Ubisoft Expecting New Consoles By 2012

So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock ... by trolltalk.com · 2009-01-23 00:46 · Score: 1, Troll

So maybe I'll be able to find a store that actually has Wiis in stock by 2011, since they'll be obsolete by then?

Seriously, of the 3 - Playstation, XBox, Wii - only Nintendo hasn't made any price cuts, and they still can't keep them on the shelves for more than a day or two.

--
Kevin Smith on Prince

Long term projections FAIL by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 00:47 · Score: 0

I doubt Ubisoft will still be around in 2012. They are crashing and this is just a marketing stunt to try to convince the world they're still alive and kicking. When's the last time Ubisoft produced something really popular? Right.

Re:Long term projections FAIL by aliquis · 2009-01-23 01:25 · Score: 1

http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/Search.aspx?plTag=pc
right!
Re:Long term projections FAIL by KDR_11k · 2009-01-23 06:41 · Score: 1

Their current problem is that they're pretty much ignoring the Wii (50% of the console market right there). After some promising but rushed launch games they've pretty much faded into the shovelware pile. In fact I think most of the shovelware on the system actually bears the Ubisoft logo. Shovelware doesn't really sell, there were some games on the system that sold while being critically panned but correlation does not imply causation and it seems many developers are forgetting that. The few games that did sell sold because they had value to the new people the Wii brought in, not because they are ignorant and will buy anything (otherwise the sames would be evenly spread over all the shovelware titles).

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Long term projections FAIL by Michael+Hunt · 2009-01-23 12:10 · Score: 1

Grand Theft Africa

Jokes aside, if I had a list of "best games of 2008" (which I don't because nobody would care), FC2 would be in second or third place, even if you could tell they just tacked the saved game system on at the last minute.

--
You're doing it wrong.

Developing for the next generation by Thanshin · 2009-01-23 00:54 · Score: 4, Funny

1 - Release a teaser of someone playing Prince of Persia Ultimate in a perfect virtual world.
2 - Accept preorders while you wait.
3 - Blame the consoles for not fulfilling expectations.
4 - ???
5 - Profit!

Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by hattig · 2009-01-23 01:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seems to make sense seeing as consoles are usually on a 5 year cycle, which means we could see the next XBox released in late 2010, but maybe Microsoft will want to get an extra year out of it instead of launching early with dodgy hardware again. The PS4 in late 2011 also seems likely. The Wii is an unknown. Surely the next version will have HD capability, but only at a certain price point and Nintendo will want to make a profit from launch. So "Wii Too" will be less powerful than its competitors, but more powerful than the PS3 or 360. 32nm process is probably going to be used, with a rapid shrink in 2013 to 22nm.

Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by aliquis · 2009-01-23 01:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

So "Wii Too" will be less powerful than its competitors, but more powerful than the PS3 or 360.
Where do that come from? Nintendo consoles haven't always been technically inferior.
Wasn't snes faster than megadrive? I don't remember.
Gamecube is more competent than PS2, and PS2 still sold at higher prices and way more consoles.
So just because something is affordable don't mean it has to be crap.
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 02:18 · Score: 0

Where do that come from? Nintendo consoles haven't always been technically inferior.
Yes, the SNES was more capable. N64 would've been if the designers weren't crazy (4KB texture cache? WTF). But the Wii and DS are drastically less powerful than their competitors. This strategy has worked very well for them so it's only logical to think they'll do the same next time. After all, they're the only ones actually making a profit on their consoles. It's good business sense.

price point
Is that like a 'rate of speed'? A price is inherently a 'point', which is the entire purpose of the word. Stop emulating salesmen and their redundant babble.
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by Binestar · 2009-01-23 02:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Where do that come from? Nintendo consoles haven't always been technically inferior.

Came from the fact that Nintendo wants to MAKE money on the console from the start, not after 4 years.

--
Do you Gentoo!?
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by aliquis · 2009-01-23 02:29 · Score: 1

But the Wii and DS are drastically less powerful than their competitors. This strategy has worked very well for them so it's only logical to think they'll do the same next time.
But DS and Wii doesn't work well because they are technically inferior (or cheap, the others was cheap to.)
The DS and Wii sell well because the offer something new.

After all, they're the only ones actually making a profit on their consoles.
And they have always made money on their consoles, the Gamecube to.
Of course they will try to repeat finding out something new and innovative in gaming, but they won't try to repeat "release inferior hardware", they may still do it but it's not point on it's own.
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by Hatta · 2009-01-23 02:43 · Score: 1

Sounds like I might be picking up a PS3 or Wii in 2 or 3 years then. Any guesses on how many Xbox360s will still be working in 2012? Going to pick up a PS2 this year sometime. That should be plenty to keep me busy until used consoles from this generation get cheap. Real shame about the Xbox360 though. Wonder how long Microsoft will keep replacing them if they break after the next Xbox is released. I hope at least their next Xbox will be backwards compatible, and maybe a little more durable.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by nedlohs · 2009-01-23 03:26 · Score: 1

Because the others are willing to sell at a loss, whereas Nintendo is not, at least that's the assumption used in the post you replied to before it made the conclusion.
If Nintendo won't sell at a loss, but Microsoft will then if the price to consumers is the same the Microsoft console should be more powerful. With the assumption that costs more to produce -> more powerful.
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by aztektum · 2009-01-23 04:04 · Score: 1

Assuming Sony sticks to their original gameplan, 2011 is 5 years too soon
So far Sony has been pretty stubborn about "staying the course". They haven't said anything that makes me think they're about to jettison PS3 any time soon. Especially not in 2 years.

--
:: aztek ::
No sig for you!!
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 04:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

The SNES had a weaker CPU than the Megadrive, but an inspired graphics chip.
The Gamecube benefited from an extra year or two of advancement in technology and integration.
Nowadays all the graphics chips are amazing, you want better you pay more. No more hacks with your raster controller to display a 2D tiled map at angles to create MODE 7 eh?
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by commodore64_love · 2009-01-23 04:56 · Score: 1

They put that guy out to pasture (i.e. promoted his to ad advisory job where no one listens to him). They did that because his plan made the company lose money.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by hattig · 2009-01-23 05:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

You do realise that the PS1 and the PS2 also had 10 year lifespans, but it isn't 2018 yet?
Sony will release the PS4 in 2011 or 2012, it could use a PowerXCell32 derivative (2/4 enhanced PPU, 32 enhanced SPU, >1.5 TFLOPS) at around 5GHz, along with some GTX300/400 level graphics (2-3 TFLOPS), and remain backwards compatible, and take advantage of all the effort Sony have put into the PS3 firmware, Home, media, etc, straight away. i.e., this system will generate a beast of a console for very little development money. The SPUs will be used for immense physics calculations, leaving the graphics free to run 1080p/120 for 3D glasses games. I bet Microsoft's hardware will be of a similar power.
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by aliquis · 2009-01-23 06:06 · Score: 1

Gamecube was profitable when they sold them for 699 SEK I'd assume
Wii still cost 2699 SEK.
Sure Wii probably is MORE profitable now but it would probably still be profitable with better hardware / lower price.
Heck, isn't even Microsofts Xbox360 division making money now? And they sell Xbox360s for 1799 SEK normally but down to 1599 SEK or something such I believe. Haven't checked prices lately.
Also I think you're just making bad guessing.
Imho Wii is probably inferior in hardware specs simply because Nintendos consoles had got a smaller and smaller piece of the market and since they don't have any other business to fall back on such as Microsoft and Sony they simply can't risk it investing to much money in developing expensive new technology without knowing if they will get a huge piece of the market or not.
For Microsoft console risk taking won't kill them, for Nintendo it will.
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by aliquis · 2009-01-23 06:15 · Score: 1

Well, I guess Nintendo may have been forced into it because earlier they may have been able to take out more money for being able to license a title for Nintendo consoles. Thereby earning more money on games and being able to earn less on consoles. But in todays market maybe Microsoft and Sony ask for less money for their consoles, what do I know.
Your later assumption is right but then again using more common chips such as Microsoft and Nintendo has done with both the Xbox, Xbox360, Gamecube and Wii as far as CPU goes may give you more for your money than designing your own ones such as Sony has done (Atleast the PS had some weird hardware? Don't know about PS2 and as we all know Cell is more exotic than one or multiple PPC cores.)
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by KDR_11k · 2009-01-23 06:54 · Score: 1

