Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Next-Gen Console Rumors Summarized, Discussed 224

Posted by simoniker from the tentacle-add-ons-rumored dept.
Thanks to GameSpy for their article discussing available information and prospects for Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo's next generation of consoles. Regarding Sony's PlayStation 3, the piece notes: "May 2004's Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) would seem an appropriate time for the PS3 unveiling, but it's unlikely that Sony will want to steal the thunder from its already-scheduled PlayStation Portable (PSP) unveiling", and also muses that "Nintendo's next-gen machine doesn't even have a good moniker yet, as it's unlikely that it'll want to name it after the underperforming GameCube." As for the alleged Xbox Next, the article suggests: "Jostling with Nintendo for the second-place spot worldwide, Microsoft has a bit more [motivation] than Sony to tip its hand early", and claims news of the device is "set to debut at the San Jose Game Developers Conference (GDC) in March 2004." But do those who unveil and launch their consoles first always get the advantage?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Next-Gen Console Rumors Summarized, Discussed More

Next-Gen Console Rumors Summarized, Discussed

Comments Filter:

  • Sony likely to succeed next time: here's why (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ophidian P. Jones ( 466787 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @04:27PM (#7905808)
    Sony's specialized parts ensured that Sony owned all of the rights. Sony's intimate knowledge of the parts and the manufacturing has allowed them to combine silicon, cutting down on overall size and costs. Likewise, the only profittaking is from Sony, and with fewer hands in the pot the margins can be shrunk. Unfortunately for Microsoft, using off-the-shelf parts from different manufacturers ensured that they needed the cooperation (and credits) from different companies. Nvidia, for example, gets a cut on the sales of the hardware, not from the software like ATI gets from Nintendo. Microsoft similarly needs to use faster hardware in their machines as they aren't exactly console-optimized. The 'Cube, again, can get away with running on much slower (read, cheaper) hardware, because it would be a terrible webserver. Say what you will about the XBox OS, it's hardware and interfaces were not originally developed with gaming in mind.

    On the other hand, the success of the PS2 can probably be traced to GT3, GTA, Square, Metal Gear Solid 2, Onimusha, and a host of must-have games that were released before the Xbox hit its stride. People buy games and hardware to play those games, not hardware and games to play on that hardware.
    • Sony's intimate knowledge of the parts and the manufacturing has allowed them to combine silicon, cutting down on overall size and costs. Likewise, the only profittaking is from Sony, and with fewer hands in the pot the margins can be shrunk. Unfortunately for Microsoft, using off-the-shelf parts from different manufacturers ensured that they needed the cooperation (and credits) from different companies. Nvidia, for example, gets a cut on the sales of the hardware, not from the software like ATI gets from N
    • Sorry, but I buy hardware and games to play on that hardware.

      Games aren't original; hardware is. PS2 games are largely the same games we've always played our whole lives. The fun of buying a console vs the emulator is the ability to play on that hardware, using neato controllers. I buy the hardware so I can play games on the hardware. Otherwise, I'd just wait another 5 or so years, get a PS2 emulator, and download ROMs like mad. But I don't want to play those games on my PC. I want to play them on my

    • "Say what you will about the XBox OS, it's hardware and interfaces were not originally developed with gaming in mind."

      Seeing as how the XBOX is much more impressive graphically than the PS2, it's hard to take the 'not originally developed with gaming in mind' comment too seriously.
    • On the other hand, the success of the PS2 can probably be traced to GT3, GTA, Square, Metal Gear Solid 2, Onimusha, and a host of must-have games that were released before the Xbox hit its stride.

      The PS2's success didn't have to do with big games. There really weren't any big games for the PS2 until about a year after the PS2's launch - about the same time as the GameCube and Xbox launched. By then, PS2 sales were already about what current Xbox and GameCube sales combined are.

      Other than Halo, the Xbox h
    • People buy games and hardware to play those games, not hardware and games to play on that hardware.

      I must say, slightly offtopic, this is the first time I've caught someone quoting me in a public forum. You've just made my day. :)

      - Chris Canfield

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jabberjaw ( 683624 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @04:28PM (#7905815)
    Why must the media constantly downplay the gamecube? It is not exactly performing poorly [slashdot.org] and it is not for lack of good [ikaruga-atari.net] games [capcom.com]. Is it because "edgy" titles such as GTA: Vice City and Manhunt are not released for it? Perhaps it is too "cute"?

