All Three Next-Gen Consoles at e3 2005 371
Word is now out that, in all likelyhood, all three next generation consoles will be displayed in some form at this year's e3. Nintendo's Revolution has been rumoured to be making an appearance for a while. Yesterday Sony announced the PS3 would be available in playable form at the convention, and Microsoft was soon to follow regarding the Xbox Next. Game on?
Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
It begins! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vision (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be interesting though
Re:Game On Indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
Viva la Revolution (Score:3, Insightful)
*Disclaimer: I would not call myself a Nintendo fanboy. I just bought a GameCube last year (my first console), but have played my friends' PS2s and Xboxes ad nauseam.
Re:Vision - really (Score:1, Insightful)
1. Networkable
2. Stores data on usb or networked hard disks
3. Plays media (mp3, wav, ogg, mpeg 1, mpeg2, mpeg4, wmf, etc) off of usb hard disk, flash card, networked hard disk
4. Download on demand video, audio content
5. Support for an external usb hardware video encoder (mpeg 4, mpeg 2) with ability to export video to another format
6. DVR with scheduler and program guide
7. HD output
8. Web browser
9. Quiet
10. Ability to boot some sort of end user written code (.net, java, a scripting language, etc).
11. Modular design for low cost (base system has a flash card, external hard disk is extra, external video encoder is extra or third party).
XBox Next? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perfect! (Score:2, Insightful)
GameCube has Mario, Smash Brothers, Zelda, Mario Cart and a whole lotta kids games (some adult ones too).
X-Box has Halo, Max Payne and DOA.
Anything I missed in the series? I'll admit I don't know much about the X-Box games, but based on the low number (that I know of) of series and leading titles, I would say that the X-BOX is going to lose ground. Especially since they can not maintain reverse compatability as easily (if at all) as the PS3 will and the next Nintendo console might.
Most interesting thing is that they are the same (Score:2, Insightful)
I see this as a more difficult transition for Microsoft and Sony than Nintendo - because the Nintendo currently uses a PowerPC G3 variant and an ATI video card - it's not much less than low end iMac CRT from a few years ago.
I wonder if anyone will be able to write emulators that play any game from any console ON ANY console.
This should be easy for coders to come up with an emulator to run discs on Macs and return our ability to play playstation games.
Stop talking about Graphics! (Score:2, Insightful)
The Xbox was ultimately a poor investment for anyone who bought it. Sure Halo's 1&2 are system sellers. But then what? There were scant few good titles for Xbox.
Now Xbox and PS2 will be featuring variations of IBM's "Cell-based" computing chipset. Has *anyone* mentioned what its going to take to code for these things? No. Why? Because its going to be like drinking sand. Everythings about polygons per second, antialiasing, etc. Its what investors want to hear. But gamers want to hear about titles -- and that's it.
At the end of the day, what I really want as a consumer is the platform with the "most best" games. Developers want something different though: they are going to choose their platforms based on market size and a time & risk based assessment for building products. (And market size will be determined by quality titles which goes back to time & risk). The potential for Eye-candy will be a secondary factor.
I'm hoping we see the evangelizing begin at e3 -- not to consumers, not to the press, but to developers. Only that will ultimately decide the winning platform.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vision (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm. Why not just play games on your PS3?
Re:Perfect! (Score:2, Insightful)
After saying that I'm interested in seeing what Sony will come out with. I like that they're using nVidia, because I'm still a little biased against ATi, but I have this sneaking suspicion that Cell either isn't going to perform the way Sony expects it to, or that it will be way behind schedule. Historically Sony doesn't innovate worth a shit, they just take what other people have done and make evolutionary changes to it. If they can use IBM's technology (notice how they didn't even *try* to do it themselves this time) and produce a solid consumer product (something they are very good at), I can see it being a nice machine.
Of course it all has to do with the games, and there hasn't been a PS2 game since Xenosaga: Espisode 1 that hasn't also been released on XBox that I had any interest in. Of course most people disagree with me if sales numbers are any indication.
Re:Stop talking about Graphics! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that old saw again. There are more good games for the Xbox than there is time for any reasonable person to play. There are more than 100 Xbox games on GameRankings with scores above 80%. Xbox gets its share of original games (Halo, KOTOR, DOA, Crimson Skies, MechAssault, Ninja Gaiden) and, almost always, the best versions of multiplatform games, plus XBL.
I agree that all the prick-waving about whose processor is more powerful is boring, but there's some great stuff out there for the Xbox.
Re:Confirmation? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think consoles can go as high as $300, maybe $350 before they they need to worry about PC competition.
