The X-Box 360

[Allanon]

I think they're all too silver, need more LED/lightshow/geekbling than anyone would ever really want in actual practice, that the Nintendo looks too much like an XBox, and all of them would be improved by looking like something really "different". I dunno, maybe if they showed me how it would hang on my wall like a weird piece of art or something. Are all the controllers wireless by default now? That would be something nice - I don't know how many times I've limped for a week from tripping over controllers and doing a backflip.

For the moment all of them announced that their controllers would be wireless. The PS3 can accomodate 7 controller through bluetooth. The Xbox360 has room for 4 controllers. And I have no idea about the revolution.

 

[TwistedBishop]

the Nintendo looks too much like an XBox

How is that? It's a tiny gray box! And that slot for the DVDs/CDs...snazzy! My only real complaint against the Revolution is that it has a stand.

 

[Digital M@]

Oh I severely doubt that. The PSP was 300 dollars and that is without all thegadgets. As the videogame generation matures so does the hardware and these next ones are going to be able to do more stuff than ever. Look for 500 dollar machines, maybe 450.

I disagree that the market will support that cost. Even the $299 boxes quickly lowered their prices. It may start high and take the high margins on the "hard core" gamers who feel a need to own the newest system, but within a year there will be a significant price drop. I could be wrong, if no competition hits the street until after a year, there probably will be no change in price.

 

[Gilwen]

I am looking for the entry price to stick pretty close to $299. Also, I am looking for there to be bundles on release day that exceed $500. They don't have to make money on the consoles because that is not where the money is, the money is in the software and licensing fees for the games and online services. MS has a really solid business model for their online service and incorpating the marketplace into it is about the single best thing they have done with the xbox franchise (at least on paper,hopefully it bears fruit), the xbl spectator mode is kinda cool too. This takes advantage of a huge opportunity not only for MS but for their game publishers and business partners as well. And as for support how does 25 - 40 titles at launch sound? Final Fantasy XI, Ghost Recon 3, EA games has 6 titles being released at luanch that look awesome and there are 160 titles in development. If you haven't seen the trailers for the games on any platform you should because the year of the console is upon us hehe.

 

[WizarDru]

Is it? How much value (besides sentimental) does a prehistoric game like Metroid, Kid Icarus or Zelda really have for the normal teenager out there? I don't think they'll be all that hyped up about being able to play Bionic Commando after all these years. Or interested in trying their hand at the original Metal Gear.

Sales of the GBA versions of these games and collections of Sonic and Megaman would seem to indicate otherwise. I can assure you, my son thinks the old Megaman games are awesome, for example. It's all a matter of pricepoints, really: if you could pay $2.50 to play a copy of Majora's Mask on your Revolution, would you do it? I think most folks would. Imagine if they decide to release games never seen on US shores, too. I think this is a real potential win for Nintendo.

As for the console race, here's an e-mail I sent to my gaming group yesterday:

Backwards compatability: All three will have it, but Xbox 360 prolly won't have complete out of the box, and I expect it will require an upgrade post-launch. MS is talking it up now, but even last week, they were still sort of shaky about it. PS3 should prolly be a no-brainer. Nintendo, however, has upped the ante considerably with the download capability of the Revolution. Plus, I suspect from veiled comments they made yesterday, the Revolution will probably be more like a cube 1.5, and hence much easier to develop for (hopefully generating RE4-quality games right out of the gate, this time). Nintendo is the clear winner here, I think.

Performance: All three boxes are Titans...ON PAPER. The 360 probably has the edge here, since Sony's tech is vague ("Cell processing", the "Emotion Engine"?), probably still being nailed down and further out. We have no idea what Nintendo's using, yet, but consider that the cube is on a par with the Xbox and Nintendo has a tendency to downplay their capabilities at launch. Nintendo is saying only about 3x as powerful than the cube, while Sony is saying 30x more powerful. I'm less inclined to believe Sony, here (Anyone remember when we were told the PS/2 would be so powerful it could render Toy Story in real time?) The debate is more about architecture, but I think it's safe to say that all three will push the pixels.

