Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sides With Nintendo Against Sony
rafemonkey writes "Looks like Microsoft loves the Wii. The Washington Post has an article in which VP Peter Moore says that since the PS3 is so expensive, gamers might as well get an Xbox 360 and a Wii for the cost of one Sony console." From the article: "Microsoft predicted on Tuesday it will have 10 million Xbox 360 consoles in the market before Sony launches the PS3. The high-end Xbox 360 sells for $399, but it does not include a built-in high-definition DVD video player that comes with Sony's PS3. Sony plans to sell a premium PS3 model for $599 when it debuts in North America on November 17, and Nintendo has not yet disclosed pricing for Wii." On that last note there is much speculation that Nintendo is aiming for a $249 price point. Sony's Kaz Hirai has in turn responded that the PlayStation 3 is priced for consumers, who are getting a lot for their money.
Sounds like they are trying to generate more positive press for the 360 by riding Nintendos coattails from the Revolution presentation.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
"Hirai said different versions of gaming machines will likely be the norm from here on out, likening it to buying a computer today, where buyers can select from different configuration options to what best suits them."
There's a reason I play games on consoles nowadays. Consoles are simple. I really don't want to start having to study the game box to see if my console will play game X for that console.
Of course Microsoft is going to endorse Nintendo over Sony, because the Wii is not as much of a direct competitor to the 360 as the PS3 will be. So MS pushes a "360 for the bling, Wii for the party games" solution.
Microsoft has said this before. When Nintendo first showed off the controller, MS called it "innovative" (the same buzzword they used when they were trying to protect themselves from the Justice Department, e.g. "freedom to innovate"). In every interview I've ever read since then, the interviewers hit hard with Sony/Microsoft questions then always toss in "So what do you think of Nintendo?" You always get "Revolution/Wii's innovative" and "I can't wait to play X Mario, Y Zelda, etc."
:P ). I'm sure if Nintendo hung up the towel they would have no problem letting them develop on Xbox 460 and a Halftwist, but I don't think they're serious about buying them out or forming a partnership.
Does this mean a deathknell for Nintendo? Not at all. At their core, Moore, Allard, etc. are gamers. They're MS businessmen, but they're gamers. They know what good games look like and try to court the best talent (well, except Rare...
Evil? Why are they evil? Have they killed countless millions of people? Have they disenfranchised an entire population and brought them under a brutal dictatorship? Have they done scientific experiments on unwilling human-beings? Have they enslaved millions of people to do their bidding in extremely harsh and abusive environments? Have they ever attempted ethnic cleansing?
Let's try a less exaggerated term. Unethical or something similar perhaps. Let's keep the use of superlatives like evil for things that really deserve it.
I agree. The Wii actually looks fun to play, not just the game old crap with a bunch of extra polygons and texels. And the fact that it is priced affordably means I might actually buy one at launch or close to it.
The GameCube was more powerful than the PS2, and the Wii is double the power of the GameCube, although the graphics may be even more better than that judging from the screenshots shown so far (HDR effects, physics, etc). Indeed at the time the GameCube was estimated to be nearly as powerful as the XBox.
So please explain "Its (sic) basically an original Xbox or PS2 with a cool new controller".
This all boils back down to blu-ray, and the response from E3 maybe sony's first really good test of how receptive thier customers will be to the product. Basically for Sony Blu-ray added one year and 200$ to thier console. They probably should have done a little bit better market research if they were expecting better product reception. Sony intermixed too seperate markets of thier company hoping to leverage the success in one to bolster the other. It's too early to call but it certianly very clear now how risky this is for them.
:) ) however Microsoft and Nintendo seem to both be positioned well. Sony however seems to have only it's current last gen user base (no small factor though) to help bolster demand for the PS3. I think Blu-ray may have been too risky a bet for them.
In a wierd ironic twist Microsoft will now start leveraging its dominance in the OS market with Vista's support for live anywhere to help it's console and this strategy seems to be very well concieved (as oppossed to Sonys). Then agian its not so wierd to expect Microsoft to be the Master at leveraging its OS effectivly (like they haven't done that before).
It's too early to call this whole console war (but it sure is fun to speculate isn't it
Ves
My housemate has an Xbox 360.
He's a bearded, long-haired, late-twenties guy who can usually be found swigging a can of Strongbow while he blows seven shades of hell out of *whatever* on his Xbox.
I could imagine him doing exactly the same thing if it were a PS3. However, I just can't see him rushing out to buy a Wii so that he can wave his arms around like a demented orchestral conductor to the tune of 'Bubble Bobble'.
He's just not the type, and he'd only end up knocking his can of cider over.
I reckon the intersection of 'possible Xbox 360 gamers' and 'possible PS3 gamers' is a lot larger than either of the two intersected with 'possible Nintendo Wii hand-wavers'. Regardless of the low price point of the Wii.
Will host for cash.
I disagree... the GameCube is considerably more powerful than the PS2, and pretty much on par with the original Xbox. Have you ever played Resident Evil 4 or Beyond Good and Evil on the Cube? Nintendo's outgoing console is capable of some beautiful graphics.
