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. "

Comments

Course we can go another way

[falcon5768]

In the effect of Microsoft still has some hiccups 6 months or more down the line thanks to its rather lame game lineup, Sony shoots it's self in the foot with Blu-ray, and Nintendo instead takes the lead with its realization that 90% of the people dont want a uber system for 500 dollars, but would rather a 200 dollarish system that plays fun games, does it well, is backwards compatable, and has some inovative features (like the controller)

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.

Why is Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD!) such a deal maker?

[2Flower]

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...)