PDA

View Full Version : Nvidia CEO Talks Next-Gen Consoles


RobertoOrtiz
07-25-2006, 09:38 PM
Quote:
"Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang (right) recently spoke about the next-gen console war, why Nvidia is working with Sony (and not Microsoft) on the PS3 graphics chip, the importance of Blu-ray, and his belief that the PS3 will last ten years. More within..."

>>LINK<< (http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13319&rp=49)

-R

AdamHerbert
07-25-2006, 09:56 PM
Quote:
"The important thing is you cannot announce a game console for the next ten years and not have Blu-ray. It's an impossible scenario. I think they got that perspective right. The moment we put those consoles together it's going to be very clear. If I'm going to buy a next-generation game console, I'm going to buy a console with next-generation media. It's going to last 10 years," he said.

Unless HD-DVD wins the battle. Then that'll be a big oops! We shall see...:curious:

Sonk
07-25-2006, 10:19 PM
Quote:
"The important thing is you cannot announce a game console for the next ten years and not have Blu-ray. It's an impossible scenario. I think they got that perspective right. The moment we put those consoles together it's going to be very clear. If I'm going to buy a next-generation game console, I'm going to buy a console with next-generation media. It's going to last 10 years," he said.

Unless HD-DVD wins the battle. Then that'll be a big oops! We shall see...:curious:

why would it be a big oops? HD-DVD winning over Blu-Ray is a moot point, its not going to affect the success of the PS3. Unless you bought the PS3 to watch Blu-Ray movie only. I view Blu-Ray as a storage medium for games, thats the first intention for Blu-Ray in the PS3.

His point was, were going to need a HD format, be it HD-DVD or Blu-Ray for a next gen console. DVD wont cut it M$, and wont last for another 10 years. Having a HD-DVD addon for the XBOX 360 isnt going to cut it either since the game developers cant used it as a storage medium(so its somewhat useless).

PS> i doubt HD-DVD well win the format war.

switchblade327
07-25-2006, 10:55 PM
why would it be a big oops? HD-DVD winning over Blu-Ray is a moot point, its not going to affect the success of the PS3. Unless you bought the PS3 to watch Blu-Ray movie only. I view Blu-Ray as a storage medium for games, thats the first intention for Blu-Ray in the PS3.

His point was, were going to need a HD format, be it HD-DVD or Blu-Ray for a next gen console. DVD wont cut it M$, and wont last for another 10 years. Having a HD-DVD addon for the XBOX 360 isnt going to cut it either since the game developers cant used it as a storage medium(so its somewhat useless).

PS> i doubt HD-DVD well win the format war.

It's 30gb vs 50gb. Big deal.

Think about your 10 year old hard drives and how big they are compared to your newest one. The p133 I ran (the best available was a 166) in 1996 had a hard drive measured in megabytes; not gigs. Now I have over a terrabyte. Admittedly, non-cg artists don't need quite *this* much space, but 200-300gb drives are the norm now.

66% more space won't matter much ten years from now. They're already prototyping discs that hold exponentially more space then either one.

And for the record, my money is on HD-DVD coming out on top. Sony has a history of bombing with the better product. Though I don't think either will go away once there are games on both.

AdamHerbert
07-25-2006, 10:57 PM
why would it be a big oops? HD-DVD winning over Blu-Ray is a moot point, its not going to affect the success of the PS3. Unless you bought the PS3 to watch Blu-Ray movie only. I view Blu-Ray as a storage medium for games, thats the first intention for Blu-Ray in the PS3.

It may not affect the success of the PS3 immediatley, but it will hit Sony pretty hard in the pocket book for putting so much money into developing the technology. Remember Sony is taking a huge hit by incorporating Blu-ray into the PS3 and selling it for $500 less than stand alone Blue-ray players. If Blu-ray loses the war, will Sony be able to afford sticking Blu-ray in their PS3's?

PS> i doubt HD-DVD well win the format war.

Coming from the guy with a Solid Snake Avatar...

Fuzzy_Blue_Ape
07-26-2006, 02:19 AM
10 years? How ridiculous. How many computer anythings have you used for 10 years?

Tech advances make a 10 year shelf life completely pointless, just like what happens to every other piece of electronics out there. So all this arguing about which format is going to win seems silly. Whatever side wins, is still going to become obsolete.

tozz
07-26-2006, 05:27 AM
It's 30gb vs 50gb. Big deal.

Think about your 10 year old hard drives and how big they are compared to your newest one. The p133 I ran (the best available was a 166) in 1996 had a hard drive measured in megabytes; not gigs. Now I have over a terrabyte. Admittedly, non-cg artists don't need quite *this* much space, but 200-300gb drives are the norm now.

66% more space won't matter much ten years from now. They're already prototyping discs that hold exponentially more space then either one.

And for the record, my money is on HD-DVD coming out on top. Sony has a history of bombing with the better product. Though I don't think either will go away once there are games on both.
Nah, it's 9gb vs 50gb, kind of a big deal. The HD-DVD addon is for movies, Microsoft can't force people to buy it and hence they can't have games on HD-DVD.

NanoGator
07-26-2006, 06:13 PM
10 years? How ridiculous. How many computer anythings have you used for 10 years?


