Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Nintendo Businesses Microsoft Sony Entertainment Games

The Next Gen Consoles - The Bigger Picture 209

Posted by Zonk from the new-shinies-with-backgrounds dept.
Next Generation Magazine is running a series of articles on the next generation consoles, and what they mean in a larger perspective. The Xbox 360, PS3, and Revolution have a lot riding on them as the start of the next round of console wars gets underway. All three companies have their own goals and histories to consider when it comes to the business of games. From the 360 article: "Someone, somewhere, probably still believes Microsoft got into console games for the kudos of putting out Halo. Good for them. The world needs believers, and every time you say 'Xbox is a Trojan Horse', a fairy dies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Next Gen Consoles - The Bigger Picture More

The Next Gen Consoles - The Bigger Picture

Comments Filter:

  • Broadly agree (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RogueyWon ( 735973 ) *
    I think I broadly agree with the conclusions of these articles, although I would raise a couple of counter-points and cautions.

    First of all, I'm not so sure that MS want the 360 to be a Windows-gaming-killer. If they do want this, then quite frankly, I think they're mad. The fact that Windows remains the only realistic platform for home computer-gaming (and yes, I know you can play UT2004 on Linux. When you can play every other game on my shelf on it, I might start to listen) is a huge advantage for Microso

    • THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rokzy ( 687636 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @01:30PM (#13241860)
      please bear in mind that Nintendo is the only profitable game company of these 3. no "Nintendo is dying" claims please.
      • Read my post. Specifically, the last few lines of the last "major" paragraph. Profitability now does not necessarily translate into future profitability. Ask anybody who knows anything about business.

        Microsoft and Sony can *afford* to be unprofitable for a while. In the case of MS's games division, this has been a deliberate strategy to get market share.
        • it wasn't specifically aimed at your post, should have been a stand-alone comment.

          but anyway, I'll bet Nintendo can afford to be profitable far longer than Sony/MS can afford to be unprofitable ;-)

          Nintendo isn't about to disappear just because it doesn't have to biggest bank balance.
          • But the only reason MS is unprofitable now is because they're investing in future market share. They wouldn't do it otherwise.

            Nintendo doesn't seem to be investing in the future. Just the opposite, their main selling point is that they're profiting from the past. Less investment now gives you profits right now, but gives you a future where there's no demand for your product.

          • Just to add to this, Nintendo has been around longer than either compnay (at least 100 years) as they started as a playing card maker. They still produce Hanafuda cards and others to this day.

            Nintendo as a company isn't going anywhere.

        • Re:THE GOLDEN RULE FOR THIS TOPIC (Score:5, Informative)

          by dogbowl ( 75870 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @01:45PM (#13242079) Homepage
          Also, please keep in mind that ALL innovations in controllers have been due in large part to Nintendo. Analoge controls, shoulder buttons, the freakin' directional pad, rumble, and so on.

          Don't dismiss the Revolution controller so quickly...
          • Oh, I absolutely agree that you have a point here. However, these innovations were made standard at a time when Nintendo had significantly more market presence than they do now. More recently, we've seen the real control innovation coming from outside Nintendo, with the likes of the Eye-toy and the popularity of dance-mat gaming.
            • I guess you've forgotten the Nintendo Power Pad.
            • The Gamecube has a larger global marketshare than the Xbox. You make it sound as if they're chugging along trying to catch up with Sony and Microsoft. I'll give you the fact that Nintendo isn't as big as it used to be, but that in no way means that the innovations of the Revo will be cast to the side because nobody will use it.
              • The Gamecube has a larger global marketshare than the Xbox

                Myth. XBOX has a larger global marketshare than cube.

            • The eye-toy isn't really innovative. That is, the idea of controlling stuff on screen using video of yourself is innovative, but Sony didn't think of it. I believe that was Intel. Intel Play Me2Cam was released in 1999, and sounds like it does the same sort of stuff as the eye toy. http://support.intel.com/support/intelplay/me2cam/ sb/cs-020521.htm [intel.com]
          • Also, please keep in mind that ALL innovations in controllers have been due in large part to Nintendo. Analoge controls, shoulder buttons, the freakin' directional pad, rumble, and so on.

