2005's Console Hardware In Review

Next Generation is running an examination of the 2005 hardware announcements from the big three console companies. They look at details and benchmarks released so far for the next-gen consoles. From the article: "The wraps were taken off the PlayStation 3 at Sony's pre-E3 press conference. Non-playable demos and canned footage games in development (over which arguments still rage over what was 'real' and what were renders made to be 'representative') wowed the media and stole a good bit of thunder from the somewhat underwhelming Microsoft presentation that followed."

Re:FIST SPORT!

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

OK, I'll feed the troll...

And what exactly are you doing by buying an Xbox? Oh, that's right, Microsoft is the 'happiest place on earth' and doesn't do anything evil...

For the most part, big corporations are evil. You can't get that big, and stay that big, without doing something wrong once in a while.

So, I pick my evil. And that evil is Sony. They were here before Microsoft, and they were my first gaming system I owned. So I'll stick with them.

And, I just don't like Microsoft as a gaming console. They have enough already with basically running 90% of the PC's out there (mine included). They don't deserve to get my living room too.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[hal2814]

The GP didn't even mention Microsoft. You did. If you want to look at evil, none of the Big 3 are exactly blameless. Way back in the day, Nintendo engaged in anti-competitive behavior (which was later deemed illegal) to keep 3rd party companies from releasing games on multiple platforms, basically strangling the SMS and TG16. MS engaged in anti-competitive behavior with Internet Explorer and elsewhere through the Windows operating system. Sony is the more recent evildoer with their rootkits and whatnot

I know I'm off-topic here...

[kingsmedley]

(Though I do wish they would've made a Proline-style controller for the NES.).

If you're still an NES gamer, then try to hunt down an Epyx 500XJ joystick. (I think the NES version was marketed by Konix.) It was an excellent controller that was similair to Atari's ProLine, but MUCH more comfortable to hold. I still own a pair of the Atari/Commodore version of the stick, and they are the best of the classic controllers, period.

Re:I know I'm off-topic here...

[hal2814]

I bought the Epyx as soon as I saw one for the first time. I think it was 1988. I honestly wasn't that impressed. You can't switchhand the Epyx controller like you could with a proline. I actually used to switch off left and right-handed on the proline when one hand would get tired. The Epyx forces you to use your right on the joystick. I didn't think it would be that big a deal until I used it a lot. It was constructed pretty nicely though (expect for the Select and Start pseudo buttons that got a l

Re:FIST SPORT!

[oGMo]

MS can have the honor of having their logo visible on a plastic box in my living room if they put out the best gaming system out there.

Hell, even if they put a game system out there that has a decent supply of must-play games. Or one history-setting game. I got a PSX for FF7. (I ended up with a lot more titles of course, but that was the seller for me.) I got a Cube, not because it had better graphics, or had a funky controller... it had Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and some others. Enough to make it worth owning.

Microsoft doesn't get a place in my livingroom because, their being Microsoft aside, they don't have any games. That's all it's about. Halo was---maybe---an A title, maybe a B+ title. It's a FPS, and it didn't do anything special, other than being the only top exclusive title on its system. You don't buy a system for a single A/B+ title. You may buy it for a AAA title, or if it has a lot of B-A titles. But the XBOX had neither. Nor, as of yet, does the 360.

This is, perhaps---probably---why people give Sony the benefit of the doubt and bank on their systems. The PS1 had tons of good games. The PS2 had tons of good games. The PS3 already has a ton of good games. (And contrary to popular slashdot opinion, the PSP also has tons of good games.) So they're safe to bank on.

This is also why people give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt: there's always going to be Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Kart, and a legion of other Nintendo franchises. And even if there aren't a ton of them, they'll all be AAA titles.

So in the end, if your definition of "the best" means "the best library of games," then I think you're spot on.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

Exactly.

That is the reason I stick with playstation (I recently gave up on Nintendo, but I will probably buy the Revolution when the next Metroid comes out for it).