Re:Vision (Score:3, Insightful)
Installation takes up space I'd rather use for porn. For a lot of games, I prefer the PS2 (and I assume the PS3) controller over a mouse and keyboard. I don't want to dick around with drivers. I don't want to configure games to suit my system. I'd rather play on my 27" TV. ETC.
" so if your computer can run it, no need for a PS3."
None of what I mentioned would be addressed this way.
Re:Vision (Score:3, Insightful)
"You do realize you can get these for PCs, don't you?"
Yes. I have one, and it's a pain in the ass because there's no real standard. I have to go in and configure it. That is, assuming the game is meant for it.
"My last three video cards all had an S-video port for the TV"
Not terribly helpful. A.) You have to have your computer near a TV. B.) SVideo out looks crummy. C.) Anybody who's ever set up SVideo on their PC knows it's a bitch and a half to get going. Then there's the whole problem of getting your keyboard and mouse into a comfortable position. Unless you've got your TV sitting on your desk, this is not comfortable.
" And if you're one of those people and you don't have the ability to customize, life can be pretty hard."
Err ok. I'm talking about time wasted here, not ability. One of the reasons that consoles DON'T require installation of games is because they are the same hardware every single time. Games on general purpose computers don't have this luxury, and it makes them a pain in the ass to use as game machines. It's not as bad today, but ask anybody who's ever tried to get their SoundBlaster working in DOS.
"How do you feel about the fact that my PC graphics pretty much put your PS2 graphics to shame right now and you've got at least another year 'till you can fix the situation."
I honestly don't care.
A.) Once I play a game, I'm done with it. Getting higher res graphics 6 months to a year later is not all that enticing to me.
B.) All PS2 games were designed with PS2 hardware in mind. So it's not like I was getting a limited performance to begin with.
c.) All PS2 games were designed to run at that resolution. Clearer imagery is nice and all, but on the PS2 it just plain doesn't make as big of difference. PC games, however, are made to fit the lowest common denominator. Graphic cards are rarely used to their fullest potential because of this. It's a real shame sometimes.
Meanwhile, the customization you did on your computer cost you a couple of hundred bucks, and you had to muck around with your software to actually make it work. For the cost of the hardware (but without the cost of configuration) I could have bought a different console and greatly expanded my potential game library. Higher resolution and higher frame rates aren't all that interesting compared to getting new games.
PC Gaming is unpleasant compared to console gaming. The only real reason it's alive and strong right now is the internet.
Its all about the B grade Titles (Score:5, Insightful)
Grade A: These games move systems, and are platform exclusive. Halo, Super Smash Brothers, Gran Turismo, Zelda, Metroid, Final Fantasy.
Grade B: A grade B title is a great game that does not quite move a system, or would if it were not multi-platform. EA's sports titles, Resident Evil, Viewtiful Joe, Pikmin, etc.
Grade C: A grade C title is a pure average game, most often available on many platforms.
The X-Box is a collection of a small number of A titles and a large number of C titles.
The Gamecube has a large number of A titles, and a small number of B games and an average number of C titles.
The PS2 has a merely average number of A titles, but a staggering number of B and C titles.
Grade A games do move consoles, but you actually have to like the game to buy the console. Mario Sunshine is a grade A title. But if you think its a kiddie game, then it wont move you to buy a cube. The quantity of B class titles is what makes a console a good investment. This is because there will be more B class games on a given platform then A class games, and while you may not find many 'A' games, you probably will find enough 'B' games to make a difference.
Multi-Platform games, like Activisions Spiderman 2 game and EA's sports games, are qualified as B titles because they are multi-platform. But multi-platoform games only really help the platform that already has the larger installed base. It does not matter if it looks better on the X-Box if you dont own an X-box.
END COMMUNICATION
Re:Pity the Dev (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Viva la Revolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Doubtful on the PS3. I know a few people at a dev studio or two which in turn are owned by large publishers, and they say they have the Xenon (Xbox 2) dev kits already, but the last time I asked (about a month ago) none of them had either the PS3 or Revolution dev kits.
There's also the fact that the prototypes for the Cell chip were only just recently made and are being tested.
If the PS3 is going to be using the Cell, there's going to be at least another year before anything is playable at an E3 or TGS or whatever. Under 5 months is simply not enough time to not only learn an entirely new architecture, but also make playable demos running on said new architecture. And E3 2005 is in less than 5 months.
The only way for the PS3 to have something playable at this year's E3 would be for Sony to change from using the Cell to using a different chip that developers already know (like an x86 or PPC variant, or maybe an updated Emotion Engine), and they could throw together playable tech demos.
But, if Sony still is adamant about using the Cell chip, then it's going to be at least another few months before they can even have development kits ready for developers to begin learning the new architecture on. In that case, don't expect to see "playable" PS3 units at E3 this year.