PS3 and Xbox 2 to debut at this year's E3
 

http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7881

Well, it's news to me. Several years ago I was fortunate enough to attend my first E3 (courtesy of Jackskeleton) which just happened to have the debuts of the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube.

Haven't been able to attend any since then and now I just happen to be able to go to this year's E3. And whaddaya know, more next gen hardware. yeah, it makes me happy :D

Thats cool man,your a lucky mofo.Get lots of pics for us :)

I'm curious to see how much of the PS3 (i.e. how many if any playable games) will be shown.

There will be a ton on the X-box 2 since it launches this fall.

I'm curious to see what Nintendo shows re: the Revolution as well.

Am I the only one who thinks that it's FAR too soon for the next batch of consoles?

They have been putting out their best games yet, with no sign of slowing down - both the PS2 and the X-Box are still selling very well - why kill the momentum?

Also, launching them this year with current technology would only be a marginal improvement over the current consoles - if they wait another year, it could be a genuine leap forward.

They should release new consoles for Christmas '06, not '05

Revolution will be shown as well in some form, just like PS3. sigh...

Sony and Nintendo are planning on launching in Fall 2006.

MS is just trying to beat them to the punch and get a head start by launching this fall.

And I agree it's too soon, but that's been discussed in other threads so I won't beat a dead horse here.

I don't know why they don't release systems at the same time. Then there wouldn't be this tech leap between the systems. XBOX is more powerful than PS2 because it's a year newer. Then PS3 will probably leap over XBOX 2 because it will be a year newer. I think that's why XBOX versions of PS2 games are always better. Next year PS3 versions will be better than the XBOX 2.

the 2nd xbox will not be called xbox 2/xbox next but will be called xbox 360

I guess that's a smart move for the avg. moron. The reason behide the name is that the 2 could possibly infer an inferior console compared with the 3 in PS3...silly -ohbfrank-

it's a sad sad year for me folks.
For this is the year that I'm not going to e3. This year I using my vacation for Europe instead. No shiny blinky lights. No being surrounded by thousands of cool games. No bringing back swag for all my VGtalk peeps. This would have been my 6th.
*sniff*
It's an end of era.







Oh yeah. How dare they release stuff the year I decided not to go? bastiges.
Considering this q4 the xbox2 is suppose to come out it made sense to debut at e3. The PS3, I wasn't expecting anything till the Tokyo Gameshow this fall.

I absolutely agree. Makes one always worry how soon his purchase will become obsolete.

But then I'm not sure when I'll be able to make it to another E3 (or if it will correspond with major hardware releases). So maybe not absolutely agree :)

If the next nintendo console shows up also, it'll be all the better. not that i'm more excited about one or the others, i just like seeing all the new stuff all at once. what a blast!

Oh, and there will be pics, lots of'em, and video and quite possibly swag as well (though i think i'll only be able to go one day, haven't worked that out yet)

It's not the new consoles coming out that I mind so much, it's the death of the old ones. Every time we go from polished, last generation games to (usually) crappy next generation games, until everyone gets comfortable with the hardware. I swear, people could still make great games for the PS1 if they wanted to... especially RPGs. And now I have to wonder which one I'm going to buy first (I'm not dumb enough to buy all of them at launch, but I am dumb enough to buy all of them eventually).

I wouldn't worry, there will be tons of great rpgs for the ps2 for at least the next 2 years (ps3 still a year away). And hell, if by then you've played every decent rpg on the ps1/ps2 you are doing better than most (I just started disgaea, omg what a time sink).

I for one am ready to go! It will be nice to have a console that will be significantly more powerful than the average pc (sure u can have dual and quad-cpu pcs but what games currently use them?). The xbox was released pretty late last gen but it still seems to have been a while since I got mine, and obviously if they're going to try and leap frog everyone then we can expect a smaller gap between xb1/xb2. And of course the ps2 hardware was almost dated from the day of its release (remember how dreamcast games looked better for about 2 years?). Can't wait to move on from that.

At least with the cell sony looks like they might have something that will literally be ball ripping fast! (um maybe :) ). Sure it might have the same type of learning curve as the ps2, but in this case it will be the curve to make something truely amazing, while with the ps2 it was the curve to not make your game look like crap.

Bring it on!

Last MS was too late, this time they will be too early. Although I love my Xbox, it is TOO SOON for me to think about replacing it, and by the time I am ready I will probably get the better (newer and faster - in theory better) PS3.

Do you guys think it is possible that MS is launching specifically because they know they will be unable to touch the PS3 Hardware wise? I'm very skeptic about Sony's over promises, but I do know processors and the Cell architecure does hold a lot of promise so in my mind its possible MS doesn't want to launch at the same time out of fear...

I'll wait until all 3 systems are out before making a purchase decision but I'm leaning towards a PS3 if they include Bluray.

I don't think it's fear of the PS3's power so much as it is the fear of the Playstation brand name and third party support.

They know the majority of gamers (especially casual gamers who are the majority) will by the PS3 just out of brand loyalty. Thus they're hoping to launch early and get a few of these people to pick up an X-box 2 while they don't have to choose between it an the PS3.

Factor in that Sony will again have the best 3rd party exclusives and it makes it even more urgent in their minds.

I don't think it will work though. It will end up like the Dreamcast where it sold well at launch to hardcore gamers, but most casual gamers held off an waited for Sony's offering.

I agree with all of that. I guess what I'm really curious about is the potential fear MS may have knowing that it can't compete in its one area it excelled in during the generation: graphics. Then again, maybe the cell will be a flaming POS, but I doubt it.

I'd be surprised if the CELL was any better than XBOX 2 than XBOX is better than PS2. They are both supposed to have parallel processing which means the Xbox version will be nicely scalable just like the CELL.

Then again, Sony just mentioned that Osama Bin Laden is buying a PS3 and turning it into a time machine to take over the universe, so I could be wrong. ;)

I think the fact that PS3 will use BluRay media gives it an edge. It can hold about 6x the amount of a standard DVD disc, which is what the next XBOX is using. That alone should make a big difference.

Just because it can HOLD more dosn't mean it will utilize the extra space.

Exactly. Games aren't any longer today than they were on carts, and some CD games on the PS2 looks just as good as the DVD games.

The extra space just tends to be used for cut scenes and music most of the time.

I understand that, but just having that ability is nice. Plus, BluRay hasn't even been released yet so there's no way to know if there will be any other avantages to it over DVD media.

And let's say a game was released on both systems, with identical gameplay and in-game graphics but the PS3 version had better audio and cut scenes. Wouldn't that be a reason to choose that version?

Either way, it's too early to tell which will be "better". We're just gonna have to wait and see.

Space isn't going to be an issue on video games for a LONG time unless somebody decides to release a game that has something like over 5 hours of non-interactive video. I don't even think they've really cracked into dual-layer DVD games yet; San Andreas was a single layer DVD and contained an unheard-of insane amount of high-quality audio, both voice acting and music. If not for audio (uncompressed) and video, most games would still manage to fit on CD media.

Technically, the blu-ray discs may be able to hold more HD video.. but how many games are still using full-motion video for cut-scenes? Very few. Most of that is done with the in-game engines now as is and with the in-game animation getting better and better the need for full-motion video in games is further dwindling.

Beyond raw storage space, having more dense media can decrease load times becuase the info is more closely packed in quite literally. That's why PS2 DVD games load much faster than PS2 CD games.

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:

http://shop.gameplay.co.uk/images/Pr...PT0369_box.jpg

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.