I know you've all been waiting for it, so here is my take on it all.

Microsoft is launching the new Xbox early, because they have to. I want you to think of any other console which relaunched two versions of itself like Sony has with their PlayStation brand? NES had that low production toploader and... The fact is, Sony consoles continue to sell well far after the majority of consumers already own one. This is a strength of PlayStation that Nintendo used to have and Microsoft craves. Microsoft knows that they can't sustain sales through 2006 on the current console, so they are launching now to avoid excess inventory. Sony can easily sell PS2's for atleast 2 years after PS3 is launched, but Nintendo and Microsoft will have problems selling through current inventory when their new consoles arrive.

So launching early means they get a head start. They have the spot light on them all by themselves and get to push as the only next generation console out this fall. Let's face it, hard core Nintendo people will always by Nintendo products. For the rest of consumers, it is a second or third console after PS2 and Xbox who hold the mainstream genre (maybe that will change with Revolution?). DreamCast got a head start and died. Microsoft fares better because of Live, but they will have a lot of ground to catch up during that full year launch before the PS3.

For those of you who think the Xbox2 and PS3 will be the same - oh please! We are talking about a full extra year of development; a full year of technological advances. Do you really think that Sony couldn't have made the PS2 the same power as GC if they had an extra year? All Sony has to do is say, "Ok, Xbox2 is 3GHz (?), we'll make the PS3 4GHz and double the size of the GPU." Its that easy and the cost is the same because of time lapses.

The big question is, why is Sony announcing the PS3 now, when it clearly won't be out until after next year's E3? The most likely answer is that Sony will announce PSP-PS3 connectivity. This will get people buying PSPs in anticipation of PS3 next year. They will promise many cool connectivity features that they will only deliver half of, but that will be enough for every person in the world to demand a PSP for Christmas when it will be going head to head with Xbox2. That's right folks. Sony is putting the PSP head to head with the Xbox2 this Christmas by announcing the connectivity in May.

And Nintendo will be worthless if they don't finally get some 3rd party support. They are a non-factor right now unless they pull some amazing stuff out of their collective butts in May. And I'm talking beyond stupid gimicks. Something useful this time. I like Nintendo, but they need to find some mainstream innovations if they want to appeal to the mainstream consumer.

Personally I hope Nintendo just keeps doing their own thing, and forgets appealing to the mainstream consumer.

The path mainstream gaming is on has me pondering quitting gaming all together. The potential innovation (and new, quirky games) on the DS and Revolution are really the only thing making me even think about gaming beyond this generation.

Quirkiness usually means a higher price tag to compensate for the lowered sales.

i love this post i agree 100%

I have one problem:

This is pretty unrealistic. If this was the case the Xbox would have been much more powerful, after all it has this loooong 1 year where they could make it twice as fast as the PS2. But they didn't. The PS3 will lead the next gen in graphics, but it won't blow away the competition.

Should be interesting though to see what happens.

I don't think the comparison of the XB2 to the DC is reasonable. The xbox has better publisher support than the DC ever had and it seems sensible to assume that the support for the XB2 will be even better. MS have a good track record and strong brand name with the XB1 while sega had the ... saturn (and the 32x). MS has significantly bigger marketing resources. MS also has Live, which until sony comes out with something similar, will continue to be a point of differentiation. Admittedly Sega did have the 56k modem built in, but its not quite on the same level.

So, comparing the likely success with of XB2 with the DC is silly IMO.

Well the cell architecture looks pretty sweet on paper. The main negatives I can think of are:
- Sony has already reduced the number of cells that will be included in the PS3 from what was previously planned (rumour only). They may have to do so again.
- All the cpu manufacturers are having a tough time hitting 4ghz - seems we are getting closer to physical limitations. IBM may not quite make it by Sony's deadlines.
- More of a learning curve to sony's hardware. +ve being that it will most likely be better supported by tools earlier so we won't be in the same situation as with the ps2 where lots of games really did look poor.

I think Blueray will only be a factor if the ps3 can play HDDVD movies (blueray format obviously) out of the box. Then a lot of people will grab the PS3 and use it as their main hddvd player. The release date for the PS3 is probably about right for this.

I don't think it's an issue for games. The xb2 will obviously support high def video off normal dvd media.

Still if cell delivers on half the promises I will have to own one! oh baby...

PS2 is 298MHz and XBox is 700MHz. The Xbox is actually more than twice as fast as the PS2 processor wise. Also, throwing in a dedicated GPU with anti-aliasing didn't hurt either. Or including the broadband and hard drive standard where PS2 planned them as add-ons. Microsoft used that extra year to pile on as much technology as possible to win support for their new console... what is to say Sony won't do the same?