The original Playstation did.

havokzprodigy
07-26-2006, 06:43 PM
The original Playstation did.

No kidding?
It still exists but it is 10 years behind in technology.

sheppyboy2000
07-26-2006, 07:14 PM
Being 10 years behind technology doesn't change the fact that the original playstation had one hell of a run. Games coming out for it for 8 of it's 12 years in production. And if the current signs are any indication, expect more from PS2. Despite the rush to the new consoles, the previous generation does remain a viable market. Even if Nintendo and Microsoft refuse to acknowledge it. Sony made one hell of a stand with PS2 owners with the announcement of God Of War II alone.

NanoGator
07-26-2006, 10:25 PM
No kidding?
It still exists but it is 10 years behind in technology.

... so? The fun quotient is not relational to the MIPS rating. Heh.

EpShot
07-26-2006, 10:42 PM
i still play with my NES

havokzprodigy
07-26-2006, 11:06 PM
Don't get me wrong I have and still play from time to time a Coleco Vision.

In A nutshell all I'm saying is I'm not going to invest in some Coleco Vision stock becuase the games still function. My guess the better bet would be a current console.

mech7
07-26-2006, 11:30 PM
after 5 years they will prolly have the ps4 :D and xbox 720 or something :D

NanoGator
07-27-2006, 02:10 AM
Don't get me wrong I have and still play from time to time a Coleco Vision.

In A nutshell all I'm saying is I'm not going to invest in some Coleco Vision stock becuase the games still function. My guess the better bet would be a current console.

I'm not talking about the games still function, I'm talking about them still being actively sold 10 years after release. Sony sold over a hundred million of them, and quite a few more games to boot. If you were looking to invest in stock, you'd want to pick the market leader. (i.e. the guy who can get 100 million systems out.) Not the guy with the highest numbers on the spec sheet. (Actually, that'd be a really dumb move... compare the DS to the PSP.) It took a lot of great games (note: Not technology) to make that work. Anybody who spent $300 on the original Playstation (and who managed to get one that still works today... heh.) easily got their money's worth. Those who bought the Atari Jaguar...

switchblade327
07-27-2006, 02:37 AM
Nah, it's 9gb vs 50gb, kind of a big deal. The HD-DVD addon is for movies, Microsoft can't force people to buy it and hence they can't have games on HD-DVD.

I was talking about the HD/Blu-Ray "war", not ps3 vs 360. My point is that 9, 30 or 50gb in 10 years will be nothing. And Microsoft and Nintendo aren't being silly and suggesting the 360 and Wii will be active consoles in the market for ten years.

As far as games go, other then the "Elder Scrolls: Oblivions" of the world (aka freaking enormous game worlds), most games will drop below 30fps and go over memory budgets long before the actual disc is full. I don't think MS was smart to stick with dual layer DVDs because games will eventually hit that ceiling, but they probably wont this cycle (meaning the real, 5 year cycle). Usually the storage capacity of the disc is the least restricting hardware constraint of a console.

Cross platform development that included gamecube was one exception but even then, the only limit I've ever run into with that 1.5 gb disc is how much FMV footage it would fit.

EpShot
07-27-2006, 02:46 AM
if sony is counting on this lasting 10 years, i really wonder what they are going to do when microsoft and Nintendo release a nwe console in 5 years. considering the pace of technology.

(just trying to imagine the next set of tech demo's o.0)

noisewar
07-27-2006, 03:10 AM
It'll last 10 years because the DNA of the Cell will enable it to adapt to a changing environment, causing the PS3 to grow more CPU power, more RAM, a better video card, and different colored hair patterns depending on the state of global warming.

Left unchecked, it'll simply become so powerful as to evolve into a perfect clone of Ken Kutargi himself, giving itself the ability to procreate entirely new marketing schemes. :twisted:

tozz
07-27-2006, 05:45 AM
I was talking about the HD/Blu-Ray "war", not ps3 vs 360. My point is that 9, 30 or 50gb in 10 years will be nothing. And Microsoft and Nintendo aren't being silly and suggesting the 360 and Wii will be active consoles in the market for ten years.

As far as games go, other then the "Elder Scrolls: Oblivions" of the world (aka freaking enormous game worlds), most games will drop below 30fps and go over memory budgets long before the actual disc is full. I don't think MS was smart to stick with dual layer DVDs because games will eventually hit that ceiling, but they probably wont this cycle (meaning the real, 5 year cycle). Usually the storage capacity of the disc is the least restricting hardware constraint of a console.

Cross platform development that included gamecube was one exception but even then, the only limit I've ever run into with that 1.5 gb disc is how much FMV footage it would fit.
hehe, nice contradiction to your own statements. First you claim 50gb in 10years will be nothing (and doing so in the same sentence as 9gb) then you go on and say there won't be any need for more space, so what is your point? The Dual layer capacity has already been hit for games. Being silly? Sony obviously proved that a console can live for 10years, just because Microsoft and Nintendo lack the capability to deliver the same lifespan doesn't mean it's not possible. It's a kind of disturbing behaviour from MS just pushing new hardware and not letting devs get around to fully utilize the current one, and at the same time neglecting backwards compatibility. Lets just hope they'll realise that you can't win by pushing hardware, you need to deliver games too.

