Sony says PS2 for 2-3 more years | PS3 for 9

[Thund3rball]

There's a decent read on the future of the PS2 & PS3 over at MSNBC with an interview with Jack Tretton, head of Sony Computer Entertainment America.

It's going to be interesting to see what does happen in the future however I think MS is probably going to take Sony's advice and let the 360 live a long life just like the PS2 is. Therefore negating the Sony argument of the 360 being a dated system and the PS3 a more forward thinking console for tomorrow and taking market share with it's "all-in-one" approach. Not to mention the difficulty developers are having with creating PS3 titles. Maybe it'll get better, maybe not? Here's a few quotes to wet your palette.

http://rss.msnbc.msn.com/id/22044630/

... if you put it into perspective, we’re not taking the safe route. We didn’t take the PlayStation 2 and add a few bells and whistles to it. … What we’re trying to do here is … refocus the game industry towards high-definition gaming, a real state-of-the-art, future-proof machine for the next decade.

...

We realized that not every consumer is going to be ready for what the PlayStation 3 offers in the first year and I don’t know that we expect or need them to be ready for it. We need them to be ready for it over the next decade. And if you look at the PlayStation 2, as you just pointed out, we sold 120 million machines so far — but we certainly didn’t sell them all in the first year.

...

the reality is that we’ll sell more PlayStation 2s this year than we sold last year. Our seventh year is bigger than our sixth.

So I don’t see any reason why PlayStation 2 has to end anytime in the near future.

...

So, if next-gen was Internet-connected consoles and high-def, how long do you see this generation lasting?

I think it should last for 10 years. I think we’ve got more technology under the hood and more growth potential in terms of what developers can do with the software than we’ve had in previous generations.

[Hardin]

Hmm I don't know. I already am a little upset that I can only get aa with deferred lighting in dx 10, and the ps3 and 360 don't have dx 10. I think the graphics will be way too outdated in 10 years. It'd be like making a new game for the Nintendo 64.

[Seven]

2 words.

O RLY???

Seriously, what is Sony thinking. The PS3 isn't THAT superior to the 360. This is basic market logic. It'd be like me putting a game out for the Dreamcast right now, that's how the PS3 is going to stand in a few years. How is the 360 dated? It was first to market, first to strike with a few huge blockbusters, and they have many many more coming down the pipe. What if Metal Gear Solid 4 sucks? What if this huge plan doesn't work out?

7

[nakatalee]

2 words.

O RLY???

Seriously, what is Sony thinking. The PS3 isn't THAT superior to the 360. This is basic market logic. It'd be like me putting a game out for the Dreamcast right now, that's how the PS3 is going to stand in a few years. How is the 360 dated? It was first to market, first to strike with a few huge blockbusters, and they have many many more coming down the pipe. What if Metal Gear Solid 4 sucks? What if this huge plan doesn't work out?

7

Metal Gear Solid 4 will never suck..... Metal Gear Solid series never sucked :beer: OK...end of hypnotize.

[Sederien]

I'm still placing bets on MGS4 making its way to both platforms eventually...

[YoMatta]

ya.... metal gear solid 1 was a pivotal moment in my gaming experience...


*sigh of nostalgia*

[FudgeNuggets]

They're just talking out of their asses again, we'll see another gen of consoles in about 5 years.

[ghost_recon88]

For gosh sakes, when are they gonna let the PS2 die?!?!?!

[Thund3rball]

Hey I LOVE my PS2 :D

[rainless]

Hmm I don't know. I already am a little upset that I can only get aa with deferred lighting in dx 10, and the ps3 and 360 don't have dx 10. I think the graphics will be way too outdated in 10 years. It'd be like making a new game for the Nintendo 64.


The 360 uses a modified DX10.

It's true: The graphics will certainly be outdated in ten years... unless they find a way to update the graphics card. This has already been done for laptops. The PS2 has thus far lasted 7 years. So ten years for the PS3 is not a stretch. They didn't really start pushing the envelope of what the PS2 could do until GTA San Andreas. (Well actually I guess Shadow of the Collosus and that game that came out beforehand were the begining.) God of War and God of War II, two all-time best sellers, came out very late in the console's lifespan.

So before any of you rush to judge, let me remind you: They've already done it before. (Before as in "now.")

And I've already mentioned elsewhere that, where Nintendo seems to believe they have the console of the present (I would agree with activision's CEO's assesment that the Wii and DS are being purchased more as toys than gaming platforms), Microsoft and Sony have the consoles of the future. When it comes time for all games to be on Bluray and HD, both companies will be ready for that. When it comes time to upgrade those hard drives to 500 gigs, both companies will be ready for that. When it gets to the point where Nintendo's hardware limitations paint them into a corner... Well... You saw what happened to the Dreamcast. (Yeah, yeah... other factors... Yada yada...)

That said, there's no reason why both Sony AND Microsoft's consoles won't be around at least... if not ten... at LEAST another 6 or 7 years. Microsoft said in the begining that the Xbox was just Microsoft buying themselves into the market. As soon as they'd accomplished that, and released the 360, they pretty much abandonned the Xbox. But I could only see them doing that this time if people really figure out how to use the Cell to it's full potential over the next 5 or six years and the 360 proves itself inadequate. Otherwise I think they may be in it for the long hall this time because they have the processing power and infrastructure that simply wasn't available at the time of the original xbox. (Just look at how Xbox Live has changed.)

I forget how many million people are signed up for Xbox Live and how many million more are signed up for PSN. But the installed base is already there for the long hall. The hardware will continue to improve (like when, halfway throuh the PS2's lifecycle, Sony started upgrading everyone's system with improved cooling, a quiter DVD drive, and I forget what the third improvement was. This was for people that had been getting disc read errors, though technically anyone with an older PS2 could've sent theirs in.), and the user base will continue to grow.

I think they mean it this time.

[Warren G]

Hey I LOVE my PS2 :D

Same here!! SF3 FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FudgeNuggets]

I can see it on one hand, Sony lost their ass on the hardware and will take a long time to recover, and don't want to introduce new hardware because of that but if Microsoft brings along something in 5 years that totally thrashes the PS3, they will force their hand.

