The Next-Gen Odd Couple

1up.com is running a lengthy piece talking to Microsoft VP J. Allard and Sony Computers of America President Kaz Hirai about what exactly the 'next generation' of consoles are about. The article is informative and varied, with talk about Xbox Live, the launch of the Xbox and PSX, and what past efforts from Sony and Microsoft will mean as the newest front in the console war heats up. From the article: "OPM: What are the benefits of being first to market, much like the Dreamcast was? What are the pitfalls? JA: Good question. I'd say one of the pitfalls from a competitive point of view is that you don't know what the other guys are doing, and to be frank, the guys over at Sony have been very good at not telling anyone what they're doing. It's tough to tell where they're going with the PS3. The other tough thing is that you're under the microscope [when you're first]. [Sony] shows two movies and a product that you can't touch behind a piece of glass, and that's what you get to write about on them."

Comments

"Next Gen" is a buzzword

[91degrees]

There hasn't been a proper next generation since the Sega Saturn. Everything else has just been an incremental improvement in graphics and storage. The XBox 360 has all these fantastic specs on paper, but in practice, you'll see the same games, with the same sound, the same online capabilities and the same premise but with a few more polygons and a higher resolution. All very nice, I'm sure, but hardly a revolution in gaming.

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword

[jcnnghm]

Incremental improvements in graphics and storage, or steps toward immersion. I have a 360, and thus far I am pretty impressed.

Take Call of Duty. Just looking at it, at first glance, it doesn't seem a whole lot better (Toshiba 27" standard def set circa 2003) than say Brothers in Arms on the original Xbox. Then when you actually play it, it has something most other WWII games lack, a sense of immersion. The particle effects really help with this. The battlefield is chaotic, grenades and bullets kick up snow, dirt, mud, and the smoke grenades are wonderful. The friendly NPC's talk, constantly. Sometimes everything else is just so loud, you can't really make out what they are saying. The surround sound is used to great effect to bring you onto the battlefield. It feels like a battle, not a group of polygons shooting at some other polygons.

There are also tons of characters on screen. I remember a Medal of Honor for the Xbox, the opening was a very well done and immersive D-Day invasion, with stuff going on all around you. Hardly any enemies, and only lasted a minute or two. Call of Duty feels like that all the way through, except while the enviroment is active with particle effects and explosions, there are also 15-30 enemies in front of you, and a bunch of Allies fighting beside you. In most WWII games it has inevitably felt like you were one man taking on the entire German army. Call of Duty has you pinned as a member of a unit.

A friend of mine came over after I got my 360 to check it out. We've been playing games together since the NES. Fired up Call of Duty, he took the first level. The vehicle he was in was attacked, he looks, and over the hill in front of him comes, I'd say 35 or so enemies, in formation. His response, holy shit, it's the whole German army. Throws a grenade, then attempts to shoot all of them with his rifle. He's dead a few seconds later. Eventually he realized he should throw a smoke grenade, then retreat to where the rest of the friendlies are and fight from cover. In short, a hell of a lot more immersive than the last generation.

This generation should be about parallel processing are way toward immersion. Hopefully some developer will come along and realize that graphically, this generation should be an incremental upgrade (whatever you can do with that fancy new GPU). The focus should be on using these multi-core processors to up the ante in physics and AI processing, and adding a bunch of characters to the screen. GTA isn't much of a city with 4 cars and 6 people on the streets. Multiply both of those numbers by 20-40 and we may start to have something truly next generation.

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword

[IdleTime]

However the way microsoft integrates online gaming (xbox live) is very well done, and personally i think is where gaming is going. Now they just need good games.

I think this is not correct. On-line gaming is HUGE for you hardcore gamers, but on and off gamers like me don't have the skill or time necessary to get a good online experience. What fun is it to enter an online session just to be killed 5 seconds after you entered? Not much...

I personally prefer to play games with friends in real life. We all have about the same skill level and we can drink and interact in ways you can't online. Ofcourse, if you are a hardcore gamer, you probably don't have too many real life friends since you spend most of your free time online playing games.

Until I can enter online games and only play with people on or about the same skill level as I have, online gaming to me is worthless and just a HUGE waste of money.

If I could go online with my friends and then have a session with only us in it, that would be interesting.

I wanted to pick up an XBOX 360 just to see what the hype is alll about, but i have no interest in buying on Ebay and so far i haven't found a place where I can go and pick up one, so I'm going to drop XBOX 360 alltogether, no matter how good it is due to the fact it's nearly impossible to go to a store and buy one. Horrible, horrible marketing MS, SONY - are you listening? I'll pick up a PS3 with games and stuff as soon as it is available for pickup in stores.

revolution in gaming

[walshy007]

it seems to me the general public don't want anything new and interesting in gaming, all we see is rehashes of old genres, which while tried and true, bring very little new to the table the nintendo revolution on the otherhand could bring a lot new to the table, if they play their cards right. Although I fear, no matter what happens, sony and microsoft teenagers may never get rid of the anti-nintendo stigma that has been around for quite some time.

