Dean's World

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.

Vic,

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.

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.

I am suspicious of anything called "next generation" which doesn't change the way I interact with a game...

That's a brilliant point!

I think it loos like a Dora-dildo. But that's just me...

WTF!? How did that get past quality control? That's just not right.

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.

Ah, but Andrew, the PS3 Blue-ray drive allows a LOT more raw data for "world" physics and suchlike.

...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. :)