Peddy
07-27-2006, 07:58 AM
It'll last 10 years because the DNA of the Cell will enable it to adapt to a changing environment, causing the PS3 to grow more CPU power, more RAM, a better video card, and different colored hair patterns depending on the state of global warming.

Left unchecked, it'll simply become so powerful as to evolve into a perfect clone of Ken Kutargi himself, giving itself the ability to procreate entirely new marketing schemes. :twisted:

evolve into a perfect clone of Ken Kutargi himself

i need to change my pants.

quyeno
07-27-2006, 11:11 AM
MS choosing dvd only for the 360 was a BIG mistake. on current gen, games console games are already taking up a good part of a dvd. Next gen games will be bigger (in terms of data), so in the 360's lifetime of say about 5 years, do you think the game data will still be within dvd capacity? in fact, for the 360 case, Yes it will be cause MS has screwed themselves over and also developers over as there is no other storage option for the 360, other than the hard drive, in which case you will need to install games on the hard drive like you do on the pc. this is the only viable option if developers want to create bigger game on the 360, which kind of sucks. They can't use HD-dvd for games cos its not a standard piece of kit and devlopers won't release games that won't run on the standard kit. The PS3 has blu-ray, its about 50gigs, regardless if you like blu-ray or not, you would be stupid to deny the fact that the medium is future proof for the life cylce of the PS3.

sheppyboy2000
07-27-2006, 03:31 PM
I was talking about the HD/Blu-Ray "war", not ps3 vs 360. My point is that 9, 30 or 50gb in 10 years will be nothing. And Microsoft and Nintendo aren't being silly and suggesting the 360 and Wii will be active consoles in the market for ten years.


Umm no offense but the main reason why Microsoft and Nintendo aren't talking about 360 and Wii being active for ten years is because Gamecube and Xbox owners are already dead to them. Love or hate Sony, they are the ONLY company that actually gives a damn about the previous generation and DOESN'T instantly focus solely on the new tech. They did it with Playstation. Looks like they'll be doing it with PS2.

If anything, I feel sorry for the Gamecube and Xbox exclusive gamers. Both companies have pretty much thrown up a middle finger and said "Continue? Please insert $400."

Nintendo has always been notorious about this. I was just hoping Microsoft would follow the market leaders footsteps instead of Nintendo who only seems to give a damn about pushing handheld revisions once every 1 1/2 - 2 years and repackaging all their old games at premium prices.

rob rhodes
07-27-2006, 03:38 PM
what about having multiple disks? I know a lot of the textures and brushes will need to be duplicated but movie clips, sounds, level info etc. should be ok. Does seem odd to chose an old media though. I'm still not sure whether to buy a 360 or not - seems like it could run into problems.

EpShot
07-27-2006, 07:06 PM
Nintendo who only seems to give a damn about pushing handheld revisions once every 1 1/2 - 2 years and repackaging all their old games at premium prices.

all of which are backwords compatible. so how could they just repackage it?

sheppyboy2000
07-27-2006, 07:19 PM
Remember the GBA line classics? Remember the Super Mario Advance series? Remember Super Mario DS or even Warioware on Gamecube? Nintendo is the king of repackaging. Minor tweaks, a few updated sprites, and away it goes, for $30 no less. And if you think I'm being unreasonable, keep in mind, Nintendo only RECENTLY reduced the price of a GBA launch game.

But see, here's my problem and why I'm unpopular for speaking out against Nintendo. Because I love Nintendo games and even though I can see exactly what they are doing to me, I still buy it. My GBA game collection alone is 48 games strong. I don't question Nintendo's ability to make games. Just their business ethics. And apparently I'm not alone because Nintendo has lost lawsuits in all three major territories over their business ethics.

Apoclypse
07-27-2006, 07:26 PM
I like nintendo but they are notorious for dropping gamers for the latest thing. I'm surprised by Microsofts stance since there OS is supposed to be backward compatible ( to a point) to their detriment imo. Sony has been good to gamers, they may have had problems but gamers know that if they get a sony system they won't get abandoned because new games will still be released. You also don't have to trash your old games and buy new ones when you do get the new system, so if you want to play a classic like chrono cross or xenogears you don't have to wait till square decides to put out an anthology. Ninitendo is changing things up now , but there are alot of snes games that I love to play even till this day that took forever to see the light of day again. I 'm sure that when I get the PS3 (though I'm definately waiting till next revision). I'll be playing my FF7-13, all in order, and I don't even have to rebuy anything.

EpShot
07-27-2006, 07:33 PM
i just dopn't understand hostility towards , well popular games.
If it didnt sell, they wouldn't reamke/repackage/make sequels whatever. Its kinda like bashing sony for msg4. Also lot of the games are different games with the same character (kinda like tom clancy series.. poor jack, always in trouble)

They do make a lot of games, and very creative games (pikmin) And trust me, i am no Nintendo fanboy (seems the new catch phrase for this forum) The only reason i even have any consoles is because of my girlfriend. I'm pretty much a PC shooter/rts fan (TF2 FTW!!1!)

but again, i don't understand why people bash them for games that are very popular. IF u dont' like em, don't buy em. I don't bash MS (not M$..:rolleyes:) for their 3rd installment of halo, even tho i think its a very sub-par shooter, considering pc standards.

