Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Next-Gen Odd Couple

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the they're-kooky dept.

XBox (Games) 249 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."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First to market (0, Flamebait)

vil3nr0b (930195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263584)

The "Benefits of first to market"? Well, maybe Microsoft should ask Sega about this one. Only the hardcore gamers bought the dreamcast.

Re:First to market (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14263652)

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.

Re:First to market (0, Troll)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264099)

It looked like a Playstation and a Nintendo machine had mated. And the controller was terrible.

Re:First to market (2, Funny)

halleluja (715870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263826)

Only the hardcore gamers bought the dreamcast.
Not true. I just made a $10 bid on a German DC.

Re:First to market (-1, Troll)

vil3nr0b (930195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263880)

Actually that was a $10 bid for a membership to the Sega Peecast (PC) website displaying 24 hours of live streaming golden showerz.

The Dreamcast was a good system (2, Informative)

WickedClean (230550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263881)

There was nothing wrong with the Dreamcast system! Of many of the same games made for it and the PS1 were better on the Dreamcast. For example: The Gauntlet Legacy game. The DC had nice controllers and a wide selection of games, including Shenmue. It just got swamped by the competition, which had more money to play with and could afford to lose more.

If you poke around online, it is not hard to find emulator programs for the Dreamcast so that you could play Genesis or even SNES games on it. How cool is that?

Re:First to market (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264157)

Or Microsoft could ask Nintendo. In the NES/SMS/7800/TG16/DidIMissAnybody era, the NES was first to launch and it did ok from what I hear. The Atari 7800 could've been out the gate first but they were afraid to release a console in the aftermath of the console crash. Then again, the Atari 7800 might not have been released at all if Nintendo and Atari had proceeded with their original plans for Atari to release and distribute Nintendo's Famicom in the US.

interesting article (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14263593)

Little kids and joystick-wielding fans aren't the only ones salivating over the high-powered PlayStation 2 video-game console that arrived in stores Thursday.

Investors are looking to PlayStation 2 as a way to cash in on the dawning interactive-entertainment business. It's the latest and most-anticipated game console in a wave of video games expected to invade living rooms across the USA and the world.

Shares in leading game software makers are already rising: Electronic Arts is up about 50% since June 30; Activision is up 130%; and THQ is up about 70%.

Games keep money rolling in, not consoles. Goatsex is terrific.
Game stocks

Don't think there's money in games? The industry reached $8.4 billion in revenue in the USA last year, including PC game software, says industry tracker NPD. That tops 1999 movie ticket sales by nearly $1 billion.

Even better, investors can look forward to a five- or six-year growth spurt as the new machines gain in popularity, says Justin Post, analyst with Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown.

More than 150 million next-generation game consoles, including Sega's Dreamcast, Sony's PlayStation 2 -- both available now -- and Microsoft's Xbox and Nintendo's GameCube, due out next year, will be sold worldwide over the next few years, says James Lin, analyst with Sutro & Co.

While analysts are betting Sony will repeat its success, investors shouldn't concern themselves with which console will win. The battle will likely be fierce, with Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sega all clawing for market share.

There are ways to profit from the coming video-game boom, if investors follow a few guidelines:

Watch the momentum

Many a video-game company has failed to adjust as tastes change. If a video-game company stumbles, investors should consider cutting losses.

Acclaim, for instance, let its products grow moldy in the mid-'90s as game consoles became outdated and PCs became the platform of choice. The stock was so decimated it was relegated to the Nasdaq small-cap index with other ''penny stocks.'' Shares continue to fall, down more than 70% this year.

In games, success breeds success. A game development company called Naughty Dog turned a hit PlayStation game called Crash Bandicoot into a four-title empire, selling 20 million copies for Sony. The third title alone brought in $150 million for Sony. ''It's not Jurassic Park (in terms of gross receipts), but it's close,'' says Jason Rubin, co-founder of Naughty Dog, which isn't publicly traded but makes games for Sony.

Picking a game company with management that has been through the industry's whipsaw cycle a few times is a plus, analysts say.

Robert Kotick, CEO of Activision, the oldest and one of the largest video-game software makers, has suffered through tumult before. He helped save the company when he joined in 1991, with Activision on the ropes after trying to branch out into business software.

Back from the brink, the company has several titles planned for PlayStation 2, including some based on extreme sports featuring famous snowboarders and legendary surfer Kelly Slater. ''This is a four- to five-year cycle. It's predictable,'' Kotick says. ''The (competitors) change, but the cycles are the same.''

Besides the software publishers, investors can look at a company such as Conexant, which makes modems and networking gear for all of the machines.

While games won't be a big slice of Conexant's revenue, they represent ''how we'll get out of the office and into the living room,'' says Matt Rhodes, a senior vice president. It could be a way for the company, whose shares have dropped more than 60% this year along with other broadband stocks, to showcase the broader reach of its technology.

Expect a catfight

Don't try to guess which game platforms will win.

Three out of four PlayStation owners who want to upgrade won't be able to get a PlayStation 2 by year's end. Parts shortages forced Sony to cut the rollout to 500,000 units, but the company says it will ship 1.3 million by Dec. 31, making it Sony's biggest product launch ever.

''It's the Cabbage Patch Kids situation all over again,'' says Greg Durkin at entertainment marketing consulting firm Alexander & Associates.

Both Sega and Nintendo officials say Sony's inability to meet demand will give them a leg up.

Week-over-week sales of Sega's Dreamcast are already doubling, says Sega spokesman Charles Bellfield. He says gamers who can't get a PlayStation 2 will gravitate to Dreamcast because it comes with a built-in modem for online games, while the PlayStation 2 does not.

But so far, Dreamcast hasn't whipped up anywhere near the buzz of PlayStation 2. One reason: Top game-software-developer Electronic Arts chose to not make games for it so the company could focus on PlayStation 2. And Sega doesn't have the marketing muscle of Sony.