[YoMatta]

all i know is the last system i purchased was a PS2 back in 2002, and hte only game i purchased was GTA3 which I never even completed. I played Halo1/2 for a while on xbox, but didn't hit the console scene in a very big way.

then i got this 360 last week and i'm hooked. it's expensive enough as it is and i have zero intention of moving to PS3. what really sells me is the online play via XBL, without that I probably wouldn't be even half as interested. (and of course, I'm a huge fan of the Halo scene still ;))

so, i don't really care what sony does, the only reason i got a PS1 was that fabulous little game Tony Hawk's Pro Skater.... now that I can score the series on XBOX also i'll stick with that. looking forward to the XBox <whatever comes after 360> already :)

[Hardin]

No the xenos chipset in the 360 only supports dx 9.c., and shadermark 3.0. But I agree with everything else you said Rainless. The wii really will be hurting in a few years when the wiimote madness wears off and people realize that they can play fun games that look good at the same time.

[FudgeNuggets]

Actually Rainless is more correct on this one Hardin, 360 uses a specially brewed version of DX that is like a blen of DX9 and DX10 with some 360 specific stuff thrown in.

[Hardin]

Unified shaders != dx 10. There is a lot more to dx 10 than unified shaders and while the xenos has this it basically is just dx 9.c.

[rainless]

Unified shaders != dx 10. There is a lot more to dx 10 than unified shaders and while the xenos has this it basically is just dx 9.c.

I dunno. I've heard numerous times basically the same thing Fudge said, that it was a blend of DX 9/10. Maybe we should both look for links and see what we come up with?

[Hardin]

Well this is what I found when searching. http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=16960
It mentions that the xenos doesn't have geometry shaders which is another feature of dx 10. So I'm pretty comfortable in saying that the 360 is not dx10.

[FudgeNuggets]

Well this is what I found when searching. http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=16960
It mentions that the xenos doesn't have geometry shaders which is another feature of dx 10. So I'm pretty comfortable in saying that the 360 is not dx10.

I didn't say it was, I said it was a customized version of direct X that incorporates aspects of DX9 and DX10 along with specific 360 instructions.... did I not?

[AngelfireUk83]

There was rumors that Sony would use the CELL in PS4 and just work around it with more better memory and other electronic gadgets that make the things run. I suppose it's going to be hard cause the original father of Playstation Ken Kutaragi has now gone so it's upto someone else to design the next 1 but Ken still will play a small part in Sony future plans.

I'm slightly glad at this cause games developers will give what the current consoles have a good push and maybe just maybe get more out of what they currently can do.

[Thund3rball]

Oh I have huge faith in the developers getting more out of the hardware and pushing the limits over time. It's only natural really. Just as long as the hardware is going to be available. No-one is pushing the limits of XBOX 1 because there aren't any around. It's all 360. But I can go buy a white or silver PS2 from BB when the store opens this morning if I want to :D

[Hardin]

I didn't say it was, I said it was a customized version of direct X that incorporates aspects of DX9 and DX10 along with specific 360 instructions.... did I not?

That doesn't make him more correct because he said it had a customized version of dx 10. The Parhelia was dx 8 card because it didn't fully support dx 9. It's the same with the xenos. If anything it would be called dx 9.C+

[rainless]

That doesn't make him more correct because he said it had a customized version of dx 10. The Parhelia was dx 8 card because it didn't fully support dx 9. It's the same with the xenos. If anything it would be called dx 9.C+

Well I can no longer find the article that mentioned that, but you are correct: The 360 uses DirectX 9.0C. Though the point I wanted to make was the same as Fudge's only I made it backwards: It's a custom Directx 9.0c that allows for some DirectX 10 elements. I had stated that it was a custom DirectX 10... but that's not really what I meant.

[FudgeNuggets]

Well I can no longer find the article that mentioned that, but you are correct: The 360 uses DirectX 9.0C. Though the point I wanted to make was the same as Fudge's only I made it backwards: It's a custom Directx 9.0c that allows for some DirectX 10 elements. I had stated that it was a custom DirectX 10... but that's not really what I meant.

6 of one, half dozen of the other bro

[>HyperlogiK<]

AFAIK the 360's graphics API is very largely based on DX9C.

Also, bear in mind that Xenos is really underpowered compared with current gen PC hardware, and even the 8800 series struggle with Crysis, the one DX10 game that actually looks significantly better than recent DX9 titles. Just because your API supports certain features, it doesn't mean you have the horsepower to take full advantage of them.

I read an interview some time ago with the lead programmer on Crysis (I think in PC Zone) where he said that the 360 would never be capable of DX10 class graphics. He didn't elaborate, but I suspect it is both a limitation of Xenos and the API.

[zexmarquies01]

AFAIK the 360's graphics API is very largely based on DX9C.

Also, bear in mind that Xenos is really underpowered compared with current gen PC hardware, and even the 8800 series struggle with Crysis, the one DX10 game that actually looks significantly better than recent DX9 titles. Just because your API supports certain features, it doesn't mean you have the horsepower to take full advantage of them.

I read an interview some time ago with the lead programmer on Crysis (I think in PC Zone) where he said that the 360 would never be capable of DX10 class graphics. He didn't elaborate, but I suspect it is both a limitation of Xenos and the API.


Heh, you'd think that the people that cry out "OMG!!! LOOK AT THIS CONSOLE HARDWARE, PC GAMING IS GOING TO DIE" would learn from stuff like this. Sure, the day that a new console hits the market, it has great hardware. But within a year ( sometimes less ), the hardware is already out-dated, and sub-par compared to the power of computers.

Except for the Cell processor, which, if fully taken advantage of could be better than the processors in most computers...the video cards in a console are always out-dated pretty quickly.

Hell, Nvidia is supposedly to release their Geforce 9xxx series around February. there's no way a current gen console will come close to the power of a new video card.

[FudgeNuggets]

but you pay as much or more for a damned video card as you do a console every 2 years to get better than console graphics

[ghost_recon88]

So what was the original topic of this thread again? :confused:

[Hardin]

but you pay as much or more for a damned video card as you do a console every 2 years to get better than console graphics

Not really. You don't have to buy the high end video cards every generation. I certainly don't and yet my computer keeps up very well in games like Gears of War. I can definitely say it is on par with the 360 version if not better. Using a mouse and keyboard is just a bonus to that graphical goodness. It's true that with a console your pretty much set for a few years but eventually you'll start to notice its age while the pc moved on a long time ago.