A problem is where do we go from here? While it may seem like the natural thing to upgrade the graphics again from what I've seen the current tech level already requires such huge investments to be used to its fullest extent that the game sales have trouble making that back and a game that isn't a multi-million seller can bankrupt its publisher. Doesn't look like the sales through technology are increasing so if we increase the dev costs again while sales don't increase much it'll be even harder to make a game that makes a profit. There's the suspicion that that's the real reason the Wii has such weak graphics tech (you could get a vastly more powerful system for just as cheap if you wanted but they didn't take that route). Of course the next Nintendo system will have HD output, increasing the resolution isn't exactly hard (PCs have been running at higher than HD resolutions before this console generation) and with the lacking upscalers in many TVs that'll be necessary.
The next gen step might also be timed differently depending on the strategies applied. While I'm sure MS and Sony would rather bury this gen fast and try to win the next one they've racked up massive losses to get their systems out of the door and it might be wiser for them to sit down a bit and try to work with what they have to cut their losses a bit while also trying to find a new direction to go into. Nintendo is very unpredictable. They'll probably try to ride on their wave of success for longer than usual and not go into the next iteration before they see a serious threat to their market (and with the way Sony and MS have behaved so far they might have trouble mounting a successful attack on the Wii's domination even when starting another generation). It's not sure how Nintendo's new market reacts to generation changes either, introducing a new generation may actually be counterproductive. Plus Nintendo's main strength are the controllers while improving the graphics and such isn't very useful for their market, they might be able to start another "generation" by making a new generation of peripherials instead of replacing the console box itself.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by KDR_11k · 2009-01-23 07:14 · Score: 1

That's Ken Kutaragi you're thinking of, Kaz Hirai is still in charge and still spouting nonsense. However, I don't believe that their "10 year lifecycle" actually refers to releasing the PS4 10 years later, it just means they'll keep producing PS3s and permit game licenses for the system for 10 years while it slowly fades away as the PS4 grows, they've done the same for the PS1 and 2. The difference this time is that they're last place (though Hirai insists they are the "official" industry leader by declaring the other two companies not competitors) and will probably see drastically reduced support once the next system comes out. I don't think the Xbox and Gamecube were abandoned so fast merely because their manufacturers didn't want a 10 year cycle, I think it was because they were so damn far behind that noone wanted to keep making games for them.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by ucblockhead · 2009-01-23 07:19 · Score: 1

Nintendo, even with its buckets of Wii money, can't compete with Sony and Microsoft in terms of spending buckets of cash to develop something that you sell at a loss. They've been smart enough to realize that perhaps they didn't have to.

--
The cake is a pie
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop by hattig · 2009-01-23 09:06 · Score: 1

All very pertinent points.
Indeed the Wii has the room to move upwards, it's next incarnation will surely be a 1080p system, but perhaps with graphics on the level of the NVIDIA 9800 rather than a theoretical GTX400 that the PS4 could utilise in 2011.
For all systems, moving to 2GB or 4GB of RAM will pretty much sort out that aspect.
I think extra GPU power on the PS4 would be used to move games to 1080p with extra detail and quality, with support for 120Hz 3D glasses like those shown at CES this month. By then the technology will be sorted, and presumably a variant of HDMI that can carry 120Hz 1080p will have been created.
To be honest, it's pointless speculating. Right now that future specification sounds like it would be enough for 20 years of entertainment given the resources required to make a game already that can take advantage of that power, as you mention. Games like GTA5 will have hundreds of hours of TV shows on the disc just to give you something to watch when you switch on the in-game TV and to fill up the game media (I'm not one of those physical media is dead within 5 years believers). I'm sure in 5 years time the specs will seem outdated just like the PS3 and 360 seem outdated now.

Ubsoft is ubiSHITTY by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 01:22 · Score: 0

97% of their games are a total let down.

They rank just slightly lower than EA.

1080p limitation by Zero+J · 2009-01-23 01:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

With the next gen of consoles presumably still limited to 1080p resolutions (unlike PC games), will there really be much of an incentive to upgrade again so soon? Sure, they can throw a lot more polygons on the screen, but it won't be anything like the difference between the last gen and current gen consoles.

Re:1080p limitation by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 02:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Neither the PS3 or 360 are giving us true 1080p for most titles. Most are 560-700px and then scaled up. The next iteration of consoles might be able to handle 1920x1080 properly, and if there are cycles to spare, we'll get lots of FX.
Re:1080p limitation by draccip · 2009-01-23 02:23 · Score: 1

Not if they go the route of head mounted displays (i.e. nintendo ON); projection, like many speculated with the wii... or who knows... functional 3-d might actually hit it big. so there is quite a few graphic upgrades that could be accomplished next gen, in fact i think this next gen will be the biggest jump.
Re:1080p limitation by Hatta · 2009-01-23 02:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Aren't we into diminishing returns with respect to resolution already? I know I can't see the difference between 720 and 1080. I'd argue that we can get a lot better graphics by increasing polygons instead of resolution. Look at the PSX and PS2, they both output SD, but the PS2 is dramatically better looking.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:1080p limitation by not+already+in+use · 2009-01-23 03:06 · Score: 1

still limited to 1080p resolutions (unlike PC games), will there really be much of an incentive to upgrade again so soon?
More pixels != better graphics. It's just a dick-swinging contest between PC gamers to justify their annual $600 video card upgrade.... which makes it even more ironic that you would say 5 year console upgrade is "so soon."

--
Similes are like metaphors
Re:1080p limitation by pizzach · 2009-01-23 03:20 · Score: 1

Not quite. It's PC users comparing apples to oranges. PC gamers sit a lot closer to the screen than console users thus a higher resolution is more noticeable and useful. But applying that to consoles is silly short of people playing games using a projector.

--
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Re:1080p limitation by Zero+J · 2009-01-23 03:24 · Score: 1

Actually, I have an $80 video card. And, if more pixels didn't allow for better graphics, we'd all still be playing the Atari 2600.
Re:1080p limitation by Zero+J · 2009-01-23 03:29 · Score: 1

That's absolutely true, but I think the diminishing returns applies just as well to polygons. Can you imagine a racing game, for example, looking "dramatically" better than GRAN TURISMO 5 PROLOGUE does on the PS3? I suppose better hardware will allow the scope of games to improve dramatically, but I don't know that the appearance will change that much. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Re:1080p limitation by not+already+in+use · 2009-01-23 03:48 · Score: 1

And, if more pixels didn't allow for better graphics, we'd all still be playing the Atari 2600.
This is true, but graphics nowadays are not being hamstrung by resolutions. Watching football at 1080p is a beautiful thing. Once consoles can surpass that metric, I'll agree that consoles are being "held back" by the 1080p limit.

--
Similes are like metaphors
Re:1080p limitation by Colourspace · 2009-01-23 04:03 · Score: 1

It's not so much the resolution thats stopping photo realism happening on current displays, its the sheer processing power required to render a picture along with the filters and effects (fogging, water, fire, smoke etc) that make it photo realistic. With enough processing power we could render in real time using ray-tracing. I think the next gen (whatever form it takes) will provide enough of an upgrade in visual fidelity to be worthwhile. Each successive generation so far has given a noticeable improvement, and I don't think that will stop any time soon. Slightly OT, but as someone with limited depth perception due to a lazy eye (sometimes it doesn't get out of bed until an hour after I do) I hope that the '3D visual' future that both Edge and GamesTM mags have been banging on about in their latest issues does not preclude people like me from the future of gaming..
Re:1080p limitation by Dutch+Gun · 2009-01-23 04:18 · Score: 1

Current graphics technology lets developers create highly detailed but fairly modestly-sized environments, or a moderately detailed but broad landscapes. Further increases in graphical horsepower will allow developers to render very large, very detailed scenes. It will also allow them to render very large numbers of characters at a time while still rendering this large-scale environment, in addition to performing AI and physics processing on all of them. Currently, you can see all of these elements in current-generation console games, but generally not all at the same time. Believe it or not, here are still very real limitations of hardware that developers run up against all the time, even today, and each game has to make tradeoffs.
Examples:
* Dead Rising was one of the first games to show off the current generation's power by focusing on large numbers of enemies, but generally at the expense of detailed models or environments.
* Gears of War was recognized for it's highly detailed models and environments, but the palette was very muted, and the environments were relatively small and constrained.
* Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, likewise, was visually stunning with amazing models and colorful environments. However, the environments were rather small, and the number of enemies on screen was kept fairly low.
* Oblivion renders broad and expansive outdoor environments, but you can see obviously low resolution textures and models in the distance. Indoor environments are more detailed, but are so at the expense of a loading screen. Additionally, you rarely see large number of creatures or people on the screen at one time.
At the point when developers can, quite literally, render any scene they wish without giving too much thought to whether the hardware can handle it, then we'll have peaked on rendering power. Even though the next generation won't be much visually improved at a certain level of detail, they'll have the capability of showing much more.
Is all this necessary, or going to make games magically more fun? No, of course not. But don't kid yourselves either - cool visuals are just as much a part of the modern videogaming experience as good gameplay. It's the hook that gets you playing - you just stay for the gameplay.

