Nvidia CEO Talks Next-Gen Consoles

Of course Nvidia says it's a great move by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Doesn't Nvidia make the graphics chip for the PS3, but not the 360? Isn't that a bit like Firestone saying that Chevies are better than Fords because Fords use Goodyear tires, but the Chevies come with Firestone?

Re:Of course Nvidia says it's a great move by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2006-07-25 04:48 · Score: 1

Only in this case, Microsoft have driven the chevie to the levy but the levy was dry, making tire choice a moot point.

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:Of course Nvidia says it's a great move by timster · 2006-07-25 05:13 · Score: 1

Look, we all know the song. If you're going to carry the joke forward, extend on the metaphor.

--
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Re:Of course Nvidia says it's a great move by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 05:45 · Score: 0

No, they were in a rice field in Vietnam with their intestines in a pile beside them.
Re:Of course Nvidia says it's a great move by DrEldarion · 2006-07-25 07:10 · Score: 1

But were the good ol' boys drinking whiskey & rye?

Yes, and that's how they came up with the name for the Wii.
Re:Of course Nvidia says it's a great move by Dark+Leaper · 2006-07-25 08:08 · Score: 1

That was just too damn wordy. How bout "Isn't that like Nvidia saying another product is better (PS3) because their stuffs in it."
Re:Of course Nvidia says it's a great move by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 10:08 · Score: 0

Look, if you want to get a life then get off the computer. jerk.
Re:Of course Nvidia says it's a great move by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-26 01:06 · Score: 0

he's too busy jerking and getting off on the computer.
Re:Of course Nvidia says it's a great move by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-26 02:09 · Score: 0

i don't understand why that's funny but it made me laugh my ass off. maybe i can leave my ass next to the pile of guts

Advanced Is Great by Real+World+Stuff · 2006-07-25 04:47 · Score: 1

But, will I, as the consiumer buy it at that price? For me, the answer is no. Not enough incentive for me.

--
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.

Re:Advanced Is Great by MrSquirrel · 2006-07-25 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not to mention it's not like Blu-Ray is the GPU/CPU/RAM/controller -- it's just the media that the game comes on. DVD's already offer hefty storage, I have yet to own a game that takes more than 1 DVD (not counting bonus materials)... so having a Blu-Ray drive in a VIDEO GAME SYSTEM doesn't seem very important to me, or anyone who actually cares about gaming, considering it increases the price by $200 while increasing the level-o-fun by zero.

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
Re:Advanced Is Great by gabebear · 2006-07-26 06:40 · Score: 1

The PS3 is priced $100 more than the 360; the $600 version of the PS3 adds an integrated memory-card reader, HDMI output, wifi, and an extra 40gigs(none of which are included with the 360). Blu-Ray adds at most $100 to the PS3's initial price.

If you remember back when DVDs were first introduced, the same arguments were used. Some console games still ship on regular CDs, however a lot(most?) of the current console games are bumping against the single layer DVD limit. If/when single-layer Blu-Ray discs become cheaper than dual-layer DVDs I think we will see a lot of games start being released on Blu-Ray.
Re:Advanced Is Great by LordVader717 · 2006-07-26 07:44 · Score: 1

Blu-Ray adds at most $100 to the PS3's initial price.

Then why are they so fucking expensive as computer drives?

If you remember back when DVDs were first introduced, the same arguments were used.

Back then ther were games using four CDs, and 2 were pretty much standard for the rest. Also, DVD technology was a older by that time, and had become cheap.

Some console games still ship on regular CDs, however a lot(most?) of the current console games are bumping against the single layer DVD limit.

That's because they're stuck in the past and can only use single layer DVDs. We can instantly bump the capacity by twice that without changing anything.
Not having 2 DVDs might be nice, but 27 GB is way too overkill for games.
Re:Advanced Is Great by gabebear · 2006-07-26 13:07 · Score: 1

There are only 2 companies(that I know of) currently making consumer Blu-Ray drives and those are both dual-layer Blu-Ray burners. They are still milking early adopters.

The data capacity problem was much worse for the PS1 then it is today, but the PS3 has about 15 times as much memory as the PS2 which will firmly push games into the dual-layer DVD area.

Dual layer discs are still roughly 25% more costly to replicate than single layer discs and skipping between the layers does cause a the data to pause which can be REALLY ANNOYING if the developer didn't account for it. I wouldn't doubt that single layer Blu-Ray discs will be cheaper than dual-layer DVDs in 2 years.
Re:Advanced Is Great by LordVader717 · 2006-07-26 22:41 · Score: 1

There are only 2 companies(that I know of) currently making consumer Blu-Ray drives and those are both dual-layer Blu-Ray burners. They are still milking early adopters.

Yes, but don't expect to get read-only drives to be a bargain when they do arrive. I might not be an expert, but from what I've read the main reason for the PS3 arriving later than initially expected is blu-ray. And blu-ray is also what is making the system expensive.

I wouldn't doubt that single layer Blu-Ray discs will be cheaper than dual-layer DVDs in 2 years.

That would be very optimistic. But either way, the actual production costs of the disc are negligable. If it was really a reason for Sony to make me pay 100$ more so that they can save $0.10 per disc I would show them where they can shove those siny, sharp discs.
Re:Advanced Is Great by gabebear · 2006-07-27 05:55 · Score: 1

Well, I'm looking forward to HD movies and $100 seems like an insane deal to me. Production costs of the disc are irrelevant when you look at a single unit but companies can make a lot of extra using cheaper media. I'm doubting that the price was even increased by $100; the PS3 uses a much more innovative CPU design and has over twice the memory bandwidth of the 360.

Games put on multiple layer discs have similar issues to multiple disc games. The time for the laser to refocus between layers is ideally around 10ms, although the ideal isn't achievable due to misalligned heads, dirty/scratchd discs, and small defects in the hardware. The actual time it takes to switch layers varies dramatically and can easily be 250ms. If a developer plans ahead and puts files that will be accessed together on the same layer everything will work fine, but doing this does make the game more difficult to develop and increases costs.
Re:Advanced Is Great by LordVader717 · 2006-07-28 01:49 · Score: 1

Well, I'm looking forward to HD movies and $100 seems like an insane deal to me.

You are assuming that you're not paying more than $100 for the drive to watch HD movies (most customers would rather pay nothing because they have no HD set)
Now, we can go into a long discussion about the price of drive components and manufacturing, but why don't we just leave it at that?

Production costs of the disc are irrelevant when you look at a single unit but companies can make a lot of extra using cheaper media. I'm doubting that the price was even increased by $100;
[...]
If a developer plans ahead and puts files that will be accessed together on the same layer everything will work fine, but doing this does make the game more difficult to develop and increases costs.

As I said before, if that were a serious reason given by the company, I would say:

#(&=/ you, "$%& your *@*"#%)/" company, "&%)#$ your media format, you can #/"&%$ shove it up your )"/@$ #+*"%$

Seriously, manufacturing costs are for the manufacturer, not for the customer. Expecting them to pay hundreds extra just to save a company a few cents is just plain stupid.

As for the developers: I thought that the main reason for these new-fangled hard drives in the PS3 was to ease access to data.
Even so, it's far fetched to say that making sure a game doesn't pause while loading the other layer would increase development costs.

the PS3 uses a much more innovative CPU design and has over twice the memory bandwidth of the 360.

Ken Kutaragi? Is that you?
Besides, I really don't see what this has to do with the necessity for storage capacity on the game discs.

Blue-ray by another_fanboy · 2006-07-25 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

the inclusion of a Blu-ray player will help the console last for 10 years

How many consoles have games available ten years after launch?

Re:Blue-ray by Spluge · 2006-07-25 04:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Other than the PS1?
You can still buy the console let alone games for it.
Re:Blue-ray by tolan-b · 2006-07-25 04:59 · Score: 3, Informative

There are still games released for Neo Geo :D
Re:Blue-ray by MaestroSartori · 2006-07-25 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

That would be the PS1, and soon enough the PS2 I suspect. Unless developers suddenly ignore the huge number of people who own them, of course, which one would hope won't happen overnight!

--
Game dev and music blog
Re:Blue-ray by moonsammy · 2006-07-25 05:09 · Score: 1

The atari 2600.

I personally don't understand the logic behind viewing the blu-ray part of the PS3 as a selling point. Who really cares? Is the subtle (in most cases) graphical advantage really going to make my gaming experience sufficiently more fun to justify the extra cost? I really doubt it.
Re:Blue-ray by ooPo · 2006-07-25 05:10 · Score: 1

Ironically, Dreamcast games still come out once in a while. So much for the Dreamcast/CD vs Playstation2/DVD.
Re:Blue-ray by ObligatoryUserName · 2006-07-25 05:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

EA and others have said that they feel they made a huge mistake by abandoning new game development for the PS1 as early as they did. Their current plans seem to indicate that they will keep putting out new games for the PS2 for at least 10 years after the system's launch date.

However, new games don't imply new IP! The floundering of Prince of Persia in the marketplace, in spite of what many industry insiders considered a very well executed game, convinced many in the industry that there's only a small window at the beginning of a system's life to launch new IP in. After a certain point it's just not worth it because people don't buy AAA games that aren't sequels in sufficent quantities to recoup development costs. Sad, but apparently true.

Strangly enough, a theory has also developed that says that while you need to rush out new IP at the beginning of the life of a new system, if you're doing a sequel to existing IP on a new system it's not worth it to push it out in that early window. It's better to take your time and "get things right"/wait for the install base to develop before you push out things like GTA 4 or Halo 3.
Re:Blue-ray by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 05:11 · Score: 0

You could get intellivision games after 10 years it was introduced. And i think you can still get 'new' games for the Atari 2600.
Re:Blue-ray by AKAImBatman · 2006-07-25 05:14 · Score: 1

How many consoles have games available ten years after launch?

The Atari 2600 was available until around 1990. It launched in 1977.

The Intellivision was available until the early 90's. It launched in 1980.

The NES was available until 1995, being launched in America around 1985/86. ('85 was the test market.)

The Famicom was released in 1983, and ran until 2003, for a complete run of 20 years. (!)

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Blue-ray by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 05:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

And yet, God of War, being new IP released during PS2's midlife, was a grand success.
Re:Blue-ray by keyne9 · 2006-07-25 05:20 · Score: 1

The original Playstation, for one. It launched in 1994 and still has sales pushing past 2005. However, I suspect you meant to ask how many consoles have games being very actively developed for them on a commercial basis.
Re:Blue-ray by poot_rootbeer · 2006-07-25 05:23 · Score: 1

How many consoles have games available ten years after launch?