Graphics: Two consoles using ATI, one using Nvidia (Sony). Sony may be the winner here, but it's hard to tell what's real and what's fake in the demo movies. Killzone's trailer is astounding...but I don't think it's real, so much as a cutscene. On the other hand, MGS2 was just as astounding as its demo, so who knows? MS had less to show, but we've certainly got little reason to believe they can't push the pixels. Nintendo is acting as if they're above the 'bigger, better' aspect of the competition, but I suspect they'll do admirably, if not necessarily in the same class as the other two.

Wireless/Internet: So far, Xbox is the clear leader. Live Silver is free on the box, upgrqadeable to Live Gold. All three will be wireless, have wireless controllers and (I think it's safe to assume) be internet-ready. Only the Nintendo and Sony will have connections directly to their handheld devices, though, and I expect to see some fancy integration with the PSP and DS and the new consoles. MS has an advantage though, in having a service that is in second-generation, and the first iteration was the best out there, compared to Sony's half-assed and half-hearted attempt and Nintendo's total no-show (one f'ing game, and it was a dreamcast redux?). All three are talking the talk for wireless and internet...but let's see how they actuall walk the walk.

Convergence: Yesterday, I would have said that Xbox 360 was the clear winner...today? Maybe not. The Sony looks to be aiming for the living room appliance, just like the Xbox....but Sony has a sucky, sucky history with this. I have a word for you: ATRAC. Sony makes great hardware, but as you PSP owners know, the software can have some glaring design irritations in them. Plus, Sony tends to shoot themselves in the foot. Microsoft is pushing integration with the iPod...pretty smart on their part, since 83% of the market uses 'em. Will Sony bite the bullet and work with their chief competitor in that market, or will they put on their blinders and try and force another proprietary format? MS has already talked about hooking a Rio player directly into the Xbox 360 and transferring straight to it...will Sony pony up to their biggest competitor in that space? Nintendo, of course, isn't even in this competition. No DVD support without an attachment? I mean, I don't ever intend to use it for such, but still, how expensive a feature could that have been, guys? Nintendo has USB ports and an SD-flash card slot...but they haven't done more than slyly alude to its use.

Home Theater: Tough Call, here. The Sony will feature a Blu-Ray disc...which is a gamble. The PS/2 sold massively because, at the time, it was a dirt-cheap DVD player that also happened to be a kick-ass game console. That's smart thinking, if it works. Sony claims they'll support up to 1080p (not that any current TVs do), but historically, their support for HDTV formats has been the suck...precious few PS/2 games are more than standard-def...whereas many Xbox games are and most Nintendo games are. The
question is how well Sony will support the HT concept. The Blu-Ray drive will support SACD, DVD-Audio and Blu-Ray discs....but will Sony's DRM make it useless? Both are talking about streaming media: whosoever makes it so I can play Doctor Who MPEGs directly on the TV through their device wins, IMHO. Nintendo is staying clear of the whole HT concept; they're making a games machine, pure and simple.

Controllers: Hmmm. The Xbox looks like a funky controller S. That's good. Sony's new controller...looks like a Bang & Olufsen Boomerang, really. No idea how it feels in the hand. Could be good, could be bad. Nintendo obviously thinks they've got something awesome going on in their controller design...but what? Could be the next wavebird...could be the next powerglove.

Games: Sony traditionally has won the category for most games, but Xbox has gotten the best PC Translations. Half Life 2 is coming to the Xbox (orig.) and it looks pretty darned good. Doom 3 is already on the Xbox, and looks just about the same as the PC version. Sony gets all the best exclusives from Japanese developers...but Billy G.'s no fool, and he's been using lush cash to lure Squre/Enix and other prized Japanese developers to the 360. Sony better put up their dukes, or become the next Nintendo. This is where
Sony traditionally has been very strong, so I think they'll continue. MS has to come to the table with more than just Halo 3. Nintendo has always had good games, but they need more third-party support. They need more Resident Evil 4s, more Killer 7s, more exclusives of any kind. Games are ultimately what sell the console, not features on paper: people buy PS/2s for God of War, not for a processor chip. Zelda is a killer app, but it can't bear all the weight.

