PS3 to be backwards compatible.

[John Crichton]

Which is the problem, and why the PS1 had a huge headstart on the competition. It's really a multi-edged sword. All three are relatively forced to come out with their systems at the same time, or else get left behind in the wake of popularity.

I will concede, I don't think it's that big a deal, having a few months prep time over another company. I think what will (and always has) determined who will "win" the console wars is third-party software and to a lesser extent backwards compatibility. The latter of which allows for a larger starting base of software.

It actually is somewhat of a big deal that one company gets a head start on putting their system out there (especially if it is as big as a year). Many of the major companies want to put their big releases on the most popular system out there which happens to be the PS2. If the Xbox were the most popular we would have probably seen a game like GTA:VC come out on Microsoft's system first and all the PS2 owners would have had to wait.

Sure, we see multi-console releases all the time but one system usually has the edge over the others, like Madden for example - you can't play it online for Xbox. And of course there are ports, but who wants to wait for those? Sure, some have extra features but the ports usually don't sell nearly as well as the initial release.

And an aside, please don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those rabid Sony fanboys who wants to see Nintendo burn in hell. I want to see everyone do good, even X-Box for what it's worth, because more competition only benefits the consumer. It's just that Sony has made such a strong showing the last few years that you can't discount that when considering the next-gen consoles.

Well said. The competition is better for the gamers.

 

[drothgery]

Tech specs on fansites are not a good gauge of when a new system will be coming out...

Unless Sony's had a massive change of heart from both the PS2 and the early 'cell' PS3 statements, they're going to be using a new, complex, proprietary architecture, which means developers are going to need a long lead time, unless they want a games situation like the PS2 launch, where there weren't any decent games for a year, and people were buying them on hype and -- in Japan -- as relatively cheap DVD players. And it's hard to avoiid leaks once a lot of developers get their hands on the specs.

Microsoft hasn't said anything apart from announcing a partnership with ATi, but it's very safe to say that Xbox 2 won't be spec'd all that different from a high-end gaming PC, circa late 2004. CPU could be a Pentium 4 derivative, a Pentium-M derivative, or an Athlon 64-derivative. I think the Pentium-M family is the most likely, as Microsoft is inclined to stick with Intel, and the P7 cores (Pentium 4, Prescott, and Tejas) use too much power for a console.

Nintendo hasn't said anything at all, but if the next Nintendo machine is built along the lines of the current one (ATi graphics, IBM G3-ish CPU), it'll be spec'd similarly to a Mac with a good graphics card, circa late 2004. Certainly IBM should have an iBook-ready G5 variant by then.

 

[Ristamar]

It actually is somewhat of a big deal that one company gets a head start on putting their system out there (especially if it is as big as a year). Many of the major companies want to put their big releases on the most popular system out there which happens to be the PS2. If the Xbox were the most popular we would have probably seen a game like GTA:VC come out on Microsoft's system first and all the PS2 owners would have had to wait.

Yeah, the first year of PS2 sales came mostly on hype and anticipation of games to come. Their initial batch of titles were all pretty bland, save for SSX. There wasn't any competition to stop them, save for the "too little, too late" Dreamcast*.

*The glaring lack of EA support certainly helped in delivering the death blow to Sega as hundreds of thousands of Madden-ites ditched or overlooked the DC, instead flocking to the PS2.

Well said. The competition is better for the gamers.

I also agree, to an extent. Admittedly, I'd prefer to see two major players rather than three. With three consoles on the market the AAA exclusives get spread thin, ports are likely to be sloppier, and middleware (which I'm generally not a fan of) becomes even more popular among developers.

The way things stand now, I've been on the fence for a long time about getting an XBOX or PS2, though I'm not sure which way to go, and I'd rather not shell out the cash (or living room space) for both. Not to mention I still have to feed my PC gaming habits...

 

[Welverin]

Yeah, the first year of PS2 sales came mostly on hype and anticipation of games to come. Their initial batch of titles were all pretty bland, save for SSX. Their wasn't any competition to stop them, save for the "too little, too late" Dreamcast*.

*The glaring lack of EA support certainly helped in delivering the death blow to Sega as hundreds of thousands of Madden-ites ditched or overlooked the DC, instead flocking to the PS2.

While the PS2 was considered the greatest thing since suct tape, absolutely no one was willing to believe that the DC was any good and/or would be succesful, with only a few exceptions (namely game journalists). That includes people in the industry (namely developers who had no confidence in it), to consumers. The negative perception killed it as effectively as the PS2's positive one helped it.

