Ubisoft Expecting New Consoles By 2012 118
GamesIndustry is running a brief story about comments from Ubisoft's CEO indicating that the company is gearing up for a new generation of consoles within two to three years. "The French publisher is increasing headcount to work on future technology, with mergers also on the cards to increase development and technology resources. 'We want to take advantage of a company that could bring more technology to us, or new brands,' said CEO Yves Guillemot. 'So we have now enough to help us to grow the company for not only next year but to get ready for the coming of the next generation consoles that are probably going to happen 2011, 2012.'" Guillemot also provided some details about the release plans for some of their upcoming games.
So maybe they'll finally have a Wii in stock ... (Score:1, Troll)
So maybe I'll be able to find a store that actually has Wiis in stock by 2011, since they'll be obsolete by then?
Seriously, of the 3 - Playstation, XBox, Wii - only Nintendo hasn't made any price cuts, and they still can't keep them on the shelves for more than a day or two.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So maybe I'll be able to find a store that actually has Wiis in stock by 2011, since they'll be obsolete by then?
Seriously, of the 3 - Playstation, XBox, Wii - only Nintendo hasn't made any price cuts, and they still can't keep them on the shelves for more than a day or two.
A bet a lot of people might start selling back Wiis to stores eventually. After the great opening games like Metroid and Zelda, there hasn't really been anything worth buying recently for the Wii. Have you seen this selection? http://www.gamestop.com/Browse/Search.aspx?N=138+106 [gamestop.com] - It's really quite sad. I'm thinking about getting an Xbox 360 as a 2nd system, but I'd probably keep my Wii just in case something comes out later on.
Re: (Score:1)
Mario Strikers is old, but I love it.
It's the best multiplayer game for Wii in my opinion, besides maybe Rock Band.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't waste your money, I did buy a 360 as a second system and still don't find much there. Really, all the interesting stuff is available for the PC anyway and the PC versions cost less money by far. Most of my recent spending was on Wiiware games.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'm playing Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn right now, but after that, I want a new RPG, and the selection of 8 total, half of which are only pre-orders, seemed very bad for a system that has been out 2 years now. The Little King's Story and Opoona look really quite pathetic as well. Compare that to the selection at http://www.gamestop.com/Browse/Search.aspx?N=133+106 [gamestop.com] (35 games) and you might understand where I'm coming from.
Fable 2 seems to be a 360 exclusive, no PC version that I've seen, and I don't reall
Re: (Score:2)
I managed to get a Wii this year, but for the life of me I can't find a RockBand box for it in my area... Everywhere I go, they tell me its sold out
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I know what you mean.
Planned obsolescence can have that effect. There is a whole new cycle of purchases with each new product.
Why keep spending money on processors when there is a perfectly good one in your PC?
Sheep with money. The easiest to fleece.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/Search.aspx?plTag=pc [ubi.com]
right!
Re: (Score:1)
Their current problem is that they're pretty much ignoring the Wii (50% of the console market right there). After some promising but rushed launch games they've pretty much faded into the shovelware pile. In fact I think most of the shovelware on the system actually bears the Ubisoft logo. Shovelware doesn't really sell, there were some games on the system that sold while being critically panned but correlation does not imply causation and it seems many developers are forgetting that. The few games that did
Re: (Score:2)
Jokes aside, if I had a list of "best games of 2008" (which I don't because nobody would care), FC2 would be in second or third place, even if you could tell they just tacked the saved game system on at the last minute.
Developing for the next generation (Score:5, Funny)
1 - Release a teaser of someone playing Prince of Persia Ultimate in a perfect virtual world.
2 - Accept preorders while you wait.
3 - Blame the consoles for not fulfilling expectations.
4 - ???
5 - Profit!
