John Carmack - PS3 More Powerful, Xbox 360 Easier to Develop For

[fitbabits]

Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz) has posted details (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1974&Itemid=2) of a short John Carmack interview conducted by Buzzscope (http://www.buzzscope.com) in which he states his preference for Xbox 360 over PS3, even with the PS3's slightly superior power advantage.

The short interview revealed once again Carmack's preference for the Xbox 360, but also a respect for the PS3's power.

"They are both powerful systems that are going to make excellent game platforms, but I have a bit of a preference for the 360’s symmetric CPU architecture and excellent development tools," he said. "The PS3 will have a bit more peak power, but it will be easier to exploit the available power on the 360. Our next major title is being focused towards simultaneous release on 360, PS3, and PC."
Slow news day!

[Kelegacy]

Easier to develop for should always win. It means (or should) more games for us, shorter dev cycles, and maybe more diverse gameplay. The PS3 has name recognition and a past history of supplying gamers with countless gems for over a decade. I don't know where my alliances lay right now. Oh wait, actually I do:

Go SNES, go!

[Reanimated]

A "bit" more "peak" power?

So like with the PS2, we'll see this peak power 4 years after launch?

[Franjo]

im seriously sick of reading whats better, bottom line here....BOTH will have kick ass games. Games that all of us will be firing up. You might have a ps3 but u will for sure know somebody with a 360 and vice versa.

Forgot the news on the power of it, lets see what that power can do.

[fitbabits]

im seriously sick of reading whats better, bottom line here....BOTH will have kick ass games. Games that all of us will be firing up. You might have a ps3 but u will for sure know somebody with a 360 and vice versa.

Forgot the news on the power of it, lets see what that power can do.
Every time I see your name I think of Frango Mints (http://www.fields.com/common/fl_frango.jsp). I'm hungry.

But anyways, I know what you mean. It's like comparing a Porsche to a Dodge Viper.

[earthworm48]

In the most recent PCG UK there are some quotes and stuff from carmack about how he reckons that the 360 will become their primary development platform and says this is due to the current state of the PC market (seriously every month I read PCG and there are tidbits from the guys who make it saying how the PC market is not in that bad a state and then theres always actual news or interviews with Devs saying that it is in a poor state o whatever). I would post some as a news article but I don't know if I should since its a print magazine?

[Taco]

Just matches what everyone has being saying for the past year.

[phantomhitman]

But anyways, I know what you mean. It's like comparing a Porsche to a Dodge Viper.
the viper would so kick the porsche's ass

[absolut taco]

the viper would so kick the porsche's ass
fitbabits' analogy is spot on.

The Viper, with 500 horses, tons of torque and rear wheel drive is so powerful it's hard to actually put that power to good use. They'll spin those tires in the first 3 gears.

Porsches are much easier to drive fast, and to accelerate fast, with the engine right over the driven wheels to add traction.

I'll take the Porsche any day of the week.

[Schnoogs]

fitbabits' analogy is spot on.

The Viper, with 500 horses, tons of torque and rear wheel drive is so powerful it's hard to actually put that power to good use. They'll spin those tires in the first 3 gears.

Porsches are much easier to drive fast, and to accelerate fast, with the engine right over the driven wheels to add traction.

I'll take the Porsche any day of the week.

Meh...my highly modified Subaru STi with 500 plus horses would take both...how do I know? Because I track my car all the time and routinely pass Z06's, Vipers, 911's, etc.

LONG LIVE AWD!! ;)

[Zawath]

Remember PS2 had more power than XBox.

[BenN1ce]

One is Mortons steak house the other is Capital Grill. Both are real good but 1 cost a little more because it's slightly "better".

[Citizen Philip]

It makes very little difference to the person playing the game.

[Hagetaka]

mmm, subaru sti, one of my favorite cars in Forza Motorsports.

Wow, this thread really got off topic, heh.

[Chalex]

Remember PS2 had more power than XBox.
What? :confused:

[Taco]

It makes very little difference to the person playing the game.

Easier to develop for should always win. It means (or should) more games for us, shorter dev cycles, and maybe more diverse gameplay. :

..................

[Taco]

What? :confused:

I'm guessing he was referring to pre-release hype. Can't remember if that was any more true.

[m0nk3yb0y]

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing the PS3 flop just to knock some sense into Sony, so they can gain some humility and have a better go at it next time around.

Even with that said I will probably still buy a PS3 because I am a consumer whore, and I can't stand not having a game system.

[Kagger]

Go SNES, go!

I agree. Why are we worrying about who will be the best in this generation, when the king is from 2 generations ago!

[motor]

I agree with Carmack's assesment of the two platforms. It does lead to one interesting thing, if Sony gets to a low market share and Microsoft is willing to give developers even a small incentive for being exclusive, they could get a ton of exclusive games. This is turn could really put the hammer to the PS3. I don't think we'll have any choice but to make a PS3 game, but I would sure love to make just a xbox 360 title, far less testing, no tuning for two platforms, half the dev kits, half the certification woes. If we could be convinced that we would not lose too many sales, I'm sure we'd do it.

[fitbabits]

I agree with Carmack's assesment of the two platforms. It does lead to one interesting thing, if Sony gets to a low market share and Microsoft is willing to give developers even a small incentive for being exclusive, they could get a ton of exclusive games. This is turn could really put the hammer to the PS3. I don't think we'll have any choice but to make a PS3 game, but I would sure love to make just a xbox 360 title, far less testing, no tuning for two platforms, half the dev kits, half the certification woes. If we could be convinced that we would not lose too many sales, I'm sure we'd do it.
I may have missed this earlier and I apologize if I did, but who is 'we'?

[Taco]

Square Enix


/making shit up

[Chalex]

I wonder how accurate this is as the develpoment kits that are currently out run at 2.4 Ghz with a graphics card nVidia claims is significantly slower than the RSX. The final dev kits which have the CELL running at 3.2 Ghz and use the actual RSX chip were delayed.

I would have to assume that the power gap will get a little bigger once the final kits are out in the wild.

[Citizen Philip]

..................

I'm going to take it for granted that neither Sony or Microsoft have a desire to shoot themselves in the foot when making their development tools. I would agree that Microsoft having spent time on the interface for their devkits is a good idea. In the long run I don't think it will make a difference.

Both consoles are new and both will possess learning curves, once you've negotigated the curve it's all good.

On the same hand, I don't think a system 5% more powerful is a big deal either.

[zipR]

Anyone played the Doom RPG? Is it worth getting?

[absolut taco]

Meh...my highly modified Subaru STi with 500 plus horses would take both...how do I know? Because I track my car all the time and routinely pass Z06's, Vipers, 911's, etc.

LONG LIVE AWD!! ;)
Bet you get tons of pussy with that car, huh? :rolleyes:

[bapenguin]

I wonder how accurate this is as the develpoment kits that are currently out run at 2.4 Ghz with a graphics card nVidia claims is significantly slower than the RSX. The final dev kits which have the CELL running at 3.2 Ghz and use the actual RSX chip were delayed.

I would have to assume that the power gap will get a little bigger once the final kits are out in the wild.

John Carmack is smart enough not to base his assessment off of beta devkits. My guess is he's going off the promised processing power that Sony is telling them...of course...John Carmack is smart enough to not believe what Sony is selling....er telling them.

[Citizen Philip]

Bet you get tons of pussy with that car, huh? :rolleyes:

It must be fairly large to carry so many cats. Kitten perhaps?

[motor]

I may have missed this earlier and I apologize if I did, but who is 'we'?