NanoGator
07-27-2006, 08:01 PM
Remember the GBA line classics? Remember the Super Mario Advance series? Remember Super Mario DS or even Warioware on Gamecube? Nintendo is the king of repackaging. Minor tweaks, a few updated sprites, and away it goes, for $30 no less. And if you think I'm being unreasonable, keep in mind, Nintendo only RECENTLY reduced the price of a GBA launch game.

But see, here's my problem and why I'm unpopular for speaking out against Nintendo. Because I love Nintendo games and even though I can see exactly what they are doing to me, I still buy it. My GBA game collection alone is 48 games strong. I don't question Nintendo's ability to make games. Just their business ethics. And apparently I'm not alone because Nintendo has lost lawsuits in all three major territories over their business ethics.

Why is it unethical to re-release a popular game?

(Edit: I reread your post and I may have misinterpreted it. If I have, I apologize.)

sheppyboy2000
07-27-2006, 09:02 PM
Why is it unethical to re-release a popular game?

Eh, my mistake. I didn't explain that Nintendos crimes were directly related to price control tactics and not really repackaging games.

switchblade327
07-27-2006, 10:52 PM
hehe, nice contradiction to your own statements. First you claim 50gb in 10years will be nothing (and doing so in the same sentence as 9gb) then you go on and say there won't be any need for more space, so what is your point? The Dual layer capacity has already been hit for games. Being silly? Sony obviously proved that a console can live for 10years, just because Microsoft and Nintendo lack the capability to deliver the same lifespan doesn't mean it's not possible. It's a kind of disturbing behaviour from MS just pushing new hardware and not letting devs get around to fully utilize the current one, and at the same time neglecting backwards compatibility. Lets just hope they'll realise that you can't win by pushing hardware, you need to deliver games too.

First of all, I think we can discuss this while remaining civil and not snide.

Let me break it down into clearer terms by restating the following:

[quote=switchblade327]
Usually the storage capacity of the disc is the least restricting hardware constraint of a console.]

Wii and 360 aren't intended to last ten years, so the size of their storage media isn't as important. I agree that 360 should've been hd-dvd to leave more room to expand but leaving it out is how they were able to ship a year before Sony. Whether it was worth it, only time will tell.

Maybe a few games have hit the limits of 9gb already (I wonder though; Elder Scrolls for the 360 was one dvd, right? And that's asset-wise, the biggest 360 game I can think of) but I'm fairly certain most don't and that's without developers paying much attention to making it fit anyway. Making it actually *run* and fit in memory is the hard part.

Like I said, we WILL eventually hit the ceiling (possibly sooner then 5 years? Almost definitely sooner then 10) but there are other hardware ceilings we will hit first.

And how did Sony prove a console can live ten years? I know more people playing NES and SNES then ps1 and I don't know of any companies making games for any of these platforms. And that to me defines a "dead" console, even if it is still active with the old school gamer subculture.

AdamHerbert
07-27-2006, 11:05 PM
I have to agree with switchblade327 here. Since when did Sony prove a console lasts ten years? Playstation had games still in production 7-8 years after it's release, but the console was basically dead at that point. PS2 has only been around six years so I'm a little confused as to where this 10 year thing is coming from.

noisewar
07-27-2006, 11:21 PM
And how did Sony prove a console can live ten years?

I'd like to know this too. No one's even proven a 50gb hard-drive can last 10 years, much less a video game console. Heck the PS2 looked dated just two years after its release. Comparing apples to apples, the last released Xbox only avoided looking dated for about 2 years since it had to straddle the crap of its first generation and the "amazing" paradigm shift of its next-gen. Spell out the proof for me, someone, I must have missed something.

NanoGator
07-28-2006, 02:34 AM
I have to agree with switchblade327 here. Since when did Sony prove a console lasts ten years? Playstation had games still in production 7-8 years after it's release, but the console was basically dead at that point. PS2 has only been around six years so I'm a little confused as to where this 10 year thing is coming from.

My bad, sorry.

7-8 years is still pretty darned good. I never liked the original Playstation, but I gotta respect its success.

NanoGator
07-28-2006, 02:35 AM
I'd like to know this too. No one's even proven a 50gb hard-drive can last 10 years, much less a video game console. Heck the PS2 looked dated just two years after its release. Comparing apples to apples, the last released Xbox only avoided looking dated for about 2 years since it had to straddle the crap of its first generation and the "amazing" paradigm shift of its next-gen. Spell out the proof for me, someone, I must have missed something.

Looking dated != age of system is over.

noisewar
07-28-2006, 06:11 AM
Looking dated != age of system is over.

Didn't say it was, and in fact I agree with you 100%. I was mostly referring to hardware versus the 10-years thing. However, the generation gap between the PS2 and the coming systems is huge, and can only contribute to the end of the system's lifecycle, which I guess is hard to quantify.

I'd postulate an end- when the system stops getting manufactured. :D Although others may see Sony's YTD video games division sales drop of 29% as indicative of the end, the answer is somewhere in-between. Looking dated, however, is not going to reverse the growth trend.