Fits in with the cycles, big whoop (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to make sense seeing as consoles are usually on a 5 year cycle, which means we could see the next XBox released in late 2010, but maybe Microsoft will want to get an extra year out of it instead of launching early with dodgy hardware again. The PS4 in late 2011 also seems likely. The Wii is an unknown. Surely the next version will have HD capability, but only at a certain price point and Nintendo will want to make a profit from launch. So "Wii Too" will be less powerful than its competitors, but more powerful than the PS3 or 360. 32nm process is probably going to be used, with a rapid shrink in 2013 to 22nm.
Re:Fits in with the cycles, big whoop (Score:5, Interesting)
So "Wii Too" will be less powerful than its competitors, but more powerful than the PS3 or 360.
Where do that come from? Nintendo consoles haven't always been technically inferior.
Wasn't snes faster than megadrive? I don't remember.
Gamecube is more competent than PS2, and PS2 still sold at higher prices and way more consoles.
So just because something is affordable don't mean it has to be crap.
Re: (Score:2)
But the Wii and DS are drastically less powerful than their competitors. This strategy has worked very well for them so it's only logical to think they'll do the same next time.
But DS and Wii doesn't work well because they are technically inferior (or cheap, the others was cheap to.)
The DS and Wii sell well because the offer something new.
After all, they're the only ones actually making a profit on their consoles.
And they have always made money on their consoles, the Gamecube to.
Of course they will try to repeat finding out something new and innovative in gaming, but they won't try to repeat "release inferior hardware", they may still do it but it's not point on it's own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Came from the fact that Nintendo wants to MAKE money on the console from the start, not after 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Gamecube was profitable when they sold them for 699 SEK I'd assume
Wii still cost 2699 SEK.
Sure Wii probably is MORE profitable now but it would probably still be profitable with better hardware / lower price.
Heck, isn't even Microsofts Xbox360 division making money now? And they sell Xbox360s for 1799 SEK normally but down to 1599 SEK or something such I believe. Haven't checked prices lately.
Also I think you're just making bad guessing.
Imho Wii is probably inferior in hardware specs simply because Nintendo
SNES vs. Genesis (Score:5, Informative)
Wasn't snes faster than megadrive?
Super NES had a 3.6 MHz 16-bit 65C816 CPU on an 8-bit data bus that most games used in 2.7 MHz mode to be able to use cheaper ROM chips. It had no 16x16 multiply instruction. Sega Genesis had a 7.7 MHz 32-bit MC68000 CPU on a 16-bit data bus, the same as the black-and-white Macintosh computers, but the 68000 did take more cycles for each instruction. Each system had an additional CPU used to run the game's music engine.
But what the Super NES lacked in CPU it made up for in video: four times as many 16-color palettes for backgrounds and sprites, a 5-bit-per-channel video DAC (compare the Genesis's 3-bit DAC), an additional layer of tiles in the most common background mode, and a separate texture-mapped background mode called "Mode 7" that allowed rotation and scaling of each scanline. The audio was also sampled instead of FM-synthesized. Genesis wouldn't get features like these until the expensive Sega CD accessory.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Darn. An actual technical comparison between the two. I'm shocked, and appreciative at the same time.
My memories from schoolyard days remember this argument quickly dissolving into "But the Genesis has BLAST PROCESSING!". Guess the marketing department did do their job back then though.
Re: (Score:2)
The Genesis always reminded me of an Amiga 500 in a box, but unfortunately Amiga tech was already 5 years old at time of release.
The Nintendo 64 was the most-powerful console of its generation, and flopped. That's why Nintendo decided to pull back and make the Gamecube and Wii less-advanced but easier to program. (Or so Nintendo claimed on their website.)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
The N64 may have had more peripheral graphics tricks like bilinear filtering, but the Playstation was capable of pushing more polygons. This was very evident when comparing games side by side. The N64 games looked much more blocky with lower resolution textures but those textures were blurred/smoothed. The Playstation had more complex geometry but with pixelated textures that shifted and popped because they lacked perspective correction.
The Playstation also had superior audio to the N64. Mostly this was due
Re: (Score:2)
Less advanced? Maybe to code for but the Gamecube is still superior to the PS2.
