Console dominence tends to go to the first new-generation system that hits the market.
Um...Sega Dreamcast?
Anyway, I'm not sure Sony is going to tank badly, but given its price and late arrival, I do agree that it will probably lose market share to Microsoft and Nintendo. I've bought Playstations in the past, but I have no intention of buying this one unitl the price comes down.
I think Sony is missing the mark by focusing on creating a machine that does other things besides playing video games. It was neat that my Playstation 2 could play DVD's...for about 5 minutes. And then I learned that it couldn't even read half of them, and would pause and skip more than a $50 DVD player. Who needs that? I just need it to play games. Anyway, it's quite possible that my next game machine won't be a Playstation.
You know it's weird. I love the idea of the Wii, but all the ads so far have kind of deflated my excitement. I mean, the people boobing and weaving around their living rooms with the "nunchuck" controller don't look cool. They look, er, kinda lame. pew pew!
I mean, the people boobing and weaving around their living rooms with the "nunchuck" controller don't look cool.
I totally get what you're saying. I think most games with much less... enthusiasm but I can see party games getting people to move like that. You simply cannot play tennis without swinging wildly!
But, yeah, it can get a little over the top with people's movements and expressions. I swear some of those people are wearing that same expression they had when they first discovered pr0n.
But, about Sony: It's waaaaay to early to be ringing the death knell for the PS3. I can assure you Microsoft is taking Sony very seriously.
Launch date doesn't matter. System specs doesn't matter. It's all about how well you marry games to your platform. You fail at that then you fail altogether.
JDS: Sony has a habit of doing crap like that. They've hobbled their PSP with a proprietary format (UMD), have shitty DRM restrictions which don't allow consumers to actually use their machines in ways they might wish to. I'm looking at you: Sony MiniDisc!
This problem with Sony goes back to the BETAmax days; Sony didn't license it out to more than a couple other companies, and VHS ended up reaping the benefits of network effects...
Just about everything I've ever bought with a Sony label I've been disappointed in. I won't be making that mistake for a very long time to come...
And: I'm not sure what the hell happened to the DreamCast...
Vic: Perhaps my enthusiasm is because I'm still infatuated with the idea rather than reality. I've not actually seen any commercials or demos...
The Wii isn't a new-generation console, it's a Gamecube with new controllers. That said, it's the first console I have ever thought seriously about buying.
Jerry: I've heard that before, but never understood it. It's like saying that the PS3 and X360 aren't new generation consoles, they're PS2's and X-Boxes with updated graphics cards...
Playstation's introduction of 3D graphics and raw horsepower revolutionized gaming. N64's analog controller revolutionized gaming. X-Box's Hard drive and easy-to-use online service revolutionized gaming. And Wii's motion sensitive controllers is set to revolutionize gaming again. I am suspicious of anything called "next generation" which doesn't change the way I interact with a game...
The Wii is very much a next-generation console. The graphics have been updated, just not to the extent of its rivals. Each system has something the other does not. For Wii its the motion sensing capability. I'm not a fanboy of Nintendo, in fact I'd much rather get a PS3. But when you factor in my 3 year old daughter to the mix, I'd much rather get a cheaper and more durable video game system. One that I can enjoy with my family and no cringe when my daughter tests the velocity of a controller after daddy beats her in a game. :)
Andrew, I think what your analysis misses is that Sony's PS3 is probably more accurately described as the first machine of its generation. It's quite a bit more powerful than the XBox/Nintendo offerings.
The main question is whether PS3 game developers will be able to harness that power (generally, you shouldn't bet against developers, as they always seem to take any new hardware to its limits).
No, I certainly don't expect any of these manufacturers to give up any time soon. I think Nintendo is especially comfortable with being the 'third-place' group, because they're still profitable doing it. And really, nothing that Nintendo's done has indicated that it's #1 or bust for them.
Dave, I really don't think the PS3 has that much technical advantage over at least the Xbox 360. It's primarily the same type of processor architecture, same type of video architecture, just more advanced. Can Sony make more of that advantage than Microsoft did when they were in the opposite situation, years ago? Or are they going to be hamstrung, the way that Microsoft was for so long, by a console that costs far more to produce than sell?