It's not Sony or Microsoft, but it is a large game development company and I probably shouldn't say which one exactly. Sorry.

[fitbabits]

It's not Sony or Microsoft, but it is a large game development company and I probably shouldn't say which one exactly. Sorry.
No need to be sorry, we all have secret lives that we can't share. Or is that just me? :)

[Taco]

I'm going to take it for granted that neither Sony or Microsoft have a desire to shoot themselves in the foot when making their development tools. I would agree that Microsoft having spent time on the interface for their devkits is a good idea. In the long run I don't think it will make a difference.

Both consoles are new and both will possess learning curves, once you've negotigated the curve it's all good.

On the same hand, I don't think a system 5% more powerful is a big deal either.

MS has FAR more experience creating tools for developers and such than Sony does. It's not only a matter of shooting ones foot.

[Citizen Philip]

MS has FAR more experience creating tools for developers and such than Sony does. It's not only a matter of shooting ones foot.

Meh. I've read from numerous posts: Microsoft spent time on their devtools and Sony hasn't. I haven't heard Sony's tool are terrible and very hard to work with. Again, I'll assume their both functional and reasonably efficient.

I don't recall the timelines of when developers got kits, but I would imagine if you had to learn 2 new systems, had one earlier than the other and it had friendlier tools: you would generally agree it's nicer to use.

I'm not seeing anything else in it.

[Zanzibar]

Meh. I've read from numerous posts: Microsoft spent time on their devtools and Sony hasn't. I haven't heard Sony's tool are terrible and very hard to work with. Again, I'll assume their both functional and reasonably efficient.

I don't recall the timelines of when developers got kits, but I would imagine if you had to learn 2 new systems, had one earlier than the other and it had friendlier tools: you would generally agree it's nicer to use.

I'm not seeing anything else in it.

You've (http://www.ps3today.com/Blogs/News/hqs/blr_647.aspx)heard (http://xbox360.joystiq.com/2005/10/26/developers-unhappy-with-ps3-dev-tools)it now. (http://www.ps3blog.net/2005/09/09/ps3-harder-to-develop-for)

[Captain Awesome]

"peak power"

I can only assume every pro-sony person running with this for the next year or so.

[simlee009]

Dev kits won't matter this generation as much as you'd think they would. I'm willing to bet that, given the sky-rocketing costs of game development, more and more developers will license engines instead of writing their own.

Hell, a good number of games from the PS2/XBox/NGC generation were running on modified versions of the Renderware engine (now owned by EA?). You'll probably see a lot of games running on the Unreal Engine this generation.

Quite a few PC games are already developed using Unreal technology, and Epic is working on engines for 360 and PS3. If you can afford the licensing costs, it'd be a no-brainer to just buy the engine and spend all your time making textures, models, and maps. All the whiz-bang rendering features and physics and whatnot will already be there, and you don't have to worry about portability.

So I predict that most of the development work will shift from engine coding to content creation, which, in the end, means that 1st party dev-kits will mean very little to the big players that have the budget to make awesome looking games. And as for the smaller dev houses trying to break into the scene, licensing terms and agreements will probably make a bigger difference than the quality of the dev kits.

One side-effect of engine licensing might be that there may be less and less of a difference in visual quality. Unless the PS3 ends up notably more powerful than the 360, a game running on the Unreal Engine will probably look the same on either system. It could just come down to which system you already own, or which controller you prefer. :) Go Nintendo Revolution!!

Simon

[Talanvor]

Hrm, the Dreamcast was supposed to be very easy to develop for too...

Honestly though, I don't understand why the average gamer is getting worked up about this. Sony isn't rolling consoles down the assembly line, they could add/cut (probably cut) features as they please, so saying the PS3 > Xbox360 is just silly at this point.

[Citizen Philip]

You've (http://www.ps3today.com/Blogs/News/hqs/blr_647.aspx)heard (http://xbox360.joystiq.com/2005/10/26/developers-unhappy-with-ps3-dev-tools)it now. (http://www.ps3blog.net/2005/09/09/ps3-harder-to-develop-for)

Do you read your links?

1: Speculation from 5 months ago. Some developers moving to MS.
2: Confirming that a developer had the MS kit well before the Sony kit.
3: Confirming that MS kits are friendly, Sony would like friendlier tools.

Thank you for coming out, but you are going to have to try much harder. :(

[Zanzibar]

All published reports of what devs have been saying privately. Nobody who is developing for the PS3 wants to go on-the-record and bite the hand that's feeding them, but privately, I've talked to several different developers who are working with the PS3 tools and they are plain unhappy.

Go ahead, don't believe me.

[MasterKwan]

It's really, really hard to beat Microsoft's development tools. Whether it's for the PC or any other platform. I'd sooner cut my throat than use non-MS devel tools. Nothing out there even comes close.

[Hg-203]

I think everyone saw this coming, but this kind of news to me is really important. Because easier to develop games get developed faster and therefore they should be cheaper. Also easy to develop games should theoretically be cheaper therefore it is easier to push innovation on a 360 then a PS3 because it won’t cost the publishers/backers as much on a 360 then on a PS3. Whether this translates to actually innovation or just a lot more bad games is up to the developers and publishers.

[Achilles]

All published reports of what devs have been saying privately. Nobody who is developing for the PS3 wants to go on-the-record and bite the hand that's feeding them, but privately, I've talked to several different developers who are working with the PS3 tools and they are plain unhappy.

Go ahead, don't believe me.I've heard nothing positive from developers other than ones that make these public statements. Every developer who's working on a PS3 speaking privately has referred to the console as possibly very powerful, but flawed in so many ways that the power is impossible to access in a usable way. Not software flaws either, pipeline problems and other things that I can barely comprehend (I’m not a programmer).

[dieselduck]

Same here I've heard of stability problems, graphics problems and erratic frame rates. and that's from developers who work with it. I hope that Sony holds off on the launch until it's really ready.

[Hellstorm]

Power can only do so much for the weak gameplay Id is known for.

[bobbler]

Same here I've heard of stability problems, graphics problems and erratic frame rates. and that's from developers who work with it. I hope that Sony holds off on the launch until it's really ready.

You can do a bit better than that, Mr.

[Grifter]

Sony is doing the exact same thing this gen. as they did for the last one. The differance now is they actually have major competition in Microsoft and even more so in Nintendo with the new stance they have taken.

The PS2 was so underpowered and hard to program for that 90% of the games looked like shit, therefore alot of the games for the Xbox and Gamecube did as well because PS2 was the standered. If the PS3 relatively speaking is the same as the PS2 when it comes to programming and still holds a major portion of the market share it could hinder the entire industry including the pc.

I know alot of you like to throw around that it's just about the gameplay and graphics don't really matter but thats bullshit, if it wasn't these new consoles would never sell.
When I pay $50 or $60 bucks for a game I wan't the full package that includes sound, graphics and gameplay. Both systems are equal when it comes to sound and gameplay(depending on devolopers and personal taste) so it boils down to graphics
and I will initialy support the system that I think has a better chance of being used to it's fullest before the last 6 months of it's life, and of course has more of the style of games I like. So, I am sure your asking yourselves what the point of this drunken rambling is..............X360 FTW!!!!!!.






sorry i had to :)

[ElectricMonk]

gasp! another misleading ea news headline. peak power means crap. It means that in 5 a handful of devs will have better looking games on the ps3.

[BenN1ce]

I'm sure Sony really cares. The PS2 was the hardest console to develope for yet it still dominated. The PS3 is easier to develope for than the PS2. When you have that type of market share you almost have to suck it up and develope on that console even though it's obviously harder than than the 360.