--
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Re:1080p limitation by Quantumstate · 2009-01-23 04:31 · Score: 1

I would say that we are getting fairly close to the limit of where more polygons will show a noticeable increase. I would say that the main increases are going to come in lighting and procedurally generated objects and textures.
Re:1080p limitation by Fweeky · 2009-01-23 06:03 · Score: 1

Yup; for example, GTA4 on the PS3 looks extra-blurry compared with the 360 because it's actually upscaled from 1120x630. And while the 360 will manage 720p, it'll just upscale for 1080p.
Re:1080p limitation by mog007 · 2009-01-23 06:06 · Score: 1

There's always been a huge difference between each console generation, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last of that yet.
8 bit to 16 bit saw more sprites on screen, more vibrant color, and even a few 3d-ish games. The generation that displaced the 16 bit era saw full 3d, with *mostly* optical disc consoles. After that we get much crisper 3d, with less fog to obscure the distance, and this generation has given us high def, first party wireless controllers, and online communication of some sort built into all three main consoles.

--
Learn something new.
Re:1080p limitation by Fweeky · 2009-01-23 06:07 · Score: 1

I play my PS3 on the same display I play my PC games on, so it's not really that silly. For you maybe, if you're playing sat 7ft away from a 40" TV, not for me playing 3ft away from a 30" monitor.
Re:1080p limitation by KDR_11k · 2009-01-23 07:17 · Score: 1

And 1080p is the only real difference between this gen and the previous one? Consoles have developed without increasing resolutions for a long time, they don't need to increase them again. People don't care about graphics improvements beyond a certain point (and the Wii was Nintendo saying "that point was last gen").

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:1080p limitation by KDR_11k · 2009-01-23 07:29 · Score: 3, Informative

Careful, racing games have a much easier time hitting the graphical ceiling than other games. Cars are mechanical objects that behave according to fairly simple physics. They are the best case for something to display with a computer. Compare that with a human. An organic creature with tons of details on the surface where there is no artistic freedom (people can spot a wrong face very quickly) and with material properties that are damn complex to display (a car has regular diffusion, specularity, etc, flesh has subsurface scattering and such) or simulate (steel is pretty much rigid for most purposes, flesh contains many visibly moving parts, is soft and many of the things that cause the shape are underneath the top layer and thus usually aren't part of a computer model).

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:1080p limitation by KDR_11k · 2009-01-23 07:34 · Score: 1

For large numbers of enemies, the PS2 could do pretty large numbers too in the Earth Defense Force games.
A problem with rendering any scene you wish is that it costs money to make that scene. The costs are skyrocketing at the moment and companies are going out of business or massively downsizing because of it.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:1080p limitation by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 09:10 · Score: 0

Look at the PSX and PS2, they both output SD, but the PS2 is dramatically better looking.
Whilst they both output an SD signal, a typical PS2 game would be rendered at four times the resolution of a typical PSone game (320x224 vs 640x448, approximately).
Re:1080p limitation by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 11:11 · Score: 0

I use a projector... and the difference between 1080 & 720 are still not that massively noticeable.
Re:1080p limitation by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 13:02 · Score: 0

Games won't be photorealistic until they can render every last pebble on the ground, every hair on a person's head and have particle effects that realistically react to the world and entities within the world. Even with the steady progress of graphics technology, that is still many, many years away.
Re:1080p limitation by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 13:52 · Score: 0

Don't worry... you are not alone.
-Game developer with lazy eye. O_o
There is still plenty of room for improvement on flat screens.
And besides, at more than ~20-30 meters distance of what you're looking at, having stereoscopic vision or not really doesn't make much (or any) difference, AFAIK. So I think the 3d glasses would be mostly a marketing gimmick anyway. Especially for open-world games, where the view distance is long, a flat screen does the job just fine. (Speaking of open-world games: higher resolution does tend to help those, as currently there are sometimes not enough pixels to display distant stuff sharply, causing it to look very grainy, a little more resolution would be nice, I suppose. Unfortunately, these games ask the most of the hardware too, and as such have the least processing power to spare for cranking up the res. Want free lunch nao!)
Personally, I think that 1080p does the job for the next generation. It's the resolution of HDTVs that are currently being sold, and most people don't even have such a TV yet. Current gen consoles barely pull 720p. I think that instead of cranking up the res to more than what most of the target audience's TV's support is pretty futile. And would people buy higher than 1080p TV's just for consoles? Would TV channels support higher than 1080p? Don't know. Maybe people would skip 1080p TV's alltogether and go straight on to the next step? Hmm don't know either, but it's not super likely. I don't think 1080p can be considered "standard" yet, though in 2-3 years it probably will be. But going for the standard resolution is good enough for consoles, PC's can be all cutting edge and such. :)
Using the processing power on making the actual game world/engine prettier and run smoother instead is in my eye(s) much more worth it.
I really do hope they are not going to skimp on the memory again though. Construct additional pylons!
Re:1080p limitation by BikeHelmet · 2009-01-23 15:03 · Score: 1

It's all about the shaders and texture handling now. Polygons are nice, but without shading they look like bland triangles.
Years back I saw one of the GeForce 7 tech demos - Mad Mod Mike - it used dynamic polygon subdivision, which I believe boosts polygon density based on distance from the "camera". Conversely, it also simplifies distant objects where the detail doesn't matter. This tech works well and is present in many engines.
Now they're working on the same thing, but for textures. Few games get it right; most games have very blurry textures when you get close to stuff - textures that are obviously less detailed than other objects on-screen, but farther away.
Supreme Commander is one game that didn't have this, which is reflected in the benchmarks and extremely heavy GPU memory usage. If you zoom in, in SupCom, everything gets more detailed, seamlessly, and identically.
Left4Dead and Crysis also seem to have good texture handling. New games seem to be putting an effort into getting textures right.
But shaders are where it's all at. Shaders do all the fancy stuff. That's why rendering something without shading takes 20 miliseconds, but rendering it in pov-ray with tons of fancy shading takes 8 hours. ;)
We just have to wait for companies and engineers to come up with better algorithms that let more accurate shading be done in realtime.
Interesting statistic: I heard that for modern games, like Crysis, more than half the memory the GPU uses is used for shading operations, rather than textures/framebuffer/etc.
Re:1080p limitation by grumbel · 2009-01-23 18:31 · Score: 1

When it comes to handling crashes Pitstop on my C64 looked better then GT5. In terms of still pictures GT5 is pretty awesome, in terms realistic physics (destructible tracks, cars, etc.) and AI it still has a long long way to go.

let the fanboy wars begin! by Deag · 2009-01-23 01:52 · Score: 4, Funny

Well I definitely think the xbox 720 is miles better than the nintendo poo or the playstation 4.

Sure the poo has a nifty vr helmet and the playstation 4 can simulate every atom in the universe, but the xbox 720 has Halo 5, so there!

Re:let the fanboy wars begin! by n3tcat · 2009-01-23 02:54 · Score: 1

Hooking more than 13 Playstation 4's together with the Cell revision 2 chip is recommended against, as 14+ Cell R2 chips clustered together will begin to morph into Tetsuo, eventually collapsing into itself and forming an entirely new universe.
Re:let the fanboy wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 03:23 · Score: 0

Sure the poo has a nifty vr helmet ...
Bah, I can't see shit with it... and Mario Parallel Universe smells funny.
Re:let the fanboy wars begin! by Fumus · 2009-01-23 04:58 · Score: 1

It all comes down to which will be easier to hack.
I base this only on my limited knowledge, but xbox beat the playstation simply because it was released earlier (more games) and is easy to hack in order to play pirated copies.
Re:let the fanboy wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 05:26 · Score: 0

wtf are you talking about?
All we have are racing games and first person shooters. Id say more than 90% of the games i have for my xbox 360 are in some way a first person shooter that has little to no console value
How about we start developing games that push hardware to new limits and develop gameplay to a new level?
Ya ok didnt think so.
Oh look! another first person shooter! shinnie!
Re:let the fanboy wars begin! by Jimmyisikura · 2009-01-23 07:34 · Score: 1

I find it humorous that all of the numbering for the xbox's indicate going in a circle!

