Slashdot Mirror
Mysteries of the Next-Gen Consoles Solved
Chris Morris, of CNN Money's Game Over column, has several final details on the next-gen consoles. He delves into availability, games, the new ads for both the Wii and the PS3 and (of course) "Who's going to win?" From the article: "For the past two generations, Sony has sold far more PlayStation units than its competitors have sold of their systems. Publishers, for their part, expect the field to be a lot more even over the next five years or so (which should be about the time you're asked to start focusing on the PS4, Xbox 720 and whatever funky name Nintendo comes up with next)."
The Xbox 640 ought to be enough for anybody.
The good news is that about 100 games will be out at launch.
The bad news is that they're all Genji.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Allow me to post my 4-month old predictions so I can try to find and reference this post if I'm right and sweep it under the carpet if I'm wrong. End of 2009, in terms of number of consoles sold: 360 = 40% (has already built up momentum on both customer and developer sides) Wii = 35% (I think it will explode out of the gate) PS3 = 25% (Will have momentum issues (shortages guarantee this), but IMO will not age as quickly as the other consoles later on) Like the article, no definite winner. But there is significantly more $ spent on 360s than the other two.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
That's because you keep redefining Virtual Reality every time the definition from 5 years ago comes close to being met.
Whoops. I hate walls of text so let me do this again.
/., I should indeed have clicked the preview button :( . . . but I don't see a reason to slow down at this point ;)
End of 2009, in terms of number of consoles sold:
360 = 40% (has already built up momentum on both customer and developer sides)
Wii = 35% (I think it will explode out of the gate)
PS3 = 25% (Will have momentum issues (shortages guarantee this), but IMO will not age as quickly as the other consoles later on)
Like the article, no definite winner. But there is significantly more $ spent on 360s than the other two.
You're right,
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
The article is not too bad, kind of simple, but not a bad sum of the situation. But check out the ineptitude of reporting in this CNN video report!
Terrible! They talks as though there is nothing else coming out, but what's worse is how they butcher Sony's Console details
They harp on $600 and don't even mention the $500 version
They state Sony says it's worth it because it plays DVDs and wirelessly connects to the internet (No mention of Blue-Ray, HD, or 1080i)
Although you can't see it in the video, the anchors on CNN went on about it further, ragging on the $600 price being something "They'd never pay for" even the weatherman joins in.
In short, CNN botched just about every position Sony has been trying to push about the PS3. CNN should talk with it's game/technology division more often. If this is the kind of knowledge the mainstreme consumer has about the PS3, it doesn't bode well...
Demented But Determined.
Of course they will. They'll be: Wii, Not-So-Wii, and Frickin' HUGE!
And of course we won't look like the Tron guy. We'll all have night elf avatars.
IBM
If this is the kind of knowledge the mainstreme consumer has about the PS3, it doesn't bode well...
You're right. And it's Sony's fault. Sony has clearly not done enough to explain to the average consumer what the console can do. I think a story like that says more about how little people, so far, care about HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray, or even HDTV in general - which really calls further into question the wisdom of putting the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 (given all the problems I/we assume it has caused for pricing and production).
On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe Sony is only trying to sell to the hardcore gamers, and all of them/us know what's actually going on with the console (whether or not we approve of it is something else entirely).
I question the wisdom of this, certainly in relation to their obvious hopes for Blu-Ray penetration, but more importantly: are current PS2 owners primarily hardcore gamers? I was under the impression there were a lot of more casual PS2 purchases, but perhaps I'm wrong.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
As a former designer at a very large video game company that will remain unnamed so nobody comes after me with baseball bats for vaguely speaking in defiance of an NDA, I saw first-hand the nightmare that was PS3 development. We had a team assigned to 'port' one of our 360 titles to the PS3 for launch, and the porting process took almost as long as building the game did in the first place. As a non-developer, I don't know too many of the nuts-and-bolts of it, but I do know that the PS3's texture memory seems to be substantially more limited and/or volatile than Microsoft's and many of our game assets had to be retooled into lower bit-depths and smaller sizes to keep the system from crashing in areas where the 360 performed like a champ. New SDK's were released almost weekly right up until the bitter end of the PS3 'development period', many of these containing sweeping changes that required massive retooling of key aspects of the title, and nothing to do with the PS3 system, be it the OS, hardware, ever really seemed finalized or stable.
While I'm positive that these issues have been resolved (or at least, hopeful) -- I'm still going to wait quite a while before I even consider purchasing a new Sony box. With the massive amounts of hurdles developers have been jumping through to appease the flaky nature of this product launch, I don't expect to see very many quality games for this system for quite some time.
Comparing Sony's position now with their position six years ago isn't going to give any idicator on how a console will do. The PS1 and PS2 did so well because of the games. The Xbox was aimed at the hard core gamer, most of the games were bloods/guts style. ,br.The PS2 had it all so to speak with many games appealing to the hard core gamer, but not being afraid of pushing non standard games like the Dance mat ones, the singing one and that buzz off. Also games like GT, Tekken FF and GTA were all pick up and drop games which a beginner could pick up and enjoy. Those games appealed to girls and people who don't normally play games because they were simple and fun.
Nintendo aimed the Gamecube at the 'new market' and ended up producing a ton of strange and bizare games no one really cared for (excusing Super Smash Brothers) girls wern't engaged with the Gamecube games, hard core gamers saw the thing as stupid only really leaving the fanboys.
What do we see now?
Well The PS3 will have the same style of games coming up, which should appeal to the PS2 market, the Xbox360 is carying on with its blood and guts titles but is moving into the PS2 game market and well the Wii, well just the name suggests what sort of games we will see.
When I justify a console in my house a 'media station' will go a long way in supporting my arguement, just as argueing that a console we can both enjoy will. The PS3 price tag isn't the factor people make it out to be, its the Xbox360 games. If I can get a console which will support dance games, singing games and a few other titles (GTA anyone) then you can't justify the extra expense.
I realise a ton of Wii fanboys will start blasting me for this, but its the truth. Most people I know who aren't tech savey have seen the Xbox360 and been amazed at what it can do, but many of them have said "I'll wait for the PS3 cause that will be better" its a perception based on the PS2. If the Xbox360 can give the right games then it will win, in either case I'm not buying either console until I can get it with a game for £250.