[Jart]

heh, since when has a short technical discussion by John Carmack, the father of FPS and deathmatch, been filed under slow news day?

Kids these days...

[Taco]

I'm sure Sony really cares. The PS2 was the hardest console to develope for yet it still dominated. The PS3 is easier to develope for than the PS2. When you have that type of market share you almost have to suck it up and develope on that console even though it's obviously harder than than the 360.

You really think that will last forever if they rest on their laurels because they think they can? I don't think Sony believes that for a second.

[AntB]

Umm the PS3 has NO market share. The 360 already has a market share BenN1ce. If it's easier to develop for the 360, by a large margin, the PS3 will die before it gains any market share, because it will not have anything good out for it.



"When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down."

[Twigz'N'Berries]

I agree with Carmack's assesment of the two platforms. It does lead to one interesting thing, if Sony gets to a low market share and Microsoft is willing to give developers even a small incentive for being exclusive, they could get a ton of exclusive games. This is turn could really put the hammer to the PS3. I don't think we'll have any choice but to make a PS3 game, but I would sure love to make just a xbox 360 title, far less testing, no tuning for two platforms, half the dev kits, half the certification woes. If we could be convinced that we would not lose too many sales, I'm sure we'd do it.

...and then reality set in.
You will end up developing for the PS3 if it retails for $499 or less. If this last launch has taught us anything it is that the American consumer is willing to shell out massive bucks for their gaming console. It also has taught us that some gamers are waiting for the PS3. If all the anit MS posts here have not convinced you of that, look elsewhwere. Sony has their tons of fanboys salivating or a 'vision' of what their games will look like. Sony rushed out specs about their machine and a quick 'rough draft' of what their system will look like to thwart the 360's thunder. They showed the world videos, not gameplay and ensured that Sony fans everywhere would be purchasing their system. Sony's install base will definitely be larger than MS's by next X-mas time if they can produce enough systems and they launch by the summer.
As long as the start up costs for developing PS3 games are not the whopping $18 million dollars as was reported earlier, most development houses will develop for PS3 primarily and then port to the 360. A rule of business is that you go for the largest audience possible to sell your products to whenever possible. Even when you are fufilling a niche, you try to get the largest slice of that niche that you can.

[Taco]

Sony does not have the same pull with their audience Nintendo has. In otherwords MS can erode Sony's fanbase with fancy marketing and especially an early release. You can't compare this gen to the last one, the XBox is no longer a new name. Not saying the PS3 won't be successful based on what you are saying, but if they just pull another PS2 then the 3 will not be as successful as 2 and the 4 is an uphill battle.

[Balthasar]

I think everyone saw this coming, but this kind of news to me is really important. Because easier to develop games get developed faster and therefore they should be cheaper. Also easy to develop games should theoretically be cheaper therefore it is easier to push innovation on a 360 then a PS3 because it won’t cost the publishers/backers as much on a 360 then on a PS3. Whether this translates to actually innovation or just a lot more bad games is up to the developers and publishers.

That's funny, because I'm pretty sure the PS2 was harder to develop for than the X-Box. How did that whole "easier to push innovation" theory work out there? Where is their Shadow of the Colossus and Katamari Damacy?

It's always funny reading out-and-out uninformed people try to act like they understand how market forces work.

[Taco]

That's funny, because I'm pretty sure the PS2 was harder to develop for than the X-Box. How did that whole "easier to push innovation" theory work out there? Where is their Shadow of the Colossus and Katamari Damacy?

It's always funny reading out-and-out uninformed people try to act like they understand how market forces work.

Sony does not have the same pull with their audience Nintendo has. In otherwords MS can erode Sony's fanbase with fancy marketing and especially an early release. You can't compare this gen to the last one, the XBox is no longer a new name. Not saying the PS3 won't be successful based on what you are saying, but if they just pull another PS2 then the 3 will not be as successful as 2 and the 4 is an uphill battle.
There are other factors at work.

[Balthasar]

There are other factors at work.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[Taco]

Cause you're an idiot.
A: because you can't understand what I'm trying to say
B: because you think you can make an apples to apples comparison between this generation and the last

You really think where the Xbox is now is equal to where it was when the PS2 was released? Just speaking from a marketing and name brand recognition standpoint. Sony could get away with a lot more then than they can now or in the near future.

It's going to be easier to pull developers to the XBox this time around, which was the only positive Sony had with the PS2.

[Balthasar]

You really think where the Xbox is now is equal to where it was when the PS2 was released? Just speaking from a marketing and name brand recognition standpoint. Sony could get away with a lot more then than they can now or in the near future.

It;s going to be easier to pull developers to the XBox this time around, which was the only positive Sony had with the PS2.

That's funny, because form a marketing and name brand recognition standpoint, I distinctly remember Sega and Nintendo being around (before and after the PS2 launch). Again, hillarity insues when people who have no understanding of market forces and "root" for companies think they have any idea what is actually going on when a system is or is not successful.

[AntB]

EA has a pretty big Brooklynite population.

[RMan]

If it's easier to develop for the 360, by a large margin, the PS3 will die before it gains any market share, because it will not have anything good out for it.
This is true, but to consider the programming impact as the deciding factor is shortsighted, IMO. The content creation will pretty much be the same this generation, some high quality content developed for the Xbox1 may not be doable on the PS2 due to technical shortcomings, but this will almost assuredly not be the case with all 3 next-gen systems (Rev may take a drop in polycount/texture res, but that’s fairly easy to automate these days). Since the average content creation budget will dwarf the average programming budget, it’s pretty hard to imagine that the difficulty in platform specific programming will play a major role in a publisher/developer choosing what systems to develop for.

[dieselduck]

the fact that Sony has a massive PS2 install base could easily work against them in this instance and their reluctance to EOL the PS2 isn't going to do them any favors either. They're essentially attempting to have two active consoles in the marketplace simultaneously until 2010 (when they claim the PS2 will have run it's course). This makes it much more likely that what consumers will see multi-platform titles like fight night round 3 and Madden on the high-end with little distinction between them. This not only takes away from the value proposition of owning a PS3 versus a 360 but forces Sony to match the 360 in its online capabilities and if it's anything like that "cyberworld" Xbox Live clone they showed off at E3 they've got a lot of work ahead of them.

Ultimately what makes a development house build for a platform is the incentive provided by the publisher to do so. Right now there is a lot of incentive for PS2 development out there and its not likely to ebb in 2006 - even with the PS3. This type of publishing incentive for the PS3 won't really take hold unless wide consumer adoption takes place, and that won't happen unless there is a clear advantage in owning the PS3 over another platform. This goes far beyond the initial sell-outs and the first million or two units sold.. this is broad-based consumer adoption. And at the prices Sony will need to charge initially, that kind of consumer adoption isn't likely to kick in for quite some time.

[Taco]

That's funny, because form a marketing and name brand recognition standpoint, I distinctly remember Sega and Nintendo being around (before and after the PS2 launch). Again, hillarity insues when people who have no understanding of market forces and "root" for companies think they have any idea what is actually going on when a system is or is not successful.

What? How does that affect how the XBox went from zero to what it has now? Of course Sony and Nintendo has name brand, but this is the first time the XBox has for a launch.

My IQ drops with every second I waste trying to make sense of you.

[Balthasar]

What? How does that affect how the XBox went from zero to what it has now? Of course Sony and Nintendo has name brand, but this is the first time the XBox has for a launch.

My IQ drops with every second I waste trying to make sense of you.