The Wikipedia entry for "Video game consoles" has some charts showing the lifespans of selected consoles in North America, Japan, and Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console

The only consoles to approach a ten-year lifespan in the United States were the Atari VCS/2600 and the original Nintendo Entertainment System. It must be noted, too, that after each's 6-year mark or so, the manufacturers were looking to move on to the next generation, and continued support for the original system was much reduced. Sony has been doing the same thing, looking at the PSX/PSone and PS2/PStwo lifespans.

Indeed, looking at the graphs, it would appear that the lifespans of consoles are historically getting shorter, not longer. You may still be able to BUY a new PSthree in 2016, but all the games being released them will be PS4 exclusives. Doesn't really count.
Re:Blue-ray by kryogen1x · 2006-07-25 05:28 · Score: 1

How many consoles have games available ten years after launch?
A few of them still see releases. Heck, even the Sega Genesis, which launched in 1988, got a new game recently.
Re:Blue-ray by another_fanboy · 2006-07-25 05:29 · Score: 1

The floundering of Prince of Persia in the marketplace
Which Prince of Persia are you referring to?
Re:Blue-ray by AKAImBatman · 2006-07-25 05:39 · Score: 2, Informative

The only consoles to approach a ten-year lifespan in the United States were the Atari VCS/2600 and the original Nintendo Entertainment System.

The Intellivision should also be showing a 10+ year lifespan, but someone screwed up by the numbers. The charts list the Intellivision as ending in 1984. This was the date that Mattel Electronics closed down, however, not the date that the Intellivision stopped being supported. A former VP of Mattel purchased the Intellivision properties and formed INTV Corp. Not only did they release new games, but the old system was re-released as the "Super Pro System" and later the "Intellivision System III".

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Blue-ray by KDR_11k · 2006-07-25 05:50 · Score: 1

Ironically, Dreamcast games still come out once in a while. So much for the Dreamcast/CD vs Playstation2/DVD.

PS2 games come out by the dozen each week, DC games are one or two a month. I don't think MS would want that.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Blue-ray by steveo777 · 2006-07-25 05:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your post demands some clarification. I'm pretty sure you're talking about "Prince of Perisa: The Sands of Time" when you talk about an IP. Well, it's not the first. The first was on a Mac. It also made an appearnce on the SNES.
OTOH, it is sad that some incredible games (Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, Metal Arms: Glitch in the System) don't get the install base they deserve. Or perhaps the sequels they deserve. But I'm sure it has a lot to do with the fact that games aren't anywhere near as maketed as they have been in years gone by. Anybody remember how hyped FFVII was? It was on pop cans and all over the TV. VIII? IX? Nothing but a few magazine pages.
If pulishers aren't willing to tell everyone about their games, they shouldn't be suprised when nobody buys them. It seems like the few magazine ads and game interviews and previews is all any game really gets (unless it's from EA, then it might get a TV commercial or two).

--
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
Re:Blue-ray by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 06:02 · Score: 0

Game Boy, for one...NES, too. (1983-1994)
Re:Blue-ray by alienw · 2006-07-25 06:21 · Score: 1

The first Prince of Persia game was released for DOS somewhere in the 80s. Awesome game too; probably, one of the best platformers I've played. I'm pretty sure this was about 3-4 years before the SNES came out.
Re:Blue-ray by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 06:46 · Score: 0

You know, I've heard more and more about how long some of these systems were around but it generally just doesn't jive with personal experience. Lived through most of that era and never saw a 2600 or Intellivision in a store. The NES just up and disappeared sometime in late 1994, around a year before Nintendo Power ran its official retirement/tribute article. Come to think of it, the Dreamcast was the only system I can remember being able to purchase after Sega had thrown in the towel...not by much though.

And it's still happening! Have you tried buying Nintendo GameCube accessories in the last year? This isn't me trying to track down the OOP modem, the Wavebird and memory cards are what's in short supply. Feels like a 3rd world country here sometimes, what with all the delays and short windows...
Re:Blue-ray by AKAImBatman · 2006-07-25 06:53 · Score: 1

You know, I've heard more and more about how long some of these systems were around but it generally just doesn't jive with personal experience. Lived through most of that era and never saw a 2600 or Intellivision in a store.

A certain fellow by the name of Jack Trameil decided that consoles weren't important. As a result, Atari's units were hard to find after the crash of '83/'84. INTV Corp was mostly mail-order, although they did sell many units and games through Toys'R'Us until the NES displaced the console.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Blue-ray by ObligatoryUserName · 2006-07-25 07:20 · Score: 2, Informative

I'll just reply to myself since a number of people seem confused by my calling Prince of Persia new IP. I was indeed talking about Sands of Time.

Yes, there were quite a number of Prince of Persia games that came before, and Jordan Mechner was involved with Sands of Time. However, from the point of view of the publisher it was treated as new IP for a few reasons, the main one being the spotty release history of the series and the low brand awareness in the target market. The previous version, Prince of Persia 3D, came out for Windows and Dreamcast in 1999 and didn't get a very wide release for a number of reasons not directly related to the game itself. Before that the last game was in 1994.

Even though Sands of Time didn't do the business it deserved, Ubi tried to treat it like a franchise after that title and you can see the difference in the release schedule. Previously to Sands of Time a game came out every 5 years, 1989, 1994, 1999. Then here's the release schedule including and following Sands of Time: 2003, 2004, 2005 x 3.

I'm sorry I didn't use a better example of good "new" IP that failed to become a franchise late in a console lifecycle, but Prince of Persia is what everyone was talking about when I heard that theory.

A counter example to the trend is is Katamari Damacy, but you'll note that it wasn't launched as a AAA title - it was an experiment that did better than anyone expected.

I should note that the theory of a new IP launch window has been playing out on the handhelds. Look at the numbers, the launch dates for new vs old IP and draw your own conclusions if you're really interested. Some games were definitly scheduled with these thoughts in mind, but in my opinion the awareness didn't have a real impact on the success of the games - being a fun game is still the most important consideration.
Re:Blue-ray by pixel_bc · 2006-07-25 08:01 · Score: 1

I believe the PSOne was released in 1994 and is still in production, and I personally know professional developers who still develop for the platform.

PS4 Release Date by neonprimetime · 2006-07-25 04:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Just as Sony has talked about the PS2 having a ten-year lifespan, Huang believes that the PS3 will also last ten years

So, we're talking about perhaps a 2016 Release Date for PS4? Just making sure, so I can start saving up my $$ now ... cause I'm sure it'll be pricey!

Re:PS4 Release Date by _xeno_ · 2006-07-25 05:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, it's more ironic than that, because Sony (well, Ken Kutaragi, head of the division that makes the PS3) has in the past said they're planning on upgrading the PS3 throughout its lifecycle. See, since it's really a computer, apparently he thinks they can get away with announcing "upgraded" versions. So by 2016, the PS4 might finally replace the PS3-OSR2-SP5 or something.

The actual quote is:

In the PC world, specifications rarely last more than two years. You need to update them. I believe the PC is always evolving. I think that the time may come that the 60GB HDD would become too small or the RAM to low. Such issues are numerous.

From this article.

So, yeah, maybe a "10-year lifecycle" isn't out of the question, if they keep on churning out new consoles and call 'em PS3s anyway.

Plus, by continuously upgrading specs, they can ensure that the PS3 will continue to cost $600 for years! ($500 for the previous iteration.)

--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:PS4 Release Date by cttforsale · 2006-07-25 05:19 · Score: 1

Oh please. By then, organic, non-volatile memory will be within the average consumers reach. Mind you they'll only be able to fit a few TB on the head of a pin....
Re:PS4 Release Date by MBGMorden · 2006-07-25 06:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

If they try this it will be the final nail in the coffin of this system. People buy console games because they just work. No wondering about "does in work on my version of the console or anything", just work.

There is a reason why only hardcore gamers play PC games more complicated than Solitaire or Tetris. They're the only ones with the time and energy to keep the system working with the latest games.

The consoles serve the rest of the market, and Sony is about to shoot themselves in the foot by messing this up.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:PS4 Release Date by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 06:26 · Score: 0

If it wasn't for the fact that I'd forget about it, I'd LOVE to make bet with you that commercially available RAM won't have achieved even 1TB per mm^3 in 10 years.
Re:PS4 Release Date by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 07:06 · Score: 0

Unlike Microsoft, Sony continues to support their console after a new one comes out.

Xbox lasted what, 4 years before they stopped production? The PS1 just recently stopped production and the PS2 will easily last 10 years.
Re:PS4 Release Date by KDR_11k · 2006-07-25 07:54 · Score: 1

I wouldn't bet on game developers actually using those upgrades, though. The additional testing effort will also result in even higher devcosts for the PS3. Well, okay, Kutaragi also said they'll allow patches to cut down on the time you have to spend on debugging pre-release. I think he wants that platform to turn into an unmitigated desaster.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:PS4 Release Date by rising_hope · 2006-07-25 10:37 · Score: 1

Based on the increased price of the PS3 by about 30% over the PS2 when adjusted for inflation, and the average console being released every 5 years, I suspect the PS4 will be released Christmas 2011 for a retail price around $899, based on consumer price inflation of roughly 3 percent per year. Based on this, if you start saving now, it'll cost you $15/mo in savings to pony up for the PS4. Good luck!
Re:PS4 Release Date by geminidomino · 2006-07-26 01:22 · Score: 1

Choose your unfunny joke:

a) Dammit, those bacteria better respect the DRM!

or

b) Yeah, but that still won't be enough for Squeenix's cutscenes.

Better intro by nickheart · 2006-07-25 04:52 · Score: 1

For those of you that were confused by the intro, here's a rundown that makes more sense
The point about Blu-Ray and DVD is that the playstation is following an evolution pattern, waiting for the correct time to updrage. PS1 had CD, PS2 had DVD, PS3 has to evolve.
as for my opinion, i still use my PS2, and have no intention to buy an XBOX of anykind, (IE i don't have a XBOX 1) the PS2 can do everything i want, soon i will want to upgrade to newer technology, and i'll be looking at what's going to last me longer, and for now at least, that's not the XBOX.
thanks for listening

Re:Better intro by PrescriptionWarning · 2006-07-25 05:48 · Score: 1

its too bad that not all PS2's actually play DVDs as well as the Xbox (360) or some standard DVD players can. I even have one of those slimline PS2's and I can't watch more than half of any movie before it stutters and soon after just plain freezes. I have heard others who have similar problems, though its not necessarily a problem with ALL PS2's.
Re:Better intro by Dan+Ost · 2006-07-25 07:06 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I've got an early PS2 and it has trouble with DVDs from Disney.
I've never had a problem with a non-Disney DVD.