            Everything that you listed except for the dpad was done before, and Nintendo copied. And Nintendo didnt do the first dual analog, clickable analog, integrated force feedback, eyetoy, steel battalion, light guns, etc etc

            • clickable and dual analog are only variations based upon the initial innovation, hardly innovations in and of themselves. Granted Nintendo copied the idea of a wireless joystick, but many will argue that they were the first to actually do it right.

              and Light Guns?? Read up on your history. Nintendo INVENTED light guns way back in the 70's. They actually opened up arcades with nothing but lightguns, and then spun that out into a number of odd home versions. The first version of Duck Hunt was actually bui

          • ...ALL innovations in controllers have been due in large part to Nintendo. Analoge controls, shoulder buttons, the freakin' directional pad, rumble, and so on

            Being really really old and cranky, I can't let this go by as +5 informative.

            The first analog console controller I saw was the one Atari made for the 5200 in 1982. Nintendo was not the first to push analog controls.

            D-pad? Take an Intellivision controller (circa 1980) and turn it sideways. Instant innovation! Another acceptible answer would have b

      • Sony is also highly profitable - even though it was selling the consoles at a loss initially, it more that recoups that loss from royalties on the games.

        Nintendo is the only manufacturer that sells the console at a profit. This is a far cry from it being the only profitable manufacturer.
      • please bear in mind that Nintendo is the only profitable game company of these 3. no "Nintendo is dying" claims please.

        You forgot to add "in the last 2 quarters". Before that both sony and MS made money. It's the R&D for the new consoles that have put both of them in the red. although MS had been in the red a lot before. Sony was rarely in the red.

    • Re:Broadly agree (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Ralin_JM ( 813496 )
      Contrary to popular belief, nintendo has very deep pockets. The have a very large cash reserve they've been keeping for a rainy day, and have yet to ever dip into it.

      Nintendo may not be a market leader, but every gamer I know owns a GC in addition to thier PS2 or x-box. I don't think sony or ms can "steal" Nintendo's customers when people are willing to buy both. Nintendo has a very stable niche market that isn't going away any time soon.

    • Re:Broadly agree (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rAiNsT0rm ( 877553 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @01:53PM (#13242179) Homepage
      I'm no zealot, but you my friend are way off base. The Nintendo controller is not going to be based around a gimmick. It has been said many times that it is going to be soemthing totally unique in design that will allow everyone to enjoy gaming. I have a feeling it will be either a super-streamlined design with few buttons... if there are buttons at all. It is going to be intuitive, so that even a non-gamer can easily pick it up and play. This has all been stated so far.

      At first I thought of a few possibilities: A NES controller with new styling, a touch-pad, a gyro/tilt sensor... but the more I thought about it I don't think any of these will be it. It has been said by Nintendo that the controller is "The Big Gun" so it is most certainly NOT a cheap gimmmick.

      Now to take you to task on your statement that access to old games is for the "hardcore"... what, you smokin crack? This move is FOR the casual gamer, and also happens to appeal to all types of gamers. My sister (30-ish non-gamer with kids/family) is already planning on buying one simply so she can play old favorites and her kids can play the newer games and GC titles. She was excited to be able to play Bubble Bobble again, and a number of other old favorites.

      You also seemed to miss the fact that Nintendo has already stated they will allow even single person game developers the ability to create content. This is the ace in the hole and most people already forget about this little "feature" While the PS3 and 360 will take major budgets and teams to produce for (which leads to less games over the lifespan and only "safe" games get made - like licensed games, sports, FPS, and some RPG's) the Revolution will get all the indie developers, homebrew crowd, and even new entries... remember shareware and ID? Well Nintendo could potentially be opening the doors to a hundred exclusive "ID's" on top of top-notch first-party titles and some solid third-party offerings.

      This race is far from started, let alone in the home stretch.
      • "The Nintendo controller is not going to be based around a gimmick. It has been said many times that it is going to be soemthing totally unique in design that will allow everyone to enjoy gaming."

        Why do people buy this kind of marketing-talk just because it's from Nintendo. Look at all the ridiculous things MS and Sony have said at various points about their consoles, before they launch. Nintendo have no more claim to credibility. It's not as if they haven't had flops before... remember the Virtual Boy?

        And

        • Re:Broadly agree (Score:4, Insightful)

          by rAiNsT0rm ( 877553 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @03:28PM (#13243303) Homepage
          I'm not sure you know who your trying to argue with, but I have been a member of the Sony PS2 media as well as a playtester since SNES. I'm no Nintendo fanboy spouting garbage.