1) How did Microsoft not have brand recognition before they released the first X-Box? How does a multi-billion dollar company not have recognition? X-Box was never at "zero." The idea that Microsoft is some kind of underdog is a myth that baffles me.

2) Brand recognition is irrelevant. The Playstation and the Playstation 2 trampled over the competition. I mentioned Nintendo and Sega because, in the video game world, it didn't get bigger than those two names. Who the hell was Sony when it comes to games? At least Microsoft had some connection to gaming (in the PC world). If brand recognition meant much of anything, there probably wouldn't be a Playstation 2.

Consider for a moment the fact that Nintendo, coming off the extremely popular SNES, releases the N64 over a year after the unknown PS1 gets released. Sony "wins." Then Sega releases their Dreamcast over a year before the PS2 drops. Sony "wins" again, even bigger. If name recognition were any sort of significant factor here, we would have seen Nintendo do to Sony what Sony ended up doing to Sega (stunting sales by getting people to wait).

I'm sorry my trenchant analytical ability makes you feel inferior. That was certainly not my intention.

[Balthasar]

the fact that Sony has a massive PS2 install base could easily work against them in this instance and their reluctance to EOL the PS2 isn't going to do them any favors either. They're essentially attempting to have two active consoles in the marketplace simultaneously until 2010 (when they claim the PS2 will have run it's course). This makes it much more likely that what consumers will see multi-platform titles like fight night round 3 and Madden on the high-end with little distinction between them. This not only takes away from the value proposition of owning a PS3 versus a 360 but forces Sony to match the 360 in its online capabilities and if it's anything like that "cyberworld" Xbox Live clone they showed off at E3 they've got a lot of work ahead of them.

You could not be more wrong. Do you know the Playstation had games released on it as late as 2003? Their strategy when they transitioned from the Playstation to the Playstation 2 is no different here. Backward compatability is key here, and is probably the reason they were able to keep the Playstation alive as long as they did while the PS2 was selling out everywhere. The fact that you can play (probably) more than 90% of your PS2 games (and PS1 games) encourages buyers to upgrade to the next system, because they get everything they had before, plus the newer, better looking games. And they can continue to invest in older PS2 games because they know they won't have to wait for questionably stable patches to play their games who-knows-when. None of that other stuff you mention plays into it at all.

Again, I have to remind you guys that broadband penetration in the U.S. remains relatively low (though growing). Sony would do well for themselves by offering a comprehensive online service of some sort, but such a thing will likely not impact sales of their consoles for a few more years. The only thing that really matters here are titles and marketing. If they are preceived to have titles people are going to want to play (whether they are relased at launch or not), they'll likely start well.

[Taco]

1) How did Microsoft not have brand recognition before they released the first X-Box? How does a multi-billion dollar company not have recognition? X-Box was never at "zero." The idea that Microsoft is some kind of underdog is a myth that baffles me.

2) Brand recognition is irrelevant.

Wow, you're clueless. Made all the more hilarious by this little gem you laid:

It's always funny reading out-and-out uninformed people try to act like they understand how market forces work.

[Balthasar]

Wow, you're clueless.

You've not made one counter to my point. You cannot say Microsoft lacks brand recognition, nor can you prove that it matters one way or another. Why the hell would anyone buy a console from a company that makes headphones and discman players over TWO companies with extremely proven track records in gaming?

[SMES]

You've not made one counter to my point. You cannot say Microsoft lacks brand recognition, nor can you prove that it matters one way or another. Why the hell would anyone buy a console from a company that makes headphones and discman players over TWO companies with extremely proven track records in gaming?

The Playstation was aggressively marketed as a cool product, and Sega had been severely disrespected as a console brand after the 32x/SegaCD/Saturn fiascos. The N64 was, as you pointed out, late.

The PS was a success because of aggressive marketing, convincing software, and good timing, among other things. Sony was as strong a brand name as Microsoft was when the Xbox dropped, and many people were able to, I imagine, equate quality of the Playstation to previous Sony products because of the CDs used as the format. Discman... Playstation... Discman... etc. I haven't done any research on this, but it seems plausable to me.

Sony was a "cool" brand, and they delivered with the right thing at the right time. They were similarly able to gear the PS2 as the "thing to wait for." The Dreamcast had Sega's negative baggage and very little money behind it for a marketing push.

Money was the big thing, timing was another, and the product was good enough so it all came together.

[Achilles]

The Dreamcast had Sega's negative baggage and very little money behind it for a marketing push.

Money was the big thing, timing was another, and the product was good enough so it all came together.I'd argue that the negative baggage didn't affect them very much. Their launch was huge (best selling system at launch up to that point) and they sold well till the PS2 came out. The problem was they had no money, as you mentioned. And their best teams were working on things that were niche games at best such as Seaman, Chu Chu Rocket, Space Channel 5, etc.

Still they did get some good games even in the later stages, if they hadn't run out of money they'd probably still be going good (MS most likely wouldn't have entered, making the Game Cube the most graphically advanced system; interesting alternate history).

[Balthasar]

The Playstation was aggressively marketed as a cool product, and Sega had been severely disrespected as a console brand after the 32x/SegaCD/Saturn fiascos. The N64 was, as you pointed out, late.

Disrespected? Bullshit. I don't know how old you are (here's your chance to throw out some lie to make your argument sound more convincing), but I remember the first two years or so after the PS1 was released, and the hardcore gamers, the only ones who would have any incling of "respect" when it comes to console companies, hated the Playstation. When Tomb Raider came out, they constantly slagged on the Playstation version as being inferior (and if you're old enough, you would know why this would be a really big deal), not to mention the faulty hardware that some people got when they purchased one of the earlier versions.

The PS was a success because of aggressive marketing
Yes.

convincing software
Yes.


and good timing
What does that even mean? You were doing so well there.

Sony was as strong a brand name as Microsoft was when the Xbox dropped, and many people were able to, I imagine, equate quality of the Playstation to previous Sony products because of the CDs used as the format. Discman... Playstation... Discman... etc. I haven't done any research on this, but it seems plausable to me.
I don't know how you convinced yourself of this. If I told you Bose was going to make a game console, you would laugh at the idea and never even consider it. Don't tell me the quality of their CD players made people buy it. That's bullshit and you know it. Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar company that absolutely DOMINATES the PC market with their OS. The idea of them making a video game system made a hell of a lot more sense than Sony. Not to mention they have vastly larger resources than Sony.

Sony was a "cool" brand, and they delivered with the right thing at the right time.
They made themselves cool by making gaming more mainstream. They didn't start that way. I don't know about anyone else, but when I was given a PS1 for christmas right after it came out here, I really didn't want it. I was hoping to see what the N64 would be first.

They were similarly able to gear the PS2 as the "thing to wait for." The Dreamcast had Sega's negative baggage and very little money behind it for a marketing push.
No way, seriously, how old are you? The Dreamcast didn't have negative baggage? It was the best launch EVER when it came out. The buzz around it was crazy. Furthermore, how could the PS1 have been advertised as "the thing to wait for?" That doesn't even make sense. It had no rep. I'll tell you right now, because I remember it, that was NOT their approach with the first one. And the Dreamcast commercials were all over the place, at least as much as the 360 commericals. I saw the "It's Thinking" commercials so many times I'd start saying that randomly to my friends. You're totally pulling all of this out of your ass, aren't you?