Don't forget that the respectable life of the PS2 was in large part driven by the DVD boom, which was a significantly superior format to the VHS. Can we say the same for PS3 and the blu-ray? Diminishing returns, my friends, esp. for the average consumer. What I can predict is that if PS2 continues to do well, it will be at the expensive... er I meant the expense of the PS3, which will have failed to live up to its promise of being a must-have entertainment system. In fact, I believe the PS2 will continue to do very very well. And the PS3? A rocky road after holiday season, I fear.

salmonmoose
07-28-2006, 07:23 AM
Maybe a few games have hit the limits of 9gb already (I wonder though; Elder Scrolls for the 360 was one dvd, right? And that's asset-wise, the biggest 360 game I can think of) but I'm fairly certain most don't and that's without developers paying much attention to making it fit anyway. Making it actually *run* and fit in memory is the hard part.

Oblivion doesn't even fill a single layer DVD (check the PC version which is in essence the same thing)

But you're right larger disc capacity doesn't mean larger worlds, it means more assets.

For example the world in ElderScolls 2:Daggerfall is an approximate 160,000 square miles, compared to Oblivion's 16 square miles. Yet Daggerfall fits on a single CD.

A good guide for what is actually needed space-wise is the PC - games top out at 4.7gigs and I'm yet to encounter something bigger.

Interestingly there is a trend towards games becoming smaller; With the power of modern processors, it's possible to do much more in real time, freeing up disk (and disc) space. An example of this being the up-coming Spore.

sheppyboy2000
07-28-2006, 02:26 PM
I'd postulate an end- when the system stops getting manufactured. :D Although others may see Sony's YTD video games division sales drop of 29% as indicative of the end, the answer is somewhere in-between. Looking dated, however, is not going to reverse the growth trend.

First off, you realize the original Playstation was just FINALLY retired in manufacturing less than a year ago, right? And the last Playstation game made was under two years ago. And Japan still sees new Dreamcast games. Right? Certainly system death is a bit subjective.

After all, you've seen everything announced for PS2, right? Gamecube's biggest announcement was that their killer app promised by christmas 2005, was delayed primarily to whore out two versions to push the new hardware. God Of War II and even a new SOCOM could have easily been pushed to PS3 but they CHOSE to drop it on PS2 to offer support. In Japan, despite PS3s debut being a very short period away, there is a TON of high calibur titles being deved to offer support for the previous console.

As for the drop, the ONLY gaming sector which saw gains was the handheld markets. And if you noticed, those numbers were for Japan only. Or do you really think that, worldwide, PS2 only sold 2.5 Million last year and 1.1 Million this year. US sales are a tad more optimistic. But mainly in the PSP front. PS2 sales took a slight hit. Besides, as EA said, "we are in a transitional period." Expect doom and gloom forecasts for a couple years.

switchblade327
07-28-2006, 08:43 PM
First off, you realize the original Playstation was just FINALLY retired in manufacturing less than a year ago, right? And the last Playstation game made was under two years ago. And Japan still sees new Dreamcast games. Right? Certainly system death is a bit subjective.

After all, you've seen everything announced for PS2, right? Gamecube's biggest announcement was that their killer app promised by christmas 2005, was delayed primarily to whore out two versions to push the new hardware. God Of War II and even a new SOCOM could have easily been pushed to PS3 but they CHOSE to drop it on PS2 to offer support. In Japan, despite PS3s debut being a very short period away, there is a TON of high calibur titles being deved to offer support for the previous console.

As for the drop, the ONLY gaming sector which saw gains was the handheld markets. And if you noticed, those numbers were for Japan only. Or do you really think that, worldwide, PS2 only sold 2.5 Million last year and 1.1 Million this year. US sales are a tad more optimistic. But mainly in the PSP front. PS2 sales took a slight hit. Besides, as EA said, "we are in a transitional period." Expect doom and gloom forecasts for a couple years.

Ps2's longevity is only an indirect credit to Sony: It's not because of the longevity of the hardware, which has never been the best (late Dreamcast games looked better then most early ps2 games, then along came xbox) but because it has a ~100 million user install base around the world. That's a helluva lot of potential customers to ignore, whether you're plugging your next gen console or not. And that's why they (and everyone else) is still and will be pushing games for ps2 for as long as they can get away with it.

So if ps3 gets that kind of saturation (doubtful until they start selling it for 1/3 its list price), maybe it will last ten years. But it won't be because of how sweet Blu Ray and the Cell processor is.

sheppyboy2000
07-28-2006, 09:29 PM
Umm, indirect credit to Sony? Sony busted their asses to gather support from as many developers as possible. Pushed the hardware, advertised many games that weren't even theirs, found the "trendy spot" for PS2, secured and developed kick ass exclusive games, and it's only indirect credit to Sony for PS2s success? And I suppose the success of Walkman was due largely to the ease of acquiring Batteries. Sony is directly responsible for their marketshare.

Besides, how is the 100+ million factor even a point? Yes, 100 Million users is one hell of an incentive to continue support for PS2... but so was the whole 80+ million GBA users Nintendo hung out to dry once DS dropped. And last time I checked, a user base of 21 Million and 24 Million shouldn't be thrown away for Wii and 360.

Wow, that post seemed a tad angry. If you read it as pissed, sorry. Just making a point. Sadly, my literary skills lack in the ability to soften such a message.