Reasonable by Lord+Lode · 2009-01-23 01:54 · Score: 1

I suppose it's reasonable to assume there will be new consoles then, given the durations of the past console generations. Of course, nothing is certain and it can always be that the current console iteration will take longer than 5 years.

Re:Reasonable by Aladrin · 2009-01-23 03:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sony is betting on it, actually. They've repeated said that the PS2 will last 10 years (1 more year to go, and it's all but dead in the US apparently) and the PS3 will also last 10 years.
But since Microsoft is more on a 5 or 6 year cycle o far, MS's next console is going to beat the crap out of the PS3. Look at what a single year did with 360 vs PS3. The PS3 is -still- working to gain ground on the 360, despite it being a 'better' console.
I think Sony would be much better off giving the PS3 a minor upgrade in a few years and calling it a PS4, and then having a real change for the PS5. Kind of like Nintendo just did with the DS/DSi.

--
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Re:Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 05:49 · Score: 0

I think Sony would be much better off giving the PS3 a minor upgrade in a few years and calling it a PS4
Why limit yourself? Just call it PS7. Oh, I guess that's been done.

French?? Try Canadian by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 02:05 · Score: 0

This is a Canadian company, based in Montreal.

Get a grip!

Re:French?? Try Canadian by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 03:13 · Score: 0

This is a Canadian company, based in Montreal.
Get a grip!
Exactly.. they're not Froggy.. they're Froggy Jr. ... or would that be Belgium.
Re:French?? Try Canadian by oblivionboy · 2009-01-24 04:28 · Score: 1

Actually its a French company from France, with a head office in Paris. Montreuil technically. And while they employ an international team, with many Canadians, and obviously local talent, the management is ALL French.
Nice try though.

cant wait! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 02:24 · Score: 1, Funny

2011 sounds great!

- ps3 slim and warm as hell
- faulty Xbox 720s
- nintendo releasing another console with ugly graphics

i gotta start saving money now

Bah by TehZorroness · 2009-01-23 02:27 · Score: 1

This is why I completely quit console gaming, and why I don't have an ipod or iphone. The constant deprecation of relatively new technology is really a pain in the ass. My 9 year old computer still purrs away happily running recent GNU/Linux software. I've upgraded a couple peices of hardware over the years, and the resulting machine is still very useful and spiffy (as long as you are not compiling Gentoo). Take a moderately old computer, throw in a $100 graphics card, and you'll have games like Sauerbraten, HL2/CS:S, or Doom 3 running fine, without having bricks of abandoned technology littering your bedroom and making you trip in the middle of the night. Imagine: SNES, Sega Genesis, Saturn, Dreamcast, N64, Gamecube, PS, PS2, Wii, XBox, 360, PS3... then the next generation... all this shit can run on a computer that I'll take care to upgrade IF the games being released are worth it. Doesn't that make more sense?

Re:Bah by Hatta · 2009-01-23 02:59 · Score: 1

You don't have to buy the latest and greatest console. I bet there are a shit ton of great games for your Dreamcast or Saturn that you haven't played yet. If you pick a console, and seek out and play _all_ the good games for it, it will take you a lot longer than one console generation. Consider 3 consoles per generation, and you could spend a couple decades playing 32 bit games, if that's what you really want. Personally, I like having a bajillion consoles lying around, but I at least have a room for them.
The problem with playing everything on a computer, is that not everything plays on a computer. There's still no Xbox emulator as far as I know. A quick look at PCSX2 shows most of the games as unplayable.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Bah by binarylarry · 2009-01-23 03:17 · Score: 1

There's also no PC emulator for consoles.

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Re:Bah by Hatta · 2009-01-23 03:46 · Score: 1

There's a version of Dosbox for the Xbox at least.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Bah by Robyrt · 2009-01-23 03:54 · Score: 1

Instead of throwing a $100 graphics card into your old computer to play four-year-old games like Half-Life 2, you could spend $100 on a PS2 or Xbox to play four-year-old games like Half-Life 2. Technological depreciation is only a problem if you're on the bleeding edge.
Re:Bah by snowraver1 · 2009-01-23 04:01 · Score: 1

The PS3 can run linux, but not access the goodies of the PS3. I understand that it doesn't emulate a useful computer, but still.

--
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Re:Bah by MBGMorden · 2009-01-23 04:21 · Score: 1

The original Xbox can run Linux quite happily too.
Honestly, though it's a bit underpowered now (namely, XBMC running on one can't play HD videos due to the slow processor), the original Xbox was a hacker's dream come true.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 06:53 · Score: 0

The original Xbox *was* a PC, so there's nothing really to emulate. A Pentium III running x86 code isn't really all that exciting.
Re:Bah by CronoCloud · 2009-01-23 07:53 · Score: 1

I understand that it doesn't emulate a useful computer, but still.
I've got Yellow Dog Linux 6.1 on my PS3. I'm currently running Firefox and responding to your post with it. How would you define useful?
Re:Bah by MBGMorden · 2009-01-23 08:07 · Score: 1

The original Xbox *was* a PC, so there's nothing really to emulate. A Pentium III running x86 code isn't really all that exciting.
Linux is open source - it can be compiled for virtually any architecture of CPU you can dream up. You never have to "emulate" anything to run it regardless of the platform. That original Xbox could run it had everything do to with it's hackability and the presence of a hard drive and nothing to do with it running an x86 chip.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain

SNES vs. Genesis by tepples · 2009-01-23 02:28 · Score: 5, Informative

Wasn't snes faster than megadrive?

Super NES had a 3.6 MHz 16-bit 65C816 CPU on an 8-bit data bus that most games used in 2.7 MHz mode to be able to use cheaper ROM chips. It had no 16x16 multiply instruction. Sega Genesis had a 7.7 MHz 32-bit MC68000 CPU on a 16-bit data bus, the same as the black-and-white Macintosh computers, but the 68000 did take more cycles for each instruction. Each system had an additional CPU used to run the game's music engine.

But what the Super NES lacked in CPU it made up for in video: four times as many 16-color palettes for backgrounds and sprites, a 5-bit-per-channel video DAC (compare the Genesis's 3-bit DAC), an additional layer of tiles in the most common background mode, and a separate texture-mapped background mode called "Mode 7" that allowed rotation and scaling of each scanline. The audio was also sampled instead of FM-synthesized. Genesis wouldn't get features like these until the expensive Sega CD accessory.

Re:SNES vs. Genesis by MBGMorden · 2009-01-23 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Darn. An actual technical comparison between the two. I'm shocked, and appreciative at the same time.
My memories from schoolyard days remember this argument quickly dissolving into "But the Genesis has BLAST PROCESSING!". Guess the marketing department did do their job back then though.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:SNES vs. Genesis by commodore64_love · 2009-01-23 04:52 · Score: 1

The Genesis always reminded me of an Amiga 500 in a box, but unfortunately Amiga tech was already 5 years old at time of release.
The Nintendo 64 was the most-powerful console of its generation, and flopped. That's why Nintendo decided to pull back and make the Gamecube and Wii less-advanced but easier to program. (Or so Nintendo claimed on their website.)