[FudgeNuggets]

I just don't like PC gaming or mouse and keyboard controls or even PC controls using a PS2 dualshock with a USB adapter, it just doesn't play the same.

[Hardin]

Well I don't think that's the point of this thread and I didn't want it to end up this way.

[rainless]

So what was the original topic of this thread again? :confused:

PS3 for nine years. I think the 7 that the PS2 lasted is more realistic. Both Microsoft and Nintendo came out with superior hardware last time, but were unable to make a DENT in Sony's marketshare. PS2 developers simply poured their hearts and souls into digging out every last ounce of power the PS2 had. They dug in their heels and, in the end, the PS2 came out on top.

I can see that happening this time around too. Especially with the new 40 gig system going for 399.99. That's exactly what I paid for my 360 (in Vegas) last year. So now "price" is becoming less of a stretch of the imagination. Particularly when you see that a $349 360 is going to charge you $49 for Xbox Live Gold and you'll wind-up right back at $400 anyway.

And, as far as PC gaming goes, all that fancy hardware will never matter again because more and more game publishers program on Consoles instead of PCs. Crysis is the only PC exclusive game I can think of in recent memory. UT3, Call of Duty 4, even the F'N Orange Box... All of them were on consoles. Then there's all the games that are only on Console.

[ghost_recon88]

PS3 for nine years. I think the 7 that the PS2 lasted is more realistic. Both Microsoft and Nintendo came out with superior hardware last time, but were unable to make a DENT in Sony's marketshare. PS2 developers simply poured their hearts and souls into digging out every last ounce of power the PS2 had. They dug in their heels and, in the end, the PS2 came out on top.

I can see that happening this time around too. Especially with the new 40 gig system going for 399.99. That's exactly what I paid for my 360 (in Vegas) last year. So now "price" is becoming less of a stretch of the imagination. Particularly when you see that a $349 360 is going to charge you $49 for Xbox Live Gold and you'll wind-up right back at $400 anyway.

And, as far as PC gaming goes, all that fancy hardware will never matter again because more and more game publishers program on Consoles instead of PCs. Crysis is the only PC exclusive game I can think of in recent memory. UT3, Call of Duty 4, even the F'N Orange Box... All of them were on consoles. Then there's all the games that are only on Console.

O yea, thats right ;)

[FudgeNuggets]

360 got too big a jump on them with the earlier release and then a year of high prices, they can't and won't catch up. They'll finish 3rd with Nintendo winning this battle and MS coming in at #2...... If you want to purely talk hardware sales. I mean BluRay aside, there STILL is no compelling reason to get a PS3...

[ghost_recon88]

360 got too big a jump on them with the earlier release and then a year of high prices, they can't and won't catch up. They'll finish 3rd with Nintendo winning this battle and MS coming in at #2...... If you want to purely talk hardware sales. I mean BluRay aside, there STILL is no compelling reason to get a PS3...

I agree. I see no reason from a game-playing stand point to get the PS3 unless you just want bragging rights that you have the most expensive of the 3 systems :confused: Then again there are some people that would pay for that :rolleyes: Just my $0.02 on the PS3 anyways...

[Hardin]

Well the ps3 will have Tekken 6. That's something you can't take away from it. Eventually the ps3 will have enough exclusives to make it a viable option. It already has Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted.

[FudgeNuggets]

It's taking too long though Hardin, the install base of the Wii and 360 is insurmountable. Had Sony not been stupid and brought the PS3 out at $399 or perhaps even $499 it is likely that they would have given at least MS a beating if not Nintendo.

[Hardin]

So maybe it doesn't have the install the base the ps2 had. That doesn't mean people will stop making money and be unable to afford it now. There are plenty of people who play exclusives like Metal Gear Solid that will buy the ps3. They are already increasing their sales with the 40gb ps3. Not to mention it's usage as a blue-ray player. I never thought I would be defending sony, but they have games coming out now and your fud can't change that.

[rainless]

360 got too big a jump on them with the earlier release and then a year of high prices, they can't and won't catch up. They'll finish 3rd with Nintendo winning this battle and MS coming in at #2

That's completely delusional. Since when, in the past ten years or so, has Nintendo ever won any non-portable battle? They didn't win the battle of the PS1, they sure as hell didn't win the battle of the PS2, and they aren't going to win this battle ever.

All the millions who bought a Wii will think it's a cute toy for a couple of years and move on.

I mean people keep talking about the number of systems Nintendo sold... How many GAMES have they sold? Some low multiple of the number of games that Microsoft... or even Sony... has sold. The Wii is just the new beanie baby of the electronics industry.

Once the fad cools off... They're done.

I don't know how much gaming history I have to present... How much evidence and how many points I have to bring up before somebody gets that.

They don't (and won't) have the third party support. Which means they won't have the games. Which also means they'll never really have an active user base... and I'm not talking about people that just ran out and bought the system and it's been collecting dust in a corner ever since... I'm talking about people who actually go out, buy games, and are actively involved. They aren't even interested in online gaming. Meanwhile Sony and Microsoft are racking up tens of millions of subscribers.

I've heard of short-sighted... but you're going MR. MAGOO!

[Hazaro]

But Nintendo makes money on the GameCube 1.5's it makes :D

Sony and MS have to worry that hardware sales counter act production cost.

[>HyperlogiK<]

The only thing fudge maybe got wrong was 1st and 2nd place, it's very hard not to see the PS3 coming in third unless the prices keep dropping and a whole lot of key games like Tekken 6 come out soon.

The PS3 has had such a bad launch and has attracted so much bad press that approximately equal pricing to the 360 won't do it. It might boost the sales a bit this Christmas, but I don't think it's going to magically reverse Sony's fortunes.

[rainless]

The only thing fudge maybe got wrong was 1st and 2nd place, .

The ONLY thing? Fudge said the one company that has no chance in hell of getting more than two third publishers on their side... and subsequently losing them... over the next five years is going to come out on top. That's more than "maybe" getting something wrong. That's half-way to the Happy Home. (Where life is beautiful all the time and he'll be happy to see those nice men in their clean white suits with the butterfly nets.)

But Nintendo makes money on the GameCube 1.5's it makes :D

Sony and MS have to worry that hardware sales counter act production cost.