CGFelker27
07-28-2006, 09:46 PM
Nice consoles require nice TVs. Does anyone have a money tree I can borrow?

sheppyboy2000
07-28-2006, 09:53 PM
Nice consoles require nice TVs. Does anyone have a money tree I can borrow?

Boy am I in that same boat. I'm currently looking at 720p tvs and still shaking my head at prices.

noisewar
07-28-2006, 11:54 PM
First off, you realize the original Playstation was just FINALLY retired in manufacturing less than a year ago, right? And the last Playstation game made was under two years ago. And Japan still sees new Dreamcast games. Right? Certainly system death is a bit subjective.


Exactly, hence the word "postulate," and since there really is not defining line for system death, a statement like "last the next 10 years" is pretty meaningless. How about "relevant" for the next 10 years? Because then we can compare it to things like the Gamecube and the Dreamcast, which are essentially "irrelevant" now.

However, a system's life *does* follow a trajectory. Rise, plateau, diminish. What I'm saying is that the PS3 will probably not enjoy the same robust arc as the PS2 if real life factors like a volatile, overspent economy tring to adopt it in a period of extreme change in consumer electronics. You yourself admit you you're shaking your head at the prices for the the kind of equipment the PS3 is meant for. Guessing from your knowledge and your presence on CGTalk, I'd say you aren't far from their target consumer base, and even you feel strained.

I wouldn't say the PS2's longevity is indirectly attributable to Sony (even though Sheppy they still make money "advertising many games that weren't even theirs"), but its early adoption owes alot to the DVD boom whether you believe it or not. Its continued success, however, is all Sony. Hopefully it hasn't gone to their heads with this next generation, as Phil Harrison's comments seem to suggest.

Neil
07-29-2006, 02:50 AM
Well the 10 year lifespan is pretty ambitious. They can probably get close though, just by continually cutting the price every couple years... Gamecube got a good run that way. And if the system is beyond powerful and the companies can't tap all the power of it now, then they should be able to push it to the limits in another 5 years or so to make it look more impressive.

switchblade327
07-31-2006, 08:19 PM
Umm, indirect credit to Sony? Sony busted their asses to gather support from as many developers as possible. Pushed the hardware, advertised many games that weren't even theirs, found the "trendy spot" for PS2, secured and developed kick ass exclusive games, and it's only indirect credit to Sony for PS2s success? And I suppose the success of Walkman was due largely to the ease of acquiring Batteries. Sony is directly responsible for their marketshare.

Besides, how is the 100+ million factor even a point? Yes, 100 Million users is one hell of an incentive to continue support for PS2... but so was the whole 80+ million GBA users Nintendo hung out to dry once DS dropped. And last time I checked, a user base of 21 Million and 24 Million shouldn't be thrown away for Wii and 360.

Wow, that post seemed a tad angry. If you read it as pissed, sorry. Just making a point. Sadly, my literary skills lack in the ability to soften such a message.

Ok, 'indirect credit' is an understatement. Sony's marketing machine is a definitely powerful one.

But yes, 100 million units is a HUGE factor! I'm not really familiar with Nintendo's approach with the DS, but did they really just chop all GBA development at once? If so, that would be a serious idiot move. Now if they slowly turned to faucet closed until there was just a trickle of new games, then it's understandable. On the other hand, the DS launched at what, $150? At that price, it's not *that* big a deal to by the next console.

The ps2's replacement on the other hand, will cost $600 and so a lot less people will be able to afford it initially (I believe the highest sales of ps2 came 2-3 years after launch when it hit around the $200 mark). So many customers wont have a choice but to keep playing their ps2s (or buying Wiis and 360s) for a few more years. PS2 has so much 3rd party development going on anyway, that even if Sony abandoned the ps2 entirely (which they're obviously not planning on doing anytime soon), there'd still be all the publishers that will want to milk it dry.

However, none of this has to do with ps3 being supposedly so mind-blowingly high tech that it will survive twice as long as any previous console's lifecycle. Until it's a fraction of it's initial price, it won't get anywhere near the ps2's install base and that's the only hope for lasting ten years as an 'active, live console'.

On a lighter note, please enjoy the ranting of a disgruntled Sony fanboy (it's clean; just angry):
http://angrysonyfanboy.ytmnd.com/

noisewar
07-31-2006, 11:05 PM
They didn't hang GBA gamers out too dry. In fact some of the most promising titles being slated are for the GBA. FF6 and Earthbound 3 come to mind!

sheppyboy2000
08-02-2006, 02:24 PM
Yes, Nintendo did hang GBA gamers out to dry. Right now, in Japan, there is basically only one thing going for them. Bit Generations. That's it. That's all. Mother 3 was in development for how long? Frankly, I'm disgusted they they chose the cheapest of their three consoles to develop for when picking where it went. Final Fantasy you say? Just because Nintendo is publishing doesn't mean they are developing. Once DS dropped, you saw a drastically sharp decline in support from Nintendo. Even most of the games released by them during the holiday season were mainly just being brought over from Japan. While it wasn't as drastic of a cut as N64, Nintendo still pretty much reduced the GBA support from a steady slow to a painful trickle. Besides, isn't Mother 3 skipping the US once again?

noisewar
08-02-2006, 10:01 PM
Yes, Nintendo did hang GBA gamers out to dry. Right now, in Japan, there is basically only one thing going for them. Bit Generations. That's it. That's all. Mother 3 was in development for how long? Frankly, I'm disgusted they they chose the cheapest of their three consoles to develop for when picking where it went. Final Fantasy you say? Just because Nintendo is publishing doesn't mean they are developing. Once DS dropped, you saw a drastically sharp decline in support from Nintendo. Even most of the games released by them during the holiday season were mainly just being brought over from Japan. While it wasn't as drastic of a cut as N64, Nintendo still pretty much reduced the GBA support from a steady slow to a painful trickle. Besides, isn't Mother 3 skipping the US once again?