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:SNES vs. Genesis by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 06:02 · Score: 0

The biggest hindrance to the N64 wasn't programming, it was the cartridges. The publishers had to purchase them from Nintendo, and Nintendo got to keep the profits from the cartridge production. Even if the game was an abject failure, Nintendo got their cut from the carts. And because Nintendo had sole discretion for cart production, if a hot title was coming out that might interfere with one of their own first party titles, they might refuse to ship it for a month or so.
They've loosened up over the years, but they're still very unfriendly to third party devs.
Re:SNES vs. Genesis by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 06:07 · Score: 1, Informative

The N64 may have had more peripheral graphics tricks like bilinear filtering, but the Playstation was capable of pushing more polygons. This was very evident when comparing games side by side. The N64 games looked much more blocky with lower resolution textures but those textures were blurred/smoothed. The Playstation had more complex geometry but with pixelated textures that shifted and popped because they lacked perspective correction.
The Playstation also had superior audio to the N64. Mostly this was due to the CD format and being able to store either redbook or compressed audio but even using MIDI like music formats the Playstation far outshined anything the N64 could produce.
The Playstation basically had dedicated hardware integrated directly into the CPU package for everything whereas the N64, even with a more powerful CPU, had to divide the workload among 2 general purpose processors.
Re:SNES vs. Genesis by Theoboley · 2009-01-23 06:07 · Score: 0

less advanced and easier to program on, yet there are still no decent games outside of Metroid, Zelda and a few of the mario games for the Wii...

--
Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
Re:SNES vs. Genesis by aliquis · 2009-01-23 06:08 · Score: 1

Yeah, I know about the MegaDrive CPU since I was into Amigas and those had the M68k to.
And yes, SNES audio is supposed to be much better.
But I was too lazy to check up complete specs =P
Re:SNES vs. Genesis by aliquis · 2009-01-23 06:11 · Score: 1

Less advanced? Maybe to code for but the Gamecube is still superior to the PS2.
Third party developers however pulled back since it was so expensive to develop for the N64 using cartridges instead of CDs.
Also I think someone mentioned earlier in another story that the MIPS chip was a pain to code for and that one of the modes offered very good quality but way to slow speed.
The Gamecube uses a PPC-chip.

Recession + Disruption = Longer cycle by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 02:28 · Score: 1, Interesting

Although I've watched the history of the console wars keenly, and agree that the five year cycle has been the norm throughout, I find it probable that this generation will last longer than usual. Within the market, you have the Wii and the DS, which have proven beyond all doubt that processing power and graphics are far from decisive in determining market success. That's to say nothing of the predicament third parties find themselves in with the march of progress and rising costs, where HD game development simultaneously brings record revenues and record losses, and a single bomb has the potential to outright destroy a company (as Hellgate did for Flagship, Haze did for Free Radical, and Lair did for Factor 5). Outside of the market, you have a recession that has just really begun and could well be felt at 2012 and beyond, reducing entertainment spending. Add them together, and it's easy to see how consoles will have to be a lot more than "bigger and better" if they want to justify their existence to the market and developers alike five years after their predecessors.

I hope not. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 02:30 · Score: 1, Interesting

Personally I like the current generation and would like to see it extended to about 2013.

My logic for this is that the graphics of your average $500 computer will play most new release games at a medium quality. This is because there's been a glass ceiling placed over the videogame industury by the hardware limitations of consoles. Keeping the ceiling low means that I can hold out longer before I need to upgrade my machine to play the games I want. Yes, porting games from the 360 (and all the really good ones get ported eventually) is a good thing for the PC crowd too. If every game ran like Crysis the pool of PC gamers would be a whole lot smaller.

This also means faster hardware and better graphics when I actually do drop the money on some new parts. Take your time console makers. You'll do us all a favor.

You are probably correct by _PimpDaddy7_ · 2009-01-23 02:46 · Score: 1

You are probably correct. With the latest NPD numbers it's fairly obvious Sony did not do well this round. With the 360 ahead of the Wii in graphics and online capability, it looks like the next generation could be the same as it is now with Nintendo and Microsoft at the top, respectively. I just don't see Sony moving up anymore.

I own all 3 consoles. I use the Xbox 360 way more than any of the 3. When it comes time to buy a game and I look on all 3 platforms, the 360 version is almost ALWAYS my first choice.

Game developers will look at where the software sales are and right now, and this has been the case for almost a year now, Nintendo and Microsoft has the highest sales.

Re:You are probably correct by k_187 · 2009-01-23 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

People said the same things about Nintendo and Sega before the PS1 came out. I think the real thing to take away is that success in one console generation does not guarantee success in successive generations.

--
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Re:You are probably correct by mog007 · 2009-01-23 06:10 · Score: 1

I'll bet that's what Sony thought when SEGA tanked with the Dreamcast. Sony didn't take Microsoft to be a serious threat with the original Xbox, nor did they fear much from Nintendo with the Gamecube. They figured they could use their domination over the other guys with the last two generations to ensure Blu-Ray's success, and in the process they've not only lost their top spot, but they're dead last.
I get the feeling that since Blu-Ray has won, the next generation will see Sony attempting to get back on top of the mountain.

--
Learn something new.
Re:You are probably correct by BikeHelmet · 2009-01-23 15:12 · Score: 1

Winning Blu-Ray paid for any losses Sony sustained by not "winning" the console wars.
But how do you define winning? Sony released the PS3 later than Microsoft, and had less console sales - but they also have less production.
Consoles not produced and consoles sold at a loss are better than consoles sitting in warehouses not sold, as sitting in a warehouse ties up the most money, and costs money over time.
And speaking of money, as far as I can tell Microsoft lost way more on the hardware than Sony. If you add up what Microsoft lost selling each console, then add in costs of taking it back when it RRoDs and either fixing it or replacing it, then shipping it back... it far outstrips the meager amounts Sony lost.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather lose $100 per console(Sony) rather than $300 per console. :P (guesstimate)
Re:You are probably correct by Gothic_Walrus · 2009-01-23 18:42 · Score: 1

The opposite is also true. See Nintendo.
As much as I loved my N64 and GameCube, I was in a minority.

--
Goo goo g'joob.

halo 5 is broken by tepples · 2009-01-23 03:21 · Score: 1

but the xbox 720 has Halo 5, so there!

I've run Halo 2 on an original PlayStation (see photo) and Halo 5 on a Dreamcast.

Re:So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock .. by Ark42 · 2009-01-23 03:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

So maybe I'll be able to find a store that actually has Wiis in stock by 2011, since they'll be obsolete by then?

Seriously, of the 3 - Playstation, XBox, Wii - only Nintendo hasn't made any price cuts, and they still can't keep them on the shelves for more than a day or two.

A bet a lot of people might start selling back Wiis to stores eventually. After the great opening games like Metroid and Zelda, there hasn't really been anything worth buying recently for the Wii. Have you seen this selection? http://www.gamestop.com/Browse/Search.aspx?N=138+106 - It's really quite sad. I'm thinking about getting an Xbox 360 as a 2nd system, but I'd probably keep my Wii just in case something comes out later on.

--
Morphing Software

Year of the PS3 by El_Muerte_TDS · 2009-01-23 03:22 · Score: 1

But according to research from the people at Idle Thumbs (see episode 15) 2015 will be the year of the PS3.

The PS3 runs DOSBox by tepples · 2009-01-23 03:43 · Score: 1

There's also no PC emulator for consoles.

The PS3 runs DOSBox. And if you're willing to expand your definition of "PC" past Lenovo-compatible PCs[1], the PC Engine (called TurboGrafx outside Japan) is in Wii Shop Channel, and some games for the Commodore 64 home computer have shown up in the European Wii Shop Channel.

[1] Lenovo bought IBM's PC division.

Re:The PS3 runs DOSBox by poot_rootbeer · 2009-01-23 05:55 · Score: 1

And if you're willing to expand your definition of "PC" past Lenovo-compatible PCs[1], the PC Engine (called TurboGrafx outside Japan) is in Wii Shop Channel, and some games for the Commodore 64 home computer have shown up in the European Wii Shop Channel.
I'll grant you the C64, and add that Japan's Virtual Console offerings include some titles from the 8-bit MSX computer. But it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that NEC's "PC Engine" had anything in common with a PC other than the two letters in the name. It was out-and-out a game console; no keyboard peripheral was even released for it, not that keyboards were very useful for the shoot-em-ups and soft porn RPGs that the console excelled at.
Re:The PS3 runs DOSBox by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 07:21 · Score: 0

Shut up, Damien. Everyone knows what a PC is, and NEC and Lenovo have nothing to do with it.
You pathetic loser. Maybe you'd have a real job if you don't post on slashdot all day.
Re:The PS3 runs DOSBox by CronoCloud · 2009-01-23 07:56 · Score: 1

It'll run QEMU too, so you could install a Win95 or Win98 image on it.

$2,000 computer for four players by tepples · 2009-01-23 03:55 · Score: 1

My logic for this is that the graphics of your average $500 computer will play most new release games at a medium quality.