No they don't. Unlike Nintendo they have software sales to makeup for the hardware costs. When you've sold fifty eight billion copies of Halo 3 and Gears of War... losing ten or twenty bucks per console isn't that big of a concern.

[Maverick0984]

Excuses.

[FudgeNuggets]

okay....okay....okay.... you don't like Nintendo.... we get it and we all know it..... just like everyone knows I have no love for Sony..... What I'm saying is this and it is pure logic, emotions set aside:

PS3:
People are not sold on HD movies yet, the BluRay functionality of the PS3 is a moot point. I bought one because of BluRay but I am in the VAST minority. The PS3 is an abject FAILURE in the gaming realm because of their shortsightedness on price and overconfidence in BluRay and believing the consumers would flock like lemmings to the sea. By the time they have enough exclusives or IF BluRay wins the HD war it will be too late for the PS3 to be relevant.

360:
They got their first and didn't blow it like Sega did with the Dreamcast. They have the marketing, they have the 3rd parties, they knew the sweet spot in price, they keep releasing improvements via download. Microsoft would have slaughtered the competition this round if it wasn't for:

Wii:
Cheapest of the bunch, MASS appeal and that WONDERFUL control scheme..... that's all they need, they may not sell to people who are set on playing Halo, HalfLife, Unreal and stuff like that, but MY WIFE AND MOTHER will play the Wii.... They have tapped the untappable market. No the graphics aren't even 30% as good as the 360 or PS3 but do my wife and mom care? HELL NO! They think pointing the remote and gyrating it at the screen is the coolest thing ever. They both thing the SIMPLE bowling game on Wii Sports is the most BRILLIANT thing ever..... Who they LOSE in hardcore games like Unreal, GTA etc... they gain in moms, wives and girls 3-fold. Yes there are only a handful of good games for it and a TON of ****ty games, but wives and moms don't care, they'll be patient enough to wait until a good one comes along.

Sony outpowered the competition and LOST
Microsoft threw the kitchen sink at the competition and would up second
Nintendo outsmarted and outmarketed and undercut them all.

[rainless]

okay....okay....okay.... you don't like Nintendo.... we get it and we all know it..... just like everyone knows I have no love for Sony..... What I'm saying is this and it is pure logic, emotions set aside:

PS3:
People are not sold on HD movies yet, the BluRay functionality of the PS3 is a moot point. I bought one because of BluRay but I am in the VAST minority. The PS3 is an abject FAILURE in the gaming realm because of their shortsightedness on price and overconfidence in BluRay and believing the consumers would flock like lemmings to the sea. By the time they have enough exclusives or IF BluRay wins the HD war it will be too late for the PS3 to be relevant.

360:
They got their first and didn't blow it like Sega did with the Dreamcast. They have the marketing, they have the 3rd parties, they knew the sweet spot in price, they keep releasing improvements via download. Microsoft would have slaughtered the competition this round if it wasn't for:

Wii:
Cheapest of the bunch, MASS appeal and that WONDERFUL control scheme..... that's all they need, they may not sell to people who are set on playing Halo, HalfLife, Unreal and stuff like that, but MY WIFE AND MOTHER will play the Wii.... They have tapped the untappable market. No the graphics aren't even 30% as good as the 360 or PS3 but do my wife and mom care? HELL NO! They think pointing the remote and gyrating it at the screen is the coolest thing ever. They both thing the SIMPLE bowling game on Wii Sports is the most BRILLIANT thing ever..... Who they LOSE in hardcore games like Unreal, GTA etc... they gain in moms, wives and girls 3-fold. Yes there are only a handful of good games for it and a TON of ****ty games, but wives and moms don't care, they'll be patient enough to wait until a good one comes along.

Sony outpowered the competition and LOST
Microsoft threw the kitchen sink at the competition and would up second
Nintendo outsmarted and outmarketed and undercut them all.

This has nothing to do with me hating the Wii. This has something to do with REALITY. People paying $500 for a Wii and $500 for a Beanie Baby simply isn't a long term reality. Your WIFE and your MOTHER may like the Wii... but your wife and your mother aren't gamers. Wives and mothers buy Beanie Babies and later on they buy Lance Armstrong bracelets. Right now the Wii just happens to be the in thing... but it won't last.

And for the VERY LAST TIME... The Wii will never... and let me make sure you hear me this time:

EVER

...be able to compete with Sony and Microsoft in terms of selling software. And that's what it's all about in the end. It's not about some shiney piece of hardware. It's about the amount of software you sell. The Saturn was far superior, in terms of hardware, to every other console on the market. But they couldn't get it done where it counted: The software. They had some great titles. The Wii has maybe THREE great titles. But they aren't going to be able to get it done where it counts.

And until you address that little issue, you haven't really said anything.

[Hardin]

Nothing is set in stone right now. Nintendo may be first now but I don't think they will last. Casual gamers will forget about the wii like they do with all fads. It's the hardcore gamers that stick around.

[Seven]

You guys are missing the point. The Wii is WINNING. Not "for now" or "until the fad wears off", they're literally handing the 360 and PS3s normal controllers back to them on a silver platter.

As long as titles are being released for the Wii that are actually good (for god's sake, they had super mario galaxy no less than a MONTH ago), it will keep selling. It has little kids, girls, old people and the party scene locked down. No other console has that. The 360 has the real gamers and most high school and college kids right now. The PS3 is out in the cold.

Secondly, the Wii is doing well. The market really has a carrying capacity for 2 consoles, max. This has been shown time and time again, there's really no room for a 3rd, even if it's stellr. Nintendo pulls ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY DOLLARS OFF EVERY SINGLE WII. HOW CAN I MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR? For every Wii, you are putting literally about half of that money straight into Nintendo's pocket in pure profit. THAT is why it's doing well. Period.

Microsoft is doing well, I own a 360, and I like it. It's very nice to play online with your friends, and the system for doing so is unparalled. Microsoft just made some blunders, as always, with their system. First of all, failing to put in an HD-DVD drive was somewhat of a mistake, as it would have helped their case. But again, we'd be looking at a PS3 price system with a format that might not even be used to it's fullest if it's so hard to work with. No wireless is just inexcusable. The Wii has it FFS. But the main point I'm trying to make is that Microsoft got into the market first (they had to), hit HARD with some nice titles (Gears, Halo) and now they're sitting in a nice position just fending off whatever the PS3 has coming.