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by chrismcdirty ( 677039 )
      I'm gonna guess that it's because Nintendo isn't in the form of the conglomerate business. Sony owns most of the electronics industry and Microsoft owns a good chunk of the computer industry. If you bad talk them, you're likely to be slapped with lawsuits, or worse, when they become the new overlords, they'll remember the harsh words against them.
      • I for one welcome our new videogame makers overlords! May their conglomerate business anger do not fall upon us!!

        After the obligatory joke, I wish to say that is another reason (apart from excellent games) to support Nintendo. You don't want only one company owning all electronic media, be it a japanese (Sony) or American (Microsoft).

        We want to play games.
      • When did Nintendo STOP being in the conglomerate business? Remember when they threatened retailers in the US to not advertise for the Xbox prior to release? (I believe the punishment would have been less GBA shipments, IIRC.) Remember all of the price fixing they do in Europe, and did in the USA? Remember the NES system, and all of the crap they did with that?
    • It does not have much to do with the edgy games, it has to do with the number of games in general. If I were a consumer, I would want the machine which has the most games and the one which most of my friends have so I could trade games with them. Of all my friends, most of whom are in the game industry (and some even working on GC titles) only 1 has a Gamecube but they all have PS2's. They also all have Xbox's, but thats primarily used with a mod chip so they can play games that are free (as in free).
    • A: Because it was on number 3 (of 3) on console and game sales (at least in US) last year. Is the least sold next gen console in America. (although is number 2 in Japan)
    • because most 3rd party developers have walked away from the GC.
      simple as that.

      3rd party developer interest is the key indicator into console health, and the GameCube doesn't have much, if any, left.

      consider the dreamcast. it had some fantastic games. it wasn't too far behind the ps and n64 after a year or two of release - but it was still dead in the water because 3rd party developers didn't consider it worth the risk. it continued to have some really great games released for it - but the overall trend

  • Next Nintendo (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GreatDrok ( 684119 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @04:33PM (#7905872) Journal
    As I just wrote in my journal today I predict that what Nintendo will anounce is a portable gamecube that uses the same media. Perfectly possible and it would give the PSP something serious to think about given that there is already a stack of GC software out there. Add in the Gameboy player and you're really cooking.
    • I predict that what Nintendo will anounce is a portable gamecube that uses the same media.

      That would be freakin' BRILLIANT.

    • Re:Next Nintendo (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AzraelKans ( 697974 )
      I predict that what Nintendo will anounce is a portable gamecube that uses the same media
      Sorry but nintendo has already stated that they intend to battle sony's psp (which will cost around $200-$300) with their GBA sp prices ($90). Besides they have already mentioned the device they will reveal at the E3 wont be a handheld or a console. Their next Console wont be released until 2005

      • Re:Next Nintendo (Score:3, Interesting)

        by NanoGator ( 522640 )
        "Besides they have already mentioned the device they will reveal at the E3 wont be a handheld or a console"

        That doesn't rule out a portable Game Cube. It could be as simple as a GC with a built in screen. The BFD you ask? Imagine a GameCube Lan party where you only bring this tiny box and a network hub.

    • Re:Next Nintendo (Score:3, Informative)

      by H3lldr0p ( 40304 )
      What in hell are you talking about?

      The GC is already set to be portable. It has a frickin' handle on the back of it for you to hold! It has a smaller form factor than any thing since the PS1. And there are thrid party mini-screens for it just like the PS1.

      Let's not even get into why Nintendo would want to cut into the well established, well running market of the Gameboy.

      • But if you recall, the only current batteries that are out for the GCN last 2 hours on a charge that's over twice as long. It may be designed for portability, but it's not very good at it currently.
      • Let's not even get into why Nintendo would want to cut into the well established, well running market of the Gameboy.

        GameBoy Advance games sell for $35. Of that, $8 goes to the production of the cartridges. Well, 3rd parties pay Nintendo $8 per cartridge, so Nintendo makes more than that.

        GameCube games sell for $50, and cost significantly less to produce. Wouldn't you much rather sell GameCube games than GameBoy Advance games?