But will a $500 computer let the friends or relatives who are visiting my home play at the same time that I am playing? Unlike multiplayer console games such as Super Smash Bros. Brawl, very few new release games for PC are built to handle multiple players holding gamepads and looking at one 32-inch monitor. To provide for four players on most non-turn-based PC games, you need a $2,020 computer system that consists of an Ethernet switch and four average $500 computers.

A bit too optimistic perhaps by Endo13 · 2009-01-23 04:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

New consoles by 2012? Maybe. But I doubt it. We're in the middle of a recession with layoffs happening in lots of places, and let's face it - the current gen of consoles is really pushing the limits of what can be done on HD TV. Anything beyond this is going to be staring the law of diminishing returns hard in the face... and I get the feeling that a lot of people won't think it's worthwhile to upgrade that soon, especially to a system that doesn't offer that much more.

--
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.

Not so sure by mlk · 2009-01-23 04:31 · Score: 1

Nintendo often drag stuff out. I think it will release a "Wii Tiny" and "Wii With Integrated Whats-It" and "Wii With Integrated Whats-It, but in pink. You need to buy it again" and no games will require the newer Wii, but fan boys will buy them anyway.
Sony will shrink the PS3. Maybe shrink it some more and release it in pink with a special, but completely pointless port. Fireware or USB3 or two DVI ports. A few games will use them, but the games will still run on older PS3s.

Microsoft have only released two consoles (and no handhelds) up to now so I don't think you can put too much stock on the previous release schedule. I'd guess they will go down the same route, and not release 360+1 until they know that that the PS4 is well under development.

--
Wow, I should not post when knackered.

Re:So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock .. by Abreu · 2009-01-23 05:40 · Score: 1

I managed to get a Wii this year, but for the life of me I can't find a RockBand box for it in my area... Everywhere I go, they tell me its sold out

--
No sig for the moment.

Re:So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock .. by Gizzmonic · 2009-01-23 05:47 · Score: 1

Mario Strikers is old, but I love it.

It's the best multiplayer game for Wii in my opinion, besides maybe Rock Band.

--
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)

Nintendo's track... by 7Prime · 2009-01-23 06:01 · Score: 1

I think Nintendo's original strategy was to jump the track and release consoles on a much higher frequency than Sony or Microsoft. The development time, money, and resources for the Wii were far under those of the 360 and PS3. Combine that with the fact that the Wii was built for SDTV in a growing HDTV market, it seemed that Nintendo was anticipating a mid-Gen console switch. But I don't think they anticipated the current success of the Wii. Sales are still at practically 100% of output. They're raking in the dough.

Who knows what they're stategy will be from here on out. It may be worth their while to split the console line in half: create one console aimed at casual gamers, which would be the extension of the Wii, and then create a higher-powered console to compete on the hardcore market with Microsoft and Sony. This could be a risky business strategy, but it could also have it's benefits. Remember, that Ninendo has been successful in the past, running 3 console lines at once (GBA, DS, GameCube). The original strategy was for the GBA and DS to remain separate lines (which is why the DS was never called a "GameBoy"), but the DS's runnaway success ate up the GBA. But the outcome was incredibly possitive. So splitting the TV console line in two may have similarly positive responses.

The main point is that this generation has been a total clusterfuck from the get-go. In previous generations, we have seen new players suddenly jump in and surprise people (PS1 and XBox), but we have never before had a generation with the same players and have their sales and business models be so drastically different.

At this point, no one knows how the big 3 are going to play the market next generation. Sony is probably going to want to drastically change their tactics. Microsoft is the most likely to stick with how they've been doing things. Nintendo have had so much surprise success from the Wii that they have he capital to really change things around quite drastically if they wanted to. The Wii market is sort of a moving target, so they know that they've got to offer something radically different (not necessarily more "hard core" though) to stay on top.

Still, I expect Nintendo to release first, they may come out with their upgrade to the Wii line as early as 2010 or early 2011... why? Because they can. Microsoft is still trying to increase their profits, and Sony is still in debt. I expect Microsoft to be on track for release in 2011, and I expect fewer surprises from them. Sony is a total wildcard, though. They are so in debt from the PS3 that if we were to track the times that they would normally launch from their current sales figures, it probably wouldn't be until 2015... but that won't work. The next Nintendo and Microsoft consoles will obviously be more powerful than the PS3. So if Sony Entertainment wants to stay alive, they're going to have to do something pretty unconventional. It's very possible that they might abandon the "PlayStation" brand, and attempt to challenge Nintendo on the low-end market... after all, that's where the $$$ is. Maybe they'll focus on handhelds, maybe they'll drop out completely... who knows, but I doubt that if we see a PS4 it has a business strategy anything like the PS3.

--
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.

Re:Nintendo's track... by Doctor_Jest · 2009-01-23 07:09 · Score: 1

What I fail to understand is everyone counting out Sony this generation because the PS3 hasn't trounced the 360 or the Wii. Microsoft is still stinging (or damn well should be) for HORRIBLE QA, and lowering the prices of their consoles merely shows their desire to "win" even if it means missing the boat on Nintendo-style profit (everyone knows Sony nor Microsoft are raking in the dough Nintendo is this gen). Sony is being slower in the fire-sale mentality, planning their console to have a 10-year lifespan (the PS2 had nearly 9 years of gangbuster sales in the face of three new consoles), and yet people perceive them to be "on the ropes". Of course everyone said the same thing about the Gamecube (which I personally enjoy very much even now), and look at Nintendo now. They are STOMPING the "big 2" by a margin not even a $99 360 can topple.

While Sony has had a tough time marketing correctly this generation, they are far from out of it. And they are even farther from throwing in the towel. The articles I've read about Sony's missteps have always boiled down to price.... with some ignorant souls claiming Sony's console has "just now" caught up graphically with the 360 (I don't know what those idiots are smoking, but I think they need to lay off of it before they get TOO paranoid.) Price in this economy is going to be an issue for Sony, and unlike the rest of us armchair CEOs, Sony actually knows what their next move will be to shore up sales in the long term, as opposed to monthly spikes associated with price cuts and people replacing their consoles because they are tired of sending them to Microsoft for their hardware stupidity.

Put the torches down. I own all 3 consoles and play them regularly. My PS3 gets the bulk of the playtime some months, where my 360 gets the focus other times. (After 3 failed Elites, I bought a $200 Arcade Falcon, so I figure it'll survive marathon games of Fallout 3.) My Wii is the casual fun game system I play with friends over or when I want to play some old SNES shooters.

The bottom line is, don't count Sony out, and don't count the PS3 out. Microsoft isn't.... and neither should we. Will the PS3 "trounce" the 360 in sales? Why should it? Sell a respectable number and you don't have to. You also make an assumption that the next gen Nintendo and Microsoft consoles will be "more powerful" than the PS3. By what measure? It's a good assumption, but the Wii is less powerful than BOTH the current Sony and Microsoft offerings, and big N is eating their lunches. If we have seen ANYTHING with this console generation, it's that specs are NOT going to move the consoles. We are not seeing graphical leaps and bounds beyond previous generations like we did in the past. People are not going to be wowed by "more textural polygons and real-time lighting"... they are only going to be wowed by fun games. (That might exclude us, since we're geeks, but you get the general idea.)

Anyway, I'm rambling... suffice to say, the PS3 is not the abysmal failure the press (or Microsoft) wants you to think it is. And even Major Nelson realizes that Sony isn't done yet. In spite of Shit-tacular marketing, the PS3 is selling... it could be selling better sooner than we think. I for one would rather Sony and Microsoft duke it out than have one dominant player who bankrupts the rest. Competition makes games more fun. :)

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Re:Nintendo's track... by KDR_11k · 2009-01-23 08:24 · Score: 1

I think Nintendo's original strategy was to jump the track and release consoles on a much higher frequency than Sony or Microsoft.
No, their goal was to disrupt the market. That's what they hired "Reggie" for, he had experience with matters like that. They accidentally disrupted the market in the past with the NES but now they wanted to do it on purpose. They tried a part of it, the "blue ocean strategy", with the DS to great success so they went for the full thing as an all-or-nothing gambit for the Wii.
Maintaining a large market is good for software makers and Nintendo is one of those. Shorting the generation would increase hardware sales but make the software suffer and I think they're making more money with software than hardware (especially new hardware, old hardware becomes cheaper to make but the Wii and DS haven't dropped in price so their margins grew over time).