Because they want to make the PS3 a financial success and throwing on as many gadgets as possible isn't fiscally logical. I also think you are downplaying the power of the PS2, as you can't quite measure it in terms of hertz. Obviously graphically speaking they aren't too far from each each, and probably closer than say the Dreamcast was to the PS2.

Although I currently own only an Xbox, I'll probably be picking up the PS3. The PS3 will be equal or better than the Xbox 2 in terms of hardware and the game selection, if its anything like current consoles, will be a whole lot better for PS3.

Gotta wait for some great games before I pick up anything, otherwise I will probably just keep playing what I have. Backward compatibility could help sway my decision. I currently have about a 100 or so unplayed games this gen, no need to get a next gen console for some rushed launch games.

Right now it all just seems mhz this and cell that, I want to see some actual games, and/or game ideas. But I realize they have to keep a tight lid on all that.

How so?

The GC has been the cheapest console all generation. It's games have been the same price as PS2 and X-box.

Quirky games on PS2 either launched cheap or dropped in price fast---i.e. Katamari Damacy.

The DS is $100 less than the PSP and games cost $30-40 instead of $40-50.

Dude, they're different cpus for starters so not directly comparable. E.g. powerpc has been lagging behind x86 for a while now in raw clock speed, but arguably performance in comparable for certain types of applications. Point being, in theory a 700mhz PS2 processor would actually out perform the x86 based xbox processor, possibly by quite some margin (if one did exist).

Secondly, take a real close look at the how the rate of gains in cpu speed have tailed off in the last 2 years or so. If you think that sony (IBM in reality) can use an extra 12 months to throw on a few extra gigahertz on their chips you are dead wrong. The cell cpus have still not consistently managed to hit 4ghz (and we are not even taking into account manufacturing costs and failure rates), and Sony will be smart enough to know that they can't ship a PS3 that resembles an Xbox1, eg. big as a brick and packed with cooling devices so it doesn't self combust.

All I know is that the PS3 will not even get a consideration if this is still the standard:



This is the most uncomfortable controller, this side of the Dreamcast, IMO. They really are needing some innovation in this deparment.

I had this great long post, but DVDTalk ate it.

Basically, I did not bring up the power issue - Pig did! I think the consoles are fairly similar now, because both of them were aiming at different targets (Xbox has a faster processor while PS2 can do more FLOPS, etc). Now that they are aiming at the same target, I think they will be very similar in structure, letting Sony simply up the ante to gain overall power gains. PS3 will most likely edge ahead of Xbox2 in all performance areas; and even if they are only moderate gains, added together they will make a bigger difference than anyone is expecting. They won't be "next generation" differences (well, besides maybe the inclusion of Blu-Ray), but they will be noticable.

Also one of the most popular constrollers ever. You know, they do have plenty of other brands of controller, and even adapters to use controllers from other consoles?

I would like to see the DualShock3 with wireless connectivity though.

ah well I kind of got the impression that you and some others are assuming that the extra yr would have the ps3 blowing microsofts offering out the water, performance-wise. I guess I am even slightly more conservative than you as I was see it as more like a difference between the DC to the PS2 rather than PS2 to xbox. Even then the cell will be the one to have something to prove.

Still cell is pretty damn exciting.

I do agree, its damn popular. The design has been around for a good amount of time too. Its a wonderful adaption of the Super Nintendo controller with the Nintendo inspired analog sticks and Nintendo inspired rumble feature. Props to Sony for the two extra shoulder buttons and handles though...

And props to Nintendo being so adamantly against releasing a disc based console, breaking off it's partnership with Sony, indirectly being responsible for the birth of the Playstation, and losing marketshare in every subsequent generation.

The funny thing is...something stupid like that stopped me from buying the PS2

I'd say, just get an adapter, but unfortunately the majority of adapters seem to be for using the ps2 controller on other consoles rather than the other way round!

XBOX2 without a question for me~~!~~~

exactly. And 3rd party controllers are always sub-par. I just don't understand how it is so popular. It is one of the most uncomfortable controllers ever. I know I'm in the minority though. I just don't see how they can go 3 generations without updating/evolving at all.

I'm curious why you find the controller uncomfortable, and what you would do to improve it.

The main complaint I see people have are that they like the staggered analog sticks of the Xbox controller... otherwise, I still think the four shoulder buttons are a huge improvement over the other consoles' controllers. Maybe I'm just used to it...

I liked the fact that the PS2 used the same design as the PS1... that way, I didn't have to rush out and buy more PS2 controllers right away (sacrificed analog precision on the buttons, though)

I hate the location of the left thumb stick.

It should be reversed with the D-pad, and basically in the same place as on the GC and X-box controller, with the staggered dual sticks.