Wow chill man, a painful trickle? I guess you've bought the hundreds of other Japanese games available for it already? :rolleyes: Mother 3 being in development long has nothing to do with hanging GBA'er out to dry. Cancelling the GBA version for the DS might qualify. I'm amazed it's still getting games at all. The reality is that there are 20 titles for the GBA coming out in North America in the next month. Maybe they aren't your demographic, but I'd have thought your demographic already moved on to the DS.

I mean the durn things' only been out for five years, that's all.

sheppyboy2000
08-03-2006, 02:38 PM
My issue with Mother 3 has nothing to do with it's development time. My issue is the fact that it's been shuffled from console to console and when they finally decided to finish the project, they did it on the console that they could squeak by with the smallest budget on. SNES? Cancelled. N64? Once again, cancelled. 64DD? Even a couple screenshots dropped before cancelling it. Gamecube? Rumored to be in development again but cancelled before anything outside of R&D 1 could be confirmed. Now? Finally released on the console a mere four months after it's announcement on a console where it could definately be developed for the same cost as a single Gamecube dev kit alone. Oh yes, thank you Nintendo for finally finding the time between Pokemon Ranger and Pokemon Trozei to get around to delivering a sequel 12 years past the promise in such an underwhelming nature. But Americans will never know how much of a "this is IT?!?!" experience it is because, like several Fire Emblem chapters, it's not coming stateside.

And yes, my arguement against Nintendo's support of the Gameboy does remain valid because, while GBA is getting 20 games next month, how many are by Nintendo? I'm sure we can both agree Nintendo tends to be the best software on their own consoles. And when Nintendo shifted focus so dramatically, it did leave a noticable gap in game quality. After all, for an adult gamer, the question of "Which do I want to play... Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones or Lizzy McQuire 2: Digital Diary" is a tad easy to make. But right now, it looks like SquareEnix has more love for the GBA players than Nintendo. So yes, there is plenty of GBA titles en route but most of them are hollow pieces of crap. When next months headliners are Madden (seriously, when has EA ever rocked the GBA) and Open Season, I do call it a painful trickle. Outside of Nintendo, except for the occasional hit (DS has a bit more of the third party quality titles), the GBA and DS markets are worthless. So when Nintendo pulls up stakes, it does have an effect.

JohnD
08-03-2006, 05:38 PM
Does anyone have any idea how much ps3 games are going to cost?

sheppyboy2000
08-03-2006, 05:41 PM
Nope. Sony hasn't confirmed anything yet and all online pricing is speculation. There are rumors that they'll be $100 a pop but that's about as valid as the "$500 version won't have wireless controllers" rumors.

Maybe we'll find out on August 23rd from germany or maybe we'll have to wait until September for Tokyo Game Show.

JohnD
08-03-2006, 05:45 PM
$100 for a game? I guess that Sony fanboy audio rant that Switchblade posted was pretty justified then. I'm gonna stick with my GBA...which until reading this thread...I never had any thoughts that Nintendo had hung me out to dry.

sheppyboy2000
08-03-2006, 05:53 PM
But it's not justified. It's a rumor. A baseless rumor. My take is this. I'll be suprised if Sony surpasses $60 for anything outside of their collectors editions. Everyone loves claiming BluRay being expensive is the reasonable answer behind the higher price but that's about as invalid as an excuse for UMD (which, incidently, are overpriced). BluRay costs only slightly more to make than a dual layer DVD. Factories are burning away on BluRays within reasonable budgets. Higher costs to develop? Once again, 360 and PS3 are very comparable in complications in development. So 360 pricing schemes seem likely.

Frankly, I'll be suprised if $70 gets announced.

As for the whole GBA thing, I'm a massive import scene watcher so I do look at things a little more differently than most US gamers. So I can see where you are coming from there.

JohnD
08-03-2006, 06:06 PM
So your beef with Nintendo...is that the "importer watcher" that is irritated...or the "gamer" that is irritated? Because I kinda doubt that there is a large number of GBA owners out there that keep tabs on importation.

sheppyboy2000
08-03-2006, 07:18 PM
My beef with Nintendo remains that they tend to abandon their old hardware when the new stuff drops. It becomes a matter of shifting a vast majority of their focus on something with a small fanbase rather than the huge one they already have. The GBA shift isn't anywhere near as bad as the shifts in the past but the shift is definately present. Most of the games coming out for GBA in the states nowadays are titles Japan has had for quite some time. Or rather simply publishing titles for third parties (And yes, there ARE people who think Nintendo deved those Final Fantasy games). I mean, if you watch Nintendo of Japan, you'll notice that last bit of news was Bit Generations. Game designs which all look like they took about a month each to dev (granted, here's where I become hypocritical.... I have all 7 winging their way to me from Play Asia just because there are no signs of it ever coming stateside and I am a HUGE Nintendo fan).