 

[Anubus]

I'd have to agree with the people who say that timing is important. The only reason, and I do mean only reason I bought a PS2 instead of an xbox was the software titles available. While the xbox is a vastly superior system, the PS2 wins hands down for number of games out there that I actually want to play. The reason here is that the extra time the PS2 had over the other systems caused software developers to commit to sony, rather than waiting for the other systems. If the release dates are far apart for the next gen, then I'd be willing to bet the first one out the gate will do the best.

 

[Hollywood]

Unless Sony's had a massive change of heart from both the PS2 and the early 'cell' PS3 statements, they're going to be using a new, complex, proprietary architecture, which means developers are going to need a long lead time, unless they want a games situation like the PS2 launch, where there weren't any decent games for a year

Yup, if people though the PS2 architecture was whack, wait til the PS3 comes around. Sony, with their consoles, tends to think first about the architecture that can run the fastest given the constraints, and lastly about how the heck are you going to develop on it.

Microsoft hasn't said anything apart from announcing a partnership with ATi, but it's very safe to say that Xbox 2 won't be spec'd all that different from a high-end gaming PC, circa late 2004. CPU could be a Pentium 4 derivative, a Pentium-M derivative, or an Athlon 64-derivative. I think the Pentium-M family is the most likely, as Microsoft is inclined to stick with Intel, and the P7 cores (Pentium 4, Prescott, and Tejas) use too much power for a console.

My bet is on a P4 derivative. Most of my feeling comes from the fact ATi is now the partner for it, so MS no longer has the NVidia chipset/graphics card system they had before. That pretty much leaves Intel as the only true chipset vendor unless ATi is able to cook something up in pretty quick order. As for "too much power for a console", eh, I must disagree as the thing plugs into the wall just like any computer. Its not mobile so it doesn't have limited power requirements... MS wants to make the fastest console they can, that stresses the budget as little as possible as all console developers make their money on the lisencing, and not the sale of the consoles.

Nintendo hasn't said anything at all, but if the next Nintendo machine is built along the lines of the current one (ATi graphics, IBM G3-ish CPU), it'll be spec'd similarly to a Mac with a good graphics card, circa late 2004. Certainly IBM should have an iBook-ready G5 variant by then.

Actually the GC is not powered by ATi, its powered by Art-X who ATi bought. Symantecs, but you know. Since MS has partnered with ATi, it'll be interesting to see if ATi is allowed by MS to supply graphics for the GC as well. And yes, I'd be so hyped about having yet another IBM G-series processor in a console, as much as I was by having a P3 in the Xbox... in otherwords, not at all.

 

[Welverin]

If the release dates are far apart for the next gen, then I'd be willing to bet the first one out the gate will do the best.

That's really not important at all, which console gets the most and best third party support will be the most successful.

 

[John Crichton]

That's really not important at all, which console gets the most and best third party support will be the most successful.

Depending on the amount of time between released systems that can have an impact on 3rd party devs. Not a huge impact, but still an impact. Right now one of the reasons why the PS2 gets the majority of big releases first is because its got the most systems out there which is partially a result of it being the oldest system. If Microsoft had the most systems sold, there would be a good chance that square would be talking to them about releasing FFX-2 & FFXI for it. Not to mention Metal Gear Solid 3 from Konami.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Depending on the amount of time between released systems that can have an impact on 3rd party devs.

To be fair, PS2 had the HUGE (so huge it merited capital letters ) benefit of backwards compatibilty.

And the offset is that for both the PS2 and apparently the PS3, there's a lot of lag time while developers get used to coding for the system.

 

[Welverin]

Depending on the amount of time between released systems that can have an impact on 3rd party devs. Not a huge impact, but still an impact. Right now one of the reasons why the PS2 gets the majority of big releases first is because its got the most systems out there which is partially a result of it being the oldest system. If Microsoft had the most systems sold, there would be a good chance that square would be talking to them about releasing FFX-2 & FFXI for it. Not to mention Metal Gear Solid 3 from Konami.

The PS2 being the oldest doesn't have anything to do with how many systems it's sold (i.e. it wouldn't have sold any less had the GC and Xbox been released at the same time).

Your second point is the important one, though you have things backwards. But first, to be clear the PS2 is just continuing the success of the PS. Now that that's out of the way, the reason the Sony has sold so many systems is because all of the big name third party games have been released for it, e.g. MGS2, FF10, GTA3, games like that are called system sellers for a reason. Immediately after Square announced that FF7 would be exclusive to the PS sales of the system skyrocketed in Japan, and that is what made the PS successful.

Getting to market first doesn't matter, if you don't have the games people want to buy, then your system won't sell. TH eGenesis was released a year before the SNES, but Nntendo caught up. The DC came out a year before the PS2 and we all know how that turned out.

So to sum up, the reason the Xbox and GC lag so far behind is because they don't have the exclusive titles to push console sales. If they don't change that for their next systems things will play out the same for the next generation as they have for this one.