I am in fatuated with Gran Turismo. I've been playing it for what, 6 years now? So when I need to play Gran Turismo 5, and I need to buy a PS3 to do it, I will.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[buffer-overflowed]

Yup, Nintendo is always a safe bet if you enjoy Nintendo games and franchises. The thing is, none of the others really have that. Sony is mainly 3rd party support(with a few exceptions, like Gran Turismo, Ico, etc.), and that can fade or go cross-platform, diluting the importance of that. Everyone expected the N64 to get everything the SNES had when the PS was first released. Didn't work out that way because of cart limitations and nintendo's licensing scheme. FFVII propelled Sony into dominance, and S

Re:FIST SPORT!

[Sage of Lightning]

You know there is an alternative to both evil corperations: NINTENDO!

Oh god, I am going to defend microsoft

[SmallFurryCreature]

1. Installable on whose OS? 2. MS has had similar campaings with its butterfly logo. 3. MS even had fake evidence in an actual court. Much of the x-box early material was later shown to be faked as well. 4. At least Sony keeps them running, MS just cancels its MMO's.

No sony is just still a padawan, MS is the true dark lord of the sith.

What would be real scary if the two join up.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[David Nabbit]

Responsible: Yes.
Directly: No.

It's oversimplification that gets people to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore anything potentially insightful that might be said.

A corporation as large as Sony has diversified its interests such that if it doesn't get your money from you buying a Sony product, it will get your money through another, less direct channel. That's capitalism for you.

Choices

[aintnoprophet]

Let's not get carried away with arguing about these systems. You can compare performance all you want but in this case that shouldn't be the reason you buy one of these systems. They are all aimed at different audiences.

Nintendo puts out a new system not much more powerful than the last but has the most innovative controller. (Remember kids don't point it at your eye)

Sony. They know consoles. They've proven it, to me at least. Their new system is supposed to dominate. I just hope it is more like the

Re:Choices

[justchris]

Sony. They know consoles. They've proven it, to me at least. Their new system is supposed to dominate. I just hope it is more like the first xbox in regards to being so easy to mod. I'm sorry, I have to stop you there. Sony has never put out a decent console. Both the original PSX and the PS2 are complete pieces of crap. I've owned both of them, because they have great 3rd party games, but the actual hardware is literally the worse thing I've ever allowed into my home. Sony knows business politics, and

Xbox 360 sales in Japan

[ChrisRijk]

How the 360 might do in Japan is briefly mentioned in the article, so I thought I'd post this news article from Saturday:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4517362.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Microsoft has launched its Xbox 360 games console in Japan to what seems like a more subdued response than it received in Europe and North America.

Interesting...

[Bobdammit]

...to see them quote Sony's "shipped" numbers as "user base," which assumes that stores have entirely sold out their stocks already.

who writes this crap?

[the computer guy nex]

" Non-playable demos and canned footage games in development (over which arguments still rage over what was 'real' and what were renders made to be 'representative') wowed the media and stole a good bit of thunder from the somewhat underwhelming Microsoft presentation that followed."

1) The Playstation3 footage was not created by PS3 hardware. This has been confirmed dozens of times, there is no 'argument'. 2) The Microsoft presentation had actual playable software. I was there, and people cared about the Microsoft presentation a ton more.

Re:who writes this crap?

[oGMo]

The Playstation3 footage was not created by PS3 hardware. This has been confirmed dozens of times, there is no 'argument'.

Wrong. It is possible that some of the footage was not realtime; at least some of it was (unless you'd like to claim the various realtime demos were scripted as well). However I challenge you to find any reputable (that means not some fanboy posting on a forum, or Tim Sweeney) evidence that it wasn't created on PS3 hardware. In fact, some of the 3D demos were created using only

Re:who writes this crap?

[rrdm2k]

The link (and I presume the computer guy nex) only seem to discuss PS3 footage from E3 2005. All the footage from that was rather suspect especially killzone 2 which has since been revealed by guerilla as "basically a representation of the look and feel of the game we're trying to make" not the actual game itself or what it'll look like at the end of the day ( http://ps3.ign.com/articles/616/616591p1.html [ign.com]). The MGS4 trailer from TGS 2005 might not be such a great example of the PS3's power as you think: ht [joystiq.com]

Re:who writes this crap?

[oGMo]

Now that is more accurate. The original comment was along the lines of "everything is entirely fake and has no basis in reality", which is obviously not the case. At this point, as you basically say, we don't know; we'll see when we're looking at both side-to-side (and, more importantly, again in 4-5 years when the Nth generation games show us what the hardware can really do).