Besides, as I stated before. My point was that Sony looks like they'll provide excellent support for PS2 users well into the future, something Nintendo and Microsoft don't often do. I hope I'm wrong and Zelda doesn't prove the "want the whole experience? Buy the new hardware" final release it normally is on the gameboy line before almost all GCN support is removed entirely.

noisewar
08-04-2006, 01:00 AM
My beef with Nintendo remains that they tend to abandon their old hardware when the new stuff drops.


My point was that Sony looks like they'll provide excellent support for PS2 users well into the future, something Nintendo and Microsoft don't often do.


Who doesn't tend to abandon old hardware when new stuff drops? PS2 continue to get good support, but like the GBA, how many are Sony first party games? God of War 2 is the only noteworthy one.

More to the point, PSP support. 'Nuf said. If you're gonna have beef, don't make it Grade-A selective beef.

sheppyboy2000
08-04-2006, 03:29 PM
Who doesn't tend to abandon old hardware when new stuff drops? PS2 continue to get good support, but like the GBA, how many are Sony first party games? God of War 2 is the only noteworthy one.

More to the point, PSP support. 'Nuf said. If you're gonna have beef, don't make it Grade-A selective beef.

Umm, you realize Sony has nearly 30 games in development for PS2, right? Aside from their continuing sports series, there is also an unknown David Jaffe game, a dancing sim (think Bust A Groove with You Got Served style), and the continuing SOCOM series.

Likewise PSP has a little under 20 games in development from Sony themselves. Personally, I'd like to know where this myth of PSP being a failure is coming from.

http://www.vgcharts.com/page3.html

If you look, you'll notice PSP and DS sales are quite close and if Nintendo hits another lull like they did three times in the past, PSP does have the very real potential to overtake the DS in the US. And yes, Sony IS supporting the console with software. And some of the Sony released stuff on PSP is downright excellent.

So no, I'm not being selective. Sony studios are shifting more towards PS3 but it's a much better ramping shift rather than "Oh hell, we still have people with GBAs? Ummm.... well, just bring some more crap from Japan over." And if you think I'm wrong in pointing at Nintendo in this matter, well, let's put it this way. What does Nintendo have planned PAST this holiday season for Gamecube? And in my opinion, that's a major mistake. Because the Wii is backwards compatible so Nintendos focus should be on supporting the transition.

tozz
08-04-2006, 05:14 PM
I don't own a PSP or a DS, and I'll never will. But I can't possibly understand how people can claim the PSP as a failure. It's selling huge amounts, very huge. Sure Nintendo is selling more, they've been alone in the hand held market since the original game boy more or less. The success the PSP has had just proves that Nintendo has been slacking or isn't filling the needs of the gamers. The recent spike is a typical Nintendo re-release of the same hardware to resell machines (same goes for the Sony re-releases).

Seriously, I don't even think Sony was planning to outsell the DS with their first hand held.

noisewar
08-04-2006, 10:03 PM
And some of the Sony released stuff on PSP is downright excellent.

You might wanna take a look at http://www.vgcharts.com/page8.html as well. You might also want to take a look at how the DS and DS lite are doing in Japan, and not only look at U.S. sales. And I'd like to see software sales as well, especially after the UMD got pulled from major stores. After the weak-kneed E3 response, you can't tell me the PSP is gaining momentum. Heck the PSP is selling about on par with the "abandoned" GBA here in the States.

sheppyboy2000
08-04-2006, 10:22 PM
Tell you what, look back at my post and find any time I denied the DS is crushing the PSP in Japan. In fact, I have constantly stated that DS owns Japan right now and for the foreseeable future. And if you look back in time, it was roughly six months after Gamecubes release that PSOne's momentum finally started to slow. Which means GBA still maintaining sales is understandable. Especially considering the things are $80 compared to $130 and $200.

And seriously, what does UMD have to do with anything? Did stores lack of continued support for GBA video have an impact on the console sales? And by the by, in May, PSP sold 160,000 units. In June, PSP sold 220,000 units.... yeah, E3 had real lost momentum.... and yes, those are US numbers. Why use US numbers? Because personally I love how people flip flop on the significance of Japan on the console races. When it works against Xbox 360, Japan is worthless and hardly needed to dominate. When it works in favor of DS (incidently, the UK and US wars are much closer), Japan becomes the crutch to hold the entire arguement together.

But your point was PSP losing support despite being heavily supported by many companies and being a major factor in Sonys future. And then you bring up the UMD issue. OH NOES, I can no longer buy two episode long anime videos for my PSP. But wait, I, like majority of the PSP userbase, have a huge memory stick pro and DVDs which can easily be converted. UMD was an excellent idea but poorly handled. If $10 was the norm UMD price, I have no doubt it would have been a different scene today. But the fact remains that Super Troopers on DVD is $7.50 and on UMD $21.99. Is it any wonder the movie portion failed? And without movies, PSP is completely worthless, right?

CGTalk Moderation
08-04-2006, 10:22 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.