Third party developers however pulled back since it was so expensive to develop for the N64 using cartridges instead of CDs.
Also I think someone mentioned earlier in another story that the MIPS chip was a pain to code for and that one of the modes offered very good quality but way to slow speed.
The Gamecube uses a PPC-chip.
Lockout chip business model (Score:2)
The biggest hindrance to the N64 wasn't programming, it was the cartridges. The publishers had to purchase them from Nintendo, and Nintendo got to keep the profits from the cartridge production.
Likewise, the PlayStation had discs. The publishers had to purchase them from Sony, and Sony got to keep the profits from the disc production. The retail console looked for the presence of specific defects in specific parts of the disc to keep ordinary conforming CD-ROM discs from booting.
The only video game platforms where developers don't depend on the console maker are those that can be set not to verify digital signatures on code. Well-known platforms like this include Windows, Mac OS X, Linux/x86, P
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I know about the MegaDrive CPU since I was into Amigas and those had the M68k to.
And yes, SNES audio is supposed to be much better.
But I was too lazy to check up complete specs =P
Re: (Score:2)
Because the others are willing to sell at a loss, whereas Nintendo is not, at least that's the assumption used in the post you replied to before it made the conclusion.
If Nintendo won't sell at a loss, but Microsoft will then if the price to consumers is the same the Microsoft console should be more powerful. With the assumption that costs more to produce -> more powerful.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess Nintendo may have been forced into it because earlier they may have been able to take out more money for being able to license a title for Nintendo consoles. Thereby earning more money on games and being able to earn less on consoles. But in todays market maybe Microsoft and Sony ask for less money for their consoles, what do I know.
Your later assumption is right but then again using more common chips such as Microsoft and Nintendo has done with both the Xbox, Xbox360, Gamecube and Wii as far
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The SNES had a weaker CPU than the Megadrive, but an inspired graphics chip.
The Gamecube benefited from an extra year or two of advancement in technology and integration.
Nowadays all the graphics chips are amazing, you want better you pay more. No more hacks with your raster controller to display a 2D tiled map at angles to create MODE 7 eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo, even with its buckets of Wii money, can't compete with Sony and Microsoft in terms of spending buckets of cash to develop something that you sell at a loss. They've been smart enough to realize that perhaps they didn't have to.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like I might be picking up a PS3 or Wii in 2 or 3 years then. Any guesses on how many Xbox360s will still be working in 2012? Going to pick up a PS2 this year sometime. That should be plenty to keep me busy until used consoles from this generation get cheap. Real shame about the Xbox360 though. Wonder how long Microsoft will keep replacing them if they break after the next Xbox is released. I hope at least their next Xbox will be backwards compatible, and maybe a little more durable.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming Sony sticks to their original gameplan, 2011 is 5 years too soon [1up.com]
So far Sony has been pretty stubborn about "staying the course". They haven't said anything that makes me think they're about to jettison PS3 any time soon. Especially not in 2 years.
Re: (Score:2)
They put that guy out to pasture (i.e. promoted his to ad advisory job where no one listens to him). They did that because his plan made the company lose money.
Re: (Score:1)
That's Ken Kutaragi you're thinking of, Kaz Hirai is still in charge and still spouting nonsense. However, I don't believe that their "10 year lifecycle" actually refers to releasing the PS4 10 years later, it just means they'll keep producing PS3s and permit game licenses for the system for 10 years while it slowly fades away as the PS4 grows, they've done the same for the PS1 and 2. The difference this time is that they're last place (though Hirai insists they are the "official" industry leader by declari
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You do realise that the PS1 and the PS2 also had 10 year lifespans, but it isn't 2018 yet?