Nintendo is betting gamers frustrated by PlayStation 2 shortages will buy its current game console, N64, although it's not as powerful. To stir interest in N64, Nintendo released a sequel to its popular Zelda adventure Thursday, says Jim Merrick, technical director at Nintendo of America.

But it's an open question whether consumers will settle for the older N64, knowing that video-game software they buy won't work on Nintendo's GameCube due out next year.

Sony's Tretton says consumers who can't get a PlayStation 2 will wait. ''I'll guarantee there will be no windfall to the others,'' he says.

Microsoft is trying to win over game developers who say it's hard to write games for PlayStation 2. Robbie Bach, the executive behind Xbox, Microsoft's first video-game console, says software developers know Windows well and will have it easy writing for Xbox.

Patience, patience

Although PlayStation 2 landed Thursday, it'll take until 2002 or 2003 for revenue to ramp up, says Anthony Gikas, analyst at US Bancorp Piper Jaffray.

In fact, because Microsoft and Nintendo's consoles don't launch until next year, he expects game software revenue will be flat at $9.4 billion next year. But investors can expect revenue to jump 20% in 2002 and 25% in 2003, he says.

Patient investors will be rewarded, Gikas says. Because the games have more mass appeal than in the past, expect new-generation software sales to be 20% greater than during the previous cycle, he says.

''As we hit the sweet spot, there is certainly room for (video-game companies') stocks to move higher.''

"Next Gen" is a buzzword (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263603)

There hasn't been a proper next generation since the Sega Saturn. Everything else has just been an incremental improvement in graphics and storage. The XBox 360 has all these fantastic specs on paper, but in practice, you'll see the same games, with the same sound, the same online capabilities and the same premise but with a few more polygons and a higher resolution. All very nice, I'm sure, but hardly a revolution in gaming.

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14263622)

All very nice, I'm sure, but hardly a revolution in gaming.

Interesting choice of words.

Can we take it you're waiting for Nintendo's offering?

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263654)

Well, the revolution may surprise us. I certainly like the look of the controller, and Nintendo have had some innovation before, but I think we're still just going to be seeing some incremental improvements.

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14263737)

you do know that a turning of 360 degrees is considered one revolution?

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263754)

Ooh, touche. Nice :)

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword (2, Informative)

cyberbob2010 (312049) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263788)

Saturn was not "next generation". They intended the machine to be a 2d powerhouse with CD media. They didn't even integrate 3d features until they saw what they were up against with Sony and even then they just threw some stuff on the original 2d board. Ever open up a Saturn? Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuugly.

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword (1)

it0 (567968) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263888)

I agree that launch titles for the XBox 360 are hardly impressive. However the way microsoft integrates online gaming (xbox live) is very well done, and personally i think is where gaming is going. Now they just need good games.

On the PS3 we can only speculate, but it save to assume that it performs in the same league as the 360. The only thing I have seen is that their launch titles are more innovative and/or look more attractive to me. But sony doesn't understand or breathe online gaming as MS does...

Also the PS2 was first to market compared to the xbox, and seem to be doing okay. Also if GTA was first released on the xbox or never released the PS2 would have lost for sure. So what makes a system sell? The number of games for it, the more games for it the more likely the chance that there is a gem between them.

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14264304)

The PS2 was whipping kicking everyones ass way before GTA came out.

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword (1)

digidave (259925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263986)

"There hasn't been a proper next generation since the Sega Saturn."

Yeah... how many bits is the 360 anyway? Bits as a performance measurement sort of went away with the PS2 generation. Nintendo's last try at it was with the N64, but I have no idea how many bits Gamecube is.

Power vs. Innovation? (3, Insightful)

mausmalone (594185) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264042)

If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times ... it all depends on what you do with the hardware.

Guessing by your wording, you know what I'm talking about when I talk about the Revolution controller. Just how radically different it is from the current paradigm ensures that there will be great changes in gameplay coming from the Revolution. This is something that I'm looking forward to.

But does the X-Box 360's lack of "innovative" (i.e. trend-bucking) hardware necessarily mean that it won't lead to innovative gameplay that wasn't previously possible? Think about how powerful that CPU is. What kinds of things could be done with physics on it? What could you do with AI? Look at the large (for a console) ammount of memory. How large can levels get? How could you ever fill all that up? Look at the powerful GPU. What can you draw now that you couldn't before? Are there game concepts that people were looking at before that were simply impossible because previous consoles couldn't draw the output?

So, while the hardware is nothing earth-shaking or radically different, it opens up possibilities to developers that simply weren't available on the original X-Box. We just have to hope that (a) developers take advantage of the hardware in that way, and (b) we gamers actually buy the innovative games to support the trend.

Re:Power vs. Innovation? (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264136)

AI and physics isn't really a limitation of the processor, its a limitation of the developers. It takes a lot of research to get convincing AI and physics, and most developers aren't spending (wasting) their time on that. Most of them spend their time on graphics, because they think, if it doesn't look good, people won't buy it. There's no reason why we couldn't have had advanced AI on the last generation, but developers aren't interested in providing this.

What about the nintendo revolution? (3, Interesting)

dmouritsendk (321667) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264308)

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: []

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

Re:"Next Gen" is a buzzword (4, Insightful)

jcnnghm (538570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264310)

Incremental improvements in graphics and storage, or steps toward immersion. I have a 360, and thus far I am pretty impressed.

Take Call of Duty. Just looking at it, at first glance, it doesn't seem a whole lot better (Toshiba 27" standard def set circa 2003) than say Brothers in Arms on the original Xbox. Then when you actually play it, it has something most other WWII games lack, a sense of immersion. The particle effects really help with this. The battlefield is chaotic, grenades and bullets kick up snow, dirt, mud, and the smoke grenades are wonderful. The friendly NPC's talk, constantly. Sometimes everything else is just so loud, you can't really make out what they are saying. The surround sound is used to great effect to bring you onto the battlefield. It feels like a battle, not a group of polygons shooting at some other polygons.