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Nintendo's track... by KDR_11k · 2009-01-23 10:44 · Score: 1

The GC was a clear indication for Nintendo's future, it showed that if they stayed the course they would be eliminated. Nintendo chose to change the course. We're counting Sony out because it looks like they are not learning from their mistakes and not planning to change their course.
A next gen that would sink the PS3 would probably not try to do it on graphical power (though I think the PS3 will sink naturally once Sony goes over to making the PS4 because I don't see the PS3 turning around and somehow grabbing large chunks of the market all of a sudden). Nintendo is already looking for other directions to develop into (they aren't going to release a mere sustaining update because that would give the others an opportunity to outdo them) and whatever direction they take will probably make the PS3 even more irrelevant (it's already irrelevant because the Wii's massive marketshare comes mostly from customers who don't want a PS3 because the PS3 can't do the things they want).
What's important about the Wii's success is that it's not a fluke or the result of inferior hardware, it's the result of a successfully applied business strategy. It won't randomly lift another console next time, it will lift the one that was designed with the right goals in mind. The PS3 will go through a normal non-first-place lifecycle where it pretty much ceases to exist once something newer comes along that development can shift to. Then again it doesn't take something new, there's plenty of development that can be shifted to the Wii and that will happen, the easy (publishers redirecting resources) or the hard way (publishers going bankrupt and being replaced by ones that focus more on the Wii). Either way, I don't see Sony being able to turn this ship around and boost it up, they lack both the mindset and the capabilities to perform a maneuver like Nintendo did with the Wii.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Nintendo's track... by Doctor_Jest · 2009-01-23 15:35 · Score: 1

Hindsight is 20/20, but consider the N64, then the GC, and you can see two generations where Nintendo didn't change course. Did we count them out then? Yes, but we were wrong... They still have a disdain for 3rd party developers, and that is something they really must address before they lose every possible avenue of software support, but they learned from the Gamecube and N64. Still, if they keep dicking around their 3rd party devs, the devs will assess next generation whether or not to even bother... super sales or not. (Look at Sony's 3rd party devs going whole hog into the 360 this gen... I'd chalk that up to the trend away from system exclusives, but not necessarily all of it. But not going PS3 then porting to 360 is very telling about how the gaming trends are changing yet again this generation.)

Sony's missteps this generation are a result of the wildly successful previous generation. I think they are learning, and with time, you'll see the Sony Console division turning around much faster than Nintendo. While you have a point if you were to assess them at this moment in the console cycle, I still believe they are going to turn things around. Remember how dismal 2007 was for the PS3, both software and sales-wise? 2008 was an improvement over that, and a handy one by comparison. Granted the 360's price cut and GoW2 title moved some consoles to squeeze out more of a lead, but it's still relatively close compared to where it _could_ be based on how shitty Sony's handled marketing and direction of the console.

I predict that Sony will divorce the "living room entertainment center" concept and go a more Xbox direction. Sure the Xbox can do other stuff (HD-DVD, streaming netflix, etc... but it's primary purpose has been to play games, and the attach rate confirms that.) Sony's got a fabulous Blu Ray player that also plays games. Next generation, Sony will have a console that plays games and... (whatever addons they decide to use).

Perhaps I'm optimistic, but I think we can safely assume every console maker will be doing things a little differently next gen (even Nintendo, since lightning in a bottle only happens once...) We just have to wait and see how it plays out. Don't count Sony out, because we all counted Nintendo out (twice!), and now look at them....

I don't think the PS3 is irrelevant for two reasons: 1. It's still a long ways off until we've got the bandwidth (and capacity) to stream HD movies directly to our TVs, so people are going to go and get themselves a blu-ray player at some point to go with their new-fangled LCD. Will it be a PS3? If Sony's smart it will be... and the price drop (inevitably) will solidify that and produce a sale for the PS3, even though it might not be for a lot of games (if any). 2. The PS3 is still a Japanese console, and in spite of the spurts and glubs of Microsoft in Japan, the PS3 will continue to be #2 behind the Wii. People who buy the wii (most, I should say) are not likely to buy even a 360, much less a PS3, so when we talk about a "2nd console", some people just don't look at either offering after their Wii, unless they get totally bored by the casual games... (unlikely considering how their tastes won't immediately go "hardcore" for say a Fallout 3 style time-sink.) Sony will sell respectable numbers over the console's lifetime, have reasonable 3rd party support, albeit ports (but decent ones, not like the Orange Box crapola), and a fairly good grip on the Blu-Ray market until we see the $50 player from China hit Wal Mart's shelves. :)

Like I said, I'm optimistic I suppose, but the two consoles I use most are my PS3 and my 360... but that's me. :) I like them both and think they are both going well in spite of some of their parent company's stupidity. :) We just have to realize the size of Sony and the "dug in deep" posture of their console division and realize they may be down, but they aren't out.. and that's not a white flag they're flying... in spite of what it looks like to the game bloggers and Cnet. :)

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Re:Nintendo's track... by 7Prime · 2009-01-28 15:19 · Score: 1

While you do make some good points, and obviously it is too soon to completely count Sony out... you need to take off your brown colored glasses when speaking of the 360. The reality is, the 360 was a HUGE improvement over the original XBox. Yes, a few people were marred by hardware problems (I'm sorry that you had to be one of them). Strangely enough, I've had both PS2 and GameCubes fail on me, and I've had my 360 for 2 years without any problems. All I'm saying is that it sounds to me like you have a little bit of angst built up against Microsoft and the 360 platform. Me, personally... I hate microsoft. I've been an Apple, Nintendo, and Sony fan all my life. I've even now practically given up on American developers for developing the kinds of games I like to play. But I have to admit, the 360 won me over. The XBox was, IMO, the antithesis of a good video game console. Yet when I really evaluated this generation, I was quite won over by the 360. And currently, it recieves more love than my Wii or PS2 by quite a bit (only outdone, as of late, by my DS Lite). I know you're upset about the hardware problems of the 360, but even as you claim that Sony has learned (a claim that is impossible to evaluate until next console cycle), Microsoft as quantitatively improved THEIR problems by clearing up the hardware issues that you seem upset about. So the reality is is that Micrsoft has corrected their mistakes, while Sony hasn't, and really can't, since their mistakes were more of a fundimental nature of their design philosophy.
And, unfortunately (and I say unfortunately because the PS1 and PS2 are my favorite video game consoles), there is a huge, fundimental difference between the progression from GameCube -> Wii and PS2 -> PS3. That is $$$$$. While most of us were "counting out" the N64 and GameCube (I owned and loved the GameCube), Nintendo was actually making quite a fair profit off of the line. Even Microsoft, which sold nominally more than Nintendo last generation, didn't even quite break even. That meant that when it came time to throw in the monitary capital toward design and marketting for the next generation, Nintendo was by no means short on assets. They had more of a profit to work with on the Wii than Microsoft did on the 360. Per unit, Nintendo was even making more than Sony was with the PS2. Nintendo has NEVER lost money on a single console. That is NOT what is going on with the PS3. Sony, which did make a huge chunk of change on the PS2, sunk a ton of money into development and marketing for the PS3, which frankly, has not panned out for the financially. Thier consoles don't make a profit (Sony consoles rarely ever make a profit, but this is worse than before), but even worse, their game sales are extremely low, lower than any system since the Dreamcast.
Basically, Sony invested a huge amount of money, took a huge risk with the PS3, and have not seen a return. Nintendo has never lost money, and Microsoft now turns a profit and is gaining in momentum. The GameCube didn't lose money, the PS3 does, so there is a fundimental difference between the occurances of last generation and this generation.
All that said, there is some hope. Sony Entertainment did fire the CEO that headed up the PS3s development, and there have been some concessions made and plans for adopting different business strategies. Unfortunately, Sony is a much larger and slower ship to turn around than Nintendo is. It's one of the curses of large beaurocracies: good efficiency on massive prolonged endevours, but terrible at changing course. And the reality is that Sony has never shown to be very good at trailblazing. The PS1 and PS2 succeeded because they were able to win over developers, and push quality titles out. They didn't do anything fundimentally different than what Nintendo, Sega, or Microsoft offered, but they just were able to market it better. Now that Sony has lost a lot of faith in developers and the general public, it's going to be VERY difficult to get them back. They can't use their image like Apple or Nint

--
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Re:Nintendo's track... by Doctor_Jest · 2009-01-28 15:49 · Score: 1

While I think the PS3 could've been handled better, I think Sony fixed their screw ups with the PS2 failures (and the original PSX failures) and made a top notch product. The problem I have with the 360 isn't so much the quality of games (it's got some real gems), it's that Microsoft had a problem with their original XBox (of which I had a warranty repair done on the infamous "dirty disc" problem), and they did NOT learn from their mistakes. (I don't mind hardware dying.. sure it sucks, but the amount and breadth of 360 deaths is entirely too much of a clusterfuck to ignore.) I mean, my replacement elite came back and red-ringed THE VERY moment I turned it on? How's that for QC? It's a free repair, but sheesh!