          First off, what do you think about Katamari Damacy? That was basically a one man idea/indie developed game that did pretty damn well, wasn't it? I could go through at least 50 more in just the last 5 years over a number of systems. Snood must only appeal to "hardcore" gamers then too... but wait my grandfather has a copy and so does almost everyone. You're an idiot.

          You also have a lack of grey matter if you truly think the Revolution Controller isn't going to be a massively unique design that takes gaming by the balls and twists. Notice how they named it "Revolution" the name is all based on the revolutionary controller. If you think that is just "marketing" you are sadly mistaken. Naming an entire system after a revolutionary designed controller and then not coming through is not even an option, unless monkeys with hot grits in their pants are your marketing department. The controller will be amazing, you seem to forget Nintendo revolutionized controllers to begin with: Game and Watch (the d-pad), The SNES (the shoulder button), the Analog stick (N64), the most ergonomic controllers and well built... gee, they must be full of shit on this new one.

          I love how you bring up games like Halo, GTA, WoW, GT4 as being mainstream games. THOSE ARE ALL HARDCORE GAMER GAMES! No mom/child is playing GT4 to unwind and have some fun. No regular joe is playing WoW. Halo and GTA have a target audience of immature teens to early 20's... which is most likely your demographic but far from the "casual" gamer demographic. Wake up!

          You have no basis to even try to argue your paper thin case, I'd love for you to keep trying though as it gives me great pleasure to pick apart your fallacies and attempts. Next.
          • Because that verbal blowjob you just gave Nintendo looked messy. You take a lot on faith ("IT'S CALLED REVOLUTION SO IT MUST BE REVOLUTIONARY!!!OMG!!") and insult the people you disagree with.

            You're living in a fantasy world if you think Nintendo's 20 year old franchises somehow reach into this casual demographic where the big franchises like GTA, WoW and Madden fear to tread.

            Newsflash: the "casual gamer" market isn't soccer moms or nascar dads. It's the immature teens and early 20's that you so smugly di
            • Heh, you got it all figured out then. I must just be a total idiot. Well, I'm not wasting my time to reply as you seem to be pretty sure of yourself... guess we'll see in a years time. Oh, and BTW when Nintendo reveals their controller I'll accept any apology you may have for me.

              The fact is that no company is going to blow smoke up everyones asses for months dragging it all out and making it THE platform on which their console lives/dies if it truly isn't special. In this business there is hype, marketing,
          • I liked your comments but I'm disappointed that you would even mention Snood.

              It's nothing but a cheap ripoff of Taito's Puzzle Bobble series. It's therefore *NOT* an example of a "one man idea/indie developed game"
      • While I agree with everything you've said, one thing bothers me. The name of the company is id, not ID. ID is short for Identification or Intelligent Design. id is for Frued's description of part of the human psyche. id software spells it with a lower case all the time, so it's not even Id, but certainly not ID. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.
        • My brain probably farted, but I think it was spelled iD originally? I could be wrong.

          Meh, anyway, I'm sure no slashdotter in the games section, reading an article about game consoles, referring to game companies will consider ID to refer to God. (If someone wanted to refer to GOD games, they'd just use those 3 letters:P)
        • Heh, in all my years I've never been hit by a Game Grammer Nazi =) I'll consider this my first. Duly Noted... I was typing quick and didn't even pause to think of any alternate meanings in my capitalization choice.
          • This nazi-ism was brought to you by a stupid cousin of mine who wouldn't even believe me when I showed him the website. So like I said, it's just a small pet peeve of mine.

    • Re:Broadly agree (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 )
      Microsoft really needed to spread out into the gaming business. Considering that consoles are becoming more and more popular and PC gaming has seen a bit of a decline (and no I'm not predicting its death!) and that Linux is becoming more gamer friendly, Microsoft won't be able to hold claim to PC gaming king for terribly much longer.