        Also, if they included GBA compatibility into the portable, it would greatly i
        • GameCube games sell for $50, and cost significantly less to produce. Wouldn't you much rather sell GameCube games than GameBoy Advance games?


          Ah! But the crux of that argument relies upon the user's perception of value. So far, portable game play != console level of game play. They would start out having to work up against that mentality which means having to have the lower prices that the GBA/SP games bring in right now.

    • "I predict that what Nintendo will anounce is a portable gamecube that uses the same media."

      So if Sony ends up shooting themselves in the foot with using optical media on a portable, Nintendo can go down in flames right along with it? I doubt it.

      Personally, for their upcoming mysery announcement (megaton!), my money is an iQue-esque online service for the GCN that lets you buy ROM images of older console games.

  • The answer is "No" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chrismcdirty ( 677039 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @04:34PM (#7905881) Homepage
    Systems that are first to launch are not always the winner. In reality, was PS2 really the first to launch? Yes... if you mean the first of the current systems still in production. But wasn't Dreamcast considered part of this generation? I believe it was a 128-bit system and its capabilities whipped the pants off of PS1 and N64. And look where it is now [in America, at least].
    • I say Dreamcast launched late, given SEGA's history. The Genesis launched to compete with the NES and got stomped on by the SNES. I seem to remember the Sega CD competing with the SNES, just during its late years, and the 32X/add-on du jour/Saturn had to compete with the Playstation, but the Saturn came out around the same time as the PlayStation. Sega's smoked a lot of crack around release time, I guess. Thusly, the Dreamcast was Sega's PSX killer, but Sony started pumped the PS2, and lots of people decide
      • Actually, there was one point where Sega was trying to pump as many DCs into the market as possible to try to get the install base high before PS2 came out. This was working rather well in Japan, but they ran into a chip shortage, and were only able to manufacture about 2/3 of the systems that they wanted to and had to redirect consoles from the US and European markets to meet demand.

        The US market didn't care all that much, since DC wasn't doing too well anyway, but the European market was kind of miffed.
      • The Genesis launched to compete with the NES and got stomped on by the SNES.

        Er...no.

        There was a Sega 8bit system that competed with the Nintendo 8bit system, and the next generation were the 16bits, Genesis and Super NES.

        the Dreamcast was Sega's PSX killer, but Sony started pumped the PS2

        Sega tried to get ahead of the next generation, released their product early in the game, were on their way for a while, but they were hacked real fast, and since the console is only there to sell the games, they cra
        • From this PlanetDreamcast article: [planetdreamcast.com]

          Three years later [1989], Sega took another shot at the home videogame market with the Sega Genesis, a 16-bit next generation system far superior to the NES. At launch, the Genesis (sold as the 'Mega Drive' in Europe and Japan) was $189 and came packaged with one controller and Altered Beast. The "Power Base Converter," an adapter that allowed Sega Master System games on the Genesis was immediately released and Sega planned to release a modem and possibly a keyboard for t

    • Systems that are first to launch are not always the winner.
      Curious as it is, your statement is correct, but your example contradicts itself.

      The PSX was released before the N64 and beat it, then the PS2 was released before the Xbox and the cube, and beat them both! the dreamcast was not a next gen console. It was released to compete against the PSX and N64. but was blown from the water by the PS2. Dreamcast 2 never showed up. (unless you count the XBOX which was made by MS who was involved in the creat

    • Re:The answer is "No" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:44PM (#7906748) Homepage Journal
      " But wasn't Dreamcast considered part of this generation? I believe it was a 128-bit system and its capabilities whipped the pants off of PS1 and N64. "

      The Dreamcast didn't die because people didn't want it, it died because Sega couldn't move enough units to stay afloat. The difference may seem subtle at first, but think about it a sec: You have to build the machines before selling them. If you're trying to be competitive with other over-hyped systems, you're being forced to cut too many corners. Eventually it just wasn't profitable enough in the short term for them. Many people weeped over the demise of that system, it wasn't because it was neglected.

      On a side note: Side by side, Dreamcast games looked better than PS2 games. The PS2, though technically more powerful, has a nasty little RAM bottleneck that forces them to render at half screen, and interpoplate back up to full screen. The RAM saved was put into textures etc. The DC, however, had an adequate buffer to do full-res video. The result? Clarity. That thing could move textures like mad.