There are also tons of characters on screen. I remember a Medal of Honor for the Xbox, the opening was a very well done and immersive D-Day invasion, with stuff going on all around you. Hardly any enemies, and only lasted a minute or two. Call of Duty feels like that all the way through, except while the enviroment is active with particle effects and explosions, there are also 15-30 enemies in front of you, and a bunch of Allies fighting beside you. In most WWII games it has inevitably felt like you were one man taking on the entire German army. Call of Duty has you pinned as a member of a unit.

A friend of mine came over after I got my 360 to check it out. We've been playing games together since the NES. Fired up Call of Duty, he took the first level. The vehicle he was in was attacked, he looks, and over the hill in front of him comes, I'd say 35 or so enemies, in formation. His response, holy shit, it's the whole German army. Throws a grenade, then attempts to shoot all of them with his rifle. He's dead a few seconds later. Eventually he realized he should throw a smoke grenade, then retreat to where the rest of the friendlies are and fight from cover. In short, a hell of a lot more immersive than the last generation.

This generation should be about parallel processing are way toward immersion. Hopefully some developer will come along and realize that graphically, this generation should be an incremental upgrade (whatever you can do with that fancy new GPU). The focus should be on using these multi-core processors to up the ante in physics and AI processing, and adding a bunch of characters to the screen. GTA isn't much of a city with 4 cars and 6 people on the streets. Multiply both of those numbers by 20-40 and we may start to have something truly next generation.

About J Allard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14263615)

Another interesting interview []

revolution in gaming (3, Insightful)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263636)

it seems to me the general public don't want anything new and interesting in gaming, all we see is rehashes of old genres, which while tried and true, bring very little new to the table the nintendo revolution on the otherhand could bring a lot new to the table, if they play their cards right. Although I fear, no matter what happens, sony and microsoft teenagers may never get rid of the anti-nintendo stigma that has been around for quite some time.

Re:revolution in gaming (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263658)

Yeah, I find that Nintendo GC is the best system currently. You can get one for $100, and games and accessories are cheap. It's probably the best for people who aren't hardcore. They have that giant green A button, which you hit 95% of the time. the other buttons are easily accessible from the "home" button. You always know what button you are pressing, because they all have a different fell. I think this helps a lot when you are trying to learn new controls to new games.

Re:revolution in gaming (1)

digidave (259925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263916)

I agree. I bought a Gamecube for my son for Christmas. The Cube was $70 (used) and I got six games for under $100 (only one game was over $20 and one was buy 2 get 1 free). There are tons of new $20 games at Wal-Mart or used games at EB from $15. Even Best Buy has a lot of new games for $29. The really big-name games are more expensive, such as most new Mario games going for $59, but that's the standard price for most games on other consoles.

Considering that the next gen games are supposed to cost more to develop on 360 and PS3 while Nintendo is working to make games cheaper, I don't expect this trend to change.

Re:revolution in gaming (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264000)

Yeah, used games are nice. I got Metriod Prime at EB for 12 $CDN. It's an amazing game. There's a lot of really good games for really cheap. Walmart has a whole bin of games for 18$. Even unused older games go for around $30. Zelda and mario sunshine are good examples. When you can get the system and six games for less than the price of just the system from the other guys, you're going to be having much more fun.

Re:revolution in gaming (2, Funny)

mausmalone (594185) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264092)

I love making fun of my Playstation playing friends when we sit down to play a GCN game. They sit, staring at the menus totally confused. Eventually they break down and ask "what do I press?" I laugh at them, tell them to look at the controller, and take a wild guess.

And then they still don't get it. So that's when I say, in a "no-duh" voice "try the giant fucking green one" And then "How do I go back" is met with "If green went forward, what color do you think brings you back?" "What?"

Re:revolution in gaming (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264159)

Yeah PS really messes with my brain. Where is the Circle button again? what about triangle and X? Which button do I press is right. Maybe they think this way because they are used to PS, where they really do have no idea which button they are supposed to press at the menus.

Re:revolution in gaming (1)

mausmalone (594185) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264235)

Actually, each game licenser (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft) specifies menu rules, and those menu rules may even change from region to region. For example, on the PS2, X selects and Square goes back. On the PS2 in Japan, Circle selects and X goes back. I understand that my friends don't understand the gamecube controller because they're simply soooo aclimated to the PS2, not because they're dumb.

Re:revolution in gaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14263732)

A lot of it is about risk and reward. Rehash an old genre, and you can be sure that even if it flops, it isn't going to flop terribly. You will get a lot of gamers who will buy it on spec. It also isn't going to be a vast success, but will more likely than not make money. So, the exec who pushes the rehash has low risk, but a decent chance of recognition and a decent bonus if the game is successful.

A totally new idea has the possibility of being too weird for the market. They have no idea how many it will sell, and it could be huge, or it could be a disaster. If it is a major flop, they'll probably lose their job. If it's the success story of the year, they'll get about the same recognition as a moderate success. The industry is set up so to punish risk takers.

Re:revolution in gaming (1)

BlizzyMadden (814008) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263816)

I have to disagree with what you call the "anti-nintendo stigma". Any stigma against Nintendo was caused by them and they have nobody to blame but themselves. I was a huge Nintendo fan and stayed loyal to the N64 for years until I finally released that their decision to stick with cartridges cost them valuable third party support and was costing me $60 for mediocre games. And was a lesson learned. No! Gamecube, instead of using DVD, continued to use an inferior proprietary format for their media just so they could have total control of manufacturing. The result: alienated third party developers and smaller games (still). No thanks, Mario.

