The Next-Gen Odd Couple

1up.com is running a lengthy piece talking to Microsoft VP J. Allard and Sony Computers of America President Kaz Hirai about what exactly the 'next generation' of consoles are about. The article is informative and varied, with talk about Xbox Live, the launch of the Xbox and PSX, and what past efforts from Sony and Microsoft will mean as the newest front in the console war heats up. From the article: "OPM: What are the benefits of being first to market, much like the Dreamcast was? What are the pitfalls? JA: Good question. I'd say one of the pitfalls from a competitive point of view is that you don't know what the other guys are doing, and to be frank, the guys over at Sony have been very good at not telling anyone what they're doing. It's tough to tell where they're going with the PS3. The other tough thing is that you're under the microscope [when you're first]. [Sony] shows two movies and a product that you can't touch behind a piece of glass, and that's what you get to write about on them."

Odd Threesome?

[CastrTroy]

I think we should really be looking at the third player in the next gen of consoles. Sure XBox 360 and PS3 look to have really fast hardware, and look really pretty, but the Revolution actually looks like it will be doing something new and interesting. After reading about how the new King Kong game being put down by it's own developers for being not so good on the 360 unless you have a flashy new TV, as few people do, It's beginning to become apparent that maybe graphics won't matter all that much in the next generation. With the last 7 generations of consoles, we've seen graphics get noticable better every time. I'm not sure people will notice or care that much about the graphics this time. Most people still have a standard TV, and probably won't be able to tell the difference. Instead, I see many people, looking for something fun, which Nintendo has always provided. Not to mention that the Revo will be around 1/2 the price of the PS3 or the Xbox 360.

Re:First to market

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the hardcore gamers bought the dreamcast.

Which was a shame, it was (IMHO) one of the best consoles of all time. That's just the hardware, it also had an incredible (although perhaps small) line-up of games. I know at least a few guys who got into online gaming not because of Xbox live, but because of the direct modem-to-modem play of NFL 2K-whatever on the DC.

what?

[the computer guy nex]

"supposedly better graphics (jury is in lockdown)"

I dare you to take a 360 and hook it up to ANY tv with a native resolution of 720p, 1080i, or 1080p (the new Sony SXRDs for example). The image quality of a 360 is breathtaking when it is used correctly.

When you play a 360 on a regular TV the image has to be squished and makes it look horrendous. This console just isn't made for a non-widescreen non-HD tv.

Re:what?

[chrismcdirty]

True. But 90% of the US does not have an HDTV. And I'm sure even less have one that supports 720p (my 4:3 ratio HDTV only has support for 480p and 1080i). It's in the way that it's promoted where everything breaks down. The stores make it seem, and likely tell consumers, it will look that good on any TV.

Sony understands consoles, Microsoft doesn't.

[RoLi]

The paragraph that makes it obvious that Sony understands the console market is:

When we launch a PS3 online service, we certainly want to take advantage of the PS3, the technology it brings, and offer a great online experience for PS3 users, but at the same time, we want to make sure we bring along the huge install base of PS2 users and the install base of PSP users and have them be able to take part in the online experience as well.

Sony understands that they make the money in the games, not the hardware. If many of the 100 million PS2 owners don't need "next generation", fine for Sony - and fine for the game developers, they will continue to make and sell PS2 games for several years.

Microsoft on the other hand, sells the XBox like they sell MS Office: In very short periods, they try to upgrade as many users as possible to the "newest" version.

That's just wrong: First, many console users don't want to upgrade so often. 4 years for the XBox is pretty short. And if you bought your XBox last year because of Halo2, will you upgrade just after one year?

Second, the more hardware Microsoft sells, the more losses they make. So IF they ever want to break even (or - gasp - even make a profit), they somehow have to pay for the hardware losses by higher game-prices or tricking more people into paying monthly fees.

But in the end, I think XBox360 will make as much losses as XBox1. I seriously doubt that XBox360 will ever make money for Microsoft.

Probably not

[the computer guy nex]

"But in the end, I think XBox360 will make as much losses as XBox1. I seriously doubt that XBox360 will ever make money for Microsoft."

360 is currently averaging 3.9 games/console sold. Add in the monthly revenue from Xbox Live and the controllers and you have a great business going.

Microsoft is an industry leader for a reason, they know how to sell a product. The Xbox1 was just a last ditch attempt to gain some market penetration setting up the 360.

What about the nintendo revolution?

[dmouritsendk]

I mean, because of their new 3D input device, the gameplay will be vastly different . Like, in nintendo's teaser video where you saw a dude using it to control a sword, as if he was holding the sword in his own hand swinging away.

Check out the vid here if u haven't: http://zdmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/1UP/revolution_cont _tgs05_quick.zip [llnwd.net]

No console have ever offered this kinda gameplay before, so i think its fair to call it revolutionary.

Re:revolution in gaming

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>I applaud Nintendo for keeping loading times out of games, where everyone else has failed.

Nintendo does a lot of things right, but one of the things important to me is their commitment to keeping consoles small and quiet. the gamecube is tiny and the revolution will be even smaller. I like being able to enjoy the sound of a game without a leafblower sized fan in the background.

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword

[ender-]

What fun is it to enter an online session just to be killed 5 seconds after you entered? Not much...

This has been considered and dealt with. PGR3 apparrently has an online mode where drivers are rated based on their skill. You go online, and it will automatically match you with other drivers of similar skill. I'm not sure if other games have or plan to have this kind of capability, but I think it is pretty cool, and I hope other game houses implement that kind of feature. It seems like it would work well for many types of games [sports, puzzle, RPG, FPS [except I can't play FPS on a console, ugh] ].

Generally I can't stand Microsoft. The only MS product I've ever had that didn't suck is my Intellimouse Optical [5+ years and going strong]. But against all better judgement, I've been finding myself really drawn to the XBox 360 because of the degree of integration of the online play. It seems to me to be a good step towards the kind of online gaming I've always read about in SF books and thought "gee, I wish we had that kind of online gaming integration". Well now it appears that we are starting to. I just wish it hadn't been Microsoft that brought it to us. :)

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the Games don't look that much better because Microsoft is forcing HD.

Look at Pixar's latest releases on DVD and compare it to the best looking XBox 360 game; the Pixar movie looks far better in every way regardless of whether it is at a lower resolution. Higher Resolution is pushed so heavily because people don't want to go back and re-do the raster scan line conversion algorithm of a polygon; most of the jagginess and other artifacts that Higher Resolution fixes are generated because the standard algorithm doesn't consider sub-pixel information. Anti-Aliasing and Aniosotropic Filtering are simply hacks inorder to eliminate jaggies or make textures clearer but are un-necessary when using a more advanced Raster-Scanline conversion algorithm. I have seen several advanced rendering systems produced in software that change the RSL algorithm out for something more physically based, the results are that you get a better image with less computation than 16xAA and 16xAF; the reason games don't use this yet is that Nvidia and ATI haven't adopted a newer algorithm in hardware yet.

When a game looks better than a pre-rendered movie on a DVD we can talk about needing higher resolutions to improve graphics, until then it is mostly just used to hide the fact that hardware developers haven't switched to a more inteligent and physically based rendering system.