Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
I think we should really be looking at the third player in the next gen of consoles. Sure XBox 360 and PS3 look to have really fast hardware, and look really pretty, but the Revolution actually looks like it will be doing something new and interesting. After reading about how the new King Kong game being put down by it's own developers for being not so good on the 360 unless you have a flashy new TV, as few people do, It's beginning to become apparent that maybe graphics won't matter all that much in the next generation. With the last 7 generations of consoles, we've seen graphics get noticable better every time. I'm not sure people will notice or care that much about the graphics this time. Most people still have a standard TV, and probably won't be able to tell the difference. Instead, I see many people, looking for something fun, which Nintendo has always provided. Not to mention that the Revo will be around 1/2 the price of the PS3 or the Xbox 360.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Only the hardcore gamers bought the dreamcast.
Which was a shame, it was (IMHO) one of the best consoles of all time. That's just the hardware, it also had an incredible (although perhaps small) line-up of games. I know at least a few guys who got into online gaming not because of Xbox live, but because of the direct modem-to-modem play of NFL 2K-whatever on the DC.
what exactly the 'next generation' of consoles are about.
They're about making apple embarassed to have dumped bridges with IBM. triple core 3.2GHz G5... take that!
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.
The next gen consoles are about getting the console gamer to the on-line money trough through a drm locked down metered revenue stream.
Really, a lot of the ooo's and ah's with the consoles have more to do with their on-line abilities, supposedly better graphics (jury is in lockdown) and such that PC gamers have used for ages. The difference is that they can get the console gamers (which outnumber PC gamers) to fork over a lot more in on-line fees than PC players will tolerate. Plus, a lot of console gamers don't even know where to begin when it comes to modding their consoles to bypass their schemes.
The PC also has more options when it comes to free gaming on-line. A lot suck, but a lot are very good. Yes, the graphics on the new consoles will be better once the developers get the hang of programming for them, but gameplay is another matter.
Frankly, the new consoles have a bigger upside for the manufacturer's as a vehicle for metered gaming than they do for the gamer in terms of better games.
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.
"supposedly better graphics (jury is in lockdown)"
I dare you to take a 360 and hook it up to ANY tv with a native resolution of 720p, 1080i, or 1080p (the new Sony SXRDs for example). The image quality of a 360 is breathtaking when it is used correctly.
When you play a 360 on a regular TV the image has to be squished and makes it look horrendous. This console just isn't made for a non-widescreen non-HD tv.
is a live subscription a broadband service, or do you need a broadband connection in the first place?
just interested, either way I'm getting the Revolution. I don't buy MS or Sony products, partly because I hate those two companies' practices but mainly because they just don't make products that I'm at all interested in. the Revolution is the only console that offers something genuinely new, plus I like Nintendo games.
plus it's the cheapest and my gamecube games and controllers will still work (for "conventional" games). I don't know how the internet connection will compare but that isn't important to me since I don't think my home connection would be up to standards.
I am sorry? Exactly when was did MS get involved with flight simulator (first a non-ms game but now firmly owned by ms) vs Sony involvement with games? I spot it as MS being almost a full decade earlier. In 1982 MS licensed the program from sublogic to be released on the IBM-PC (before it had been on all the other platforms of the day but NOT that new fangled thingy). The playstation doesn't make an entry until 1994. (Oh and it even seems that MS flight simulator as it would become known was no fluke but actually commisioned by Bill Gates himself wich would explain why such an odd product would keep being developed)
Or do PC games not count as video games? When an article doesn't even do basic research how worthy can the rest of it be?
So for your info. MS has for a very long time had a game division for its operating platform and continues to do so. Sony wich became a game player much later in live also has a big PC division, almost all of its MMO titles for one. MS of course already had experience with the ancestor of live, MSN chat and similar software. Sony of course did not. MS was late to the internet and the whole online idea but not as late as sony so it is no wonder that the x-box was the first console to have a large online component.
Argh I am bored with this. Game journalists should be shot.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
There was nothing wrong with the Dreamcast system! Of many of the same games made for it and the PS1 were better on the Dreamcast. For example: The Gauntlet Legacy game. The DC had nice controllers and a wide selection of games, including Shenmue. It just got swamped by the competition, which had more money to play with and could afford to lose more.
If you poke around online, it is not hard to find emulator programs for the Dreamcast so that you could play Genesis or even SNES games on it. How cool is that?
...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
I was just reading a blurb in Game Informer magazine, about some 'patented' process Sony is working on with PS3 to undercut the used game market. Something to do with tying your game disc to your specific console. This and the reported Blu-Ray DRM which can disable your machine makes the Sony rootkit fiasco look tame by comparison.
Microsoft has been moving full steam ahead with Xbox Live, offering downloads for sale right into your 360's hard drive. I think it is both interesting and embarassing for MS that one of the most engaging Xbox 360 titles is a $5 download called Geometry Wars. But again, this is about locking in your customers, so you can nickel and dime them to death. I find it ironic that Microsoft touts media freedom with the 360, but you need a pricey MCE2005 PC setup to use it and it still doesn't support xvid nor divx MP4 videos.
If this is what they are offering customers this time around, I'm much more interested in seeing what Nintendo has to offer.
{ - Generic Guy - }
When we launch a PS3 online service, we certainly want to take advantage of the PS3, the technology it brings, and offer a great online experience for PS3 users, but at the same time, we want to make sure we bring along the huge install base of PS2 users and the install base of PSP users and have them be able to take part in the online experience as well.
Sony understands that they make the money in the games, not the hardware. If many of the 100 million PS2 owners don't need "next generation", fine for Sony - and fine for the game developers, they will continue to make and sell PS2 games for several years.
Microsoft on the other hand, sells the XBox like they sell MS Office: In very short periods, they try to upgrade as many users as possible to the "newest" version.
That's just wrong: First, many console users don't want to upgrade so often. 4 years for the XBox is pretty short. And if you bought your XBox last year because of Halo2, will you upgrade just after one year?
Second, the more hardware Microsoft sells, the more losses they make. So IF they ever want to break even (or - gasp - even make a profit), they somehow have to pay for the hardware losses by higher game-prices or tricking more people into paying monthly fees.
But in the end, I think XBox360 will make as much losses as XBox1. I seriously doubt that XBox360 will ever make money for Microsoft.
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.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
"But in the end, I think XBox360 will make as much losses as XBox1. I seriously doubt that XBox360 will ever make money for Microsoft."
360 is currently averaging 3.9 games/console sold. Add in the monthly revenue from Xbox Live and the controllers and you have a great business going.
Microsoft is an industry leader for a reason, they know how to sell a product. The Xbox1 was just a last ditch attempt to gain some market penetration setting up the 360.
Like the class-action suit about your overheating power bricks?
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.)
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.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I mean, because of their new 3D input device, the gameplay will be vastly different . Like, in nintendo's teaser video where you saw a dude using it to control a sword, as if he was holding the sword in his own hand swinging away.
t _tgs05_quick.zip
Check out the vid here if u haven't: http://zdmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/1UP/revolution_con
No console have ever offered this kinda gameplay before, so i think its fair to call it revolutionary.