Of course, now we have a real DVD player so the issue is moot.

--

*sigh* back to work...
Re:Better intro by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 08:59 · Score: 0

Wow, now I understand Sony fanboys! I am far more interested in the quality of my gaming experience than the media my games ship on personally... But for you sony fans it's all about the media? That makes sense... i mean at least it explains the thousands of crappy ps2 games that are all bad clones of one another... you're just in it for the disks, who cares what's on them!
Re:Better intro by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 09:05 · Score: 0

fanboi
Re:Better intro by nickheart · 2006-07-25 14:19 · Score: 1

Actually, the issue is quite simple: Children tend to slobber more on Disney DVD's as apposed to non-Disney DVD's.
laugh.....

article? by solomonrex · 2006-07-25 04:53 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Why isn't this linked to San Jose Mercury news? Not in the club with Slashdot and gamebizdaily?

sigh by Nazmun · 2006-07-25 04:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah because the ps3 was released ten years after the ps2.... What they mean is that the console will be in production for that long. For example, the psone was just bought out of production last year. That's pretty close to ten years if it hasn't passed it.

The ps2 will be a ten year system if they can still sell it for the next 5ish years. Which they probably can due to strong brand name appeal and the expense of the new system. (ps2's still outsell xbox360's week by week now).

--
Hmmm... Pie...

Re:sigh by powerlord · 2006-07-25 05:17 · Score: 1

The ps2 will be a ten year system if they can still sell it for the next 5ish years. Which they probably can due to strong brand name appeal and the expense of the new system. (ps2's still outsell xbox360's week by week now).

Also add in the available library (wether you factor in backward compatibility or not).

I hadn't thought of it, but the PS3 coming out now makes more sense.

I don't think Sony expects to initially sell to anyone other than hard core gamers/fans. Once those units are sold, hopefully they will be able to drop the cost in 6-8 months for enthusiastic, but more cautious fans to start buying them. Lather-rinse-repeat and within a year or two the system is selling close to 300$. In 5 years the system is down to 200$ as a Pthree, as the PS4 comes out for launch. At that point (assuming it has managed to last), the Ptwo is retired, the library of games has been improved, and those who "must be on the bleeding edge" help pay for the next R&D cycle.

Seems somewhat similar to hard-core gamers on the PC buying video cards/CPUs/etc, compared to your average gamer (i.e. upgrading much more often, although upgrading in terms of console lifespan is still much longer than upgrading to stay on the edge in the PC world).

--
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Re:sigh by JFMulder · 2006-07-25 05:19 · Score: 1

(ps2's still outsell xbox360's week by week now).
That barely means anything : the PS1 sold more than the PS2 months after the PS2 launch.
Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 05:33 · Score: 0

Could you provide a source for this information? In the months leading up to the PS2 release, you were unable to find PSXs in stores. It was also difficult to locate a PS2 up to about 6 months after release. The 360 on the other hand is in wide supply and has been selling worse than the original Xbox in the same release time frame.
Re:sigh by Psychotext · 2006-07-25 05:47 · Score: 1

The 360 wasn't in wide supply until about March this year (hence the April sales numbers). I've also read that the PS1 outsold the PS2 when it was released, you can find numbers here: http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=84 98 and I have seen some greater detail but can't find the link again. Oh, and ignoring that... you're comparing a $150 console with thousands of games to a $350 console with hardly any.

* Disclaimer, I own a PS2, XBOX and a Gamecube. Will buy into next generation when price drop and games arrive.

--
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
Re:sigh by Psychotext · 2006-07-25 05:55 · Score: 1

Yeah, wrong link. I really should check that my bookmarks have the right titles. : /

--
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
Re:sigh by Psychotext · 2006-07-25 06:00 · Score: 1

http://news.com.com/Old+PlayStation+tops+holiday+g ame+console+sales/2100-1040_3-249457.html

Not the link I was looking for, but it does back up what I was saying.

--
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
Re:sigh by Nazmun · 2006-07-31 18:47 · Score: 1

It means that the older gen consoles still have life in them. That is the entire point of my post, the ten year duration =p. I'm not trying to predict who will be the "winner" if any in this upcoming console generation. Just the probability that this generation will sell well 4-5 years from now (at least the ps2 and or gamecube).

--
Hmmm... Pie...

Blu-ray is a poor idea by Linkiroth · 2006-07-25 04:57 · Score: 1

I do not own a 360. I do not own an X-Box. I do own a PS2. Me, personally, I won't be purchasing the PS3 because it's too damned expensive! Wii all the way. Also, how much do you think Sony paid Nvidia to have him say that? I'm taking bets.

Re:Blu-ray is a poor idea by Chosen+Reject · 2006-07-25 05:19 · Score: 1

Also, how much do you think Sony paid Nvidia to have him say that? I'm taking bets.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Sony paid him a contract for the GPU in the PS3. In addition to that, that's the only next-gen console GPU nVidia made so they have a reason to hype the PS3 over the other consoles.

I'll wager an insightful mod point.

--
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Re:Blu-ray is a poor idea by 0racle · 2006-07-25 15:26 · Score: 1

If you like various PS2 exclusive franchises then yes you will be buying a PS3, and Sony knows that. You however, looking at the initial price of the PS3 won't be buying it at launch. Sony knows that too.

in 6-12 months the PS3 will not still cost $600, it will slowly be creeping down. As it does more and more people who were holding off on buying it will finally pick it up which will keep the PS3 sales numbers high, which is very good for Sony.

--
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Re:Blu-ray is a poor idea by SCPRedMage · 2006-07-25 16:33 · Score: 1

I'm with you on this one - the PS3 is just WAY too expensive for me to consider, and I'm pretty heavy into gaming as it is.

The Wii, on the other hand, has me looking to get it on launch day...

--
My sig can beat up your sig.
Re:Blu-ray is a poor idea by rtb61 · 2006-07-25 21:34 · Score: 1

You forget the revenge factor. When microsoft stripped nvidia of the xbox video chip for what seemed like no other reason than nvidea producing video drivers that worked for that other penguin popular operating system and then to twist the knife microsoft gave it to nvidia's main competitor ati, those devlopment costs must have bit really hard into nvidia's bottomline, especially as they were likely selling the chip at near cost and were hoping to generate real profits later in the life cycle of the xbox.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen

"Advanced" for the sake of it... by chudgoo · 2006-07-25 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

The actual uses of Blu-Ray versus the initial outpouring of cash are the real concerns.
Dreamcast's failure had little to do with the storage medium as many games released for PS2
were also released for dreamcast. (Not every game USES the full capacity of the medium)

Another thing to think about is that the world hadn't had a *significant* change in home video formats
for more than a decade when DVD first surfaced. The public was ready and willing to buy into DVD.
This time around the *demand* simply doesn't exist. Sony will of course try to *generate* demand
via bruteforce marketing, but ultimately this may prove to be a mistake.

BTW. There does seem to be a slight hint of bitterness in his comments, which is understandable given
that EVERY one of the next-gen consoles are powered by their rival's GPUs. (ATI)

It seems odd for Nvidia to claim that developing a GPU for the 360 was too expensive when ATI managed to
do not only that, but the PS3 and Wii GPUs as well.

Nvidia dropped the ball big time by not developing a new GPU for at least one of the nextgen consoles...

Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by ChronoReverse · 2006-07-25 05:04 · Score: 1

Um, Nvidia developed the RSX GPU for the PS3. The comments made here have a bit of the conflict-of-interest aspect to them.
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by chudgoo · 2006-07-25 05:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Wow... just waking up to the fact that *I* completely dropped the ball big!
Just to set things right cosmically...

Nvidia developed the "RSX" GPU for the PS3.

Nvidia RSX @550MHz

* 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
* Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
* Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines ...Sorry!
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by Ewan · 2006-07-25 05:07 · Score: 0, Redundant

Umm, Nvidia did the graphics chip for the Playstation 3, not ATI, I'm not sure what you're on about?

If you'd read the full article, or even the linked to snippet, you'd know this.
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by chudgoo · 2006-07-25 05:07 · Score: 1

Just disregard everything after the bit about Blu-Ray!
Soooorrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyy!

NVIDIA DEVELOPED THE GPU FOR THE PS3!
NVIDIA DEVELOPED THE GPU FOR THE PS3!
NVIDIA DEVELOPED THE GPU FOR THE PS3!

(how many "Hail Nvidia"'s do I have to do to make penance!?!)
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 05:10 · Score: 0

Umm.. They did develop the GPU For the PS3... Thats one of the main points of the article.
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by illumina+us · 2006-07-25 05:11 · Score: 0, Redundant

The PS3 GPU is made by NVidia

--
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by Khakionion · 2006-07-25 05:14 · Score: 0, Redundant

Actually, the PS3's RSX GPU is an NVidia production. Hence his tendency to think the PS3 is better.

--
OMG! Wau!
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by PoderOmega · 2006-07-25 05:14 · Score: 1

I totally agree, this guy is just crying that MS dumped NVIDIA for ATI on the 360
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by mizel · 2006-07-25 05:23 · Score: 1

Dreamcast's failure had little to do with the storage medium as many games released for PS2
were also released for dreamcast

I seem to remember something about dreamcast games being easily ripped on CD (without any modifications). Easily pirated games leads to less game manufacturers, leads to less interest, leads to...well, you know.

Maybe the media didn't cause the 100% of the failure, but I think it contributed significantly.
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by Quarters · 2006-07-25 06:09 · Score: 0, Redundant

BTW. There does seem to be a slight hint of bitterness in his comments, which is understandable given that EVERY one of the next-gen consoles are powered by their rival's GPUs. (ATI)
Wrong.
It seems odd for Nvidia to claim that developing a GPU for the 360 was too expensive when ATI managed to do not only that, but the PS3 and Wii GPUs as well.
Still wrong.
Nvidia dropped the ball big time by not developing a new GPU for at least one of the nextgen consoles...
The PS3 GPU is an nVidia part. It's essentially a 7900 with a different memory interconnect.
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by chudgoo · 2006-07-25 06:18 · Score: 1

That's a *very* valid point. The DC made piracy a breeze, and I sort of thought this might be intended given the "It Runs WinCE!" promotional blitz. I thought the intent was to attract homebrew/small time developers to the system. It may have been, but ultimately stealing someone else's content is easier than producing your own....