Re:revolution in gaming (2, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264116)

In case you didn't realize, Nintendo did this for a reason. At the time, optical media was deathly slow. N64 chose to stick with cartidges so that they wouldn't have loading times. I applaud them for this. Loading times on the PS1 were terrible. Same goes for the GameCube. It has much better load times (most of the time not even having load times), which is greate compared to the XBox and PS2. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the disc. Also, Nintendo games don't cost any more than PS2 or XBox, so the fact that they control the manufacturing means nothing. I applaud Nintendo for keeping loading times out of games, where everyone else has failed.

Re:revolution in gaming (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264191)

Same goes for the GameCube. It has much better load times (most of the time not even having load times), which is greate compared to the XBox and PS2. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the disc.

It seems plausible. The Gamecube discs are physically much smaller; you're going to save a lot on seek times, because the laser simply has much less distance to travel across the surface.

Re:revolution in gaming (2, Insightful)

BlizzyMadden (814008) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264289)

Yeah, I bought into the load time aguement for awhile too. Funny, because to circumvent to cramped space on catridges some games started to compress music and what not and it would have to be decompressed when different music and levels would load. What did this lead to--load time! Wipeout 64 was a good example of this. When I finally gave up and bought a Playstation I did notice load time with games, but it wasn't that bad. And when the games had better music and more levels then the N64 counterparts (anyone remember MK Trilogy?) and where on average half the price--come on, how can you defend catridges?

Re:revolution in gaming (3, Interesting)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264309)

>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:revolution in gaming (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264134)

Oh well. I stayed with N64 becuase of the catridges, and subsequently with gamecube because my friends couldn't burn a copy of the game i had paid for.

Re:revolution in gaming (1, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263842)

Although I fear, no matter what happens, sony and microsoft teenagers may never get rid of the anti-nintendo stigma that has been around for quite some time.

Being a "Sony Adult" and watching the random offerings of Nintendo over recent years, I can't find a single shred of evidence that will make me believe that I should move away from the PS3 for the Revolution.

Everyone says, "well it looks like the Revolution could do interesting things" but based on MY experience and knowledge it's going to be a whole slew of cartoonish and childlike gaming all over again. Some people like those games, and that's fine, but I'm more interested in REAL REVOLUTION. Something I have not seen before. Sadly, that's nearly impossible to accomplish.

So let's dump the karma whoring Revolution++ rhetoric and instead wait until we see what the Revolution offers after it's been on the market for a year.

Re:revolution in gaming (3, Insightful)

mejesster (813444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264167)

Why aren't we applying that same standard to the PS3 or the 360? I swear, rationality goes out the window when consoles are the topic.

Personally, I intend to buy none of the "next gen" consoles until their first price drop, giving my wallet a breath of air and a chance for the consoles and developers to prove themselves. At this point, it's kind of ridiculous how fanboyish people are about consoles that aren't available.

Re:revolution in gaming (1)

digidave (259925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264178)

Perhaps you think games like Mario Sunshine and Mario Strikers are for children without realizing that they're two of the best games on any platform in many years. Just because nearly everybody says that Nintendo only makes kids games doesn't mean it's true.

Re:revolution in gaming (1)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264350)

those guys are losing out. are they the same people who say "I'm not seeing a film unless it's got an adult rating!", or are they just ignorant hypocrites?

personally, I didn't think Resident Evil 4 was too childish, but take Super Smash Bros Melee - cartoonish graphics and no blood, but the greatest fighting gameplay ever, especially with more than 2 players.

Re:revolution in gaming (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264224)

"Being a "Sony Adult" and watching the random offerings of Nintendo over recent years, I can't find a single shred of evidence that will make me believe that I should move away from the PS3 for the Revolution."
Apart from the fact that Sony is the rootkit/spyware company, and it is a risk to let their products anywhere near your house?
"Everyone says, "well it looks like the Revolution could do interesting things" but based on MY experience and knowledge it's going to be a whole slew of cartoonish and childlike gaming all over again."
There are lots of "gory games for teens who want to be adults" available for the GameCube, you know. Maybe Nintendo creates these "cartoonish and childlike" games internally, but there are other games that are not made by Nintendo. Haven't you paid attention?
"I'm more interested in REAL REVOLUTION. Something I have not seen before. Sadly, that's nearly impossible to accomplish."
So you'll just stick with the PS3, which is definitely not going to bring about a revoution?
"So let's dump the karma whoring Revolution++ rhetoric and instead wait until we see what the Revolution offers after it's been on the market for a year."
I can understand that you are a Sony fan now, but aren't you kind of contradicting yourself? Why are you allowed to judge the Revolution before it is released (it won't have gory games (which it will, but never mind facts...)), but those who praise it should just shut up already?

Re:revolution in gaming (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264337)

Why does cartoon = childish? Southpark is a cartoon, but I wouldn't want my kids watching it. Just because they don't try to make the games look like real life, doesn't mean they are childish. It just means they are going for a different effect. If they wanted them to look real, then they would. Truth is, games that look too real end up immersing you less because you stop using your imagination. Maybe if you have no imagination, then it doesn't matter. Just because mario doesn't have a gun, doesn't mean he's childish. Does violence=adult? what exactly defines and adult game, and what make nintendo's games non adult?

Re:revolution in gaming (1)

algodon (933104) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263878)

the general public don't want anything new and interesting in gaming

Yeah that's pretty evident when I go into the video game store looking for a survival horror game and they have about 75 war games, 150 sports games, 594375 FPS's ... and Diablo.

Odd Threesome? (5, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263639)

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:Odd Threesome? (1)

digidave (259925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263840)

I think you're right, but the interview is from a Playstation magazine so I'm not surprised that the Rev wasn't mentioned.

I suspect XBox and Playstation mags will ignore the Revolution as part of the console battle. They don't want to tip everybody off that something interesting is going on elsewhere. It'll be ok for a PS magazine to mention XBox 360 because the two consoles are essentially twins. There's almost no point in buying both.

They're all about PPC (2, Funny)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263653)

what exactly the 'next generation' of consoles are about.