Money was the big thing, timing was another, and the product was good enough so it all came together.
What is this timing you keep speaking of? What was so special about 1995? Gamers were not clamoring for a new gaming system. The SNES had just hit it's peak the year before. And none of what you say supports the idea that Sony had "name recognition," and certainly doesn't explain why the X-Box didn't do at least as well as the PS1. Name recognition doesn't mean shit, plain and simple. Marketing, games, and prices. That's all you need to know. The Playstation games were the cheapest of their time. They were cheaper than SNES games. They had all of the big third party developers. The advertising wasn't even that big a factor, to be honest. Sytems are only advertised for their initial sell-through, from launch until maybe 4 months out. Any other advertising for a console is going to come through the games that are on the system, first or third party. The Playstation didn't do it's best when it first came out, I'm fairly certain.

[mister_slim]

You could not be more wrong. Do you know the Playstation had games released on it as late as 2003?
Bonus interesting fact: Sony shipped 2.5 million PSOnes in 2004.

[dieselduck]

You could not be more wrong.

I beg to differ - "The PS3 will be filled with a delicious creamy center capable of rendering thirty-seven pixar quality High-def games at 120FPS simultaneously - even if you don't have a high-def tv"

now.. I AM more wrong.

Face it.. developer focus through 2007 will be on PS2.

diehard PS3 fans expecting motorstorm and killzone 2 to look like the demos Sony has been showing will be struck with a bit of a reality check when the actual games end up looking much closer to what's available on the 360. (Wait until the first playables of Mi-8 and FNr3 show their faces at E3 - they look great.. but not really any better than what a 360 could do) And Since Sony refuses to end of life the PS2 until 2010, Tier 1 developers for Sony will be splitting development resources across two platforms, where as most MS developers will be transitioning exclusively to 360 by the end of this year.

And if you think Sony can't muck up a new system launch by putting 'feature set' above 'quality game development' - look no further than PSP - a system that is in every conceivable way superior to DS - by a larger margin even than PS3 is to X360.. but has a mediocre library of game titles and is outsold at retail by Nintendo's ulgy little DS.. purely because it lacks software that takes advantage of what it has to offer... That's a developer problem. And just like the PS3's BR-DVD component.. the fact that the system plays a special version of the wedding crashers ain't gonna help.

[Twigz'N'Berries]

Sony does not have the same pull with their audience Nintendo has. In otherwords MS can erode Sony's fanbase with fancy marketing and especially an early release. You can't compare this gen to the last one, the XBox is no longer a new name. Not saying the PS3 won't be successful based on what you are saying, but if they just pull another PS2 then the 3 will not be as successful as 2 and the 4 is an uphill battle.
Really? Hmm, I guess Japan doesn't count, right?

[Twigz'N'Berries]

Wow, you are right the PS3 doesn't have a marketshare because it isn't out yet. But the PS3 has enough of its PS2 fans that will but its console because of its nearly 100% backwards compatibility. It has people who will buy it because of its PS1 bc. Sony has kept all of its fans by giving them extra incentive to buy its next generation of systems by not eliminating the games from its current gen.

It's idiotic to think that a large number of the PS2 owners will not attempt to purchase the PS3 day one. The PS3 can launch with mediocre titles and still beat the 360 in sales over the same period of time. Xbox lost some of its fanbase due to its lack of continuity.

The PS2 will continue to be the dominant console until mid-2008 to 2009. Prices on the other consoles should have dropped dramatically and the quality of title will be undeniable for gamers...more will make the switch. With PS3 being a BR player, many more people will buy it.

I can't see how gamers can honestly think PS3 will not be the dominant console. Developers may hate the PS3 tools, but the business owners will not care as long as the games make a profit. I own and love my 360, I generally hate Sony products...but i will be getting a PS3 day one.

[Balthasar]

Face it.. developer focus through 2007 will be on PS2.
I don't see where you've actually defended your statement, or even refuted the past history I called up. It is a fact that the PS1 platform did not officially die until well into the PS2's life cycle. History is the only thing we can reliably look upon in this instance to predict developer behavior--and so looking at that history, what we will likely see are top tier developers (EA, Square Enix, Konami, Capcom, etc) release their new games on the PS3. Smaller companies that are either porting games from overseas that were released in Japan prior to the PS3 or are creating games that they don't feel requires the latest, greatest graphics, meanwhile, will pick and choose which of the two systems will benefit them more. Examples of this in past history were things like EA making versions of their sports franchises for both the PS1 and PS2, Capcom just moving on and making Devil May Cry, and Square releasing compliations on the PS like Final Fantasy Chronicles and Final Fantasy Origins (as well as the now-defunct Working Designs getting us Lunar: Silver Star Story and Eternal Blue, and a couple other RPG series that never made it here when they should have).

Diehard PS3 fans expecting motorstorm and killzone 2 to look like the demos Sony has been showing will be struck with a bit of a reality check when the actual games end up looking much closer to what's available on the 360.
What does your--or their--closed-minded, blind devotion to one console have anything to do with the fact that what Sony claims they will do with the PS2 is not unprecedented?

And Since Sony refuses to end of life the PS2 until 2010, Tier 1 developers for Sony will be splitting development resources across two platforms, where as most MS developers will be transitioning exclusively to 360 by the end of this year.
Um, what? First of all, MS has very few developers that work exclusively with them, so what we're talking about is simply multi-platform development, which, hate to break it to you, has been going on for over 15 years. Nothing new to those guys. They can develop for the PS2 and PS3 and Gamecube and X-Box and X-Box 360 and Revolution, or they could choose not to. Nothing has changed. Sony's first party developers aren't going to be hurt by developing for both the PS2 and PS3, but because Sony says the PS2 will be alive until 2010 doesn't mean the makers of Ico and Shadow of the Colossus and God of War are going to be forced to developing for both. You're trying to pick apart a statement that was likely only meant to engender consumer confidence in the PS2 to keep consumers from assuming it dead the way Nintendo notoriously does with their systems.

look no further than PSP - a system that is in every conceivable way superior to DS - by a larger margin even than PS3 is to X360.. but has a mediocre library of game titles and is outsold at retail by Nintendo's ulgy little DS.. purely because it lacks software that takes advantage of what it has to offer... That's a developer problem. And just like the PS3's BR-DVD component.. the fact that the system plays a special version of the wedding crashers ain't gonna help.
Wrong on really all accounts. The margin that the PSP is getting outsold by the DS is not terribly bad, but the reason it is getting outsold in the first place is not simply a lack of games. It's a fundamental lack of understanding, on the part of both Sony and the develpers, of what makes portable gaming appealing. Some of the early PSP games, such as Luminies got it. Simple gameplay, with the ability to pick up whenever and put down when life interferes (end of a bus/subway ride, movie playing in the theater is beginning, etc). I was at a Gamestop the other day to pick up Shadow of the Colossus (loving it so far), and I noticed a demo station up for the PSP. They had some fighting game in it; I'm not really sure which one it was, but it seemed like a Def Jam type of game. Anyway, just standing there I found myself getting frustrated by the fact that I had to wait through loading screens to get to the next fight. Loading of almost any kind is anathema to the essense of portable gaming. Sony probably realized that at some point, which I think is why they came out publicly and said "this system is meant for you to use at home" or something to that effect. I don't think those comments had anything to do with their battery life (iPods still aren't completely great with their battery life). However, I don't see how the PSP's issues are in any way related to the PS3. Until you can prove that developers have suddenly decided they are not going to develop on the PS3 (after wasting their money on one of 3,000 dev kits), your comments amount to nothing more than fanboy bullshit.