      Pity Sony had to be so arrogant with their design. Lots of hardship on the developers in that aspect. I remember the Oddworld game was moved to the XBOX because the PS2 was too limiting on the artists.
      • The PS2, though technically more powerful, has a nasty little RAM bottleneck that forces them to render at half screen, and interpoplate back up to full screen.

        Bullshit. Very very few PS2 titles do that, as most PS2 developers have worked out how to stream textures from main memory. The reason the DC looked so good was that it could do really good / proper antialiasing in hardware. Something none of the current gen do particularly well.
      • On a side note: Side by side, Dreamcast games looked better than PS2 games. The PS2, though technically more powerful, has a nasty little RAM bottleneck that forces them to render at half screen, and interpoplate back up to full screen. The RAM saved was put into textures etc. The DC, however, had an adequate buffer to do full-res video. The result? Clarity. That thing could move textures like mad.

        Oh come on!
        The Dreamcast textures were horrible! I rented Mr Moskito on PS2, and while I enjoyed that
      • I remember the Oddworld game was moved to the XBOX because the PS2 was too limiting on the artists.

        Actually it was because Microsoft paid for the exclusive.
  • But do those who unveil and launch their consoles first always get the advantage?

    I think so. That is the only reason the PS2 has an advantage over the XBOX, is because it was released 1 1/2 years before the XBOX. Basically, the PS2 had many gamers already when the XBOX came out. The XBOX is a far superior console compared to the PS2, although it is battling for the number 2 spot with Nintendo's Gamecube. Timing is everything, and being established in the market. I think it is safe to say XBOX has now es

    • Re:Console Releases (Score:2, Insightful)

      by gmhowell ( 26755 )
      And of course, it had nothing to do with the fact that the Xbox had shit all for games when it came out, whereas the PS2 could play all of the Playstation games available in rental and used game shops.
      • Xbox's launch titles were a lot better than PS2's. Halo alone blows away anything PS2 had (has?).

        Backwards-compatibility might have been a selling point, but only temporarily. If you wanted to play old & busted games, you didn't need to spend $300 to do it on a fancy new PS2.

  • What a worthless article... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scot4875 ( 542869 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @04:40PM (#7905967) Homepage
    The only hard 'fact' in those 3 pages is that the PS3 will use 'CELL' technology. Other than that there's just speculation that the XBox 2 might not have a hard drive, some more Sony marketing hyperbole (PS3 will be 1000 times faster!), and the requisite Nintendo questioning.

    There was absolutely nothing in that article to make it worth reading. Of course, it was on GameSpy, so that's not too surprising.

    --Jeremy
  • For me, it's always been about the games. It's why I have the GameCube now, and more than likely it'll be why I get the next Nintendo console in the next generation, unless Nintendo hardware goes the way of the dodo and starts publishing titles for the PS3, which I really, really, really doubt.
  • It seems that the folks who are adamant about the GC and its games have always been big Nintendo fans. Many folks who are not on the GC bandwagon have many thoughts they claim as the reason (games too cutesy, not enough games, crappy hardware, etc.) It all reminds me of Apple using folks. They tend to be Apple users through out. Die hard even. Maybe there is a correlation between GC lovers and Apple lovers. hmmm.....
    • I will say that I like both Apple and Nintendo, and don't particularly like Microsoft and... Microsoft. Draw correlations as you will. Although I went from NES to PlayStation, to GameCube, didn't buy either SNES or N64, and haven't bought an Apple computer since the IIgs.

  • No good moniker? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vitaflo ( 20507 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:12PM (#7906360) Homepage
    Nintendo's next-gen machine doesn't even have a good moniker yet, as it's unlikely that it'll want to name it after the underperforming GameCube.

    Except for the fact that the Xbox is "underperforming" just as much as the GC and MS will indeed name their next console after the Xbox, so I don't see how naming it after the Gamecube would be such a bad thing (though I'd like to see them name it the NES 5, personally).