Sony will release the PS4 in 2011 or 2012, it could use a PowerXCell32 derivative (2/4 enhanced PPU, 32 enhanced SPU, >1.5 TFLOPS) at around 5GHz, along with some GTX300/400 level graphics (2-3 TFLOPS), and remain backwards compatible, and take advantage of all the effort Sony have put into the PS3 firmware, Home, media, etc, straight away. i.e., this system will generate a beast of a console for very little develop
Re: (Score:1)
A problem is where do we go from here? While it may seem like the natural thing to upgrade the graphics again from what I've seen the current tech level already requires such huge investments to be used to its fullest extent that the game sales have trouble making that back and a game that isn't a multi-million seller can bankrupt its publisher. Doesn't look like the sales through technology are increasing so if we increase the dev costs again while sales don't increase much it'll be even harder to make a g
Re: (Score:1)
All very pertinent points.
Indeed the Wii has the room to move upwards, it's next incarnation will surely be a 1080p system, but perhaps with graphics on the level of the NVIDIA 9800 rather than a theoretical GTX400 that the PS4 could utilise in 2011.
For all systems, moving to 2GB or 4GB of RAM will pretty much sort out that aspect.
I think extra GPU power on the PS4 would be used to move games to 1080p with extra detail and quality, with support for 120Hz 3D glasses like those shown at CES this month. By the
1080p limitation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Neither the PS3 or 360 are giving us true 1080p for most titles. Most are 560-700px and then scaled up. The next iteration of consoles might be able to handle 1920x1080 properly, and if there are cycles to spare, we'll get lots of FX.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup; for example, GTA4 on the PS3 looks extra-blurry compared with the 360 because it's actually upscaled from 1120x630. And while the 360 will manage 720p, it'll just upscale for 1080p.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:1080p limitation (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't we into diminishing returns with respect to resolution already? I know I can't see the difference between 720 and 1080. I'd argue that we can get a lot better graphics by increasing polygons instead of resolution. Look at the PSX and PS2, they both output SD, but the PS2 is dramatically better looking.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Careful, racing games have a much easier time hitting the graphical ceiling than other games. Cars are mechanical objects that behave according to fairly simple physics. They are the best case for something to display with a computer. Compare that with a human. An organic creature with tons of details on the surface where there is no artistic freedom (people can spot a wrong face very quickly) and with material properties that are damn complex to display (a car has regular diffusion, specularity, etc, flesh
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to handling crashes Pitstop on my C64 looked better then GT5. In terms of still pictures GT5 is pretty awesome, in terms realistic physics (destructible tracks, cars, etc.) and AI it still has a long long way to go.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about the shaders and texture handling now. Polygons are nice, but without shading they look like bland triangles.
Years back I saw one of the GeForce 7 tech demos - Mad Mod Mike - it used dynamic polygon subdivision, which I believe boosts polygon density based on distance from the "camera". Conversely, it also simplifies distant objects where the detail doesn't matter. This tech works well and is present in many engines.
Now they're working on the same thing, but for textures. Few games get it righ
Re: (Score:2)
still limited to 1080p resolutions (unlike PC games), will there really be much of an incentive to upgrade again so soon?
More pixels != better graphics. It's just a dick-swinging contest between PC gamers to justify their annual $600 video card upgrade.... which makes it even more ironic that you would say 5 year console upgrade is "so soon."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I play my PS3 on the same display I play my PC games on, so it's not really that silly. For you maybe, if you're playing sat 7ft away from a 40" TV, not for me playing 3ft away from a 30" monitor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And, if more pixels didn't allow for better graphics, we'd all still be playing the Atari 2600.
This is true, but graphics nowadays are not being hamstrung by resolutions. Watching football at 1080p is a beautiful thing. Once consoles can surpass that metric, I'll agree that consoles are being "held back" by the 1080p limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Current graphics technology lets developers create highly detailed but fairly modestly-sized environments, or a moderately detailed but broad landscapes. Further increases in graphical horsepower will allow developers to render very large, very detailed scenes. It will also allow them to render very large numbers of characters at a time while still rendering this large-scale environment, in addition to performing AI and physics processing on all of them. Currently, you can see all of these elements in cu
Re: (Score:1)
For large numbers of enemies, the PS2 could do pretty large numbers too in the Earth Defense Force games.