[SMES]

I don't know how old you are (here's your chance to throw out some lie to make your argument sound more convincing),

Lie... about my age? Huh?


and the hardcore gamers, the only ones who would have any incling of "respect" when it comes to console companies, hated the Playstation. When Tomb Raider came out, they constantly slagged on the Playstation version as being inferior (and if you're old enough, you would know why this would be a really big deal), not to mention the faulty hardware that some people got when they purchased one of the earlier versions.

Did you get arrested for statutory rape or something? You seem very preoccupied with people lying about their age.

I do remember when the PS1 came out, but I don't worry too much about hardcore gamers. Casual gamers make up a big part of the market too, and when I speculate on why consoles are successful, I try to take into account more than the hardcore opinions.


If I told you Bose was going to make a game console, you would laugh at the idea and never even consider it.

Thanks for making my mind up for me. However, I would be skeptical about Bose because I think Bose makes overpriced, underpowered junk. When Sony released the PS1 I had a high opinion of their Discmans. So... kind of a different situation.


Don't tell me the quality of their CD players made people buy it. That's bullshit and you know it. Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar company that absolutely DOMINATES the PC market with their OS. The idea of them making a video game system made a hell of a lot more sense than Sony.

Yeah, Microsoft makes more sense, but we're talking about 1995 here. And I'm not sure that Sony's overall CE reputation, of which CD players were a big part, didn't make a difference. I knew people who thought of Sony as "the" brand to buy when it came to a CD player. I admit I did too. I refuse to believe (as you seem to think) that this mentality couldn't have translated to their gaming product.


They made themselves cool by making gaming more mainstream... I was hoping to see what the N64 would be first.

True, more mainstream, making the hardcore's opinion on which version of Tomb Raider was better less relevant. And as a side note, I too wanted the N64 more, but at the time I was losing interest in videogames and my brother worked at SGI and he gave me Nintendo shwag all the time and hyped up the N64 a lot.


No way, seriously, how old are you? The Dreamcast didn't have negative baggage? It was the best launch EVER when it came out. The buzz around it was crazy. Furthermore, how could the PS1 have been advertised as "the thing to wait for?"

I just remember things differently than you do. I remember reading at least a few articles about "can Sega bounce back from the Saturn?" and things like that. I knew people excited about the DC, I was too. But we were all at least quietly nervous about how they were going to do. These were the days of making fun of the 32x, Saturn, etc. like there was no tommorow. We all had Playstations (which we got because of the cool CD drives, natch ;)), and some of us had bought 32xes and SegaCDs. It was "Ok" to make fun of Sega.

I didn't say the PS1 was the thing to wait for. I said the PS2 was the thing to wait for because of the PS1's popularity in 2000. When I said "They were similarly..." I was referring to my previous sentence where I said they delivered the right thing at the right time.

It's possible that we just ran with different crowds, ya know. The lack of internet made it harder for many people to find a dissenting viewpoint back then.


What is this timing you keep speaking of?... The Playstation games were the cheapest of their time.

Mostly I just meant timing in the sense of marketing timing. Whether hardcore gamers were clamoring for a new console doesn't matter, clearly the release of the Playstation was good timing because it did expand the market, as we agree upon. Certainly wasn't bad timing, that's for sure.

I forgot about the cheaper games, that is a good point. Certainly added to their success. I still think CD based games helped the "cool" factor, though.

[Balthasar]

Lie... about my age? Huh?
Common tactic used by others. Things like: "I am a programmer working for a secret company so I have first hand knowledge that X system is teh doomed!" Apologies if that is beneath you.

Thanks for making my mind up for me. However, I would be skeptical about Bose because I think Bose makes overpriced, underpowered junk. When Sony released the PS1 I had a high opinion of their Discmans. So... kind of a different situation.
Really? So were you one of the few that got the early models that weren't defective? I had to flip mine upside down to make the optical eye read my discs. I definitely didn't recommend a PS to my friends because of their great hardware quality.

Yeah, Microsoft makes more sense, but we're talking about 1995 here. And I'm not sure that Sony's overall CE reputation, of which CD players were a big part, didn't make a difference. I knew people who thought of Sony as "the" brand to buy when it came to a CD player. I admit I did too. I refuse to believe (as you seem to think) that this mentality couldn't have translated to their gaming product.
I'm not saying it doesn't factor in at all in the smallest way. I'm saying, against the reps of BOTH Nintendo and Sega, it's pretty miniscule. I'm saying, when the X-Box came out in 2001 (was it?), their name was bigger for a new console maker than Sony was when they entered the market. And yet, way, way behind Sony for this generation. So what does name mean, then?


True, more mainstream, making the hardcore's opinion on which version of Tomb Raider was better less relevant. And as a side note, I too wanted the N64 more, but at the time I was losing interest in videogames and my brother worked at SGI and he give me Nintendo shwag all the time and hyped up the N64 a lot.
My point was that only the hardcore were aware of such reputations in the first place. These debates were always esoteric.


I just remember things differently than you do. I remember reading at least a few articles about "can Sega bounce back from the Saturn?" and things like that. I knew people excited about the DC, I was too. But we were all at least quietly nervous about how they were going to do. These were the days of making fun of the 32x, Saturn, etc. like there was no tommorow. We all had Playstations (which we got because of the cool CD drives, natch ;)), and some of us had bought 32xes and SegaCDs. It was "Ok" to make fun of Sega.
Well, personally I thought the PS2 would flatten the Dreamcast, and with less disposable income, I decided to just stick with the PS2. I hated Sega's advertising. It was irritating and didn't make any sense. But I don't speak for the gaming population, and the launch went pretty well for them. They were coming out with good games, games you weren't going to see on the PS2 anytime soon.

It's possible that we just ran with different crowds, ya know. The lack of internet made it harder to find a dissenting viewpoint back then.
Oh, my high school was filled with dissenting opinions when it came to videogames. Most of them came around and opened up their wallet for a second system (I got myself a Saturn with my birthday money, fed up with my PS disc read error issues until I figured out what was wrong with it and how to fix it without paying).

I forgot about the cheaper games, that is a good point. Certainly added to their success. I still think CD based games helped the "cool" factor, though.

CD's just made more sense. The popular opinion, as I remember it, was that cartridges were more expensive and held less than cds, load times be dammed. When the price on those PS games started sinking, I was suddenly buying more of them. Classics like FFVII certainly didn't hurt. Still, I don't see how name recognition plays into any of this. You don't have the great games, you tend to lose out on the customers. If the 360 becomes the hardware leader, it won't be because people suddenly discovered this little Redmond-based company named "Microsoft." It will be because they have quality titles like (I hope/assume) Morrowind: Oblivion and Alan Wake.

[SMES]

It will be because they have quality titles like (I hope/assume) Morrowind: Oblivion

Please, please make this true! My brother is the technical owner of our 360, because he was willing to spend a night in front of Best Buy and I wasn't. I know he's secretly hoping Oblivion sucks so I won't be hogging it all day and night.

[dieselduck]

As for the developers - I'm not saying that pleanty of SCEA T1 houses won't build for PS3 - that's ridiculous.. of course they will. I'm saying that the games they will build will not be all that dissimilar from the presentation quality of titles available from the 360 or a gaming PC. And the follow-up titles that are available will likely come out more slowly due to a split focus - that's all - two distinctly seperate points.

Now here's why I think that both of these points will work against Sony: One of the main reasons that Sony is expecting to be as successful as PS2 with the Playstation 3 is by asserting that the console is itself some sort of quantum leap beyond the NR and X360. They whet the appetites of consumers with gorgeous-looking pre-renders and promises of architecture that is vastly superior to what is available currently.. I believe that this promise will ultimately dissappoint as the development community publishes content that is PC/X360 quality instead of real-time 'Motorstorm demo' quality. Those 4300 dev kits are simply not capable of rendering playable content like sonys been showing - it's as simple as that.