They're about making apple embarassed to have dumped bridges with IBM. triple core 3.2GHz G5... take that!

Re:They're all about PPC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14263690)

> triple core 3.2GHz G5

No such thing in existence.

Pah, triple core? (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263890)

I want a cell PC. Sure it will be rooted to hell and back and swear allegiance to the Sony flag at every bootup BUT 8 cores. Holy fucking shit. Instant mainframe. Oh and also rumoured that Linux does run on it. Sure sure like my current old dual P3 most of the cores would idle but it would give you a serious epenis to wag around on irc.

I just find it hilarious that it is the old boring IBM that is making all the upcoming consoles while AMD and Intel are churning out boring old desktop and server cpu's. Yawn. Old iron exciting, hip new trendsetters yawnville. If you had predicted this 10 years ago you would have been a laughingstock.

Re:Pah, triple core? (1)

Trelane (16124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264080)

Oh and also rumoured that Linux does run on it.
I've not heard anything about this, but I sincerely hope this is the case. Sony was ingenious in releasing a Linux kit for the PS2, and I hope this continues (why ingenious? Well, if people want to put Linux on SomePieceOfHardware so badly that they will painstakingly reverse-engineering the hardware, but a vendor-supported Linux CD/DVD exists already.... :)

Anyhow, if Sony releases an official Linux kit for the PS3 before IBM releases some sort of Cell box (please, IBM! Give to us well-working and well-supported Linux notebooks and desktops! Be the Apple of Linux!), then it's quite possible I'll buy the PS3 + Linux kit, to test drive Cell. Uh, yeah. For the numerical computing only/i.... Riiiiight..... ;)

Linux ported by none other then IBM itself (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264209) y/pa-cell/?ca=dgr-lnxw09SpufsCell/ [] it is even said, by sony that linux comes as part of the PS3 hd "optional" addon [] . Googling for PS3 and linux will lead you to many more stories.

I think this is part of sony's move to muzzle in on microsofts market. Only fair isn't it? Ah the two evil empire's battling it out. Joy! Remember the cold war, it gave us the intenet and free PORN!!! Eh I mean the internet and a way to communicate easily with our fellow man ABOUT FREE PORN!!!

Oh yeah I would buy one. The first non-handheld console I would own but a legit 300 dollar multi-core linux machine would be too sweet. No need to fear rootkits either, I don't remember any articles were sony was found not to be 100% compliant with the GPL so they could hardly rootkit the kernel. (Would a hacked kernel still be considered a rootkit?)

300 bucks for a genuine IBM grid machine.

Just make good gaming rigs (3, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263673)

Stop trying to make them an all in one box that will do everything from play games to media center to feeding the cat. All in one boxes teh suxxor, as the young 'uns say today, not to mention a single point of failure and all that jazz.

DVD Power! (1)

Heffenfeffer (888559) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263993)

I dunno about that - a large part of Sony's success with the PS2 was that they were selling it for $300 at a time when dedicated DVD players were $200-$300. A lot of consumers bought it with the thought of "Well, I really want a DVD player so that I don't have to worry about VHS tapes anymore - plus this one plays video games too, for 'free'!"

Granted, I don't think having a bundled Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player will have quite the same effect since DVD's are just fine for everyone with a non-HD TV.

Re:DVD Power! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264341)

Well, the DVD playing capability is sort of a gimme, though, and one of the few logical extra functions of a game machine. The hardware is already in there. It's mainly a little extra software.

I dig the games that come out for the PS series, but I sit hear and read about all the functions they stuff into it, and some executiove from Sony talking about how hugely expensive it might be... I know a lot of PS2 owners like myself who are annoyed at the the fact that they may have to pay (or not) some big ticket just to play PS3 games.

Re:Just make good gaming rigs (2, Funny)

Zwets (645911) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264004)

Actually, my cat has built-in audio and force feedback capabilities that make playing a game progressively harder the longer I delay feeding it.. So feeding the cat is already tightly integrated into my gaming experience!

I hear the new Cat 720 will provide even more immersive add-on difficulty while gaming..!

Re:Just make good gaming rigs (2, Informative)

JPriest (547211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264104)

Yes but they have to spend all that cash on powerful hardware, high capacity disk readers, and network capibility anyway just so people can play games. Not to mention Hi-Def etc. If they have to build in 98% of what is required for an "all in one" device they might as well throw in the software to be able to do things like watch movies on it since they are 99% of the way there anyway.

IIRC many people I knew that purchased the PS2 didn't own DVD players at the time. The inital cost seemed expensive but if you subtract the cost of a new DVD player it no longer seemed quite so expensive. This may again prove to be the case with Sony and HD-DVD.

The old saying ... (1)

mausmalone (594185) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264114)

Well, you know the old saying ... Jack of all trades, master of none.

Re:Just make good gaming rigs (1)

dioscaido (541037) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264173)

Well, Media Center extender is one of the major reasons I'm considering the Xbox 360. My living room will look a lot nicer with the sleek xbox 360, and my MCPC moved into the home office. I'll hang tight though until the hd-dvd Xboxes are released, and more good games are available, but the extra features you deride really do differentiate the console from others.

Duh! (2, Insightful)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263689)

The next gen consoles are about getting the console gamer to the on-line money trough through a drm locked down metered revenue stream.

Really, a lot of the ooo's and ah's with the consoles have more to do with their on-line abilities, supposedly better graphics (jury is in lockdown) and such that PC gamers have used for ages. The difference is that they can get the console gamers (which outnumber PC gamers) to fork over a lot more in on-line fees than PC players will tolerate. Plus, a lot of console gamers don't even know where to begin when it comes to modding their consoles to bypass their schemes.

The PC also has more options when it comes to free gaming on-line. A lot suck, but a lot are very good. Yes, the graphics on the new consoles will be better once the developers get the hang of programming for them, but gameplay is another matter.