Anyway, let's pretend that the DC games shipped on CD with crypto that violated the laws of physics and were, for all intents and purposes, *uncrackable*. Should the bigger disc win? The article seems to say that consoles have an "expected upgrade factor"... That the natural console evolution dictates Blu-Ray's necessity. Do games NEED to have 50GB capacity and an expensive/complicated (and somewhat proprietary) optics system to do well? How long until we see 2 or 3-Disc games on PS3? It's really only a matter of time.
(Hideo Kojima is rumored to have reached the upper limits of Blu-Ray capacity while making MGS4. A LAUNCH title. How? No idea, but you get the idea)

The intent seems to be to future proof the PS3 for 10 (OMFG) years. The problem with this is that for *now*, it's too expensive...and for *later*, it will STILL be considered low end. Future proofing requires a foreknowledge of the industry that Sony simply doesn't have. (EVERYONE saw UMD Movies as a mistake, except Sony...go figure)

How long does it take the average gamer to play through a full DVD-9 worth of content?
Is it unreasonable to ask the consumer to change a disc every so often to lower the cost of the system/games?
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by chudgoo · 2006-07-25 06:27 · Score: 1

You realize that I corrected the mistake about an hour ago, right? Did you read any of the other 10 comments pointing it out? We all understand correctly now.

"The PS3 GPU is an nVidia part. It's essentially a 7900 with a different memory interconnect."

Incredible insights...I mean being a lead designer of the RSX must be exhausting... ;)

Does anyone else find it odd that the development of a GPU for the XB360 (based on the tried and true PowerPC) was deemed 'too expensive' whereas developing a GPU that has to play well with the Cell (a completely new architecture)was not? Either his comments are just wrong or there is a LOT more to that story...
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by KDR_11k · 2006-07-25 08:08 · Score: 1

Dreamcast's failure had little to do with the storage medium as many games released for PS2 were also released for dreamcast. (Not every game USES the full capacity of the medium)

Really? Remember, the first few games on a system are rarely using the full ressources of the system. What the PS2 got when the DC was still around was all very early stuff. The games grew in size as developers got used to the larger storage capacity and these days you're often seeing cutbacks for the GC version of a multiplatform game simply because the GC's discs are lower capacity than the PS2's (and yet they store about twice as much as DC discs). Lower texture resolutions, lower video quality, fewer music tracks, cutting extras, etc. Other games were multi-disc on the GC while being on a single disc on other consoles.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by chudgoo · 2006-07-25 10:55 · Score: 1

I would beg to differ on the GC vs. PS2 *quality* argument...
(lower texture res, lower quality video (who has CG in games anymore?!)

Having played through Resident Evil 4 several times on both the Gamecube AND the PS2
I can tell you that the GC version offered much better visuals, MUCH MUCH faster
load times (possibly due to smaller discs? ;) (jk)...and had absolutely nothing cut out of it.

(The PS2 version included BONUS features (side-missions, new guns and a couple new costumes)
as bait because the game had already been out nearly as year on another system.)

Now you will say "but the GC version came on two discs!", right?
Yes, it did.

Changing discs after 5-10 HOURS of play is not what I'd call a problem. Seriously, not that hard...
(I actually sort of look forward to the first ever disc change sometimes!
It feels like a monumental achievement sometimes to get to the half-way point in a game.
(I will concede that when loading saves that are right before a disc change it can be annoying as you progress)

Couple the incredibly slow load times of the PS2 version with the fact that there are no
first-party (Sony made) wireless DualShock controllers (WTF SONY?!) I still prefer the Gamecube version
with its WaveBird awesomeness.

Sure, Ashley doesn't wear a suit of armor but the game is just *better* on GC.

What example can you offer of a game that was stripped (of *non-filler* material) to make it
fit on a DC/GCN disc?

(please don't say that they removed the NickelBack videos from some football game or some movie
trailers for the movie that the game was based on... ;)
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by Ash-Fox · 2006-07-25 11:30 · Score: 1

NVIDIA DEVELOPED THE GPU FOR THE PS3!
GIANT CRABS!

This is needless text being written here because I am not allowed to use so many caps :(

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by despisethesun · 2006-07-25 14:28 · Score: 1

The media had absolutely nothing to do with the failure, at least not in the way this article is talking about. Theoretically, piracy should have been impossible because the DC used a proprietary disc format. There should have been no way for pirates to put the games on CDs. The problem is that the theory really didn't pan out. With a minor hack (that found its way into every self-booting image since) the DC could boot games from CDs, and worse, most DC games fit perfectly on one disc for each GD-ROM disc. If the DC had used DVD it wouldn't have changed a thing, it would have only meant burning fewer discs.

--
This poo is cold.
Re:"Advanced" for the sake of it... by KDR_11k · 2006-07-26 01:27 · Score: 1

RE4 was meant for the Cube and as such obviously didn't try to add features that would have to be cut for the GC release.

AFAIK the video quality in most EA multiplatform games that involved them was a lot worse on the GC (e.g. in the LotR games). Personally I don't play many multiplatform games but I'm sure most of the games that would have to take cuts on the GC weren't released on it anyway. If you're making a multiplatform game you have to make sure it works on those platforms and not exceeding the GC disc size by too much is probably considered then. GTA 3, VC and SA weren't released on the GC and AFAIK (word from the developer) they use the disc capacity pretty much completely. That wouldn't fit on one GC disc and it wouldn't work on multiple.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.

Graphics aren't everthing... by Albert.Three · 2006-07-25 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

My issue with this article is that it assumes that the winner of the next-gen console war will be largely based on which console comes out on top as the graphics powerhouse between the PS3 and the 360. The fact that the PS3 has Blu-Ray and the 360 has the pedestrian DVD format is not going to swing buyers to Sony's side in and of itself. What will contribute to the success of the respective consoles will be the same thing (and arguably only thing) that has ever mattered when it comes to video games: the games themselves. Graphics will only take a console as far as they are able to make games that people want to play. The only thing that movitates anyone to go out and drop $XXX on a console is the fact that there is at least one game on it that they HAVE to play. I think that dispite all of the clamouring over prices and graphics power, in the buyers mind it will eventually come down to "do I want to play Halo 3 or Metal Gear Solid 4?" (or whatever the must have exclusive games end up being)

Re:Graphics aren't everthing... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 05:52 · Score: 0

While I agree that graphics aren't everything you have to remember that the interview is with a CEO of a graphics company. And I'm sure that they could shoot the shit and speculate on other things but if I'm talking to the head of a graphics company, I'm going to want his insight on graphics. Likewise, if I was talking to the head of AMD we'd probably talk about processors. Microsoft, we'd be talking about security holes, Ice cream maker, we'd talk about icecream, etc. etc.

You get my point
Re:Graphics aren't everthing... by ChildeRoland · 2006-07-25 06:04 · Score: 1

Actually, the fact that the PS2 had a DVD player was one of the main reasons I bought it. It didn't have any games that I HAD to have at release, in fact I got a really crappy game after waiting in line all night to get it (actually next day cause WallyWorld wouldn't sell me the game). If I had an HD TV I would seriously think about getting a PS3, even if there weren't many (good) games at release.

--
The mark of a mature person is not creating arbitrary criteria for considering others mature.
Re:Graphics aren't everthing... by DrEldarion · 2006-07-25 07:15 · Score: 1

Indeed. There are certain franchises that make consoles succeeed, especially in certain markets. For instance, no console which has the main Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series will ever fail in Japan (and, at this point, likely never in the US, either).
Re:Graphics aren't everthing... by jchenx · 2006-07-25 07:37 · Score: 1

Mod parent up!

Agreed. Whoever has the favor of Square-Enix has a great chance of "winning" next-gen.

However, what's interesting this time around, is that Square-Enix may be moving more cross platform than ever before. It all started with FF:Crystal Chronicles on the GC, and now we're getting news of their games on all the platforms. Sony still seems to have the most favor, with the main Final Fantasy franchise still exclusive to the PS3 (at least for now), but I imagine that could easily change. It'll still be a few years before we see FFXIII released. (Heck, we're still a few months out before FFXII comes out to the US)

--
-- jchenx
Re:Graphics aren't everthing... by geminidomino · 2006-07-26 01:27 · Score: 1

If you're a Squeenix fan, you'll love this: The Wii has a Dragon Quest launch title!

*hops off the "get one/don't get one" fence*

Next-gen? by ichigo+2.0 · 2006-07-25 05:08 · Score: 0, Offtopic

The XB360 has been out for almost a year soon, and the PS3 and Wii will be released in the near future. Isn't it about time to start calling them current-gen? Or will we wait until the XB^3/PS4/WWii is out until we start calling the previous incarnations current-gen?

Re:Next-gen? by kisrael · 2006-07-25 05:16 · Score: 1

Lets wait until all the major players are out.
PS2 was probably "nextgen" til Xbox and GC rounded it out and made it a generation.
Right now, 360 stands alone.

--
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Re:Next-gen? by KDR_11k · 2006-07-25 08:11 · Score: 1

I won't stop calling it next gen until all three consoles are out and had some time to pick up games, i.e. are out of the early-adopter-only phase.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.

Thank you for your comments! by The-Bus · 2006-07-25 05:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just in case no one noticed, Nvidia is the graphic processor provider for the PS3. See this quote from the article:

"No one has enough extraneous resources around to build chips for all the game consoles. You have to build one or so at a time. In a lot of ways, they also pick you. Sony picked us and Microsoft didn't."

He sounds remorseful enough that it indicates he wished Microsoft had picked Nvidia. But then again, he's also a bit glad:

"I know I couldn't afford it. I would love to build it. I just can't afford it."

So, here's the president of one of the main suppliers for the PS3 talking about how Microsoft didn't choose him, but even if they did, his company couldn't afford to actually build the GPU for the 360? Excuse me if I don't take his comments with a bucket full of salt.

To top it off, as in any article discussing graphics, we're about ten years away from photorealism, just as we were in 2001 and 1996.

To his credit though, I really liked this exchange which is in the full interview:

Q. Where do you want to see graphics go?
"I would like to see it go in a couple of directions. I would like [games] to be easier to access."

His response is, "Screw graphics, let's work on gameplay." I can't knock him for that.

--

Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

Re:Thank you for your comments! by mizel · 2006-07-25 05:30 · Score: 1

We ARE 10 years away from photorealism! Just like we ARE 10 years away from AI! Face the facts...
2016 will be a whole new world. Reminds me of the Conan sketch:
"In the year 2000..."
Re:Thank you for your comments! by dmatos · 2006-07-25 05:58 · Score: 1

So, here's the president of one of the main suppliers for the PS3 talking about how Microsoft didn't choose him, but even if they did, his company couldn't afford to actually build the GPU for the 360? Excuse me if I don't take his comments with a bucket full of salt.