      Expanding into the game market gave them to opportunity to do some innovative things for the console market. Built-in HD and networking hadn't been done before and allowed for

      • Re:Broadly agree (Score:4, Insightful)

        by FLAGGR ( 800770 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @02:40PM (#13242777)
        I wouldn't be so sure of the power of the Revolution (er, that sounds weird.) Nintendo has never exactly played up their tech specs that much. For example, the gamecube. It's definantly more powerful than the PS2 (except at flat polygon count, which is pretty irrelevant) and actually in most cases is better than the xbox. While the xbox has bigger numbers, a higher clock speed, the gamecube is designed much better. For example, the xbox uses shared RAM. The gamecube uses very fast 1T-SRAM (although only 24mb of it), their ppc cpu proforms better / mhz than xbox's intel x86 one (although not as much a gap as the ppc mac zealots may say :) ) actually I don't feel like listing off stuff, you get the idea. That's why you get games like metroid prime, RE4, rebel strike etc looking so good. However, the xbox has much better support for shaders. Anyways...

        The point is, Nintendo isn't going to pack an gamecube up in a new shiny black box and call it a Revolution.

        If it launches 3Q 2006 it could be somewhat less powerful than the Xbox 360
        Quite the opposite. If it launches almost a year later, then prices of hardware will have dropped, and new technologies will have arrived, so I would assume they would take advantage of this and make it much more powerful to make up for the time loss. Also, no date has been set yet, last I heard, sometime around E3, was spring 2006 (iwata?)

        • Re:Broadly agree (Score:3, Interesting)

          by alvinrod ( 889928 )
          Quite the opposite. If it launches almost a year later, then prices of hardware will have dropped, and new technologies will have arrived, so I would assume they would take advantage of this and make it much more powerful to make up for the time loss. Also, no date has been set yet, last I heard, sometime around E3, was spring 2006 (iwata?)

          First of all, I think Nintendo is using the extra time to make the cost of existing technology go down. Moore's law suggests that in 18 months transistor count will rou

        • Thanks for writing down what I was thinking. Mod Parent up.
      • You make some good points here, but I'm going to take issue with you on the whole price-point topic.

        You see, while the Revolution's launch price will probably be less than the 360's, don't forget that the 360 will have had the better part of a year on sale by the Revolution's launch. Console prices often get heavily reduced at around this point. I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if MS lowered the price of the 360 to the same as the Revolution's specifically to coincide with the Revolution's laun
        • I wouldn't count on the 360's early launch giving it much of a head start. It didn't help Sega, and the Dreamcast was a pretty solid console overall, just like the Saturn before it. This is especially true with the announcement that the 360 likely won't have HD-DVD capability at launch but will get it down the road. The most hardcore will likely pick it up at launch, but the majority of gamers will probably take the same "wait and see" approach they always have. I don't know that it will necessarily benefit
          • I wasn't necessarily referring to any sales benefit from launching a year early, although I do believe that having a Christmas all to themselves won't hurt MS. I was talking more about the fact that console prices tend to be reviewed and reduced regularly throughout their life-cycle, with the first big price cut (usually the biggest of all) coming about a year after launch.

            We've already seen Bill Gates promise to launch Halo 3 in the week the PS3 comes out, to try to steal Sony's thunder. Personally, I don'
            • But you forget that Nintendo will have had over a year to develop games for their console to ensure a strong launch. Remember that Nintendo is also a software company (i.e. they make games for their own hardware). It doesn't make sense that their development teams wouldn't have had access to some really really alpha hardware.

              From some rumors that I've heard they want to have a Mario game, Metroid Prime 3, and a new Super Smash Brothers game ready for system launch. Add in the fact that other companies can

    • As much as I would like to see the PS3 do well over the 360 I just can't see it.

      I honestly think the Revolution has an easier time in Japan than the PS3 because of the fact that the PS3 is bigger and heavier than the current XBox and to top it off it's going to be expensive. The Revolution is going to be cheaper, small as hell and light. That's perfect for the Japanese market.

      In America the XBox will be coming out much earlier, provides plenty of power and will be much cheaper (if the $300 price tag is corr
    • "First of all, I'm not so sure that MS want the 360 to be a Windows-gaming-killer."

      I think the goal is to allow developers to write once and deploy on both Windows and XBox.

      http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=9 950&filter=interview [gamedaily.com]

      "CD: With XNA, which incorporates both DirectX and the Xbox/Xbox 360 Development Kits, we're making the tools to make it easier to make games for Microsoft's gaming platforms. We're looking to the game development community to surprise gamers with new ideas of wha
    • On the Nintendo front (and this is where I get modded down by the zealots),

      You should not be modded down for stating you think Nintendo won't succeed. That question is up in the air, you may very well be right, and in any case you're entitled to your opinion.