Frankly, the new consoles have a bigger upside for the manufacturer's as a vehicle for metered gaming than they do for the gamer in terms of better games.

for the manufacturer... (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263781)

seems wrong.. a new and or different term is needed, publisher, host, host..

the manufacturer just stamps the cd's and prints the boxes....

Nintendo Online: Free? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264276)

Wasn't Nintendo's online service supposed to be free?

Business @ the Speed of Thought (1)

SpinJaunt (847897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263691)

and I think online is something that comes very naturally to us.

Sorry but that really is bull. That is coming from a company that thought the internet was a fad. Business @ the Speed of Thought []

A Balanced Interview? (0, Troll)

campaign_bug (815908) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263709)

I'm just wondering what the general opinion on this is - I got the feeling that the interviewer asked J. Allard a lot of easy questions, almost putting words in his mouth for most of them. By contrast, Kaz Hirai seemed to get quite a grilling on Sony's rather more megar online offerings, among other things. PlayStation magazine certainly couldn't be accused of pro-PS bias anyway.

Re:A Balanced Interview? (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264367)

The questions seemed pretty fair and even to me. The thing that struck me was the MS guy came across as a gamer chating about games and tech while the Sony guy came across as a suit talking about business plans. Was it just me?

Sick of this next-gen bull (5, Insightful)

mikapc (664262) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263711)

I haven't noticed anything revolutionary with this new xbox 360. If anything you might call it evolutionary with enhanced graphics but aside from that the games don't appear to be any different from the long line of games that preceded them.

what? (3, Interesting)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263714)

"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? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263778)

But what percentage of people own HD TVs? What percentage of people who play video games own HD TVs? The target market of a game console is probably mostly males, from the ages of 10 - 30. Of those who still live with their parents, many may have HD TVs, but probably don't have access to it to play video games all that often since the parents paid for the TV and probably want to use it. They are stuck using the old standard TV to play the video games. I think that many of the parents still have the attitude that games ruin the TV, and won't even let the console near the expensive HDTV. Also, those that have moved out are in college, or recently out of college, or never went to college. Not many people in these situations are out spending the megabucks on the expensive TV. So, the verdict is still out, because although the system does have better graphics when used right, most people won't notice.

Re:what? (5, Interesting)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263782)

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.

Re:what? (1)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264062)

There is no question the market penetration of HDTV's is lacking. This console will last at least 4 or 5 years, and by then (due to new legislation in the US) you will see HDTVs become increasingly popular. I have found many people that have bought one just for the 360 - these NextGen consoles will create a mini boom in sales.

My point was that it is ridiculous to compare the graphics of the 360 to Xbox1 and say the "Jury is Out". The graphical differences are nothing short of astounding for a television.

Re:what? (1)

algodon (933104) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263820)

umm, yeah... guess what kind of tv 90% of us DON'T have? It was a stupid move on Microsoft's part to assume that everyone was going to run out and buy HD TVs. Now to those of us with regular tvs the 360's graphics are marginally if at all better than XBox's.

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14263825)

Is this why Call of Duty 2 looks like crap on those Xbox360 kiosks? I thought those samsung flat panels were HD but I was completely underwhelmed. The graphics look like the PC version with effects set to "medium" and with anti aliasing disabled. Is this due to it being a bad port of the PC game? I lost my excitement for the Xbox360 after playing that game at 2 kiosks.

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14263943)

For what it's worth, a friend of mine has the Xbox 360 with a brand new $2000 HDTV he bought just for the console (yeah, no kidding...) and Call of Duty 2 really does look outstanding on it. It's a good game, too.

On the other hand, of course, I've been playing FPSes for years and this game doesn't really much new to the table. There's no chance I would plunk down the cash for the console and game (let alone a TV) to play it.

In fact, I quite honestly don't really get why anybody's much excited about the Xbox 360, at least at this point... Yeah, another FPS... racing... more sports games... great. Whatever. I'm really looking forward to the Revolution. At least Nintendo is trying to do something new.

Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14264419)

Yeah, another FPS... racing... more sports games... great. Whatever. I'm really looking forward to the Revolution. At least Nintendo is trying to do something new.

I'm a consoles fan, I like both the Xbox1 and the PS2 (and have earlier generations of PS as well), and I intend to buy both the new gen consoles.

Yet, I agree with you. The only ones bringing something radically new to the table in terms of gaming are Nintendo.

On the technical front, the PS3's Cell will also be revolutionary, but new tech is not the same thing as novelty in gaming. And as for MS, the Xbox 360 brings nothing new to the gaming table at all. Sad.

Nintendo++ !!!

Re:what? (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263928)

Q: What advantages consoles _had_ over PC?
A: Being inexpensive and being identical.

Re:what? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263969)

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.

I saw the XBox 360 on display at several stores throughout the holiday shopping season. Honestly? I can't say I'm impressed. The leap between the PS1 and the PS2 was far greater than what I can see between the XBox 360 and the current generation of consoles on the market.

Anyway, gameplay is much more important to me than graphics. PGR 3 just didn't snag me like Gran Turismo did. Considering they are promoting the 360 so heavily with PGR 3 (at least from what I can tell) I would assume it would have not only looked hot but also played hot.

Re:what? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264027)

... and it was probably a dumb move on Microsoft's part. Why focus right now on HD to the exclusion of regular TV? Most people have regular TVs.

Had we hit the upper limit of "how good graphics can get" on a regular TV? Well, when I play PS2 or XBox games, I'm not confusing them for live-action broadcasts. Further, when I'm watching regular TV, I'm usually not that bothered by the idea that "it doesn't look real enough".

So what's HD other than a buzzword? I don't have an HDTV, so is Microsoft sending the message that I shouldn't bother buying the XBox360 unless I'm willing to spend an additional thousand dollars or more to get a new TV?

Yeah, that's dumb.

