Slashdot Mirror
Reflections on the Holy Trinity
1up has a piece looking at gaming's future by reflecting on gaming's past. What do the launches of older systems teach us to expect from the PS3's ... eventual debut. From the article: "Shouts of 'Dreamcast' ... fall a little flat when you consider that Dreamcast was more of a last-ditch attempt from a company that hadn't turned a profit in 10 years. Microsoft isn't bowing out anytime soon, which means that being out in front will probably be an advantage -- by the time Sony launches, the 360 will be over the launch hiccups and rolling with a steady stream of new software. On the other hand, if Blu-ray is as big for the PS3 as DVD was for the PS2, Microsoft could find itself technologically inferior -- a direct consequence of its rush to market. "
what anybody says, last-ditch or whatever, the Dreamcast is still comparable with almost anything on the market today, purely from a technological (read: graphics quality) standpoint.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
While it is true that history tends to repeat itself, every time when someone tries to divine the future from the past they make the same fatal mistake that makes their predictions totally useless. They simply take into account too short section of the past, quite often only few years, instead of few centuries and their predictions are directed on a too close future, often few months or years rather than decades. Anyway, I don't think this trend is going to stop anytime soon and so here we go with yet another useless prediction.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
I have said it before but I think the gaming industry in its thrust to make people spend computer system like amounts of money and to add the absolute best crap to their system without really testing it are prepping themselves for another video game crash like 81. And we ALL know who came out tops after that one.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
I'm not understanding this. These two new video formats do... what, exactly? Nothing, beyond showing higher quality digital video. Which is utterly useless unless you have an HD-TV, which is not exactly a universal standard.
When the PS2 hit, it revolutionized / popularized DVDs. Why? Because a DVD cost at worst $25 at the time, and that's a good cheap buy. Couple that with the value you get out of having a combo game system and DVD player (since DVD players were expensive to buy seperately) and that's a no brainer money saver.
But now, if you want to take advantage of Blu-Ray, you need a multi-thousand dollar television, and potentially more expensive movies. Which is NOT as much of a no-brainer as the PS2 was.
On top of all that, we're rapidly approaching the point where we've gone as high-def as we realistically NEED to go. For a lot of folks, standard DVD is "fine." The upgrade is too expensive and the reward too low when you've got a workable solution; this isn't like VHS tapes which could degrade over time, had blatantly inferior video quality, and interactive features. DVD has plenty going for it and all HD adds on top is more rez, which while nice, isn't important enough.
No. The video capability is not going to be what sells the PS3. It's a nice bonus but not as critical as the game library is at this point. (And given the 360's scrawny library, including unimpressive entries on the release chart, the PS3 has a good chance to sieze advantage...)
Microsoft has been losing money in their game business since the original XBox launch. Their stock has been flat for five years, and the stockholders are starting to get annoyed with the money drain. Microsoft may at some point be pushed into "concentrating on their core business area". Losing money forever isn't a business.
And we ALL know who came out tops after that one.
I do, but I don't think you do.
None of the current hardware makers made it out. Only new console makers that came into the market after the crash did well.
So if history repeats itself, how does that help Nintendo?
If history repeats itself, then it's more likly that the Phantom will come out on top rather than the Revolution