Now, lets talk holidays, this is where it's really going to matter. The Wii and the 360 will do well. I can guarantee it. Right now, the PS3 DOES NOT have the games to do well this christmas. What the hell are you going to get a little kid, a PS3 with warhawk and uncharted, or a Wii like all of his friends have with Mario? For adults, you're looking at a small segment of the market as PS3's ideal buyers, yet they either a) already have a 360 or b) are planning on getting one because all their friends have one and the games are out for it that make it great. The PS3 is just the odd console out in this situation, and banking upon ONE game that's been hyped to oblivion to somehow miraculously pull this console from the grave is ridiculous.

Sony needs to do the smart thing, and maybe stop focusing on the OLD PS2. The PS2 still outsells the PS3. That's a joke for any company. Microsoft and Nintendo have moved on, it's time for Sony to do the same.



Now, switching directions for a bit...

I'd like to argue that Sony did not WIN with the PS1. Ask ANYBODY what the system of the 90s was and they'll tell you the N64. The number of classic 10/10 games (GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Super Mario 64, MOTHER****ING ZELDA, MarioKart, StarFox 64, Bomberman, and so on and so forth) was unprecedented for a single console. Seriously, N64 whomped on the PS1. Name a game lineup that can beat mine and I'll paypal you $10. You can't. As long as Nintendo has Shigeru Miyamoto (sp?), there's no stopping them. They've been in gaming for too long to simply give up their stake. And the N64 conquered the gaming world. It was a truly great system.

7

[Hardin]

The Wii is not going to win without third party support! All the big games that I have been hearing about on the Wii have been first party. And not even new first party games. Just list some third party games for me. The controller is fun for awhile but there is nothing else interesting about the wii. It has poor graphics with a low selection of games.

[Thund3rball]

I don't know about where you guys are but up here Wii's are all but non-existant on store shelves and rampant on Craigslist starting at $400. I might see myself paying $260 + tax for a Wii, but $400-$600... no bloody way. I won't even pay that for a 360. So I wonder how many moms, sisters & grammas are going to fork over the big bucks on CL for a beanie baby over the next month? :D

[rainless]

You guys are missing the point. The Wii is WINNING. Not "for now" or "until the fad wears off", they're literally handing the 360 and PS3s normal controllers back to them on a silver platter.

As long as titles are being released for the Wii that are actually good (for god's sake, they had super mario galaxy no less than a MONTH ago), it will keep selling. It has little kids, girls, old people and the party scene locked down. No other console has that. The 360 has the real gamers and most high school and college kids right now. The PS3 is out in the cold.

Secondly, the Wii is doing well. The market really has a carrying capacity for 2 consoles, max. This has been shown time and time again, there's really no room for a 3rd, even if it's stellr. Nintendo pulls ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY DOLLARS OFF EVERY SINGLE WII. HOW CAN I MAKE THAT MORE CLEAR? For every Wii, you are putting literally about half of that money straight into Nintendo's pocket in pure profit. THAT is why it's doing well. Period.

Microsoft is doing well, I own a 360, and I like it. It's very nice to play online with your friends, and the system for doing so is unparalled. Microsoft just made some blunders, as always, with their system. First of all, failing to put in an HD-DVD drive was somewhat of a mistake, as it would have helped their case. But again, we'd be looking at a PS3 price system with a format that might not even be used to it's fullest if it's so hard to work with. No wireless is just inexcusable. The Wii has it FFS. But the main point I'm trying to make is that Microsoft got into the market first (they had to), hit HARD with some nice titles (Gears, Halo) and now they're sitting in a nice position just fending off whatever the PS3 has coming.

Now, lets talk holidays, this is where it's really going to matter. The Wii and the 360 will do well. I can guarantee it. Right now, the PS3 DOES NOT have the games to do well this christmas. What the hell are you going to get a little kid, a PS3 with warhawk and uncharted, or a Wii like all of his friends have with Mario? For adults, you're looking at a small segment of the market as PS3's ideal buyers, yet they either a) already have a 360 or b) are planning on getting one because all their friends have one and the games are out for it that make it great. The PS3 is just the odd console out in this situation, and banking upon ONE game that's been hyped to oblivion to somehow miraculously pull this console from the grave is ridiculous.

Sony needs to do the smart thing, and maybe stop focusing on the OLD PS2. The PS2 still outsells the PS3. That's a joke for any company. Microsoft and Nintendo have moved on, it's time for Sony to do the same.



Now, switching directions for a bit...

I'd like to argue that Sony did not WIN with the PS1. Ask ANYBODY what the system of the 90s was and they'll tell you the N64. The number of classic 10/10 games (GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Super Mario 64, MOTHER****ING ZELDA, MarioKart, StarFox 64, Bomberman, and so on and so forth) was unprecedented for a single console. Seriously, N64 whomped on the PS1. Name a game lineup that can beat mine and I'll paypal you $10. You can't. As long as Nintendo has Shigeru Miyamoto (sp?), there's no stopping them. They've been in gaming for too long to simply give up their stake. And the N64 conquered the gaming world. It was a truly great system.

7


You still haven't said anything. You still haven't mentioned the one thing that actually counts: The software. Everybody wants to talk about kids and old ladies... Well how many copies of Super Mario Galaxy were sold versus copies of Halo 3?

I rest my case.

Until somebody comes up with a counter-argument to that (And right now Nintendo JUST has Mario and two other games)... and the Bioshocks and Mass Effects of the world that turn that $150 advantage into a $6000 loss... then you're just talking into the wind.

EDIT: Oh... and I'm afraid your second point doesn't pan out either. It's not about "the number of classic games" yadda yadda yadda... It's about... again, the number of games sold. And on that level Sony annihilated Nintendo and went well on their way of putting Sega's hardware division out of business... with inferior hardware I might add. See... you can have inferior hardware if you have the third party developers on your side (which nintendo doesn't.) But if you're got inferior hardware, the third party developers are on the OTHER team's side, AND you don't have the games to sell...

