Console Price Cuts And The Holiday Season 57
Thanks to CNN Money for their article discussing the state of the console market heading into the Xmas season. The author discusses the lack of major price-cuts for the PS2 and Xbox, suggesting: "Sony feels it can make more money this holiday season from its existing customer base", and speculating: "It's more and more likely that the reason we haven't seen price cuts from Sony and Microsoft is their next generation machines won't hit stores until 2006." If this is the case, it's suggested that "...the life cycle of this [hardware] generation will be the longest of any in the industry's short history", perhaps surprising considering rapidly advancing technology.
Diminishing returns (Score:3, Insightful)
What will a PS3 or Ybox or GameCylinder be able to do that current consoles can't? Higher resolution video? Better audio? More/better networking?
There's little need for the next generation - games already look about as good as can be expected for a normal TV display. Why rush the next generation of consoles when the returns (for extra power) are diminishing to a point it's not trivial (for the average person, not for you) to tell the difference between the Dreamcast and Xbox versions of the same game?
Re:Diminishing returns (Score:3, Insightful)
Longest What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Atari 2600: 1977 to ~1984 (~7 yrs)
Nintendo Famicom: 1983 to 1990 (7 yrs)
Sega SG-x000 (later Sega Master System): 1983 to ~1988 (5 yrs)
Sega MegaDrive/Genesis: 1988 to 1994 (6 yrs)
Nintendo Super Famicom: 1990 to 1996 (6 yrs)
Sony Playstation: 1994 to (1999, but now rereleased as PSOne today)
Sega Saturn 1994 to 1998 (4 yrs)
Nintendo 64: 1996 to 2001 (5 yrs)
Sega Dreamcast 1998 to 2003 (5 yrs)
Sony Playstation 2: 1999 to ?
Nintendo GameCube: 2001 to ?
Microsoft Xbox: 2001 to ?
The video game industry is well over 30 years old, with the Magnavox Odyssey released in January 1972 [pong-story.com]. It is just plain wrong to say the video game industry is young.
As for this being the longer generation, that's a hard claim to pin down. You can't really say "X generation lasted Y years" because consoles are not released all at once. The 8-bit generation either lasted until the introduction of the Sega Genesis in 1988, or it ended when Nintendo began selling the Super Famicom in 1990? (Or you could even say it never really ended, since Nintendo was still producing Famicoms long after 1990.)
I suppose you could say the Sega Dreamcast marks the start of this generation in 1998, and then if the first next-generation console comes out in 2006 it would make this the longest run without new blood. But wait, couldn't you say the Microsoft Xbox is "next-generation" along with the GameCube, having almost double the power of the Dreamcast and PS2?
Or you could ignore all of this, realize that we're all just waiting for "the next big thing" and start saving your pennies now. ; )
This site [retrofaction.com] and Google are your friends.
Submitter, please think a little more about it (Score:4, Insightful)
No, not surprising at all. Consoles are so powerful today that the visual difference from game to game is limited mainly by the artists. There's enough you can do in real time that a doubling or quadrupling in processor speed isn't going to make $300 worth of difference to the consumer.
The next big upgrade people will be excited about is the ability to do CG in real-time comparable to the stuff we've seen come out of Pixar. Perfectly smooth, anti-aliased, nice shadows, bright color, etc. Unfortunately, consoles are still a ways away from that. What's worse is that when they do reach that point, then what?
I'm not the least bit surprised that niether Sony nor Microsoft are backburnering their next consoles. Unless they can deliver a 'holy shit!' product, they're going to find themselves nicely saturated. They need to be careful, though, they're leaving the door wide open for Nintendo. And those dudes sure like to innovate. Who here wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Nintendo's successor to the GameCube was portable? THat may not sound so exciting in light of Sony's PSP, but then again it would have Nintendo's support fully behind it as well as third parties dedicated to it.
Re:Backwards compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I in the minority who thinks that backwards compatibility isn't all that exciting? Now, I'm willing to grant you that it's hard to find a working NES system today. Those things broke down quick. But except for the NES, why isn't your old system around to play on?
I just never really considered that a big selling point. It's kind of neat in a way, I mean if I want to consolidate systems it's kind of useful. But it's not something that makes me pick one over another. I like new games, especially if I still have the ability to play the old ones either way.
(Note: I really am asking for insight here, not trying to put you down or argue with you. I'm not sure I'm being tactful enough, though. I'm sorry if that's the case.)
What I'd like to see in future console releases (Score:3, Insightful)
Since this thread has quickly turned into this anyway, here's what I think the industry should be aiming for in its next releases.