article: "Sony introduces the PS3, sporting far more powerful hardware than either alternative system, limited online system support, and a fairly solid launch line-up. Nintendo introduces the Revolution. At the same time that the Revolution and PS3 hit the store shelves, Microsoft reduces the price of the Xbox 360 and releases Halo 3. Halo 3, combined with the price reduction, effectively undercuts the momentum of the PS3 launch. Customers have to decide between the 360 with Halo 3, the PS3 with a potentially high price tag, and the Revolution, priced near current generation game consoles."
I can't wait until those computer-destroying sons-of-bitches Sony go down in flames and honest consumer-friendly companies like Nintendo and Microsoft take over.
No, no, no no, no no. Customers don't have to decide between the three. They can choose more than one. I own all three (actually four, Dreamcast too) of this generations systems. Eventually I will own all three of the next gens too. There is no law that says I can only get one and I won't.
Not to mention that these predictions have little to no value. They are just predictions. People have predicted that Microsoft will flop. People predict that Nintendo will go the way of Sega. People have predicted that the world will end. It's just someone's opinion and while there's a chance it'll happen, whatever, there's a chance it won't too. We'll just have to wait and see.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
What a perfect time to spread some FUD about Sony. Perfect timing, since the whole tech-world hates them at the moment. Not that I'm discounting the articles opinions, it's just funny that the DRM debacle has helped bring this article out...
History pop quiz: What video game company has managed to dominate three console generations (~5 years)?
By my reckoning, nobody. (Atari: 2600 era. Nintendo: NES and to some degree SNES. Sony: PS1 & PS2.)
If anyone's going to make it, it's Sony. (I mean that beyond the obvious historically-tautological aspects of the statement; they have a better chance IMHO because this is clearly a "more of the same" generation, which I think is a first, and that makes it easier to maintain momentum. I think the best way to understand the Revolution is as an attempt to disrupt the momentum by disrupting the "more of the same"-ness of this generation.) On the other hand, flaming people for questioning it is probably excessively fanboy-ish. I wouldn't commit to that exact scenario, personally, but scenarios where Sony is not #1 are quite plausible.
All this is not enough to ensure the PS3's failure. To make it complete, Sony needs to:
- Reduce or eliminate backwards compatibility, like the Silver Slimline PS2 but more so
- Implement nodelocking of game- and video-disks, using the technology they've recently secured a US patent on
- Make game development as difficult as possible and as different from conventional architectures as possible to reduce the number of game companies willing to crossdevelop for or port to the new system
Only then can they guarantee the PS3 will flop.
Anyway, I'm not convinced either way, it's still wait and see. With this subject matter, you'd be better off getting a random games.slashdot.org reader to come up with a comparison between the machines and the possible outcomes. Plus, you might not have to deal with 10 pages of ads.
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
While online gaming is a large factor for the xbox, and is a nice feature, there are still quite a few gamers out there who don't go online with their consoles. Even though Sony won't have a fortifide online structure, that still does not mean that some games will have it. In addition to that, as an xbox owner I have never really seen any big titles for the Xbox. Sure there is Halo 3 for the 360 but At the rate Halo 2 was going, it won't be anything more than a good game. Many large titles that will be on the 360 like GTA or Burnout will be on the PS3 at the same time, if not before the 360.
As everyone is talking about the next gen consoles the revolution is rarely mentioned. Is it because Nintendo isn't aiming to be the "it" system? I really think that a lot of us who go back several generations of consoles have a quiet respect for Nintendo and what they've done for console gaming. Not to mention you can almost always guarantee that Nintendo will sacrifice flashy graphics, blood and gore to make fun games. IMO that is the biggest downfall of sony and M$. Lots of games lots of explosions but not tons o' fun.
This article was posted on Slashdot on October 25th talking about how the Microsoft's game console was going to be released and completely crush Sony's.
I realize it's a different author but its pretty much the same talking points. Microsoft has endless supplies of money, it will be easier to program the XBox than the PS2, people will have to choose one or the other (since we all know that at night when everyone is asleep the two systems would fight to the death), blah, blah, blah.
Do we really need to have such similar articles posted within the same 1,846 day span?
Sony introduces the PS3, sporting far more powerful hardware than either alternative system
What? I admit that I haven't been following this for the last month or so, but from what I've seen the XBox 360 will be at least as powerful as the PS3. Yes, the PS3 has a bunch of processing units in its cell processor, but most of them are special-purpose and not as powerful as the XBox 360's three generic cores.
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.