Re:what? (1)

ShibaInu (694434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264421)

HDTV may be much better, but how many of either care or can tell the difference? In addition, HDTV sets themselves are expensive and you pretty much need a set top box from the cable company to take advantage of HD programming - adding to the cost. Regular TV is good enough for most folks, at least until their current TV dies or HD distribution comes down in price.

Of course, were I to have an HDTV, I'd really want to have a console that could take advantage of it.

Re:what? (1)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264144)

Really? I was looking at the games, and noticing how still thin wires tend to appear and disappear and go jagged as you move around (in MSR) and the guns in Line of Fire 2 (sorry if I've got the game names wrong) also have nasty jaggies along their edges.

Yes, it's nice the resolution is high, but as far as I'm concerned, if you get evil jaggies, you are worse than the dreamcast was, which while tending to be a little low on polygon count didn't have a jaggie problem.

Re:what? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264162)

Cool. Would be nice if you paypalled me enough cash to get an HD tv.

Xbox 360 can't do 1080p (1)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264303)

I dare you to take a 360 and hook it up to ANY tv with a native resolution of 720p, 1080i, or 1080p

You're right on the first two resolutions, but not on the third.

The Xbox 360 hardware doesn't support 1080p --- its highest progressive mode is 720, whereas at 1080 it supports interlaced only. In contrast, the PS3 is categorically stated as supporting 1080p in its hardware. [<but insert vapourware alert here>]

Of course, this doesn't currently mean much in practice, except to those interested in spec wars. And it's also somewhat relevant to those who want their future A/V equipment to display computer data in the more rock-stable progressive format to which we've become accustomed in the computer world.

Simple next generation definition (0)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263717)

"A newer console that is widely agreed to have better sound and graphical capabilities than its predecessor and offers new tricks that the old system could never do."

Do these guy's have egos or what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14263793)

That's the most in your face webpages I've ever seen (based on how much screen real estate their portraits take). Sorry, I can't take ego cases seriously enough to figure out if they have anything significant to say.

Question about xbox live (2, Informative)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263837)

is a live subscription a broadband service, or do you need a broadband connection in the first place?

just interested, either way I'm getting the Revolution. I don't buy MS or Sony products, partly because I hate those two companies' practices but mainly because they just don't make products that I'm at all interested in. the Revolution is the only console that offers something genuinely new, plus I like Nintendo games.

plus it's the cheapest and my gamecube games and controllers will still work (for "conventional" games). I don't know how the internet connection will compare but that isn't important to me since I don't think my home connection would be up to standards.

Re:Question about xbox live (1)

iceanfire (900753) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264028)

Live requires you to have broadband in the first place. There may be bundles out there that offer both.

Pah, the article is crap right at the start (4, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263848)

on the other, you have a U.S.-based company whose fortune was made off operating systems for the PC and whose number of years in the videogame industry can be counted on a single hand.

I am sorry? Exactly when was did MS get involved with flight simulator (first a non-ms game but now firmly owned by ms) vs Sony involvement with games? I spot it as MS being almost a full decade earlier. In 1982 MS licensed the program from sublogic to be released on the IBM-PC (before it had been on all the other platforms of the day but NOT that new fangled thingy). The playstation doesn't make an entry until 1994. (Oh and it even seems that MS flight simulator as it would become known was no fluke but actually commisioned by Bill Gates himself wich would explain why such an odd product would keep being developed)

Or do PC games not count as video games? When an article doesn't even do basic research how worthy can the rest of it be?

So for your info. MS has for a very long time had a game division for its operating platform and continues to do so. Sony wich became a game player much later in live also has a big PC division, almost all of its MMO titles for one. MS of course already had experience with the ancestor of live, MSN chat and similar software. Sony of course did not. MS was late to the internet and the whole online idea but not as late as sony so it is no wonder that the x-box was the first console to have a large online component.

Argh I am bored with this. Game journalists should be shot.

Re:Pah, the article is crap right at the start (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264016)

Not sure you can really call MS Flight Simulator a game. It certainly wasn't marketted at the game playing crowd. Still, MS did publish a number of games in 1996 and bought a couple of studios that are more established than Sony's video games arm, so unless the guy has 9 fingers on his hand he's wrong. And besides - 5 years is a long time in the games industry.

Re:Pah, the article is crap right at the start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14264078)

Hate to be the voice of pedantry, but Sony has been around in the gaming industry MUCH longer than that - go look up the MSX (admittedly not a success story, but Sony was one of the major players), and once you're done there, go look for the Sony games made for the Megadrive & the SNES, and more.

1994? Not even close.

Re:Pah, the article is crap right at the start (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264381)

I wouldn't all flight simulator a game. As to Microsoft history in the game market I would look back to the old MSX machines. []

What the next gen means? (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263872)

What the next gen means? Easy - more/much_more expensive to produce games = more "suit" decisions, less variety, fewer titles, more "cool" factor, less fun factor. Same shit basically as happened with PC gaming (if you remember early-mid 90's and today).

Next Gen is about lock-in (3, Informative)

Generic Guy (678542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263884)

I was just reading a blurb in Game Informer magazine, about some 'patented' process Sony is working on with PS3 to undercut the used game market. Something to do with tying your game disc to your specific console. This and the reported Blu-Ray DRM which can disable your machine makes the Sony rootkit fiasco look tame by comparison.

Microsoft has been moving full steam ahead with Xbox Live, offering downloads for sale right into your 360's hard drive. I think it is both interesting and embarassing for MS that one of the most engaging Xbox 360 titles is a $5 download called Geometry Wars. But again, this is about locking in your customers, so you can nickel and dime them to death. I find it ironic that Microsoft touts media freedom with the 360, but you need a pricey MCE2005 PC setup to use it and it still doesn't support xvid nor divx MP4 videos.

If this is what they are offering customers this time around, I'm much more interested in seeing what Nintendo has to offer.