Furthermore I think that it becomes more challenging to create these 'E3 Killzone2-quality' games on an acceptable time table while your developers are being compelled to build content for PS2 - and possibly PSP in tandem. It's not that the games won't get built - it's that the end result will be significantly less impressive than many have been waiting for (presentation-wise).

So my point is.. when the visual advantage of the PS3 evaporates - and it will - you're left with a console that is in limited supply through 2006 and well into 2007 and produces content that is on par visually with a readily available competing product (360) that enjoys a better price point and, one can only assume, superior online capabilities. I think that this fact alone will sway a number of single console owners waiting for the PS3 towards the 360. It won't be a massive number but it will be enough to warrant an increased publisher focus.

Publisher focus is something that Xbox lags far behind on - as you correctly point out - but is making decent progress with. Already things like Final Fantasy and Crackdown (by David Jones) are proving that former PS-only territory is, in fact, encroachable.

I'm not arguing that the PS3 won't sell well right out of the gate.. the first 2-5 million units will fly off the shelves. (myself included) What will be more of a challenge for PS3 is climbing to the 100 Million level and achieving that kind of publisher incentive that comes from those levels.

I also doubt that PS2 owners will invest in a new console primarily for backwards compatibility.

And as for the PSP -

The Nov. 2005 issue of Famitsu showed that the lineup of games seems to be the main factor for the PSP's sluggish sales. While four DS games ranked in the top 10 sales chart for the first half of fiscal year 2006, the best-selling game for the PSP, Konami's World Soccer Winning Eleven 9 Ubiquitous Evolution, trailed behind in 35th place.

A private survey conducted by the magazine further showed that only 15.3 percent of PSP owners are happy about its game lineup, and 46.2 percent see it as the biggest issue regarding the PSP. On the other hand, 46.1 percent of DS owners are satisfied with the lineup for their handheld, and the number of owners complaining about the lack of games remained low at 24.2 percent.

(this is in japan too)

Plus game charts in the us don't lie either. It's also no coincidence that the PSP has fewer higher rated games than the DS (visit a site like gametab that aggregates review scores)

[Balthasar]

As for the developers - I'm not saying that pleanty of SCEA T1 houses won't build for PS3 - that's ridiculous.. of course they will. I'm saying that the games they will build will not be all that dissimilar from the presentation quality of titles available from the 360 or a gaming PC.
You're speaking about that as if
A) It is an established fact that PS3 games will look near-identical to 360 games, and
B) As if graphical muscle has ever been what has determined any generation of so-called "console wars."

Pub focus is something that Xbox lags far behind on - as you correctly point out - but is making decent progress with. Already things like Final Fantasy and Crackdown (by David Jones) are proving that former PS-only territory is, in fact, encroachable.

FF XI? You're kidding, right? And I have no idea what Crackdown is. Is that a book? As for the rest, all of your comments are being based on something that is impossible for either of us to verify one way or another.

I'm not arguing that the PS3 won't sell well right out of the gate.. the first 2-5 million units will fly off the shelves. (myself included) What will be more of a challenge for PS3 is climbing to the 100 Million level and achieving that kind of publisher incentive that comes from those levels.
I'm not prepared to make broad predictions about a system whose abilities (and controller!) have not even been finalized yet. I feel like it's a waste of time to do so this early.

And as for the PSP -

The Nov. 2005 issue of Famitsu showed that the lineup of games seems to be the main factor for the PSP's sluggish sales. While four DS games ranked in the top 10 sales chart for the first half of fiscal year 2006, the best-selling game for the PSP, Konami's World Soccer Winning Eleven 9 Ubiquitous Evolution, trailed behind in 35th place.
This doesn't disprove my theory. What about soccer makes for a great portable experience?


A private survey conducted by the magazine further showed that only 15.3 percent of PSP owners are happy about its game lineup, and 46.2 percent see it as the biggest issue regarding the PSP. On the other hand, 46.1 percent of DS owners are satisfied with the lineup for their handheld, and the number of owners complaining about the lack of games remained low at 24.2 percent.
Right. But I'm giving a reason for this. I'm not sure what you are saying, exactly? I'm saying a major part of the flaw in the game lineup lies in the types of games being released for the PSP. These are not portable-friendly games, in my opinion.

[dieselduck]

--
You're speaking about that as if
A) It is an established fact that PS3 games will look near-identical to 360 games

Wait until first playables at E-3 this year.


--
B) As if graphical muscle has ever been what has determined any generation of so-called "console wars."

Not alone. Time to market, unit price and availability, developer support and title quality also influence consumer purchase (notice I didn't include 'brand recognition') - IMO - microsoft and nintendo are more competitive on these fronts now than they've been in the past two system launches. This is all good news for the consumer regardless of which consoles you buy.


--
FF XI? You're kidding, right? And I have no idea what Crackdown is. Is that a book? As for the rest, all of your comments are being based on something that is impossible for either of us to verify one way or another.

Yes... I'm kidding about Final Fantasy. Crackdown is the other title Peter Moore is hyping about for 2006 (along with Gears of War) - It's an X360 exclusive done by the original GTA team. As for verifyability - if it was verifyable we wouldn't have the discussion.


--
I'm not prepared to make broad predictions about a system whose abilities (and controller!) have not even been finalized yet. I feel like it's a waste of time to do so this early.

First of all - why not? You're not under oath.. it's all speculation.. It's not like you're representing your company right now. (I know I'm sure as hell not) Secondly - This early? 'Spring 2006' is right around the corner. Final Dev kits are in developers hands and if we're to believe Sony's "Yes, It is real time" comment - we've seen code in action as early as last year at E3. I for one think this is nonsense, and its part of the larger problem that I have with Sony over-promising and out-engineering its development base.

to draw a larger - speculative - arc - this disconnect between what's been promised and what will be delivered will combine with X360s greater availability, title selection (at PS3 launch) and live service as well as Nintendo's price point, controller scheme and first-party title line-up to create a more challenging marketplace for Sony than they've experienced since they launched PS1.

Hopefully it will result in better systems and games all teh way around.

[mister_slim]

diehard PS3 fans expecting motorstorm and killzone 2 to look like the demos Sony has been showing will be struck with a bit of a reality check when the actual games end up looking much closer to what's available on the 360. (Wait until the first playables of Mi-8 and FNr3 show their faces at E3 - they look great.. but not really any better than what a 360 could do)
You may be surprised by Lair. The early (in-engine) videos look very good, probably the best I've seen yet (absolutely amazing animation). The gameplay is still an unknown, and I doubt many other games will look as nice, but the visuals are very impressive.

[Balthasar]

Yes... I'm kidding about Final Fantasy. Crackdown is the other title Peter Moore is hyping about for 2006 (along with Gears of War) - It's an X360 exclusive done by the original GTA team. As for verifyability - if it was verifyable we wouldn't have the discussion.
I liked GTA3, but was pretty bored by the last two (didn't even buy San Andreas), so if it's anything like that, I don't really care. Exclusive is a pretty tenuous term these days. Don't count on it for too long when it comes to games going to Sony's console.

First of all - why not? You're not under oath.. it's all speculation.. It's not like you're representing your company right now. (I know I'm sure as hell not) Secondly - This early? 'Spring 2006' is right around the corner. Final Dev kits are in developers hands and if we're to believe Sony's "Yes, It is real time" comment - we've seen code in action as early as last year at E3. I for one think this is nonsense, and its part of the larger problem that I have with Sony over-promising and out-engineering its development base.
I have nothing to base predictions on its graphical output from. I don't have access to a dev kit or actual games being made for the system. I certainly can't base it on the Killzone video, because I have no idea what in it resembles real-world performance for the PS3. I could speak about the actual capabilities of the PS3 about as well as I can prove God exists.