      But, I think you should be modded down for this phrase. It's a defensive tactic against mod-downs seen a lot on Slashdot recently (pioneered by Microsoft defenders) -- "Only someone who was a zealot would mod me down!" It was a harsh note in an other

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @01:29PM (#13241850)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Except that Nintendo games in the current generation have, at least here in the UK, been consistently more expensive than games for the PS2 and X-Box and consistently less likely to be included in multi-buy special offers.

      Don't hold your breath.
    • Assuming the $60 price tag is even right, I'd be extremely skeptical that's anything except an initially high price, for launch. Xbox games in the UK started off at something ridiculous like $80 each, and then rapidly dropped to be inline with other games (err, about $60. But remember, we're not being ripped off here, goodness no).

  • in short (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 )
    Revolution will be fun, have a handful of really good games which everyone will adore.

    Xbox 360 will have 1-2 extremely good games, have drool worthy graphics, but little more.

    Playstation 3 will be the work horse, most note worthy titles will be on it, but it'll have the worst ports.

    This is how everything works in the console market right now.

    Sony - We can do everything look how flashy we are even if poor quality.

    Revolution - Graphics can wait, lets have some fun. Who cares if you only own 10 games, you stil
    • Playstation 2 has the worse ports currently because the hardware is the oldest. However, the PS3 is coming out after the 360 now. I don't see how you come to this conclusion.
    • Xbox 3 - We have Halo... erm.. and Halo!

      And Ninja Gaiden.

    • Re:in short (Score:3, Interesting)

      by vga_init ( 589198 )
      I somehow don't understand how your prediction for the future is simply to state what is happening right now. Don't think it's possible that things JUST MIGHT be different?

      I think it's anybody's game right now. I remember that consoles were much more separated when I was a kid. What kind of console you got really determined what kind of gaming experience you were going to have. Since the last batch, I started to see the lines blurring. The games were becoming similar, and there were a lot of multi-pla

  • I'm more worried about the developpers. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheSneak ( 904279 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @01:44PM (#13242073)
    Seriously, think about it. The better the grahpics, the more expensive it becomes to produce a game. If the trend of increasing grahpics so rapidly continues, I can honestly see all the "smaller" game devellopers dying off IMO.

    It already costs millions to make a decent, good selling, cross-platform game. Can the little guy realy keep up with Ubi-Soft, Vivendi and EA Games when that price doubles? Triples?

    The smaller companies will either die off or have to surrender to larger publishers (like the ones listed above). It could be a good thing, but it could also bring an even greater shortage of origionality and risk-taking in the game market, not to mention fewer releases all together. Remember, big production companies don't take risks.
    • I think Nintendo sees this, and they're positioning themselves the be an alternative to it. They've been pretty straightforward about saying that their console won't be built to push the most traiangles, so that means you don't have to hire extra artists to design all those polygons. And if they do this online distribution well, and let smaller developers have a crack at it, they could develop quite the community around the Revolution. Sure, most of those smaller developers won't be selling two million copi
    • Oh please, STFU, people have been preaching this line of crap for a decade now and small shops keep popping up left and right. Their top two problems are not knowing how to market their games, and *completing* their games (let's discount the cash issue for now). If more indi shops could get a handle on these two items, there would be more games from small developers in the market.

      Using your logic:
      Small bands should have died off decades ago.
      Local based retail chains should have ceased all existance in the U
      • Note that all your examples do not ship their product WORLDWIDE. They do not require signifigant manpower and (mostly) do not require anywhere near the amount of capital needed for videogame production.

        Bands don't have to deal with increasing production costs, and most of them give away their music free and/or cheap. Local retail chains don't have to worry about costs for national/international shipping and get repeat business from locals who know and trust the business.

        Really i could go on for hours
        • My case was the same thing has been said about those groups and see the proof. As for your statement of "capital required", and "significant manpower". I firmly state that these only apply to certain classes of games. And for many titles, better use of staff time and available resources can significantly reduce cost (do we really need to pay a million dollars for a 50 Cent song, or can we go out and find great song that is approriate for the game at a fraction of the cost from a lesser known artist?)

          Case in

  • Nintendo Article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anza ( 900224 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @01:44PM (#13242077)
    "And from the technical specs, Revolution is no Cell-beater - just as Nintendo had warned."