  • Blech (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CashCarSTAR ( 548853 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:15PM (#7906395)
    Frankly, I think the next gen systems are going to be rather underwhelming. The transition from 64 to 128 bit for Sony took a bit of time, as plenty of good games were still released for the PS1, and the first genration for the PS2 was rather underwhelming. (For the most part. Sony got lucky I think).

    Every new hardware generation needs a "Killer App.". From the 2600 to the NES, the Killer App was SMB/Mega Man/Side Scrollers. From the NES to the SNES/Genesis, the killer apps were the increased graphical prowness, SMW and Sonic. Then there was the turn at 32/64 bit. For the N64, it was 3d adventures. For the PS1, it was first the arcade ports. That never really caught on. The big killer app was Final Fantasy VII, of course.

    When it jumped from PS1 to PS2, the Dreamcast, first, never really had anything to really vault itself. Soul Calibur was great, but the genre was already done on the PS1. It was technically brilliant, but didn't add too much.

    My argument is that the killer app on the PS2 is actually a rather overlooked game.

    Dynasty Warriors 2.

    That really introduced the idea of being overwhelmed in an action game. Not for consumers, but for developers, I think it opened a lot of eyes towards what could be done on the hardware.

    Until they have something to launch this on the new hardware, I think that the focus will be on the current generation.
  • Sega ships the Saturn before Sony ships the PS1 -- Sega gets dominated (despite the fact that the Saturn was a superior console in terms of hardware).

    Sega then ships the Dreamcast a whole year before the PS2, and gets trounced once again.

    I suppose it could be partly blamed on bad marketing, but the real problem was that Sega never had any real franchise titles on the Saturn or Dreamcast (despite the Sonic rehashes). Sony will dominate for years to come, simply because they have the best titles -- the FF
    • I agree with your argument, except in one point:

      Sega ships the Saturn before Sony ships the PS1 -- Sega gets dominated (despite the fact that the Saturn was a superior console in terms of hardware).

      That is not correct. Saturn was only superior in the 2D field, and vastly inferior in the 3D area.
    • "Sega then ships the Dreamcast a whole year before the PS2, and gets trounced once again."

      Niether of your Sega references really support the 'first != advantage argument'. In the case of the Saturn, they took too many shortcuts to get it out to market first. Sega simply didn't have all the pieces in place and tripped themselves up in the process. Sony, on the other hand, had a complete system with games that demonstrated its power. If the Saturn had been more like the PS in both power and game library

    • In case you don't actually pay attention to FF news as devotedly as fanboys like me, whatever rift existed between Nintendo and Square has been healed, and new FF games (after XII, most likely, since it's already in development--but what do I know?) will probably come to Nintendo's consoles as well. Crystal Chronicle (not a numbered FF, but an FF, nonetheless) is already out for GC/GBA.

      Of course, I'm sticking with my PS2, and 3 when it comes out, or more likely a year or 2 after :-)

      Dan Aris

    • Sega ships the Saturn before Sony ships the PS1 -- Sega gets dominated (despite the fact that the Saturn was a superior console in terms of hardware).

      (Take this with a grain of salt, I am a Sega fan)
      The Saturn may have technicly had superior hardware, but it was extremely difficult to program for (it had 2 Hitachi SH2 processors running parallel, and could do 50 MIPS compared to PSX's 30).

      I suppose it could be partly blamed on bad marketing, but the real problem was that Sega never had any real franchis

  • I dont understand the analysis.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Captain Rotundo ( 165816 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:31PM (#7906581) Homepage
    Basically the comments after each section boil down to "we hate nintendo" - I just don't get it. I don't hope any one company succeeds or fails, I will buy a product that appeals to me [unless it made by microsoft :)] I recently got a gmaecube (I haven't purchase any of this generation's consoles till now) and I did so because it beat the others on price, and on games. The games I want to play are on the GC and I think its because I want to play fun games, not games that throw in violence or sex so they can be 'mature'. (although my first few purchases have had some misteps, "Super Smash Bros. Melee" anyone ?)

    I also think the GC joystick design blows away the competition and I hope nintendo sticks with it. But if their next system sucks I wont want it, even if everyone else does, and the same goes for sony.