Remember, it was nVidia that made the graphics chips for the original XBox. It is possible that this guy knows what he's talking about in terms of the cost to develop a brand-spanking-new GPU and the price that Microsoft was willing to pay for it.

--

It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Re:Thank you for your comments! by Takari · 2006-07-25 06:00 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure the reason it was "too expensive" to create a GPU for Microsoft is because Nvidia did not want to invest in R&D for unified shader model graphics (it's sort of implied somewhere in the interview...)
Re:Thank you for your comments! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 06:53 · Score: 0
I think it's pretty obvious Nintendo had the win back two years ago when they unveiled the then Revolution controller with no games or 3rd party support. Games reflect the interface they are given. In an era when sequels are rolling into the double digits and "innovation" is new graphics on someone else's game, the timing couldn't be more perfect.

But I think it's highly myopic to ignore the potential strengths of the PS3 as if it had none.
- Sony is famously hands off when it comes to censorship. Nintendo is notoriously horrible for it. While that may not matter to someone who would just as soon play games with abstract geometic shapes, there is a sizable market that has developed for, at the risk of loading the argument, "richer" content.
- The PS3 is much better positioned for a wide variety of non-game software and services. While it may seem like this isn't desirable because of the PSP's luke warm reception, more of that is attributed to limited portability than anything else. It's fragile, big, has limited (expensive) capacity, and has poor battery life. The PS3 is fixed to the entertainment center, has enormous capacity, and is plugged into the wall.
- Sony is more willing to embrace user created content. Look at NetYarouze and PS2 Linux Kit. These are pre-broadband era technologies. This functionality and openness can easily be bundled with every PS3 at any time. And content can be available to any user at any time through online distribution channels. Sony is already basing the PS3 on several open standards such as OpenGL and Linux. In the "Web 2.0" era, the infrastructure for community can be the killer app alone.
- Despite all of the criticism for DualShake, it is a wonderful decision in my opinion. The limited functionality of the DualShake is probably sufficient to do what many developers will end up doing on the Wii. Not everyone is going to make a sword swinging / gun game, right? And there are still whole classes of games that do not translate well to the WiiMote, Nintendo has admitted as much.
- Xbox may have old Atari games and Nintendo may have the golden years of cartidge games. But Sony has a back catalog that defined gaming's coming of age. Who can argue with a downloadable catalog of every Playstation and Playstation 2 game? What publisher would not use Sony's distribution service to get essentially free money for old properties? What true blue gamer doesn't have 10 favorite games from the Playstation era that only exist on Playstation? You can find Playstation games on Ebay that sell for over $100 each. If you could get a handful for even $20 each over download it would make the price of the PS3 worth it to you.
Personally, I think the Wii is fantastic. Very Nintendo. Very Purist. Remember, the game reflects the interface. But people are far too quick to ignore the PS3's strengths despite a few minor weaknesses. In fact the most often cited weakness, its price, hardly adds anything to the total cost of ownership when compared to the Xbox 360.

Sure, $200 can buy you a few games. But lets look back at the PSP. The PSP cost $250. The games were and still are $40 or $50. That's about twice the cost of a Nintendo DS and about 50% more per game. Yet nobody cried about price when the PSP came out. That wasn't even on the radar for complaints. It was strangely compared to the iPod, which costs $300 to $500 and that's without songs! Even though the PSP isn't outselling the DS by any stretch, it is still doing rather well against the entrenched portable champion in revenue sales. Until the DS hit its stride just recently the PSP was even competing for units sold in some weeks. And the PSP is still a favorite for eclectic games and homebrew despite its damnable deficiencies in studiness, battery life, size and capacity (Memory Stick).

So, taking these points into consideration, I think the PS3 is being discounted too heavily. The potential is there. Much like it was there in the Revolution long before E3 when they actually showed some gam
Re:Thank you for your comments! by The-Bus · 2006-07-25 07:51 · Score: 1

I think most of your comment was well-written. This stuck out to me, though:

"Sony is more willing to embrace user created content... And the PSP is still a favorite for eclectic games and homebrew."

Sony doesn't embrace homebrew content, at least if the PSP is any indication. I don't know to what extent the big three embrace small developers.

I was also going to say something about how downloadable PS1 and PS2 games seemed a bit out the question, but a lot of the demos on Xbox Live Marketplace are near 500MB. It clearly is not out of the question. (Now HD content... that's another matter).

--
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Re:Thank you for your comments! by StocDred · 2006-07-25 08:58 · Score: 1

Sony is famously hands off when it comes to censorship. Nintendo is notoriously horrible for it.
Maybe back in the SNES Mortal Kombat days, but not in more modern times, where Sony was the one who toned down BMXXX and Nintendo let Conker's Bad Fur Day ride.
Re:Thank you for your comments! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 09:31 · Score: 0

I think those are pretty isolated examples on both sides of the fence and you know it. Nevermind that Conker's Bad Fur Day is more juvenile than anything.
Re:Thank you for your comments! by DDLKermit007 · 2006-07-25 10:40 · Score: 1

So....what your saying is if it's tonned down it's censorship and if it's not it's juvenile. OOoOOOOoooook then...
Re:Thank you for your comments! by Colourspace · 2006-07-25 10:43 · Score: 1

+ 1 insightful. This 'next gen' means shit. NEXT next gen will be the real shakeout. They're all treading water until then. Thats why I'm going Wii. After that? NEXT next gen will have the control AND the graphic immersion.
Re:Thank you for your comments! by Heir+Of+The+Mess · 2006-07-25 13:12 · Score: 1

So, here's the president of one of the main suppliers for the PS3 talking about how Microsoft didn't choose him, but even if they did, his company couldn't afford to actually build the GPU for the 360? Excuse me if I don't take his comments with a bucket full of salt.

nVidia did the GPU for the Xbox and it turned out very costly for them on 2 fronts:
- It took many engineers out of their mainstream development. The chip they came out with after that was the Geforce 5000 series. This chip wasn't properly engineered and ended up a flop because it wasn't fast enough, and it was way too hot. nVidia came back later with the 6000 series, but the 5000 series was disheartening for nVidia fanbois, and it would have cost nVidia a lot as they would not have gotten much return for the amount spent putting that chip out. Setting up chip production lines is very very expensive.
- Microsofts approach to the original xbox was like building a customised PC. There were many parts and MS were feeling price pressure. They passed this pressure onto nVidia and tried to get nVidia to share in the losses. How far MS succeeded in this I don't know, but nVidia it's possible that nVidia were making a loss on every xbox chio made.

--
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
Re:Thank you for your comments! by sesshomaru · 2006-07-26 03:03 · Score: 1

Sony is famously hands off when it comes to censorship. Nintendo is notoriously horrible for it. While that may not matter to someone who would just as soon play games with abstract geometic shapes, there is a sizable market that has developed for, at the risk of loading the argument, "richer" content.
Um... no. What Sony is famous for is having different criteria for censorship than Nintendo.
as the playstation era dawned, vic was hoping to do some games for sony's new system. sony, however, had its infamous anti-RPG/anti-2D rules at the beginning, so WD gravitated toward the saturn.
As far as I know, Sony has never relaxed its anti-2d rule, even to the present day (obviously they changed their minds on RPGs).

--
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."

strange by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 05:11 · Score: 0

I thought nvidia was doing the PS3

Advanced by ludomancer · 2006-07-25 05:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

...it's going to look so much more advanced than last-generation game consoles

Now there's an ignorant statement if I've ever read one. Since when did storage medium directly affect the talent and output of a development team? That's like saying your daughter will be a better driver if you buy her a Lexus instead of a Honda.

Re:Advanced by AcidLacedPenguiN · 2006-07-25 05:30 · Score: 1

or its like using a car metaphor instead of a bicycle metaphor!

--
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
Re:Advanced by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 06:01 · Score: 0

That's like saying your daughter will be a better driver if you buy her a Lexus instead of a Honda.
Err, no, it's like saying that your daughter will have a better car if you buy her a Lexus instead of a Honda. I'd chastise you for not R'ingTFA, but you managed to not even R the part of the sentence you snipped out!
Re:Advanced by ChildeRoland · 2006-07-25 06:06 · Score: 1

More storage = bigger/better textures and more detailed worlds/characters which lead to better graphics.

--
The mark of a mature person is not creating arbitrary criteria for considering others mature.
Re:Advanced by Hortos · 2006-07-25 06:19 · Score: 1

ABS brakes, Tractions, Better Suspension, Tires, etc. These things will probaly make her less likely to crash into something.
Re:Advanced by Amouth · 2006-07-25 07:00 · Score: 0, Offtopic

ahh but also gives her the ability to hit something more effectivly if she wanted to

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:Advanced by Yvan256 · 2006-07-25 08:14 · Score: 1

Then why is it that RE4 looks like crap on the PS2 compared to the GameCube?
Re:Advanced by MaWeiTao · 2006-07-26 02:13 · Score: 1

Now there's an ignorant statement if I've ever read one. Since when did storage medium directly affect the talent and output of a development team? That's like saying your daughter will be a better driver if you buy her a Lexus instead of a Honda.

Trust me, there are stupid people who actually believe that, not because of any additional safety features, but simply because it's a different car.

So it's not that large a leap to imagine people making these ridiculous promises about how better graphics are going to make games better. Unfortunately I think almost everyone in gaming, from developers, to gaming journalists to the gamers themselves are responsible for this. And it isn't just because of graphics; there's a belief that more realistic physics and improved AI are going to open up some unheard of vista in gaming.

Every new game is the best ever. What person today would dare say Space Invaders or Pacman is superior to nearly every game today? Virtually no one. Why? Because apparently, compared to today's games the graphics are terrible, the gameplay is highly repetative and there's no AI. However, in terms of sheer gameplay, which really should be the core of any game, those games blow away most games being pumped out today. And thats not to mention how conceptually they're far more creative than anything produced today.

Advanced graphics, AI and physics are great. They will have a big impact on gaming. Don't get me wrong. However, they will enhance only a certain segment of gaming and those elements certainly aren't the most essential components of fun gameplay. If those things were so important games like checkers, chess and countless card games wouldn't still be played today.

How Much? by nickheart · 2006-07-25 05:13 · Score: 1

Nothing. NVIDIA is just happy to have a partner now that Ati is in bed with microsoft... but that's my oppinion

Re:How Much? by AcidLacedPenguiN · 2006-07-25 05:20 · Score: 1

I thought ATI was in bed with AMD. . . or rather, swimming in all the money AMD fired at them.

--
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.

Re:Blu-ray by Ant+P. · 2006-07-25 05:18 · Score: 1

I don't quite follow your post. Are you trying to say the 3D Prince of Persia isn't a sequel?