A problem with rendering any scene you wish is that it costs money to make that scene. The costs are skyrocketing at the moment and companies are going out of business or massively downsizing because of it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always been a huge difference between each console generation, and I'm sure we haven't seen the last of that yet.
8 bit to 16 bit saw more sprites on screen, more vibrant color, and even a few 3d-ish games. The generation that displaced the 16 bit era saw full 3d, with *mostly* optical disc consoles. After that we get much crisper 3d, with less fog to obscure the distance, and this generation has given us high def, first party wireless controllers, and online communication of some sort built into a
Re: (Score:1)
And 1080p is the only real difference between this gen and the previous one? Consoles have developed without increasing resolutions for a long time, they don't need to increase them again. People don't care about graphics improvements beyond a certain point (and the Wii was Nintendo saying "that point was last gen").
let the fanboy wars begin! (Score:5, Funny)
Well I definitely think the xbox 720 is miles better than the nintendo poo or the playstation 4.
Sure the poo has a nifty vr helmet and the playstation 4 can simulate every atom in the universe, but the xbox 720 has Halo 5, so there!
You are probably correct (Score:2)
You are probably correct. With the latest NPD numbers it's fairly obvious Sony did not do well this round. With the 360 ahead of the Wii in graphics and online capability, it looks like the next generation could be the same as it is now with Nintendo and Microsoft at the top, respectively. I just don't see Sony moving up anymore.
I own all 3 consoles. I use the Xbox 360 way more than any of the 3. When it comes time to buy a game and I look on all 3 platforms, the 360 version is almost ALWAYS my first ch
Re:You are probably correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet that's what Sony thought when SEGA tanked with the Dreamcast. Sony didn't take Microsoft to be a serious threat with the original Xbox, nor did they fear much from Nintendo with the Gamecube. They figured they could use their domination over the other guys with the last two generations to ensure Blu-Ray's success, and in the process they've not only lost their top spot, but they're dead last.
I get the feeling that since Blu-Ray has won, the next generation will see Sony attempting to get back on
Re: (Score:2)
Winning Blu-Ray paid for any losses Sony sustained by not "winning" the console wars.
But how do you define winning? Sony released the PS3 later than Microsoft, and had less console sales - but they also have less production.
Consoles not produced and consoles sold at a loss are better than consoles sitting in warehouses not sold, as sitting in a warehouse ties up the most money, and costs money over time.
And speaking of money, as far as I can tell Microsoft lost way more on the hardware than Sony. If you add
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite is also true. See Nintendo.
As much as I loved my N64 and GameCube, I was in a minority.
Re: (Score:2)
halo 5 is broken (Score:2)
but the xbox 720 has Halo 5, so there!
I've run Halo 2 [wikipedia.org] on an original PlayStation (see photo [jk0.org]) and Halo 5 on a Dreamcast.
Re: (Score:2)
I base this only on my limited knowledge, but xbox beat the playstation simply because it was released earlier (more games) and is easy to hack in order to play pirated copies.
Re: (Score:1)
I find it humorous that all of the numbering for the xbox's indicate going in a circle!
Reasonable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sony is betting on it, actually. They've repeated said that the PS2 will last 10 years (1 more year to go, and it's all but dead in the US apparently) and the PS3 will also last 10 years.
But since Microsoft is more on a 5 or 6 year cycle o far, MS's next console is going to beat the crap out of the PS3. Look at what a single year did with 360 vs PS3. The PS3 is -still- working to gain ground on the 360, despite it being a 'better' console.
I think Sony would be much better off giving the PS3 a minor upgra
Re: (Score:2)
Actually its a French company from France, with a head office in Paris. Montreuil technically. And while they employ an international team, with many Canadians, and obviously local talent, the management is ALL French.
Nice try though.
cant wait! (Score:1, Funny)
2011 sounds great!