    Strange, I don't remember Nintendo releasing any technical specs. The writer of this article is just pulling information out of his ass, and the article reflects this. He's another "Nintendo's next consoul is going to fl0p!!!11" because it doesn't appeal to the inner-city "hip" crowd that wants more games where they can shoot heroin and kill anything that moves. He never once mentions that due to the Revolutions price-point (which, by the precedent of other Nintendo consoles compared to it's Sony and Microsoft brethren, as well as Nintendo's own statements about it) will be significantly lower than the competitions. There's a bunch of parents out there that aren't going to buy a $300-400 game console, and they trust the Nintendo brand.

    Just another Nintendo-naysayer with no idea what he's talking about.
    • While they haven't posted any hard specs yet, Nintendo has announced [cnet.com.au] that Revolution will be two to three times as powerful as the Gamecube (there are other sources with this info, I just linked to the first one Google gave me). So there is somewhat of a basis for his comments. That being said, comparing it to the current generation gives us a fairly reliable metric for what to expect (none of the unshaded, untextured polygon numbers game bullshit), while we've yet to see any real-world information (Sony a
      • I'm pretty sure that comment wasn't for real. You can't believe everything you see online you know. I saw it posted one place and then it spread like wild fire. That doesn't make it a true quote.

        And if the quote IS for real then perhaps Nintendo is quoting REAL WORLD NUMBERS and not the BS that MS and Sony are throwing around.

        ~3x is probably a realistic number for ALL of the next generation consoles.

        Do you really honestly believe that just because the numbers are 30x faster that the console will be 30x fast

  • Yet another Console Wars Article (Score:4, Funny)

    by DingerX ( 847589 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @02:03PM (#13242318) Journal
    Heehee... I love what this brings out.

    Read up there. Somebody actually called Microsoft's disastrous and at best second-rate "Combat Flight Simulator" series "Generally Excellent"!

    Oh, yeah, the article... I spotted this gem:
    This is not Microsoft's DNA, however necessary the operation.
    Woah Nelly! This guys craftsmanship mixes some serious metaphors, however clear the picture may be!

  • Last Xbox... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have a suspicion: The Xbox360 is going to be Microsoft's last console. Why? If the Xbox360 "performs" as "well" as the current Xbox (i.e. making billions of loss) they're going to leave the console market and concentrate on Windows gaming. And if the Xbox360 dominates the market they try to leverage this popularity to move more games onto Windows.
    They have already started with XNA and Longhorn to bring a lot of their Xbox experience into the Windows platform. And in the end you hear Bill Gates speaking ab

  • Muhahaha (Score:4, Funny)

    by ReverendLoki ( 663861 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @02:22PM (#13242558)
    Xbox is a Trojan Horse
    Xbox is a Trojan Horse
    Xbox is a Trojan Horse
    Xbox is a Trojan Horse
    Xbox is a Trojan Horse
    Xbox is a Trojan Horse
    Xbox is a Trojan Horse
    Xbox is a Trojan Horse
    Xbox is a Trojan Horse
    Xbox is a Trojan Horse

    I hate those damn fairies.

    Xbox is a Trojan Horse
    Xbox is a Trojan Horse
    Xbox is a ...

  • Hiding in the shadows (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clu76 ( 620823 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @02:42PM (#13242813) Homepage
    Right now, the main event is Sony Vs. Microsoft. The Xbox 360 will, eventually, support HD-DVD. The Playstation 3 will use Blu-Ray technology. Which ever HD technology gets adopted by the masses could make or break Microsoft's or Sony's video gaming initiative. And they are both spending a lot of money trying to out do each other in various ways.

    Then there is Nintendo, hiding in the shadows, watching the two titans waste their hit points (and money) fighting each other. Nintendo could potentially give the fatal blow to the , with a low cost unit, and huge classic game library. They're taking a risk by not supporting HD. But probably a very calculated risk, as HD won't be fully adopted until the very end of this next generations life cycle. And they aren't betting the farm like the other two.

    My guess is, if someone is going to fall this next round, it will be either Sony or Microsoft. IMHO.

  • And those goals are... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Thursday August 04, 2005 @04:56PM (#13244412)
    "All three companies have their own goals and histories to consider when it comes to the business of games. "

    Sony's goal: spend more money than Microsoft
    Microsoft's goal: spend more money than Sony
    Nintendo's goal: profit

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close