Dreamcast discs were not CDs by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 05:23 · Score: 0

Dreamcast discs were not actually CDs but a propietary format called GD-Roms. This format held a full GB of data. Dreamcast however did support CD-R's for music and people soon quickly found a way to pirate games onto self-booting CD-R's.

For games that were too big, movies and other content had to be reencoded to a lower bitrate.

Dreamcast VS PS2 - Not the same thing... by engagebot · 2006-07-25 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

"360-DVD vs PS3-Blu-ray battle to the Dreamcast-CD vs PS2-DVD battle"

Eh, I'm not so sure about this. First of all, the Dreamcast didn't use a CD-ROM. It was a proprietary 'GD-ROM' that was actually a higher capacity disk (at least 1GB, i don't remember the details). The point wasn't that the dreamcast's media wasn't big enough to hold the content the developers were looking to put out, it was just that the machine didn't play DVD movies.

The 360 can play DVD movies just like the PS2 and PS3. It just can't play *BluRay* movies. The catch is, we're yet to find out whether people are even going to even care about that or not (format wars, HDTV requirement, DRM, etc).

Back then, one system had functionality that the other lacked, and that added functionality happened to be something that was important to alot of consumers. That being said, it surely wasn't the lack of DVD video functionality that broke SEGA.

We won't be seeing *games* that push the limits of each system's storage capacity for some time. Not to mention, most buyers buy the system that has the games they want to play. The only exception to that is a parent who doesn't care either way, so they'll more than likely opt for the cheaper (360/wii) or more kid-friendly (wii) of the bunch.

--
Han shot first.

Re:Dreamcast VS PS2 - Not the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 06:13 · Score: 0

True. Other differences to consider:

- Sony had a prior console under the brand name (PS1) to help push the PS2, while Sega didn't have a previous Dreamcast. But here, both have previous models.

- DVD already had the time to become an established media format by the time the PS2 was released. HDDVD and Blu-Ray on the other hand are only just emerging.

As for the 10 years...this basically says it all: http://nintendo.about.com/library/bluray/blblurayp en1.htm

motion blur, depth of field? by BigBuckHunter · 2006-07-25 05:47 · Score: 1

From TFA

In the next several years, we will still just be learning to do the basics of film, like motion blur, depth of field -- all of that stuff alone chews up a lot of graphics processing

Didn't 3dfx (now owned by nvidia) already have tech to do just this? I believe it was called T-Buffering. Can anyone in-the-know fill us in?

BBH

well, maybe by p!ssa · 2006-07-25 05:48 · Score: 1

He may think the blue-ray drive is the natural evolution but what if it turns out to be the next beta-max. I was at best buy yesterday looking at the demos of HD-DVD and blue ray in between pitches for warrenties and 8 free magazines, and I can tell you I wasnt impressed. Not by the display qualites OR the warrenties, subscriptions or Dirk the sales guy (what a f'in moron he was). I might have purchased a PS3 if it came with DVD but at the price with the BR drive I'll gladly wait it out. If it does become the next betamax Sony will have shot themselves in the foot.

Re:Blu-ray by KDR_11k · 2006-07-25 05:53 · Score: 1

I think it's a case of "It sucks, to me it doesn't exist" that fans of a series often employ on the part that jumped the shark. Can't blame them, Prince of Persia 3D really wasn't that hot.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.

Stopped Reading After 2nd Paragraph by duerra · 2006-07-25 06:01 · Score: 1

I stopped reading after the second paragraph of the article:

You can't build chips for all the game consoles. That's not possible. They would all like a slightly different style from the others. Difference is important. The same chip company would have difficulty designing chips for the different styles. It's also so high stakes that you need to focus. No one has enough extraneous resources around to build chips for all the game consoles.

Tell that to IBM

--
A community-oriented lyrics site

Re:Stopped Reading After 2nd Paragraph by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 08:40 · Score: 0

Yes because nVidia's just as big as IBM.
Re:Stopped Reading After 2nd Paragraph by trdrstv · 2006-07-25 08:42 · Score: 1

Yup.
IBM's making the PS3, the X-Box 360 and the Wii. 'No matter who loses, IBM wins.'
Re:Stopped Reading After 2nd Paragraph by geminidomino · 2006-07-26 01:32 · Score: 1

He didn't say "We're not big enough to do it." He said "That's not possible" since, most likely, he didn't want to admit "we're not big enough to do it."

Just one question, do you own a gamecube? by SmallFurryCreature · 2006-07-25 06:03 · Score: 1

The gamecube was the cheapest of the last generations as well, and at least as far as I can see the PS2 was the most expensive of the last generation too. Yet of the last genetation you own the most expensive console, not the cheapest. mmm, so why is this generation different?

Please remember your history, if price has never mattered before why should it now? I am not saying that the PS3 will be a success. I just don't think price will be the deciding factor. Or maybe my PC gaming has just made me think that 600 euro's for a system is not that expensive.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

DVD had nothing to do with Dreamcast's demise by Quarters · 2006-07-25 06:13 · Score: 1

The biggest contributor to the downfall of the Dreamcast was Electronic Arts. When they announced that they weren't going to support the console, for whatever reasons, public interest in it faded very quickly. Consoles are like operating systems. People care more about the software library available than the underlying hosting environment for those applications.

No Madden no sale.

Re:DVD had nothing to do with Dreamcast's demise by computertheque · 2006-07-25 07:21 · Score: 1

EA wasn't quite the powerhouse as they are now back at that time. I'd also argue that Madden was in no way as popular back then as with the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation. It hurts any console to have developers and publishers look the other way. I just cannot agree that EA was that important of a factor with the Dreamcast failure. Marketing and hype for the oncoming release of the PS2 far overshadowed the efforts of Sega to promote their console. The Dreamcast had no shortage of quality games either. The consumer base did was consumer bases do, they listened to marketing messages and waiting for the PS2 which was capable of "near photo realistic graphics." We all know how hard it is in this industry for a company to rebound from a flop (the Saturn).
Re:DVD had nothing to do with Dreamcast's demise by trdrstv · 2006-07-25 08:37 · Score: 1

I just cannot agree that EA was that important of a factor with the Dreamcast failure.
Despite, it not being the only factor it was an important one. EA is THE largest independant software publisher out there. They chose not to develop for the dreamcast, NOT because they LOVED the PS2, but because Sega burned them with the Saturn. When the largest 3rd party developer announces they will not develop any titles for your platform what does that say to other developers?
The Dreamcast had some great games, but with each generation the system with the most games (IE: variety) wins out. People buy the hardware, to use the software. Not the other way around.
Re:DVD had nothing to do with Dreamcast's demise by DDLKermit007 · 2006-07-25 10:49 · Score: 1

Actually it had more to do with EA haveing to compete directly with Sega with thier sports games back then that kept them from developing for the Dreamcast. Sega's sports games were a hell of allot better than anything EA has EVER brought to the table. Why would they want to develop for a competitor let alone one that makes a better product? Other than that you have Sega burning consumers with Sega CD, 32X, Saturn, and the massive ammount of periferials they released. US consumers forget such things pretty fast, but back then Japan meant a whole hell of allot more and Japanese consumers & distributors have a long, long, loooooong memory for such things.

But I'm what you could call a Dreamcast fanboy too probably and I don't get all fanboyish over consoles. I just buy them all and say screw it. I probably play more Dreamcast games right now than any of my other consoles (I've got roughly 200 games for DC). There were some incredible games put out back then especially if you were a shooter or fighter fan that remain gameing gold to this day.
Re:DVD had nothing to do with Dreamcast's demise by trdrstv · 2006-07-25 11:39 · Score: 1

"it had more to do with EA haveing to compete directly with Sega with thier sports games"
EA Supported the PS2 despite 'NFL Gameday' (along with a title for each major sport) which was developed by Sony (989 sports), and Microsoft's X-Box despite their line of sports titles, (NFL Fever, Top Spin, etc...)
Sega developed a sports line due to the absence of EA support, as sports titles are nessesary.
Re:DVD had nothing to do with Dreamcast's demise by Quarters · 2006-07-26 01:54 · Score: 1

EA wasn't quite the powerhouse as they are now back at that time.
They were the #1 publisher back then. They're the #1 publisher now. Regardless of the relative sizes of the pool of gamers between the two times EA was, in the industry, the same powerhouse back then.
I'd also argue that Madden was in no way as popular back then as with the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation.
Madden has been hugely popular since the Sega Genesis days. Go look at the historical sales charts going back to '95 or so.
EA said, "No Dreamcast...but look at SSX, Madden, and Tiger Woods over here on the PS2!". The world turned it's collective head and never looked back.
Re:DVD had nothing to do with Dreamcast's demise by DDLKermit007 · 2006-07-26 08:27 · Score: 1

You've played NFL Gameday right? Thats one of the worst sportslines ever. Sony dropped 989 Sports on thier asses for a good reason.
Re:DVD had nothing to do with Dreamcast's demise by trdrstv · 2006-07-26 08:46 · Score: 1

Doesn't matter. I'm just stating that EA didn't support the Dreamcast because Sega screwed them during the Saturn years, not because they were putting out a competing product to their sports line.

DVD vs Blu-Ray by BigNumber · 2006-07-25 06:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

IMHO, the more advanced the console is, the less capacity it needs on the media. Back in the PS1 days, a large portion of the disk was dedicated to pre-rendered video and audio. The graphics on the new systems are advanced enough to produce the same quality video on-the-fly using an instruction set that is much smaller than the amount of space needed for the pre-rendered stuff.

So if the games don't need the extra space, the compatibility with movies is the only real reason to choose one media type over the other. Since I believe both new DVD formats (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) will fail, the added cost to the PS3 isn't worth it.

Re:DVD vs Blu-Ray by Mark+Maughan · 2006-07-25 09:14 · Score: 1

HD textures alone take up a ton of space. There were already 2-layer DVD games on the PS2 with little to no prerendered movies.
Re:DVD vs Blu-Ray by DDLKermit007 · 2006-07-25 11:02 · Score: 1

Heres the complete list of dual layer games on the PS2. All of which are either packed with bonus crap no one really cares about, tons of video, is Everquest (bloated even on consoles), or is Grand Tourismo. Your argument has pretty huge holes in it.