Re:Next Gen is about lock-in (1)

pl1ght (836951) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264054)

My wife just spent 3.5 hours last night playing Zuma on my xbox360. And i will agree that the arcade games are quite addicting, but at least they are in HD, and they pass the time between lulls in good game releases. Not saying that they are more fun than my copy of NFS:MW or PGR3, but they are some great time killers the whole family is enjoying. MS is doing a good job of keeping us glued to the couch.

Re:Next Gen is about lock-in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14264158)

This same anti-Sony bullshit about self-destructing discs & console tie-in was spewed out at the time the PS2 was launched. Go look at the date on the patent, realise it was 5 years ago, and further realise that this patent has nothing to do with the PS line at all.

Re:Next Gen is about lock-in (1)

mejesster (813444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264272)

That bit about the single console lock-in discs has been pretty thoroughly debunked and has been rejected by Sony execs as being unreasonable. How can Sony sell software if you can't bring your copy of GTA:PS3 over to my house to show me how I can stab hookers in the eye, steal their cocaine and then push it to my runners on the street?

Sony understands consoles, Microsoft doesn't. (3, Interesting)

RoLi (141856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263898)

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.

Re:Sony understands consoles, Microsoft doesn't. (1)

pl1ght (836951) | more than 8 years ago | (#14263998)

Possibly. I will own a PS3, and I already own an Xbox 360. I am definitely a Sony fanboy tho if you want to go there(not that i should since slashdot hates sony). But that aside, I agree with all of your points on the PS3 and exactly why it will dominate again. But, the one thing Microsoft has over PS3 is the online infrastructure. Sony has already stated there wont be an "Xbox Live"(ish) version of their ps3 online. It will be the game developers responsibility. Maybe this will change (i hope so). I could care less about backwards compatibility, i have a hard time playing an old generation game, thats just me though, i know the masses are different and that im in the minority. But the 360s online infrastructure is just amazing. I can download movie trailers in 720p, download tons of xbox live arcade games that truly are addicting(many are talking about these now) and cheaper than the retail games. And i find myself in awe of the complete online/media infrastructure Microsoft put together. My wife and sister in law and mother in law have all stopped to comment on how that would be fun to have for themselves. Im pretty sure MS will do much better this time around than last time. But for real gamers and true HD experience the PS3 will be the way to go in the end.

Re:Sony understands consoles, Microsoft doesn't. (1)

Alkonaut (604183) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264045)

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
I agree. At least as much losses. But that's probably calculated. The original xbox made sure that game development for windows AND a console was a breeze. During the last generation of consoles, DirectX/Direct3D became the platform of choice for most game deveolpers.

Keeping windows/directx as the premiere gaming platform is crucial to Microsoft. So if they only break even or even lose on the X360-project then so be it. I'll have to buy Vista to play games on my pc in 2007, and the reason for that is pretty much the X360.

Probably not (4, Interesting)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264152)

"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.

Re:Probably not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14264285)

But the 360 hasn't had the opportunity to sell to anyone except for the handful of uber-geeky XBox fanboys who pre-ordered months in advance and (in many cases) were forced to buy several games and accessories in order to ensure their pre-order. The fact is that, regardless of the system, you're lucky if you get the 'average' or 'casual' gamer to buy 4 or 5 (new) games during its entire lifetime; when you consider that the console maker makes $7-$10 per (3rd-party) title this means that the most a console should ever attempt to loose would be $28-$40 and this doesn't even include the massive marketing costs (for most systems it is in the $500,000,000 range per year [about $10-$20 per system sold]). Ultimately, the money Microsoft appears to be loosing up front on the system will never be recovered in the systems lifetime.

Yeah! J Allard! Woo! (3, Insightful)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264163)

"We can't wait to get people's feedback"

Like the class-action suit about your overheating power bricks? :P

These words from Allard, repeated throughout this gutsy interview, are the proof that the limited availability is more about public beta testing than production shortages, the hype machine or any thing else.

(Also: Allard was on form with his 'I'm so excited I could *POP*' attitude.)

It doesn't mater who is first, really (3, Insightful)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264271)

PS2 was first and dominated that last gen market, but then, Sony had taken over the market with the PSOne long before MS decides to enter the fray.

Its about games, pure and simple. Xbox failed simply because there were not enough exclusive titles, and not any gaming franchises established to help drive console sales. I never bought an Xbox because I could get the same titles for my PS2. What few exclusive titles for the Xbox, like Halo, eventually made it to PC.

Micosoft is setting up the XBox360 for the same fall. The problem know is that many "new" Xbox360 games will also see Xbox and PS2 versions. Not just are there no exclusive titles, but these titles are not even respecting console generations, being downgraded to sell on previous generation consoles.

Again, why would I buy an Xbox360 when, for the time being, many of the popular titles will be released for the PS2 as well.

I am a gamer that prefers gameplay over style and graphics. If a game is fun to play and entertaining for a long time, I could care less if the 3D graphics are not cinematic quality. I won't pay $400 to play a $40 game I could get for a system I already own.

If MS thinks that by getting there first is going to make the Xbox360 shine, then they will loose once again to gain market share. Without exclusive titles, and allowing game developers to release games for other platforms AND older generations, Microsoft is doing nothing to spur sales of Xbox360 hardware.

Sony has a number of platform specific titles that don't exist on any other platform, and I am sure when the PS3 is released, they won't be releasing the same games for the PS2. This is still why the PS3 will outsell the Xbox360, because MS inisist on whoring themselves and their game developers to anyone willing to buy a license, rather then forcing stronger commitments from game developers for exclusive titles.

I have 17 fingers! (1)

ratboot (721595) | more than 8 years ago | (#14264374)

About Microsoft : "whose number of years in the videogame industry can be counted on a single hand"

So, I have 17 fingers!!!

From Wikipedia :

"Bruce Artwick left subLOGIC to found Bruce Artwick Organisation to work on subsequent Microsoft releases, beginning with Microsoft Flight Simulator 3.0 in 1988."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?