Now having said that, I think in the long term view, Sony's gambles with the PS3 (I think price is their biggest risk) are not nearly as catastrophic. I think we saw enough of the Gamecube as a failure to wonder if anything was going to pull them out of the rut, since it seemed like ages that Nintendo had the console market by the throat. And like Sony, many people wrote them off as GBA producers and Pokemon franchise milkers. :) Now look at the Wii. It's Nintendo who got the last laugh. Sony's not much different... having come off a HUGE win last generation, Sony moved too slowly to halt Microsoft's momentum from the original XBox.

Sitting and playing "Rise of the Argonauts" (a fun game, albeit a bit short) on my PS3, or Valkyrie Chronicles, or Disgaea 3, or LBP, I don't see Sony as "blown it." They blew the chance to kick microsoft in the teeth once more, but they didn't utterly lay a dodo egg. The losses Sony is posting with the PS3 are not unlike the XBox losses (and we're taking their word for it that they're breaking even at this moment, or eeking a profit out of each unit sold), and consequently will be offset in the long term by the longevity of the console. That's just how I feel about it, and it's easy to dismiss Sony like we did Nintendo during the Gamecube/N64 era... but even a goliath like Sony isn't conceding the win to Microsoft just yet. :) Arrogance? Probably, but that's how you get ahead as a huge corporation. I'm okay with that.

I think the real problem this generation is the lack of a large stable of exclusives on any of the consoles. Factor that in with the expensive hardware, and you've got a loss-guaranteed generation. I can play most of the 360 games on my PS3 (if I chose to)... and the gameplay is always comparable, except the notable turd sandwich that was the Orange Box. :)

Not being a Sony diehard like you (I was a dreamcast man), I still can't help but think someone shot the fat lady, and until the generations fully in the can, we can't expect Sony to raise the White flag and back out of a gazillion dollar industry like gaming. :)

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.

I'm waiting for Prom Queen Death Match 2012 by WillAffleckUW · 2009-01-23 06:28 · Score: 1

The ability to convert your MySpace prom page choices into 3D avatars and then go all aggro on other prom attendees, with your choice of pony or unicorn after winning a death match with an opposing couple just makes my Wii2 scream in exultation!

Seriously, never forget that fashion avatar games and music games are big bucks and that the next gen consoles will be bought equally as much by and for girls and women as by boys and men.

Overlooking market segments is why PS3 stumbled so badly, and Nintendo won the console war with the quickly adapting xBox360 in second place.

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

Re:So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock .. by KDR_11k · 2009-01-23 06:29 · Score: 1

Don't waste your money, I did buy a 360 as a second system and still don't find much there. Really, all the interesting stuff is available for the PC anyway and the PC versions cost less money by far. Most of my recent spending was on Wiiware games.

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

more nights lost playing games? by VicB0 · 2009-01-23 07:06 · Score: 1

will be nice to see this on the market :) I love it.

Re:So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock .. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 07:53 · Score: 0

Have you seen this selection? http://www.gamestop.com/Browse/Search.aspx?N=138+106 - It's really quite sad.

What, good games make you sad? Especially if you're not limiting yourself to RPGs.

Why Ubisoft? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 08:08 · Score: 0

Why are Ubisoft's predictions of when the new consoles will be out news? I could see if Microsoft or Nintendo or Sony (or Company X planning to add a fourth console to the ring) were coming out and saying when they expected their next generation to be ready. But this just seems like no more than speculation ("Yeah, that's about how long it normally takes, 2012 seems right")

Re:footbal at 1080p by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-23 08:29 · Score: 0

Football at 1080p is upscaled.
There is no broadcast of anything more than 720p or 1080i..

Sports are generally shot in 720p, since the extra smoothness is better than the extra resolution.

You're most likely just watching 720p upscaled to 1080p. Unless you have a Blu-Ray of the World Cup or Super Bowl or something like that....

Re:So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock .. by Anachragnome · 2009-01-23 10:03 · Score: 1

Yeah. I know what you mean.

Planned obsolescence can have that effect. There is a whole new cycle of purchases with each new product.

Why keep spending money on processors when there is a perfectly good one in your PC?

Sheep with money. The easiest to fleece.

Sony Will Decide When The Next Generation Starts! by Petersko · 2009-01-23 10:46 · Score: 1

"The next generation doesn't start until we start it." - Kaz Hirai, Sony

Okay, so he meant this last generation. And, of course, he was wrong. I think Sony would prefer to have the next generation pushed far enough in the future that they can eventually eclipse the 360's sales and claim to have dominated this generation. Otherwise they get to start the next generation as (shudder!) the underdog.

Lockout chip business model by tepples · 2009-01-23 12:40 · Score: 1

The biggest hindrance to the N64 wasn't programming, it was the cartridges. The publishers had to purchase them from Nintendo, and Nintendo got to keep the profits from the cartridge production.

Likewise, the PlayStation had discs. The publishers had to purchase them from Sony, and Sony got to keep the profits from the disc production. The retail console looked for the presence of specific defects in specific parts of the disc to keep ordinary conforming CD-ROM discs from booting.

The only video game platforms where developers don't depend on the console maker are those that can be set not to verify digital signatures on code. Well-known platforms like this include Windows, Mac OS X, Linux/x86, Pocket PC, and Android.

Re:So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock .. by Ark42 · 2009-01-23 18:46 · Score: 1

Well I'm playing Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn right now, but after that, I want a new RPG, and the selection of 8 total, half of which are only pre-orders, seemed very bad for a system that has been out 2 years now. The Little King's Story and Opoona look really quite pathetic as well. Compare that to the selection at http://www.gamestop.com/Browse/Search.aspx?N=133+106 (35 games) and you might understand where I'm coming from.

Fable 2 seems to be a 360 exclusive, no PC version that I've seen, and I don't really know if my hardware is new enough to play most new PC games anyway. Why spend a $300-$600 on a Motherboard/RAM/CPU/Video card to upgrade when I can just get a 360 for $200 and play the same games like Oblivion anyway?

--
Morphing Software

Re:So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock .. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-24 01:16 · Score: 0

Well I'm playing Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn right now, but after that, I want a new RPG, and the selection of 8 total, half of which are only pre-orders, seemed very bad for a system that has been out 2 years now. The Little King's Story and Opoona look really quite pathetic as well. Compare that to the selection at http://www.gamestop.com/Browse/Search.aspx?N=133+106 (35 games) and you might understand where I'm coming from.

The Wii does have a pretty poor selection of RPGs, I'll grant. That said, it does shine in other areas.

Fable 2 seems to be a 360 exclusive, no PC version that I've seen, and I don't really know if my hardware is new enough to play most new PC games anyway. Why spend a $300-$600 on a Motherboard/RAM/CPU/Video card to upgrade when I can just get a 360 for $200 and play the same games like Oblivion anyway?

Because without mods, Oblivion isn't worth it. Bethesda really has a bad habit of making mediocre games with great potential, and then letting the modding community clean up their mess for them. Fable 2 might be good, but if it's similar to the first one, then I'd hesitate to classify it as an RPG. Vanilla Oblivion is just terrible, though. Fortunately, Fallout 3 is pretty excellent out-of-the box, so maybe The Elder Scrolls 5 will be too.

Re:So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock .. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-24 14:44 · Score: 0

Why keep spending money on processors when there is a perfectly good one in your PC?

Because the one in one's PC often isn't perfectly good, at least not when it comes to the latest games which are usually developed for ridiculously high-end systems. I'd say it's cheaper to buy a console every six years than upgrade your gaming rig every two or three.

Slashdot Mirror

Ubisoft Expecting New Consoles By 2012

118 comments