[TommyHolly]

I don't think you can compare the Wii with Sega's Dreamcast (or even Saturn). I have owned all these systems and Sega just didnt have good games. Thats the main thing that killed them. Add to that they kept coming up with these rediculously expensive systems too late with too little to offer. Nintendo is fun to play and has a wider audience. For example, when girls come over and see the Wii, they love it. But when they see me playing Portal or some FPS they don't want anything to do with it.

When it's time to upgrade the graphics, Nintendo will just come out with a new system. Until that time, Nintendo should be good for a long while. Not everyone needs all that expensive stuff Sony and Xbox has...I'd rather play the high end things on a PC anyway. Sony and Microsoft won't keep thier current platforms for 10 years. I expect a new system in 5-6 years for all 3 systems.

[rainless]

I don't think you can compare the Wii with Sega's Dreamcast (or even Saturn). I have owned all these systems and Sega just didnt have good games. Thats the main thing that killed them. Add to that they kept coming up with these rediculously expensive systems too late with too little to offer. Nintendo is fun to play and has a wider audience. For example, when girls come over and see the Wii, they love it. But when they see me playing Portal or some FPS they don't want anything to do with it.

.


What's this? Somebody ELSE dancing around the amount of software sold?

It's great that you think Sega didn't have good games. You're entitled to your opinion. The only problem is, everyone else in the universe would say you were wrong. The 2k series started on the Dreamcast. Panzer Dragoon started on the Saturn. Marvel vs. Capcom 2 was created FOR the Dreamcast and built using the Naomi system which was also used in half of the arcade games that existed in the last portion of the existence of arcades. Well... I don't need to go down the list of classic Sega games (and best sellers... and series that are now being created on next gen systems...)

Suffice to say: You're wrong.

And what's this about the systems "coming out late"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Are you telling me the Dreamcast "Came out late?" Even in the Saturn era... the N64 was the last system to come out. I believe the Saturn was the first.

[Hardin]

The Dreamcast was probably our most used console of the last gen. We had the most games for it and played it all the time. It's a shame it went under.

[JzAr]

So who won?

[Elif Tymes]

I'll buy a PS3 when it hits $250 for a unit used. I'll buy a Wii when it hits $150 for a used unit and I just bought a 360 for $280 with HDMI and a couple games.

Lots of people are like me. They're waiting on prices to drop. However, I think 360 is in first place, with Wii a close second and PS3 is in third.

But that can change.

[IR1]

Sony says a lot of things! Half the crap coming out of Sony's Playstation Dept is BS. Sony needs to just shutup and make some games that people actually want to play, instead of lobbing verbal grenades at the 360 they need to show people where the benefit to the PS3 is. The PS3 right now is just a blueray player IMO. Games that used to be exclusive to PS, aren't anymore, Devil May Cry 4 will be on the 360, GTA4 of course at launch, and I would not be the least bit surprised if MGS4 eventually came to the 360, but probably a year or so later. The issue is developers spend so much money they have to offer their product to as many customers as possible to maximize revenue in hopes to turn in a profit. Being exclusive to one console has minimal if any benefit to the developer.

Here is the kicker for the Wii, the 360 and PS3 are close enough in terms of performance that any multiplatform games will be pretty much the same. The Wii, takes a big hit plus the control scheme becomes an afterthought for 3rd party developers making games for all 3 systems. What you get with the Wii is a lot of stripped down games where the control scheme is less than steller. That does not make for a good combination... I agree with Rainless, the Wii has a TON of hype and a ton of non-gamer types buying the hardware, but non-gamer types do not drive the purchase of software nearly as much. The console industry is about selling games, that is where the profit is. If you can make money on the console then good for you but you better have some games soon because a one time fixed profit per machine will not keep you ahead of the 360. It may not even keep them ahead of the PS3.

My predicton for the next 3 years of this console generation is: 1. 360, 2. PS3, 3. Wii. (I see PS3 and Wii very close) Why? The Wii will show some serious aging compared to the 360 and PS3 hitting their strides in terms of developers taking full advantage of their capabilities. I see Nintendo pulling a Sega Dreamcast somewhere in the next 5 years as well.

In closing, I see absolutely no reason to buy a PS3, none... :P

[rainless]

Here is the kicker for the Wii, the 360 and PS3 are close enough in terms of performance that any multiplatform games will be pretty much the same.

ERRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHHH!

[-_{MoW}_-Assasi]

F@H just doesnt captivate me to buy a PS3

Nor does any other PS3 game

My mate's bro bought 3 PS3s from America and brought it back, one for him, one for his dad, and one for my mate

They played it for a week and none of them have touched their consoles since


I like the PS3, I really do, but there is not one game at the moment that would push me to buy it


Unitl Gran Turismo 5, I dont think Ill be looking at consoles atm

(I currently have a PS2 and a PSP)

To me, the XBox 360 is overated, I dont like Halo and the games and graphics on it just dont captivate me

The Wii, I might actually buy this one, if there was one good game on it
I like the concept, I like the way its played, but its games are just so childish

[tenchi86]

The PS3 currently has a few very good titles. Resistance, Unreal Tournament, Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted, the issue is the Xbox 360 simply got out first and also has some very good titles; not to mention it has Xbox Live! and most people like to play with their friends so if the games they want comes on both systems then it only makes sense to get the system your friend has.

Anyway we are talking about console life cycle here. 2-3 years more for the PS2 seems like a long shot to me, at least as a top selling system. Though I don't at all doubt it will be supported by rental/retail stores for that long. The PS3 I could easily see going another 9 if you take into account that the projection is including years where the system is not longer the top contender, such as the years the PS2 is facing now. (So really like 5-6 more years till another Playstation is released)

[Neural Net]

Rainless is frustratingly in error about this generation. Plus I fail to see any sales figures that back up his claim. Some careful reassessment of the situation is needed. Stating "you're wrong" to everyone that offers a different angle does not make you right, and to top it off, you haven't gone to any lengths to prove you're right either (large and bold type does not count).

Back on topic: 9 years is far too long in terms of graphics at least, the PC is already leaps and bounds above anything this current generation of consoles are capable of. And btw, don't say the 360 runs on Direct X10, it doesn't it's 9.0c with some DX10 elements, namely the unified architecture which provides flexible performance, and allows developers to overcome some hurdles, such as developing games according to the number of vertex, shader and geometry pipelines a GPU has - theoretically providing the 360 with a longer shelf life.