    I just don't get why all the press recently has been so anti-nintendo, it is sort-of like the anti-Howard Dean press, where is very obvious the Republicans are pushing the 'un-electable' angle as hard as they can so that it sticks before he even gets the nomination. Why are game writers so anti nintendo? the game cube is a nice little device and the games they put out are typiclly very high quality.
    • If the games you want are on GC, that is great. (Though I question your taste a bit, as Smash Bros. is pretty widely seen as one of the best, if not the best, GC game.) The games I mostly want aren't on the GC, and this is true for many other gamers as well, which is why you hear all of this criticism. Likewise, GC really only has a few games I am interested in, so I won't pick it up until I have a lot of extra cash lying around.

      Also, more 'dedicated' videogame fans (such as good writers) generally like to
  • MS has already said that Xbox2 will NOT be backwards compatible.

    While I only happen to own Nintendo consoles, I don't have much experience with backwards compatability (except for a few old gameboy puzzle games and Mario Tennis which I still play on the GBA), I do have experience with the "ultimate" backwards-compatible machine... the PC. I fire up Civ II, Warcraft II, old King's Quests and Lucasarts games at least once a year.

    Backwards compatability rules. PS3 is already announced to be backwards com
    • source?

      you're bullshitting. microsoft has said nothing about backwards compatability escept for "no comment".

      my source? Ed Fries himself. i called him up last november and asked him personally.

      as for the possibility, its very likely -- microsoft accquired connectix recently, basically the ultimate emulator comapny of all time. they not only make virtualPC, (x86 PPC !) but they at one time made a.... *poof* Playstation emulator.

  • Gamespy, as usual, has earned its name Lamespy. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:01PM (#7906965) Homepage
    "May 2004's Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) would seem an appropriate time for the PS3 unveiling"

    No, it wouldn't. That time would be 2005. The cycle between consoles otherwise is 5 years. When did they last have complete hardware to show in North America? At E3 2000. When did the PS2 release? Fall 2000.

  • backwards compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spir0 ( 319821 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:33PM (#7907391) Homepage Journal
    a lot of people are whining about backwards compatibility being important. but realistically, how many owners of PS2s are still buying PS1 games? A few, but not many. Once they see games on the PS2, they don't want blocky PS1 games...

    How many Nintendo consoles have offered backwards compatibility? The Gameboys. Gamecube has a completely different type of media. Usually Nintendo have stuck to carts, but they're on proprietary CDs.

    People are still buying their new games. People aren't complaining that they can't plug their N64 games and their SNES games into the cube...

    Same for Xbox. New architecture will just mean a new box. Who gives a toss iff it can't play old Xbox games? Your old Xbox will do that.

    If you don't have a current-gen Xbox when the next-gen is released, you're not going to go out and buy old Xbox games. They'll be too blocky, or too low-res.

    You'll move on. And you'll accept that.

    Don't impel the designers of the next-gen consoles to add backwards compatibility that you won't ACTUALLY use.
    • Yes, but if I've got X dollars invested in this console generation, and the next comes along and can play all these games that I've already got. Why would I not want to buy it? That way I can drop the 300 on the system, play my old games, instead of being forced to not only spend extra on the new games, but also wait on the good new games. The PS2 doesn't play PS1 games to sell more PS1 games (although I'm sure a few have been sold because of it), it plays PS1 games to get PS1 owners to buy it, and then
    • If you don't have a current-gen Xbox when the next-gen is released, you're not going to go out and buy old Xbox games. They'll be too blocky, or too low-res.

      Really? That's interesting. I actually buy my games based on whether or not they're fun, and usually graphics have little to do with raw fun. Amplitude is probably one of the most played games in my collection - my entire family (and they're numerous) played it over the Christmas break and got hooked. I still play the "old" Final Fantasy games fr

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @08:00PM (#7908435)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Anyone believing something as stupid as "1000 times as powerfull as a playstation 2, and there will be 4 of them in the box" should be shot.
      I have to disagree with you there. The patent that Sony filed indicates that IF the ps3 is built according to what is in the patent (standard configuration has 4 cell according to the patent), and IF it works, then it SHOULD be capable of processing 1024 times the number of instructions per second then the ps2. Acording to what I have read, all four cells will be ne
  • But do those who unveil and launch their consoles first always get the advantage?

    No. For references, please see entries for Sega Saturn and Dreamcast. Next question.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close