Connectivity: All of them appear to support lots of formats and devices, and I think they've all learned from the changing marketplace. All of them have slots to support different memory cards, USB and ethernet connections. The real issue is what you can use them for; at this point, no real leader, IMHO.

Price: We don't know on this one, of course. Microsoft has an advantage/disadvantage that, as first to market, they set the tone. Regardless of what Kaz may say, they'll react to the Xbox 360's price when they release the PS3. Nintendo will probably be in a vaccuum, but Nintendo is also very much likely to come in as the least expensive...which will probably sell more of their consoles for that reason alone.

Personally, I'm not sure what to think. I think the game is still Sony's to lose, but it's going to be quite a fight for first place, and Sony's showing up real late to the party, this time. The question is: is MS early or Sony late? And will Nintendo's cagey strategy work for them, or bite them on the butt, again? Why are they shooting themselves in the foot? Again?!?

 

[TwistedBishop]

Not exactly news on the 360, but news on the price front in general, courtesy of Gamespot:


QUOTE:
"Given that the console's Nvidia-tech-based RSX "Reality Synthesizer" graphics chip is more powerful than two GeForce 6800 Ultra video cards, which retail for around $1,000 by themselves, many suspected the console cost as least as much as a medium-end gaming PC. However, Sony will have to be competitively priced or risk being undercut by the Microsoft Xbox 360 or Nintendo Revolution.

It now appears that Sony may opt for a compromise price-wise, according to the Mainichi Daily News. An article which ran on the Japanese newspaper's Web site the PlayStation 3 could potentially sell for under $500. "The new machine, which will have a higher performance capacity than personal computers and provide sophisticated movie-quality images, will be priced at less than 50,000 yen each, according to [Sony] officials," said the paper.

At today's exchange rate, 50,000 yen is $465.58--more than the $299 many expect the Xbox 360 to sell for, but less than the $699 to $799 PS3 price tag many had feared. If Sony follows the pattern it set which the PSP, which sells for around $190 in Japan and $249 in the US, the console will likely be slightly costlier stateside.

As of press time, Sony officials were unavailable for comment on the Mainichi Daily News article. "

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

At today's exchange rate, 50,000 yen is $465.58--more than the $299 many expect the Xbox 360 to sell for, but less than the $699 to $799 PS3 price tag many had feared.

I've own pretty much every game system since the NES, I can only think of the TG16 and the NEO GEO that I didn't/don't own, but even I think I would bulk at the price tag of 450-500 dollars when the Xbox 360 is sitting at 299...

 

[TwistedBishop]

We don't know for sure yet what the 360 will be priced. I wonder if that wasn't the plan behind why Microsoft went with lower specs than Sony, to massively undercut them on price.

 

[Gilwen]

I do think that that MS is cutting cost's by not supporting the new DVD HD format and not including blueray drives and both ethernet and wireless networking. which would only drive up the prices. To me the storage capacity of the disk isn't an issue...you won't get better performance just because you disk is bigger and just because you can cram a whole crap load of stuff on the blueray disrc's doesn't mean your machine can process that info any faster. One cool thing about the PS3 is it has two video outs that can be used to create a panoramic view with two HD 16:9 tv's side by side to create a 32:9 extra wide screen, cool but then who has two 16:9 screens sitting around?
The article didn't say if you could use the two outs for separate displays for multiplayer games, now that would rock 7 ppl playing on two screen off the same box!

Gil

 

[TwistedBishop]

Their not supporting HD-DVD is pretty strange, considering their whole presentation on Monday started off talking about this being the "HD age".