The Wii is, of course, equipped with much more powerful graphics hardware than the GameCube; I'm confident that its games will look more or less as pretty as those on the 360 or the PS3. However, with its inventive controller and internet-based game distribution system, the Wii is the only one of these new consoles that brings something entirely new to the equation. In that sense, I would argue that it is the only one of the three that is truly "next generation."
This is one of two things:
I may be a Nintendo fanboy, but I am a capitalist first. Wii...
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
While I would agree with you that Mario Kart is probably the most static of the series you just cited, I would like to point out that it's probably the least static series in a genre of extremely static games (racing). Seriously, how much do you expect a racing game to change?
That said, all the other games change more between two games then any other two games in their respective genre's (and I would include MarioKart in that statement as well). Just because a game is a sequal doesn't make it any more or less innovative. For the most part, if anything, it just places the game in a particular genre (Zelda is Nintendo's adventure games, Mario is their platformers and family games, Metroid is their sci-fi horror).
As to who to hate, I used to be a big PlayStation fan because of its plethora of RPGs, but now I'm seeing so many companies jumping ship on the PS3, I have to wonder what's really going to happen. Still, it's hard for me to imagine not having the system that Metal Gear Solid 4 and FF13 will be on. MGS4 looks... well... solid. And FF13 is bound to be good (every game in the series I've at least enjoyed, I don't think Square has produced a dog in their main line so far), and from what I've heard about FF12, they're back on their feet again. That said, I won't pay $600 to be able to play two games, so if there isn't a massive catalog to go with the system, it might be time to jump ship. I hate what Microsoft has done to gaming: gone and brought American developers's into the console market, but I have to admit, they have a solid product this time around, although if the Wii is as good as I think it might be, it may be the only system I'll need this generation.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
I know this is a troll post by a Sony fanboi, but I couldn't resist.
... 4 ethernet ports (now only 1), 2 HDMI ports so you can output to two TVs (now only 1, and that's only on the premium), the boomerang controller is gone (although that's probably a good thing), Killzone 2 with awesome "in-game graphics" mysteriously missing this E3, and a Spring 2006 ship that has been delayed. Furthermore, they scoffed at MS for the 2 SKU model, but then went ahead and did it themselves (and WORSE since the core model is far crappier than the premium). Then during this year's conference, they talked about how their controller was truly innovative, even though everyone in the audience knew it's just a knock-off of the Wii-mote. And finally, their slides of the two SKU model during the conference listed the only difference as the size of the HD. But the press release later showed drastic differences between the two.
:)
It seems to me the company that needs to defend themselves the most from claims of lies and trickery is Sony. Shall we jump into the time machine and see what claims Sony made last E3? Let's see here
I'm not saying MS is amazing, doesn't make mistakes, etc. In fact, I think the 2 SKU model is pretty stupid as well, and the supply issues were pretty damaging. But man, compared to Sony, they look like saints recently.
And if MS is looking saintly, then Nintendo must be God.
-- jchenx
The dreamcast's CPU is a 200MHz Hitachi SH-4, which is a 32 bit RISC processor. The PS2's EE is a pair of ~300MHz 64-bit MIPS cores tied together with another, slower core. Even just one of those cores would be more powerful than the SH4.
I'm a little less sure about graphics comparisons. The clock rate of the PS2's GS is half again higher than the PowerVR II in the Dreamcast, but we know what clock rates are good for, and it's not much outside of marketing. On the other hand, the PS2's graphics solution definitely has more bus bandwidth than that in the Dreamcast.
Finally, I have both a Dreamcast (and maybe a third to a half of the games available for the platform) and a PS2. Even some of the earlier PS2 games look better and play smoother than some of the snazziest titles on Dreamcast.
Neither the numbers nor my experience suggest that the Dreamcast is more powerful than the PS2. I call shenanigans.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You're right. It's not "next-gen" like PS3 or Xbox360. It's basically starting a new generation of gaming. The Wii has the potential to take gaming to an entirely new level that could not be reached by the PS3 or Xbox360.
I say potential because it all depends on how well the new controller is utilized, althought seeing how Sony is already scrambling to add similar technology to their controller, it looks like Nintendo isn't the only one that thinks the Wii will be a huge success that changes the face of gaming.
Well, the last I heard, '50% better' was a fair description. i.e. CPU/GPU are roughly 50% faster. I think there's 2-3 times as much RAM than the GC. All unofficial, of course. If that counts as 'much more powerful', I don't know, especially if you're looking at 360/PS3 hardware in comparison.
But don't get me wrong - I'm looking forward to Mario Galaxy and waving my Wii wand around :)
If Nintendo is smart they will aim for and hit the $199.00 target price and kick the ever living crap out of the PS3 and Xbox360. If they are also able to keep controls on the game prices like they have with the DS they will solidify their top spot like they did with the DS versus the PSP.
Nintendo is not stupid, they know there are many MANY more people that can and will part with $199.00 per console and $39-$49.00 per game than the Xbox360 and it's insane game pricing currently has. and with the PS3 rumored to have games near the $85.00 mark there will be no competition at all.
If you get your gamers buying a game or two weekly you get much more money out of them than the 1 game every month or two you get with the high prices of the competition.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.