Re:revolution in gaming

[mejesster]

Why aren't we applying that same standard to the PS3 or the 360? I swear, rationality goes out the window when consoles are the topic.

Personally, I intend to buy none of the "next gen" consoles until their first price drop, giving my wallet a breath of air and a chance for the consoles and developers to prove themselves. At this point, it's kind of ridiculous how fanboyish people are about consoles that aren't available.

Re:revolution in gaming

[CastrTroy]

Why does cartoon = childish? Southpark is a cartoon, but I wouldn't want my kids watching it. Just because they don't try to make the games look like real life, doesn't mean they are childish. It just means they are going for a different effect. If they wanted them to look real, then they would. Truth is, games that look too real end up immersing you less because you stop using your imagination. Maybe if you have no imagination, then it doesn't matter. Just because mario doesn't have a gun, doesn't mean he's childish. Does violence=adult? what exactly defines and adult game, and what make nintendo's games non adult?

Just make good gaming rigs

[Quiet_Desperation]

Stop trying to make them an all in one box that will do everything from play games to media center to feeding the cat. All in one boxes teh suxxor, as the young 'uns say today, not to mention a single point of failure and all that jazz.

Sick of this next-gen bull

[mikapc]

I haven't noticed anything revolutionary with this new xbox 360. If anything you might call it evolutionary with enhanced graphics but aside from that the games don't appear to be any different from the long line of games that preceded them.

Power vs. Innovation?

[mausmalone]

If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times ... it all depends on what you do with the hardware.

Guessing by your wording, you know what I'm talking about when I talk about the Revolution controller. Just how radically different it is from the current paradigm ensures that there will be great changes in gameplay coming from the Revolution. This is something that I'm looking forward to.

But does the X-Box 360's lack of "innovative" (i.e. trend-bucking) hardware necessarily mean that it won't lead to innovative gameplay that wasn't previously possible? Think about how powerful that CPU is. What kinds of things could be done with physics on it? What could you do with AI? Look at the large (for a console) ammount of memory. How large can levels get? How could you ever fill all that up? Look at the powerful GPU. What can you draw now that you couldn't before? Are there game concepts that people were looking at before that were simply impossible because previous consoles couldn't draw the output?

So, while the hardware is nothing earth-shaking or radically different, it opens up possibilities to developers that simply weren't available on the original X-Box. We just have to hope that (a) developers take advantage of the hardware in that way, and (b) we gamers actually buy the innovative games to support the trend.

Yeah! J Allard! Woo!

[wild_berry]

"We can't wait to get people's feedback"

Like the class-action suit about your overheating power bricks? :P

These words from Allard, repeated throughout this gutsy interview, are the proof that the limited availability is more about public beta testing than production shortages, the hype machine or any thing else.

(Also: Allard was on form with his 'I'm so excited I could *POP*' attitude.)

It doesn't mater who is first, really

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

PS2 was first and dominated that last gen market, but then, Sony had taken over the market with the PSOne long before MS decides to enter the fray.

Its about games, pure and simple. Xbox failed simply because there were not enough exclusive titles, and not any gaming franchises established to help drive console sales. I never bought an Xbox because I could get the same titles for my PS2. What few exclusive titles for the Xbox, like Halo, eventually made it to PC.

Micosoft is setting up the XBox360 for the same fall. The problem know is that many "new" Xbox360 games will also see Xbox and PS2 versions. Not just are there no exclusive titles, but these titles are not even respecting console generations, being downgraded to sell on previous generation consoles.

Again, why would I buy an Xbox360 when, for the time being, many of the popular titles will be released for the PS2 as well.

I am a gamer that prefers gameplay over style and graphics. If a game is fun to play and entertaining for a long time, I could care less if the 3D graphics are not cinematic quality. I won't pay $400 to play a $40 game I could get for a system I already own.

If MS thinks that by getting there first is going to make the Xbox360 shine, then they will loose once again to gain market share. Without exclusive titles, and allowing game developers to release games for other platforms AND older generations, Microsoft is doing nothing to spur sales of Xbox360 hardware.

Sony has a number of platform specific titles that don't exist on any other platform, and I am sure when the PS3 is released, they won't be releasing the same games for the PS2. This is still why the PS3 will outsell the Xbox360, because MS inisist on whoring themselves and their game developers to anyone willing to buy a license, rather then forcing stronger commitments from game developers for exclusive titles.