No one is buying PS3 titles, because the PS3 hasn't got any good titles at the moment. Drake's Fortune has 8 hours of gameplay including cutscenes at that was meant to be a console seller. Assassin's Creed and COD4 are the most popular selling PS3 titles, but wait, they're not exclusives. I've seen 10 times the demand for Mario Galaxy and Mario Olympics than any PS3 title you care to mention.

This is PS3 vs Wii btw, so don't quote Halo 3 figures. Kthxbye. :p

[IR1]

I was in Target today and I saw the PS3 on display playing GRAW 2, I was not impressed with the graphics, and while there was no fps counter, I could tell it was about 30fps. Which is petty slow, maybe they had it in 1080i, but still. Anyway I don't know what Rainless' response to my post was exactly about but I think he may have missed the point.

I do not think PS3 as it is now is close to the Xbox 360 in actual game performance and graphics when looking at the same game (it is possible theywill figure out how to better program for the PS3, or maybe it really is just a POS). I know a couple multiplatform games that are great on the 360 and perform like garbage on the PS3. I was just saying the Wii will be worse, and controls will be afterthoughts on 3rd party multiplatform games.

[Panneskjegg]

I do not think PS3 as it is now is close to the Xbox 360 in actual game performance and graphics when looking at the same game (it is possible theywill figure out how to better program for the PS3, or maybe it really is just a POS). I know a couple multiplatform games that are great on the 360 and perform like garbage on the PS3. I was just saying the Wii will be worse, and controls will be afterthoughts on 3rd party multiplatform games.
I have both a 360 Elite, and a PS3. And I agree with you - the 360 is better when it comes to gaming. I won't go into GFX differences between the 2 consoles, because I haven't done any A/B comparisions. But I think the GFX is good on both. On paper, the PS3 should be miles ahead of the Xbox360 - but it's not. Perhaps it's because the developers don't take full advantage of the PS3 "engine", I don't know. But the Xbox360 has been out much longer than the PS3 - so I hope games will eventually be better on the PS3.

As of now, I think the 360 is the better of the two for gaming. Just crank the volume up LOUD when playing on the 360, because it is noisy as hell. I think that's the biggest minus about that console.. It's not fun having an airplane in your living room.

However.. What about all those people buying new 720/1080p TVs ? Here the PS3 has a HUGE advantage. Because it has an awesome DVD/Bluray player, which can also be upgraded easily. Most people don't care about that (or don't know that), though... But for those that do care about that - the PS3 is so worth every damn penny, even if it did cost twice of what it does now. Gaming is just a bonus on it ;)

[Neural Net]

I have both a 360 Elite, and a PS3. And I agree with you - the 360 is better when it comes to gaming. I won't go into GFX differences between the 2 consoles, because I haven't done any A/B comparisions. But I think the GFX is good on both. On paper, the PS3 should be miles ahead of the Xbox360 - but it's not. Perhaps it's because the developers don't take full advantage of the PS3 "engine", I don't know. But the Xbox360 has been out much longer than the PS3 - so I hope games will eventually be better on the PS3.




There's nothing to take advantage of because it's all a gimmick, a marketing ploy. The cell is good for things like f@h but not for gaming, out of order processors are far better in that respect. The cell has 9 cores (1 PEE, and 8 SPEs, one of which is reserved for redundancy) - you'd be pushed to get a game to use 8 separate threads all at once.

Eventually games may be better, but the graphics chip in the 360 is more flexible and the Cell isn't the be all and end all. It's very fast for certain applications, but games actually isn't one of them. The Cell was originally intended to do everything, including the work of a GPU, but it fell flat on its face.

Basically the 360 and PS3 are practically identical, the graphics chip in the 360 is actually more powerful, but the Cell just about manages to make up for this.

[rainless]

There's nothing to take advantage of because it's all a gimmick, a marketing ploy. The cell is good for things like f@h but not for gaming, out of order processors are far better in that respect. The cell has 9 cores (1 PEE, and 8 SPEs, one of which is reserved for redundancy) - you'd be pushed to get a game to use 8 separate threads all at once.

Eventually games may be better, but the graphics chip in the 360 is more flexible and the Cell isn't the be all and end all. It's very fast for certain applications, but games actually isn't one of them. The Cell was originally intended to do everything, including the work of a GPU, but it fell flat on its face.

Basically the 360 and PS3 are practically identical, the graphics chip in the 360 is actually more powerful, but the Cell just about manages to make up for this.

There's more to it than that. Those 25GB discs are gonna come in damned handy (if you don't believe me look at when games started using DVDs last generation) and then the PS3 actually uses its HDD for cache and whatnot.

It's going to get interesting. I believe eventually the 360 Elite will have the HD-DVD drive built in and things will be even once again... though I think Microsoft's policies will screw them in the long run.

[Neural Net]

There's more to it than that. Those 25GB discs are gonna come in damned handy (if you don't believe me look at when games started using DVDs last generation) and then the PS3 actually uses its HDD for cache and whatnot.

It's going to get interesting. I believe eventually the 360 Elite will have the HD-DVD drive built in and things will be even once again... though I think Microsoft's policies will screw them in the long run.

Well... maybe. Then again you get games on the PC with higher (and variable) texture resolutions and whatnot, that still do not need more than a single DVD, and don't even take up more than 9GB of space when installed. By the way, the 360 HD is used for caching files - Oblivion is an example.

Rumours were running around that Bizarre Creations (makers of the PGR series) were limited by the DVD9 format, but this turned out to be false (http://www.bizarrecreations.com/article.php?article_id=5257).

The consoles will run out of graphics power to render the additional data that would require more than a single DVD9 disc than running out of space. Of course Sony argues that you can't have compressed audio (like it said with MGS4) and that the MP3 format is rubbish, and other such things but the fact remains that is more of a marketing ploy than anything else - it's been proven most if not all can not tell the difference between high bitrate mp3s and uncompressed audio, and most do not have a speaker system capable of allowing you to hear any difference either. In theory it seems like a good thing, but in reality it's nothing but marketing as it doesn't make a discernible difference.