8.02GB PAL Champions of Norrath
7.94GB JAP GRAN TURISMO Concept
7.94GB JAP Xenosaga
7.93GB USA God of War
7.88GB USA Xenosaga Episode I: Der Wille zur Macht
7.74GB USA Champions of Norrath
7.55GB USA The Guy Game
7.20GB JAP Sakura Wars Atsuki Chishiyo Ni
6.47GB USA Madden 2005 Collectors Edition
6.13GB PAL Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance
5.99GB USA MGS2: Substance
5.27GB PAL Gran Turismo 4
4.94GB USA Gran Turismo 4
Re:DVD vs Blu-Ray by Zero1za · 2006-07-25 14:46 · Score: 1

Something else that is not being cognized is the ability to stack audio for all your localizations on a single Bluray, vs. pressing different DVD versions for different localization builds. More storage ftw.
Re:DVD vs Blu-Ray by Julian352 · 2006-07-25 18:26 · Score: 1

Yes, because the games will be delayed by a couple months just to give the localization team finish all of the translation. I'm sorry, but even if all of the versions of the game can fit on one game, the need to properly localize the game would put too much delay for most developers/publishers. The primary release will almost always be in one language (english/japanese) with later europe release in a few months containing the localized versions.
Re:DVD vs Blu-Ray by Mark+Maughan · 2006-07-26 03:42 · Score: 1

Heres the complete list of dual layer games on the PS2. All of which are either packed with bonus crap no one really cares about, tons of video, is Everquest (bloated even on consoles), or is Grand Tourismo. Your argument has pretty huge holes in it.

8.02GB PAL Champions of Norrath
7.94GB JAP GRAN TURISMO Concept
7.94GB JAP Xenosaga
7.93GB USA God of War
7.88GB USA Xenosaga Episode I: Der Wille zur Macht
7.74GB USA Champions of Norrath
7.55GB USA The Guy Game
7.20GB JAP Sakura Wars Atsuki Chishiyo Ni
6.47GB USA Madden 2005 Collectors Edition
6.13GB PAL Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance
5.99GB USA MGS2: Substance
5.27GB PAL Gran Turismo 4
4.94GB USA Gran Turismo 4

The Everquest: Champions of Norrath game is a completely different games from EQ1 & EQ2 on the PC. A less ignorant comparisson would have been EQ:OA (which is also a different game but similar to EQ1) which does not appear on your list.

Everquest: Champions of Norrath took up 2 layers for 3 reasons
(1) big textures
(2) no loading while in big maps that stream off the disk
(3) alternate versions of said maps for replay value
Not among those reasons is prerendered CG, I don't think the game had any.

Similarly with GT4, it did't have a ton of movies to it. Mostly lots of really big maps and music. It will not be possible to make a GT5 that pushes the limits of the PS3 on a DVD. DVD's are simply too small. This will also be true of many other games in the future as well. HD textures and movies are going to be ~4x as large in memory. If a game filled up 1 single layer DVD on the PS2, then the analagous game will not fit on a dual layer DVD on the PS3. Games on the XBOX 360 that look good at 1080 will either suffer from a monotony of good textures or longer loading and/or development times to fit the disk with good compression and/or proceedurally generated art.

Xenosaga would be a good candidate for no prerendered CG, but's it's a low budget made game. The dev's saved time and money with prerendered movies.

God of War had high quality prerendered movies. Some of the scenes wouldn't even be feasible on the PS3. Same with Metal Gear. If you don't like high quality movies in your games, then good for you. But to call the movies in MG and GoW crap is just petty.

All that in mind, the DVD will be a bottleneck for this generation. Though I don't think it will be as bad as the N64 with it's cartridges. You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream all you want. That won't make your DVD's any larger.
Re:DVD vs Blu-Ray by martinm_76 · 2006-07-26 04:31 · Score: 1

Well, hopefully the game makers will start to 'think big' on the PS3. We already know that the Audio system will have, what was it, 7 channels? And I believe in 96 kHz, but I'm not totally sure. There will also be room for much more of it, both background music, spoken content and sound effects. I believe spoken content will begin to get really popular shortly ater PS3 release.
Also don't forget that the PS3 targets an international audience. It sure wouldn't hurt that the same BD-ROM had the English, Frensh, Spanish, German, Russian (dare I suggest Danish) text and audio all there from the beginning. The Game makers only need the one BD-ROM and should you happen to have someone over that speaks a different language than, say, English, better then they could enjoy some time with the game in their native tounge. It might even be fun for you to listen to. :)

I am sure that textures will be larger and more plentiful as well and the *real* kicker would be much more content. We'll have to see of course.

I imagine e.g. a car racing game with pretty much every track and car on the planet on one BD-ROM. To my knowledge this has not been done in any DVD game...

If this happens, I think we can fill up at least a 25 GB BD-ROM without any prerendered HD scenes.
The problem as always is cost. Is it feasible? Will people pay what they ask for 'the-game-that-has-everything'?

--
Regards, /Martin Moeller.

I'm curious by Hortos · 2006-07-25 06:29 · Score: 1

Why is the PS3 so expensive when it includes a non-custom Cell Processor with only 1 General Purpose CPU and a non-custom Geforce 7900 512 with 256 megs of ram chopped off? Versus a Xbox 360 with 3 Cores each equal to the General Purpose CPU of the PS3 and a custom designed unified shader graphics solution with embedded ram with console gaming in mind? I just can't understand all the people wandering around claiming the PS3 is twice as powerful as a Xbox360. Just because they're waiting longer to release their console and adding Blu-Ray Sony is just pulling arbitrary stats out and tossing them around since nobody has the actual hardware to look at. Or they might try the "Hey look its more expensive therefore it must be better!" angle which works well in America.

Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 07:34 · Score: 0

Maybe because the Cell Processor and the RSX are custom chips?

Arguably as customized or more than the Xbox 360's chips anyway. Give me a break though, Cell is about the most ambitious custom chip in years. Its single precision floating point performance is over 5 times that of a dual core desktop CPU that costs as much as the PS3 itself.

But I'm sure you already knew that, didn't you, Microsoft shill?

3dfx already did it... by 2008 · 2006-07-25 06:40 · Score: 1, Interesting

From the full interview:

"SLI is probably one of the most important innovations that we have brought in the last several years."
3dfx had a very similar, albeit not identical, system ages ago.

"Nvidia 1.0 was building 3-D graphics. Creating the consumer 3-D market."
No, that was 3dfx again.

Of course, Nvidia bought the remains of 3dfx so perhaps they're counting that.

Revisionist history aside, the full interview here (not the watered down blog post), is really interesting, and exactly the sort of thing that should be on slashdot.

--
I quit!

Re:3dfx already did it... by Slashcrap · 2006-07-25 12:17 · Score: 0, Troll

"Nvidia 1.0 was building 3-D graphics. Creating the consumer 3-D market."
No, that was 3dfx again.

Oh really? I don't remember being able to buy a 3DFX card in 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NV1
Re:3dfx already did it... by 2008 · 2006-07-25 14:43 · Score: 1

NV1 was a failure, it came and went without a market. The Voodoo was a success.

--
I quit!

Future proofing...? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-07-25 07:20 · Score: 0

For as much as we tech guys bash Sony and the PS3 this may turn out to be a stroke of genius. Think about it, right now, the general public doesn't know or much really care what HD-DVD or Blu-Ray is. Let's say it takes 2 or 3 years for folks to finally catch on. If the PS3 can just keep its head above water until then they could blow everybody out of the water.

Jump to 2008-2009: Let's assume DVD will be dead and/or dying. The price of the PS3 would probably be cheaper than a stand alone Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player. Satisfied PS2 gamers gradually begin to upgrade to PS3's. Then the casual consumer who's slightly interested in gaming picks up a PS3 because it's has more "bang for the buck". You couple that with the early PS3 adopters and you have a large installed base of Blu-Ray players which could tip the scales in Sony's favor. Sony goes after the porn industry to adopt Blu-Ray to put the icing on the cake (For those who don't know Porn's adoption of VHS over Betamax was a big factor in that format war).

From a gaming perspective the natural advancement of technology and innovative developers will require more and more from a console. As development costs drop, eventually, the built in hard-drive and high capacity blu-ray drive in every PS3 will be very attractive to those developers trying to push the limits of gaming in graphics and gameplay. The 360 will be constrained by DVD and the lack of a hard drive in every unit, and the Wii (while innovative) will be constrained by relatively under powered console by 2008-2009 standards, and a decidedly younger user base.

If the PS3 can make it through the bad press and the high price and "stick around" so to speak, they may win this thing yet again. Sony's made some missteps but if you look at the PS3 in this context there is good chance Sony could be really successful. Because unlike MS and Nintendo they have attempted to "future proof" their console. If the things above fall in place the hated Sony could wind up on top of the heap again. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, they didn't get to be Sony by lacking business sense.

...and the 360 will have a HD DVD accessory by benwaggoner · 2006-07-25 07:24 · Score: 1

Also, we'll have a HD DVD playback accessory for the Xbox 360 available this year. Given how much more successful HD DVD has been compared to Blu-ray so far (many more titles, with much higher average video quality).

Given the price differential between PS3 and the 360, the consumer will have the choice between paying around the same for game consumer + HD playback, but those who just want to play games can ge the 360 without HD disc playback, with the option to upgrade later.

--

My video compression blog

The price points of the 360 and the PS3 by hackwrench · 2006-07-25 07:58 · Score: 1

For the amounts of money Microsoft and Sony were willing to throw at GPU makers and the performance they were expecting to get in return, Microsoft's GPU was more expensive versus profit for the manufacturer. Another way of putting it is that the margins were lower.

Best reason for buying a PS3 Blu-Ray by WillAffleckUW · 2006-07-25 08:42 · Score: 1

Is that it forces you to rebuy all the DVD movies you have in the Blu-Ray format.

If you chose HD-DVD, you could still play your DVD movies and videos.

Just think of all the money flowing into Sony's and NVidia's pockets from that!

.

. oh, wait, maybe what's best for Sony and NVidia isn't what's best for the consumer ...

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:Best reason for buying a PS3 Blu-Ray by trdrstv · 2006-07-25 09:10 · Score: 1

Blew-Ray and HD-DVD (as pointless as they both are) are both Backwords compatible with regular DVDs. So you really don't have to re-buy all your old movies if you don't want to.
Re:Best reason for buying a PS3 Blu-Ray by Mark+Maughan · 2006-07-25 09:17 · Score: 1

That's funny because all the BluRay players in the market and in production also play DVD's.

Sounds like you are just making stuff up.

BZZT!!!! Wrong! by mildness · 2006-07-25 09:31 · Score: 1

The fact that the PS3 has Blu-Ray and the 360 has the pedestrian DVD format is not going to swing buyers to Sony's side in and of itself.

Back in the day I bought a PS2 because it allowed me to also play DVDs. Blu-Ray is the reason that I'm waiting for the PS3.

$600 for a next gen console that also plays all my PS2 games and a next gen movie player? Sign me up!