- ps3 slim and warm as hell
- faulty Xbox 720s
- nintendo releasing another console with ugly graphics
i gotta start saving money now
Bah (Score:2)
This is why I completely quit console gaming, and why I don't have an ipod or iphone. The constant deprecation of relatively new technology is really a pain in the ass. My 9 year old computer still purrs away happily running recent GNU/Linux software. I've upgraded a couple peices of hardware over the years, and the resulting machine is still very useful and spiffy (as long as you are not compiling Gentoo). Take a moderately old computer, throw in a $100 graphics card, and you'll have games like Sauerbr
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to buy the latest and greatest console. I bet there are a shit ton of great games for your Dreamcast or Saturn that you haven't played yet. If you pick a console, and seek out and play _all_ the good games for it, it will take you a lot longer than one console generation. Consider 3 consoles per generation, and you could spend a couple decades playing 32 bit games, if that's what you really want. Personally, I like having a bajillion consoles lying around, but I at least have a room for t
Re: (Score:2)
There's also no PC emulator for consoles.
The PS3 runs DOSBox (Score:2)
There's also no PC emulator for consoles.
The PS3 runs DOSBox [psubuntu.com]. And if you're willing to expand your definition of "PC" past Lenovo-compatible PCs[1], the PC Engine (called TurboGrafx outside Japan) is in Wii Shop Channel, and some games for the Commodore 64 home computer have shown up in the European Wii Shop Channel.
[1] Lenovo bought IBM's PC division.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're willing to expand your definition of "PC" past Lenovo-compatible PCs[1], the PC Engine (called TurboGrafx outside Japan) is in Wii Shop Channel, and some games for the Commodore 64 home computer have shown up in the European Wii Shop Channel.
I'll grant you the C64, and add that Japan's Virtual Console offerings include some titles from the 8-bit MSX computer. But it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that NEC's "PC Engine" had anything in common with a PC other than the two letters in the name.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll run QEMU too, so you could install a Win95 or Win98 image on it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a version of Dosbox for the Xbox at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The original Xbox can run Linux quite happily too.
Honestly, though it's a bit underpowered now (namely, XBMC running on one can't play HD videos due to the slow processor), the original Xbox was a hacker's dream come true.
Re: (Score:2)
The original Xbox *was* a PC, so there's nothing really to emulate. A Pentium III running x86 code isn't really all that exciting.
Linux is open source - it can be compiled for virtually any architecture of CPU you can dream up. You never have to "emulate" anything to run it regardless of the platform. That original Xbox could run it had everything do to with it's hackability and the presence of a hard drive and nothing to do with it running an x86 chip.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got Yellow Dog Linux 6.1 on my PS3. I'm currently running Firefox and responding to your post with it. How would you define useful?
Re: (Score:1)
Recession + Disruption = Longer cycle (Score:1, Interesting)
Although I've watched the history of the console wars keenly, and agree that the five year cycle has been the norm throughout, I find it probable that this generation will last longer than usual. Within the market, you have the Wii and the DS, which have proven beyond all doubt that processing power and graphics are far from decisive in determining market success. That's to say nothing of the predicament third parties find themselves in with the march of progress and rising costs, where HD game developmen
I hope not. (Score:1, Interesting)
Personally I like the current generation and would like to see it extended to about 2013.
My logic for this is that the graphics of your average $500 computer will play most new release games at a medium quality. This is because there's been a glass ceiling placed over the videogame industury by the hardware limitations of consoles. Keeping the ceiling low means that I can hold out longer before I need to upgrade my machine to play the games I want. Yes, porting games from the 360 (and all the really good
$2,000 computer for four players (Score:2)
My logic for this is that the graphics of your average $500 computer will play most new release games at a medium quality.