...to create a more challenging marketplace for Sony than they've experienced since they launched PS1.
I recall Sega and Sony being very close in sales for a while when the PS1 and Saturn were competing. That's much more competiton than they received with the Gamecube and X-Box, so I'm not too sure what you meant. They didn't get 100 million consoles sold uncontested.

[dieselduck]

I recall Sega and Sony being very close in sales for a while when the PS1 and Saturn were competing. That's much more competiton than they received with the Gamecube and X-Box, so I'm not too sure what you meant. They didn't get 100 million consoles sold uncontested.

It's not a point of Sony being contested.. it's a point of where the market is at and who's playing in it. The reason I think that Sony is in for a fight is because their two main competitors are in better postitions than what Sony has had to deal with in the past. On a variety of fronts:

1. Retro/casual/cheap/incidental gaming - both msft and nintendo are in much better positions here - it's an area of growth and its easy for both companies to get into. Nintendo's virtual console demo is exceptional and represents true innovation versus sony's "feature over gameplay" model.

2. financial backing - Sega had been in questionable financial health for quite some time - even prior to Dreamcast - there was even speculation as too whether or not they'd even release it. They simply didn't have Microsoft's financial muscle. Microsoft - through its pollution of the consumer PC - has a far greater war chest to draw from than does Sony and a much narrower product focus with better margins throughout virtually every business unit. Microsoft also has also somehow come out with a much better suite of developers tools (XNA is better because it had to be in order to be competitive) - IMHO it's basically the *only* time MS has come out with anything that's better.. can you tell I'm a mac user?

3. Online adoption/US focus - not only is the US the largest market for any of the console makers (NPD group) it has a unique broadband adoption profile and microsoft is addressing that. Broadband is penetrating at very high rates in the US and having a gaming console in which 50% of the users connect helps them tremendously. SNE lags behind here by quite a wide margin. PS2 has no where near a 50% connect rate.

4. First to market with a similar product - Microsoft has beat Sony to market with a product that is, on paper, *very* similar and in practice equally as similar - though Sony has a disinctive edge in fill rate and throughput. None the less, scenes that are not pre-rendered look identical to what 360 can do. Sony has spec'd out a few bells and whistles - basically BR-DVD and 'cell architecture', but at launch day will they deliver a better game play experience? doubtful.. and in one year from launch? possible.. but if the PSP is any indication - doubtful as well.

5. Decent titles - The release of DOA4 doubled the X360 sales in Japan.. It's not just DOA either. Xbox has been working hard to ensure that exculsives like Halo aren't flukes. Already X360 has an impressive list of launch titles when compared to PS2, and titles like Gears of War, Elder Scrolls and Burnout 3 are nearing release - PS2 had no such competition when it launched - It launched against crazy taxi and sonic.

The end result will be that Sony will have real competition for the first time since it decided it wanted to get into gaming.. This competition is what it needs to have in order to push it - and gaming to where it ought to be. I have no doubt that Sony's PS3 will outsell the 360.. but I predict that it will be closer than it's even been and any way you slice it.. its good news for the consumer.

[Balthasar]

1. Retro/casual/cheap/incidental gaming - both msft and nintendo are in much better positions here - it's an area of growth and its easy for both companies to get into. Nintendo's virtual console demo is exceptional and represents true innovation versus sony's "feature over gameplay" model.
The Live Arcade, I think, has far more potential than the NVC because, for one, we don't know what titles Nintendo can get on there. People mention Final Fantasy games every now and then, but I don't see how that's not a longshot at best, given how little Square Enix stands to make from it. It's also worth noting that Sony can jump all over Microsoft and Nintendo's retro wave and say they've been allowing retro gaming since the PS2, with the backward compatability they allow. In fact, I would be shocked if they don't use that as part of their advertising, since they are still the only company with such high BC levels. I definitely see your point here, however.

2. financial backing - Microsoft - through its pollution of the consumer PC - has a far greater war chest to draw from than does Sony and a much narrower product focus with better margins throughout virtually every business unit. Microsoft also has also somehow come out with a much better suite of developers tools...IMHO it's basically the *only* time MS has come out with anything that's better.. can you tell I'm a mac user?
I really want a Macbook. The only thing holding me back is waiting to see not only if XP could be dual-booted on it, but whether Vista will be able to run on it as well. It would be nice to have an OS that I don't have to worry about exposing me to viruses like a $5 hooker in Central Park. The money is definitely an advantage for MS, but it was with the X-Box too.

3. Online adoption/US focus - not only is the US the largest market for any of the console makers (NPD group) it has a unique broadband adoption profile and microsoft is addressing that. Broadband is penetrating at very high rates in the US and having a gaming console in which 50% of the users connect helps them tremendously. SNE lags behind here by quite a wide margin. PS2 has no where near a 50% connect rate.
Penetration still remains low overall in the U.S., however. Comparing MS's connect rate with Sony's isn't very informative because Sony doesn't have a subscription service of any sort. Those numbers would change drastically if they did.

4. First to market with a similar product - Microsoft has beat Sony to market with a product that is, on paper, *very* similar and in practice equally as similar - though Sony has a disinctive edge in fill rate and throughput. None the less, scenes that are not pre-rendered look identical to what 360 can do. Sony has spec'd out a few bells and whistles - basically BR-DVD and 'cell architecture', but at launch day will they deliver a better game play experience? doubtful.. and in one year from launch? possible.. but if the PSP is any indication - doubtful as well.
Few things here:
You give too much weight to the power of the consoles. Console power has yet to determine any of the gaming generations. That they may or may not be similar in power, in that light, would be irrelevant. What is relevant is the gameplay experience. I don't get how you can just discount what the PS3 will bring differently? Is the PS3 going to launch with Brothers In Arms and PGR3? What if they launch with something like MGS4? When you look at the publishers signed on to release games on the PS3, besides having a bigger publisher list than MS, they also have a lot more Japanese developers. This most definitely translates into a different gameplay experience. Whether it is better or not is going to depend almost entirely on the games themselves. Which brings me to the PSP, which doesn't belong in this debate because portable gaming is a different beast than console gaming.

5. Decent titles - The release of DOA4 doubled the X360 sales in Japan.. It's not just DOA either. Xbox has been working hard to ensure that exculsives like Halo aren't flukes. Already X360 has an impressive list of launch titles when compared to PS2, and titles like Gears of War, Elder Scrolls and Burnout 3 are nearing release - PS2 had no such competition when it launched - It launched against crazy taxi and sonic.
Assuming none of those ever find their way on the PS3. I'm also not of the opinion their launch titles were "impressive." All of the games I might want to play on their system have not come out yet. 360 sales doubling in Japan is a quirky statistic, considering how low the sales were in the first place. Two consoles sold is double that of one sold. Also, I hate DOA. Wake me up when the next Soul Caliber/Tekken/Virtua Fighter come out.

The end result will be that Sony will have real competition for the first time since it decided it wanted to get into gaming.
I still disagree with this idea that the Saturn was not extremely competitive with the PS1. Not the whole time, obviously, and once they announced work on the Dreamcast they managed to kill the Saturn entirely, but there was a good period there where it was neck-and-neck. Perhaps the best time I had gaming. Some of the best RPGs I've ever played came out in that generation.