I gotta this there's a hell of a lot of people that see this value proposition besides myself.

Cheers,

Bill

PS But I hope Sony can speed it up a bit. I've had a 360 in my hands at Costco twice now and had to talk myself down.

--
bamph

Demand is real by SuperKendall · 2006-07-25 10:06 · Score: 1

This time around the *demand* simply doesn't exist. Sony will of course try to *generate* demand
via bruteforce marketing, but ultimately this may prove to be a mistake.

That is spoken as if you have not seen how much better true HD content looks. Even on just a 720P display the difference between HD video and DVD is striking and easy to see. All it takes is a few viewings and people want HD sets - that is why sales of the things have been pretty good.

Migration of a new HD format is also vrey easy for those that have Netflix, since the rent both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs. What is going to happen when lots of people start getting PS3's and trying out Blu-Ray discs is that worth of mouth is going to grow the demand for HD sets and content rather dramatically.

Sure there is not a differenc in random access like there was between VHS and DVD, but quality is substantial enough to create a demand, though I think it will be a slower ramp than DVD was.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Demand is real by Ash-Fox · 2006-07-25 11:24 · Score: 1

Even on just a 720P display the difference between HD video and DVD is striking and easy to see.
I've seen it, and it was not enough of a reason for me to get it, unless I sit very close to the TV -- which I don't.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

Storage expands options by SuperKendall · 2006-07-25 10:08 · Score: 1

While I agree with your primary point that in the end games matter most to console success, I do think that the extra storage space the PS3 offers will lend some advanatages, especially in a few years. Game developers will take advantage of that space and were complaining even before launch about the 360 not including HD-DVD drives.

Basically that extra space gives game makers more options, which can in turn lead to a potentially wider number of good games (just on a percentage basis).

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Storage expands options by Psychotext · 2006-07-25 10:54 · Score: 1

Or more of the same, where we're expected to take the new shiny graphics and cutscenes as a replacement for gameplay. Who knows.

--
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.

Doesn't matter for game system by SuperKendall · 2006-07-25 10:13 · Score: 1

To my mind, even if Blu-Ray does not succeed as a consumer movie format it's irrelevant - at that point it would essentially be like the myriad of other proprietary game delivery systems, like carts or the custom Gamecube discs. The game makers still get the benefits of a large amount of storage to deliver games upon.

However I think it is unlikley that Blu-Ray will fail to that degree, in part because every PS3 will have one and so consumers will start using it, in part because those already having Netflix subscriptions can try Blu-Ray discs for free and see the improved quality of movies for themselves.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Hard drive by SuperKendall · 2006-07-25 10:19 · Score: 1

The 360 will be constrained by DVD and the lack of a hard drive in every unit, and the Wii (while innovative) will be constrained by relatively under powered console by 2008-2009 standards, and a decidedly younger user base.

On these two fronts, I think that the 360 developers already assume that everyone has hard drives so I don't know the silly bundling move that Microsoft made will actually hurt them that much. I think we'll see the hard driveless bundle dropped before the end of the year.

As for the Wii, though it's less powerful than the 360 or PS3, it's not so much less powerful that it cannot hold it's own trading off slightly reduced graphics quality and a ceiling of 720p (which still looks pretty darn awesome) and of course teh control scheme. I do think that will yield some pretty cool gaming moments.

However I do agree that the PS3 is the most future-proofed of all the new systems, and in just a few years will have a huge advantage over other systems because of the newer tech they have put into it. Microsoft may respond by producing more pwoerful 360 systems with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray built in.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Cutscene is one dimension by SuperKendall · 2006-07-25 11:06 · Score: 1

Actually some cutscene heavy games can be fun as well, even if generally they are less interactive - but that is one of the kinds of expansive options I was speaking of that can provide more variety.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

He's right, despite the obvious bias by Frobozz0 · 2006-07-25 11:40 · Score: 1

At the end of the day, he's right. Yes, the bias is clear to understand but it's not hidden. It's right out there in the open for all to see. Let's look past that and listen to the message for just a second.

All he's saying is that the inclusion of a next generation movie format will be important to the success of the console. He's right for a couple of reasons.

1) Whoever wins this round of the format wars will be the last optical format for the delivery of movies and games.

2) By shipping a popular game console with a next-generation format, SONY has a *significant* advantage of HD-DVD.

3) Blu-ray can hold a lot more per disc than a DVD, and even an HD-DVD.

4) Online distribution will only increase over time. Eventually this will replace optical formats as the primary means of software and movie distribution. Sony wins on both accounts because they will control both ends of the distribution chain.

5) In order to position the 360 or Wii as true convergence machines in the near future, both consoles will require an optical format to sustain themselves until online distribution eclipses optical. NEITHER HAVE IT. And if they add it later, it will create confusion and SKU's that won't have the same abilities. By not coming out of the gate with a next generation format, they both loose this critical angle.

6) HDTV will become the norm over the next 5 years, which is SONY's prime selling window for PS3. In this time it will cover both te optical and digital distribution of movies and games for HD format.

What is the only negative? Initial cost until the price of Blu-ray production comes down. That's not that big of a deal really. It's not goi to even DENT the initial sales. Early adopters will pay whatever it takes. Over time, the price of the fully equipped HDMI SKU will decrease in price, reducing the entry point for the people who will be purchasing the console in 2007 and beyond.

--
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."

Not DOS, Not Mac by Cadallin · 2006-07-25 12:35 · Score: 2, Informative

The First Prince of Persia was an Apple II release. It later saw PORTS to other platforms, including but not limited to: the Mac, the PC, and the SNES.

Some faulty assumptions by atomicstrawberry · 2006-07-25 14:37 · Score: 1

There's a rather large gap in the logic presented here. Specifically, the whole DVD-vs-Blu-Ray argument assumes that the content of each is completely unique. This is not going to be the case.

Just as with the current generation, there will be a fair number of exclusives on each platform, but the bulk of the games will end up being on both the PS3 and the 360. And possibly on the PS2 and maybe Xbox for a few years yet as well. With skyrocketing development costs, this trend is likely to increase rather than decrease - the cost of developing multi-platform is often offset by the potential to reach a much larger market, and thereby sell more games.

In the context of game development, you often hear the term 'lowest common denominator' being thrown about. It's the reason that add-ons like Hard Drives never really caught on, and it wasn't until the Xbox included one as standard that developers actually began to use it. It's also the reason why, even if MS added the capability, almost zero games would be produced for the all-but-confirmed HD-DVD add-on for the X360. Developers will always target the common hardware, and thus will rarely bother with an add-on unless practically everyone has it.

What I'm leading to is pretty simple. PS3 will have the ability to use Blu-Ray discs, but by all accounts it should also support DVDs. 360 uses DVD. PS2 uses DVD. Xbox uses DVD. Even cutting the current-gen consoles out, DVD is the lowest common denominator. Any multi-platform game is going to have been developed with DVD in mind (to work on the 360) and it will only be the PS3 exclusives that will go Blu-Ray. It's quite likely that a lot of the time developers aren't going to find they need the extra capacity anyway, and I'd expect it won't be until the third generation of PS3 games that we start to see stuff that really uses the Blu-Ray's capacity. Certainly, the PS3 releases of multi-platform titles will probably be able to include slightly higher-resolution textures, but that would be about the only content that could be used to pad the discs out. Given that the capabilities of the X360 and PS3, graphically, are rougly very similar, there shouldn't be any engine-hobbling going on, and we're well past the era of having hundreds of minutes of pre-rendered FMV. There simply won't be any extra to add to the PS3 version.

A lot of the time people cite the fact that a lot of PS2 RPGs have been on two DVDs, examples including Xenosaga II, Star Ocean 3 and I believe Final Fantasy XII. These are actually split over two DVD-5s - they'd fit on a DVD-9 but the earlier PS2s have trouble with dual-layer DVD-ROM content. This actually illustrates another issue with including immature media technology in consoles, but that's neither here nor there. The only real genre of game that could potentially exceed the bounds of the DVD format are the larger RPGs, and even then, most RPG gamers are quite happy to have the game split over two discs. Speaking as a big fan of these games myself, it actually feels like you've gotten something bigger and more impressive when it's split up. A bit of a 'wow, it had so much content that a single DVD just wasn't enough!' deal, even though I know that it's only split up that way because the PS2 isn't very good at DVD.

Really, there is no real need for Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD, for that matter) for games until the platforms are both quite mature, which should be a lot later than the end of 2007. There is definitely no practical justification for socking consumers an extra $200 for the privilege. The only real reason we're seeing it in PS3 is because of the media and electronics side of Sony's business dictating the policy for the other wings of their entertainment business. I'd hate to be a Sony Computer Entertainment exec right about now, I bet they don't want to be selling the damn thing with Blu-Ray in it either.

Insightful? by Troglodyt · 2006-07-25 23:40 · Score: 1

Since when did saying how something will look have anything to do what you think about how it's going to perform?

Photorealism seems close to me by Makarakalax · 2006-07-26 03:20 · Score: 1

I dunno, things are looking pretty photorealistic next gen.

Check Crysis and Gears of War.

The issue now is more making the animation look realistic. Which may well take a few more years.

Videos of Crysis look damn good for animation though.

Good response by SuperKendall · 2006-07-26 03:47 · Score: 1

Odd that you were never modded up or responded to - you make excellent points and I think you have a great summary of all the major points in Sony's favor.

I just cannot understand how people ignore the obvious advantage Blu-Ray and Sony have with millions of players in peoples homes by the end of the year. As a way to jump-start a format, it is an awesome sight to behold from just the sheer scale of it.

If Microsoft had included HD-DVD I would not know which way the fight between formats would go down, not even with Blu-Ray having a slight edge in the number of studios. But with the PS3 having Blu-Ray by default it's going to create a positive feedback loop of people buying a PS3 discovering the benefits of HD video with Blu-Ray and also people wanting the cheapest Blu-Ray player possible also getting into PS3 games. I think Microsoft may be forced to step in later and produce a 360 with built in HD-DVD and HDMI, but even doing so today seems to be too late as the inital adopters with any interest already have a 360 and just the inclusion of HD-DVD in a new model is not enough to make people spend again so soon (not even if Halo 3 is HD-DVD only, which I don't think they have to guts at this point to do).

The only point you make I am not really sure about is Blu-Ray being the last optical format... holographic discs and other ideas seem pretty promising, and could provide an order of magnitude leap over even Blu-Ray storage. But I don't know if that would be anything but a data format mostly on computers or if it would move into the consumer media storage space anytime soon.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Slashdot Mirror

Nvidia CEO Talks Next-Gen Consoles

173 comments