But will a $500 computer let the friends or relatives who are visiting my home play at the same time that I am playing? Unlike multiplayer console games such as Super Smash Bros. Brawl, very few new release games for PC are built to handle multiple players holding gamepads and looking at one 32-inch monitor. To provide for four players on most non-turn-based PC games, you need a $2,020 computer system that consists of an Ethernet switch and four average $500 computers.
Year of the PS3 (Score:2)
But according to research from the people at Idle Thumbs [idlethumbs.net] (see episode 15) 2015 will be the year of the PS3 [year-of-the-ps3.info].
A bit too optimistic perhaps (Score:3, Insightful)
New consoles by 2012? Maybe. But I doubt it. We're in the middle of a recession with layoffs happening in lots of places, and let's face it - the current gen of consoles is really pushing the limits of what can be done on HD TV. Anything beyond this is going to be staring the law of diminishing returns hard in the face... and I get the feeling that a lot of people won't think it's worthwhile to upgrade that soon, especially to a system that doesn't offer that much more.
Not so sure (Score:1)
Nintendo often drag stuff out. I think it will release a "Wii Tiny" and "Wii With Integrated Whats-It" and "Wii With Integrated Whats-It, but in pink. You need to buy it again" and no games will require the newer Wii, but fan boys will buy them anyway.
Sony will shrink the PS3. Maybe shrink it some more and release it in pink with a special, but completely pointless port. Fireware or USB3 or two DVI ports. A few games will use them, but the games will still run on older PS3s.
Microsoft have only released two
Nintendo's track... (Score:2)
I think Nintendo's original strategy was to jump the track and release consoles on a much higher frequency than Sony or Microsoft. The development time, money, and resources for the Wii were far under those of the 360 and PS3. Combine that with the fact that the Wii was built for SDTV in a growing HDTV market, it seemed that Nintendo was anticipating a mid-Gen console switch. But I don't think they anticipated the current success of the Wii. Sales are still at practically 100% of output. They're raking in t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The GC was a clear indication for Nintendo's future, it showed that if they stayed the course they would be eliminated. Nintendo chose to change the course. We're counting Sony out because it looks like they are not learning from their mistakes and not planning to change their course.
A next gen that would sink the PS3 would probably not try to do it on graphical power (though I think the PS3 will sink naturally once Sony goes over to making the PS4 because I don't see the PS3 turning around and somehow grab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While you do make some good points, and obviously it is too soon to completely count Sony out... you need to take off your brown colored glasses when speaking of the 360. The reality is, the 360 was a HUGE improvement over the original XBox. Yes, a few people were marred by hardware problems (I'm sorry that you had to be one of them). Strangely enough, I've had both PS2 and GameCubes fail on me, and I've had my 360 for 2 years without any problems. All I'm saying is that it sounds to me like you have a litt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think Nintendo's original strategy was to jump the track and release consoles on a much higher frequency than Sony or Microsoft.
No, their goal was to disrupt the market [wikipedia.org]. That's what they hired "Reggie" for, he had experience with matters like that. They accidentally disrupted the market in the past with the NES but now they wanted to do it on purpose. They tried a part of it, the "blue ocean strategy", with the DS to great success so they went for the full thing as an all-or-nothing gambit for the Wii.
Mai
I'm waiting for Prom Queen Death Match 2012 (Score:1)
The ability to convert your MySpace prom page choices into 3D avatars and then go all aggro on other prom attendees, with your choice of pony or unicorn after winning a death match with an opposing couple just makes my Wii2 scream in exultation!
Seriously, never forget that fashion avatar games and music games are big bucks and that the next gen consoles will be bought equally as much by and for girls and women as by boys and men.
Overlooking market segments is why PS3 stumbled so badly, and Nintendo won the
more nights lost playing games? (Score:1)
Sony Will Decide When The Next Generation Starts! (Score:2)
Okay, so he meant this last generation. And, of course, he was wrong. I think Sony would prefer to have the next generation pushed far enough in the future that they can eventually eclipse the 360's sales and claim to have dominated this generation. Otherwise they get to start the next generation as (shudder!) the underdog.