Just look at the installation of Crysis on your PC, it takes up 6.84GB - and that game has graphics far beyond what this consoles are capable of. The only benefit that bluray really has is putting all additional bonus content on one disc for special editions and whatnot (but Kayne and Lynch special edition on the PS3 uses 2 discs...), or very cutscene-heavy games, which tends to be a Sony-only trend anyway.

I'm not saying bluray doesn't come into play, but I doubt it's going to impact the games for this generation of consoles, it certainly doesn't now. Ironically, using more than one DVD doesn't actually bother people that much, they'll just think they're getting more for their money, to top it off most consumers are not aware of the capacity differences between the different disc formats.

All (minor) differences aside, these two consoles are almost indentical, which is amazing considering the variety of ingredients. Then again, the PC is the best gaming platform anyway. :p

[tenchi86]

/\Many games are already going over the 9GB limit of DVDs. Unreal Tournament for example was around 30GBs but as they developers wanted to make the game equal on all platforms they cut out many levels/textures. The extra room also allows better graphics as you are able to stream textures from the disk and not use as much ram.

As for graphics of the two. They are honestly both pretty close IMO (yes I know both). Ratchet and Clank compared to say Halo or CoD you can clearly see the PS3 has some power. Still though multiplatform games do tend to look and run better on the 360, a thing many developers claim will change with time.

[Neural Net]

Err, yes uncompressed games will often take upwards of 20GB, this is not uncommon. It's certainly not due to "cutting out textures" that games fit on a single DVD. Streaming textures from the HD is also a highly avoided scenario because the games will start to chug, HDs cannot keep up in this regard. Again it's processing power not storage which rules the day in graphics capabilities.

[Shiggity]

As long as timeless games are made for said console, it will live forever.

I love you SNES and I always will!

[rainless]

Well... maybe. Then again you get games on the PC with higher (and variable) texture resolutions and whatnot, that still do not need more than a single DVD, and don't even take up more than 9GB of space when installed. By the way, the 360 HD is used for caching files - Oblivion is an example.

Rumours were running around that Bizarre Creations (makers of the PGR series) were limited by the DVD9 format, but this turned out to be false (http://www.bizarrecreations.com/article.php?article_id=5257).

The consoles will run out of graphics power to render the additional data that would require more than a single DVD9 disc than running out of space. Of course Sony argues that you can't have compressed audio (like it said with MGS4) and that the MP3 format is rubbish, and other such things but the fact remains that is more of a marketing ploy than anything else - it's been proven most if not all can not tell the difference between high bitrate mp3s and uncompressed audio, and most do not have a speaker system capable of allowing you to hear any difference either. In theory it seems like a good thing, but in reality it's nothing but marketing as it doesn't make a discernible difference.

Just look at the installation of Crysis on your PC, it takes up 6.84GB - and that game has graphics far beyond what this consoles are capable of. The only benefit that bluray really has is putting all additional bonus content on one disc for special editions and whatnot (but Kayne and Lynch special edition on the PS3 uses 2 discs...), or very cutscene-heavy games, which tends to be a Sony-only trend anyway.

I'm not saying bluray doesn't come into play, but I doubt it's going to impact the games for this generation of consoles, it certainly doesn't now. Ironically, using more than one DVD doesn't actually bother people that much, they'll just think they're getting more for their money, to top it off most consumers are not aware of the capacity differences between the different disc formats.

All (minor) differences aside, these two consoles are almost indentical, which is amazing considering the variety of ingredients. Then again, the PC is the best gaming platform anyway. :p

Crysis installs 6.4GB to the hard drive... No console game to date does that. Those files are uncompressed. Currently you could fit about 3 games the size of crysis onto the 360 if they went that route.

I have no problem believing that even current graphics processors can do over 20Gb just like the previous generation had no problems running 8GB games and up. The extra space doesn't have a damned thing to do with the graphics... it would simply be more space with which you could use uncompressed audio, 3D models, etc...

Take Mass Effect for example... they bent over backwards to fit everything onto one disc and the expense was hiccups and lengthy load times.

[tenchi86]

Err, yes uncompressed games will often take upwards of 20GB, this is not uncommon. It's certainly not due to "cutting out textures" that games fit on a single DVD. Streaming textures from the HD is also a highly avoided scenario because the games will start to chug, HDs cannot keep up in this regard. Again it's processing power not storage which rules the day in graphics capabilities.

Yes you are correct. Mark Rein is simply misinformed I suppose.
"We'll compress some things," Rein stated, before adding, "But you know, we may have fewer maps on the 360 version ... Blu-ray has definitely given us a lot of legroom."

http://www.destructoid.com/unreal-tournament-iii-needs-the-blu-ray-legroom-38601.phtml

He then later went on record saying as they wish for all versions to be as equal as possible they will use a few compression techs like repeating textures. Which if course if a texture is repeated then the world becomes a little more bland then what it could have been. If what you want though is compressed audio and video with still fewer levels though then I guess DVD9 would be fine for you.

As for streaming, maybe you could do well to read up on how current engines like the Unreal one or the one used by Insomniac work.

partly because of the Unreal Engine's ability to stream textures. This means that you can have much higher resolution textures than you could normally fit in your 512 MB of RAM. It also means that you're going to chew up more disc space for each level. With streamed textures, streamed geometry and streamed audio, even with compression, you can quickly approach 1 GB of data per level. http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/10-reasons-why-ps3-will-win-this-console-generation/70209/?biz=1&page=2

More on streaming: http://www.insomniacgames.com/tech/articles/1107/files/texture_streaming.pdf

[Neural Net]

Oh, fine.

ALL HAIL BLURAY, LARGER DISCS MEAN BETTER GAMES. AMAZING.

[tenchi86]

/\Sorry if that is how I came off. I am simply trying to help educate people and be educated myself by talking about current technology. Blu-Ray is helpful, but does not mean the system will or will not last 9 more years, which I believe is what we were originally talking about.

[sulretal]

My father will be pleased to know that his sports games for his PS2(actually mine) will be available for a little bit longer.

[tenchi86]

I know this is hard to believe but a Walmart near me actually sells PS1 games still. Only two, a basketball, and football game, but still pretty amazing. Its about 30 minutes away but if I am near it soon I will get photos for verification.

[FudgeNuggets]

Some old games still look nearly as good as new games when upscaled on a 360 (Jade Empire, Forza) or better than current gen games (NFL 2K5).