Slashdot Mirror
2005's Console Hardware In Review
Next Generation is running an examination of the 2005 hardware announcements from the big three console companies. They look at details and benchmarks released so far for the next-gen consoles. From the article: "The wraps were taken off the PlayStation 3 at Sony's pre-E3 press conference. Non-playable demos and canned footage games in development (over which arguments still rage over what was 'real' and what were renders made to be 'representative') wowed the media and stole a good bit of thunder from the somewhat underwhelming Microsoft presentation that followed."
OK, I'll feed the troll...
And what exactly are you doing by buying an Xbox? Oh, that's right, Microsoft is the 'happiest place on earth' and doesn't do anything evil...
For the most part, big corporations are evil. You can't get that big, and stay that big, without doing something wrong once in a while.
So, I pick my evil. And that evil is Sony. They were here before Microsoft, and they were my first gaming system I owned. So I'll stick with them.
And, I just don't like Microsoft as a gaming console. They have enough already with basically running 90% of the PC's out there (mine included). They don't deserve to get my living room too.
Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
The GP didn't even mention Microsoft. You did. If you want to look at evil, none of the Big 3 are exactly blameless. Way back in the day, Nintendo engaged in anti-competitive behavior (which was later deemed illegal) to keep 3rd party companies from releasing games on multiple platforms, basically strangling the SMS and TG16. MS engaged in anti-competitive behavior with Internet Explorer and elsewhere through the Windows operating system. Sony is the more recent evildoer with their rootkits and whatnot.
"So, I pick my evil. And that evil is Sony. They were here before Microsoft, and they were my first gaming system I owned. So I'll stick with them."
I'm glad eveyone doesn't share your view or most of us would be stuck playing Atari Jaguars or some new-fangled Intellivision right now. I loved the first gaming system I owned (Atari 2600) but the Atari 7800 was just inferior to the NES. I switched systems and quite frankly don't regret it (Though I do wish they would've made a Proline-style controller for the NES.). Why not look for the better (in terms of both hardware and software available) system and ignore who made the thing? MS can have the honor of having their logo visible on a plastic box in my living room if they put out the best gaming system out there.
You know there is an alternative to both evil corperations: NINTENDO!
" Non-playable demos and canned footage games in development (over which arguments still rage over what was 'real' and what were renders made to be 'representative') wowed the media and stole a good bit of thunder from the somewhat underwhelming Microsoft presentation that followed."
1) The Playstation3 footage was not created by PS3 hardware. This has been confirmed dozens of times, there is no 'argument'. 2) The Microsoft presentation had actual playable software. I was there, and people cared about the Microsoft presentation a ton more.
I bought the Epyx as soon as I saw one for the first time. I think it was 1988. I honestly wasn't that impressed. You can't switchhand the Epyx controller like you could with a proline. I actually used to switch off left and right-handed on the proline when one hand would get tired. The Epyx forces you to use your right on the joystick. I didn't think it would be that big a deal until I used it a lot. It was constructed pretty nicely though (expect for the Select and Start pseudo buttons that got a little hard to press after a while). I also thought the ball at the top could be larger but it wasn't too bad. Alas, I got it on clearence from Babbages so I couldn't take it back.
No sony is just still a padawan, MS is the true dark lord of the sith.
What would be real scary if the two join up.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Hell, even if they put a game system out there that has a decent supply of must-play games. Or one history-setting game. I got a PSX for FF7. (I ended up with a lot more titles of course, but that was the seller for me.) I got a Cube, not because it had better graphics, or had a funky controller... it had Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and some others. Enough to make it worth owning.
Microsoft doesn't get a place in my livingroom because, their being Microsoft aside, they don't have any games. That's all it's about. Halo was---maybe---an A title, maybe a B+ title. It's a FPS, and it didn't do anything special, other than being the only top exclusive title on its system. You don't buy a system for a single A/B+ title. You may buy it for a AAA title, or if it has a lot of B-A titles. But the XBOX had neither. Nor, as of yet, does the 360.
This is, perhaps---probably---why people give Sony the benefit of the doubt and bank on their systems. The PS1 had tons of good games. The PS2 had tons of good games. The PS3 already has a ton of good games. (And contrary to popular slashdot opinion, the PSP also has tons of good games.) So they're safe to bank on.
This is also why people give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt: there's always going to be Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Kart, and a legion of other Nintendo franchises. And even if there aren't a ton of them, they'll all be AAA titles.
So in the end, if your definition of "the best" means "the best library of games," then I think you're spot on.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Secondly both the 360 and PS3 are far less impressive if you play them on your old fashioned tv. Real HD tv's aren't selling yet.
This bit comes from the struggle between those who wish to cancel analog tv broadcasts and go digital completly (saves cost and avoids dragging the conversion on for decades) vs those who do not with to burden every household with the costs of a new expensive hd tv.
What if the public (no not people who post here) decided to buy neither of these consoles? What if they remain with the current hardware and instead of buying a 360 and next christmas a PS3 instead give their kids a nice bundle of games? Games that can be played on the old console and the old tv in the kids room (so dad can watch soccer on the living room tv in peace).
360 sales have been limited to say the least. Of course there is a shortage but with the numbers mentioned in the article it would have to have been very bad for the 360 if there hadn't been a shortage.
Could the big number, the number of customers that made the PS2 stand so far ahead in sales stay away? Hardcore gamers will buy anything and they can be significant but not enough to make a profit. When you read that a 1:2 ratio for handhelds:games is not bad it explains those gamers I know that got a GBA in every color.
What if the x-box and nintendo sales were the core dedicated gamer market, who also own a PS2 and the difference between those and the PS2 sales was the rest of the market that is currently in the stores deciding what goes under the christmas tree? For how many x-box/gamecube owners was that their only console?
Not having the actuall 360 on the shelves makes it easy to decide not to buy that one this year. Next time for such a purchase in normal households would be a kids birthday. Only those kids lucky enough not to be born near the holiday season however. Then the PS3 will be coming closer and closer making it easier to postpone a 360 purchase to see what the PS3 will do. And then it will be time for the 360 to make a price cut so lets wait till then.
Is this likely? Well no perhaps not but I find it intruguing. It has happened with other replacement techs were the consumer just did not pick it up. Granted the 360 is not to the x-box what the mini-disc was to the cd but still. Wouldn't it be fun if all the consoles bombed.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.