Re:who writes this crap?

[Anonymous Coward]

MGS4 trailer from TGS 2005 might not be such a great example of the PS3's power as you think: http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000883068264/ [joystiq.com], http://www.games-digest.com/2005/11/kojima_says_me [games-digest.com] t.html, http://www.gamersreports.com/news/101/ [gamersreports.com], where hideo kojima says that MGS4 could run on a 360.

Kojima never said that.

The only source for that is a video on 1up that has the editor saying he knows someone who claims to have heard Kojima say it. The only thing Kojima has said is that if he made an MGS game for

Re:who writes this crap?

[DarthSidious]

For one thing, on G4 t.v. on Attack of the Show, they said all the MGS4, Killzone etc. trailers we PRE-RENDERED. Sony HAS yet to release and actual game footage. Sony has a history of over-hyping and under delivering what Sony promises (i.e. The Emotion Engine, Guide a nuclear missles, a Hard Drive, etc. etc.). So, Stick with Sony's PS3 while I'll have my Xbox 360 and playing on-line..........

Re:who writes this crap?

[mister_slim]

1) The Playstation3 footage was not created by PS3 hardware. This has been confirmed dozens of times, there is no 'argument'. 2) The Microsoft presentation had actual playable software. I was there, and people cared about the Microsoft presentation a ton more.

Do you somehow not notice that the 360 footage (and demos) were not created by 360 hardware?

It is still undecided on multiple fronts.

[SmallFurryCreature]

Here is one possibility that hasn't been considered yet. The last launch happened during an economic upturn when everyone was happy and money was no object. The world is different now and money is thighter all around.

Secondly both the 360 and PS3 are far less impressive if you play them on your old fashioned tv. Real HD tv's aren't selling yet.

This bit comes from the struggle between those who wish to cancel analog tv broadcasts and go digital completly (saves cost and avoids dragging the conversion on for decades) vs those who do not with to burden every household with the costs of a new expensive hd tv.

What if the public (no not people who post here) decided to buy neither of these consoles? What if they remain with the current hardware and instead of buying a 360 and next christmas a PS3 instead give their kids a nice bundle of games? Games that can be played on the old console and the old tv in the kids room (so dad can watch soccer on the living room tv in peace).

360 sales have been limited to say the least. Of course there is a shortage but with the numbers mentioned in the article it would have to have been very bad for the 360 if there hadn't been a shortage.

Could the big number, the number of customers that made the PS2 stand so far ahead in sales stay away? Hardcore gamers will buy anything and they can be significant but not enough to make a profit. When you read that a 1:2 ratio for handhelds:games is not bad it explains those gamers I know that got a GBA in every color.

What if the x-box and nintendo sales were the core dedicated gamer market, who also own a PS2 and the difference between those and the PS2 sales was the rest of the market that is currently in the stores deciding what goes under the christmas tree? For how many x-box/gamecube owners was that their only console?

Not having the actuall 360 on the shelves makes it easy to decide not to buy that one this year. Next time for such a purchase in normal households would be a kids birthday. Only those kids lucky enough not to be born near the holiday season however. Then the PS3 will be coming closer and closer making it easier to postpone a 360 purchase to see what the PS3 will do. And then it will be time for the 360 to make a price cut so lets wait till then.

Is this likely? Well no perhaps not but I find it intruguing. It has happened with other replacement techs were the consumer just did not pick it up. Granted the 360 is not to the x-box what the mini-disc was to the cd but still. Wouldn't it be fun if all the consoles bombed.

Re:It is still undecided on multiple fronts.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

This bit comes from the struggle between those who wish to cancel analog tv broadcasts and go digital completly (saves cost and avoids dragging the conversion on for decades) vs those who do not with to burden every household with the costs of a new expensive hd tv.

Repeat after me, digital TV doesn't mean HDTV. The transition to ATSC is mandated. The transition to HDTV is not.

No one is going to be "burdened" to buy a new TV - your NTSC tv will continue to work just fine, along with a low-cost converter box

Failure

[wev162]

I bet the failure of a whole generation of consoles would be almost as funny as inevitable market downsizing and reduction in future choices if such a downturn took place...