The success of the systems are really going to be based on their user experience. That's in the software available, how online play is handled, do people like the games. Will there be a killer app for any of these consoles? I think Sony's blowing it by not having anything remotely close at launch.
Talldave:
Why do I care how powerful the offering from Sony is? How does raw power translate into more fun games? For that matter, how do shinier graphics make a game more enjoyable? I've often played flash games for hours...
About the only thing more horsepower can do for a game is to give better AI algorithms. But I don't see game designers taxing the power they've currently got. Adding more seems superfluous...
Um...Sega Dreamcast?
Anyway, I'm not sure Sony is going to tank badly, but given its price and late arrival, I do agree that it will probably lose market share to Microsoft and Nintendo. I've bought Playstations in the past, but I have no intention of buying this one unitl the price comes down.
I think Sony is missing the mark by focusing on creating a machine that does other things besides playing video games. It was neat that my Playstation 2 could play DVD's...for about 5 minutes. And then I learned that it couldn't even read half of them, and would pause and skip more than a $50 DVD player. Who needs that? I just need it to play games. Anyway, it's quite possible that my next game machine won't be a Playstation.
I totally get what you're saying. I think most games with much less... enthusiasm but I can see party games getting people to move like that. You simply cannot play tennis without swinging wildly!
But, yeah, it can get a little over the top with people's movements and expressions. I swear some of those people are wearing that same expression they had when they first discovered pr0n.
But, about Sony: It's waaaaay to early to be ringing the death knell for the PS3. I can assure you Microsoft is taking Sony very seriously.
Launch date doesn't matter. System specs doesn't matter. It's all about how well you marry games to your platform. You fail at that then you fail altogether.
This problem with Sony goes back to the BETAmax days; Sony didn't license it out to more than a couple other companies, and VHS ended up reaping the benefits of network effects...
Just about everything I've ever bought with a Sony label I've been disappointed in. I won't be making that mistake for a very long time to come...
And: I'm not sure what the hell happened to the DreamCast...
Vic: Perhaps my enthusiasm is because I'm still infatuated with the idea rather than reality. I've not actually seen any commercials or demos...
Playstation's introduction of 3D graphics and raw horsepower revolutionized gaming. N64's analog controller revolutionized gaming. X-Box's Hard drive and easy-to-use online service revolutionized gaming. And Wii's motion sensitive controllers is set to revolutionize gaming again. I am suspicious of anything called "next generation" which doesn't change the way I interact with a game...
That's a brilliant point!
The main question is whether PS3 game developers will be able to harness that power (generally, you shouldn't bet against developers, as they always seem to take any new hardware to its limits).
PS3 is almost a year and a half newer than Xbox 360. It's got about the same processing power but faster RAM.
We'll see if it's better or not, but so far the market seems to have proven that there's room for 3 players. I suspect there will remain three.
Dave, I really don't think the PS3 has that much technical advantage over at least the Xbox 360. It's primarily the same type of processor architecture, same type of video architecture, just more advanced. Can Sony make more of that advantage than Microsoft did when they were in the opposite situation, years ago? Or are they going to be hamstrung, the way that Microsoft was for so long, by a console that costs far more to produce than sell?
The success of the systems are really going to be based on their user experience. That's in the software available, how online play is handled, do people like the games. Will there be a killer app for any of these consoles? I think Sony's blowing it by not having anything remotely close at launch.
Why do I care how powerful the offering from Sony is? How does raw power translate into more fun games? For that matter, how do shinier graphics make a game more enjoyable? I've often played flash games for hours...
About the only thing more horsepower can do for a game is to give better AI algorithms. But I don't see game designers taxing the power they've currently got. Adding more seems superfluous...
...Or so I've been told. The Blue-ray drive capacity and IBM Cell processor seem to define the new system, from what I've read.
But then, you're talking to someone who still plays Quake II and SimCity 3000 on an AMD 2Gz system with a Radeon 8500LE video card. Heh...
And Asteriods; I still like the Windows Arcade adaptation of Asteriods. :)