![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
any new consoles coming out soon?
- Thread starter Mayhs
- Start date
dotK said:
Boy, I really hope MS isn't dumb enough to try to take on the DS and to a lesser extent, the PSP.
Would anybody here buy an MS handheld? I wouldn't. It would take several monstrous blunders by Nintendo before I would consider going elsewhere. The DS is just too freakin' cool.
Rocketpig said:
I would not buy a MS handheld, especially after seeing how they botched the Zune. However, I would always pick a PSP over a DS. I am not sure what marketing Nintendo did to put the DS ahead of the PSP in Japan (especially since the PSP overall has way more to offer than the DS) but game developers and customers both seem to be flocking to the DS.
Erasmus354
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 9,450
Rocketpig said:
Why not? If the MS handheld has good games and features for a reasonable price sure I would buy it. Its not about the company that makes it, or whether or not the competition is good. It is about how what it brings to the table compares to what is already out there.
I think a handheld from MS wouldn't even be trying to compete with the DS. I bet it would be more competing with the PSP, trying to be a media player / game system in one.
Erasmus354 said:
Sure, if it had good games it would be worth purchasing. But with MS's lack of handheld-friendly franchises (Halo Mobile... Ugh), I think they need to wait awhile and establish themselves in the console market before even considering entering the handheld market.
Nintendo has the perfect setup because almost every one of their marquee franchises works extremely well on a handheld.
MrBojangels
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 763
Um....2010, I HIGHLY doubt Microsoft will be sitting around until 2012, 360 will be outdated by 2008, and if they wait 4years after that I'm going back to PC gaming, Xbox1 was outdated by 2004, I'm glad Microsoft has pushed the cycle down to 5yearsdotK said:
VoodooChi|d
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,051
I'm not... it doesn't give the devs enough time to fully utilize the consoles and you have to buy them more often...MrBojangels said:
MrBojangels
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 763
When you compare Halo2(virtually Xbox1s PEAK, in 2004!) To Doom 3 and Half Life 2, I don't care about utilizing every little effect anymore, because face it...there isn't going to be any drastic improvements 3 years into the console life.VoodooChi|d said:
If you want to keep the old console go ahead, dont hold back advancements because you would rather buy a console every 6-7years then 5.
VoodooChi|d
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,051
MrBojangels said:
What he said...Rocketpig said:
Think of all the good games that have come out late in a consoles life. Think of how few there are early in a consoles life. Now think about what you said and why you're wrong.
MrBojangels
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 763
I can't think of any notable games that came out 3< of a consoles life, ocarina of time 3 years after N64, Halo2 3 Years after Xbox, There is perfect dark, but that was literally golden eye with a different story. I don't even care about PS2 titles.VoodooChi|d said:
I'm always disappointed in games after 3-4years of a consoles life, cause they could of been so much more if they didn't come out so late in a consoles life span.
What if God of War 2 was on the PS3 right now?
VoodooChi|d
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,051
There have been many... and if you don't include PS2 titles you're eliminating the console with the largest library of games ever.MrBojangels said:
If God of War 2 was on PS3 it would suck because the devs would have rushed it to get it out. They were comfortable with working with the PS2's hardware and that helped them make a great game.
MrBojangels
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 763
Controls would be exactly the same, but it would look soooo much better.VoodooChi|d said:
I don't understand how 2 systems with identical controls, it will rock on the crappy system, but suck on PS3.
Double standards?
VoodooChi|d
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,051
This statement makes think you do not understand how developers create games...MrBojangels said:
It's not quite as simple as saying "lets give this better graphics for our PS3 version"...
It's not really a question of what marketing Nintendo did, but rather what development Sony didn't do. Or support. Or innovation. Or economization. Should I continue? What does the PSP have to offer "way more" than the DS, praytell?NulloModo said:
having a ps2, a ds, ps3 and wii, I think I won't be dropping the ps2 games anytime soon, the ds is just fun on a whole different level and the ps3 well...
the wii is eating up my time right now... zelda tp is just... well fun. It also helps that the story is good, the graphics (improved over previous incarnations of zelda, but nevertheless more than acceptable). I just "discovered" the fishing hole today. I don't think I've actually enjoyed real life fishing as much...
the wii is eating up my time right now... zelda tp is just... well fun. It also helps that the story is good, the graphics (improved over previous incarnations of zelda, but nevertheless more than acceptable). I just "discovered" the fishing hole today. I don't think I've actually enjoyed real life fishing as much...
I think one could argue that the PSP has the advantage over the DS in terms of power, graphics and potential.finalgt said:
However, what has proven to be more important are the games, which is what I think you're eluding to. Yes, you can watch movies on your PSP, listen to music, etc...but most people that buy a portable gaming rig want it for the gaming. IMHO, the PSP is too big for a MP3 player, too small to be a watchable movie player, and lacks more than a handful of really fun games. Now, the DS is smaller (now), sleek and has that most important of things...a great catalog of games. While some still see the stylus as a gimmick, it just works for so many titles. Plus it's more intuitive to use the stylus than to teach a non-gamer how to use a d-pad, shoulder buttons and thumb buttons. Add in the back catalog of good GBA games and the DS is hard to beat.
RancidWAnnaRIot
EspantaPajaros
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Messages
- 11,033
I'm coming out with a console...
What I'm alluding to is that every time Sony creates a new game system, they just throw a few dozen million into R&D to create a much faster version of whatever came out before it, and if they haven't had that product on the market yet, they just make a much faster version of whatever the competitor's product is. That's it. But hardware superiority comes nowhere near product superiority in my book.KidzMD said:
Lord Nassirbannipal
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,155
MrBojangels said:
It's more profitable for Sony to release the game on a system that has an install base of over 100 million than it is to release it on a new system a few months after launch.
As for the PSP, its multimedia features, higher price, and game library have skewed it towards an older demographic. This would be perfect in the home console market where most gamers are adults and older teenagers, but most gamers in the handheld market are kids.
The DS Lite brought something new to the table with the stylus and dual screen, and it caught on big time. The PSP, on the other hand, was plagued by a lack of games during its first year, and even now that it has many good games, it's seen as more of a portable version of the PS2, which explains why its game sales are so low. DS games seem more befitting to a handheld, whereas the PSP's best titles, while they certainly deliver, would probably be selling better if they were on the PS2.
I'm not trying to knock it at all, just hoping to shed a little light. Mine gets plenty of play(I've come a long way from the times that I used to call it a "$250 emulator"), and any arguments that the PSP is dead or doesn't have any games look retarded at this point. I also don't see the big deal about it being outsold by the DS Lite when you consider that both Sony and Nintendo have said that they weren't meant to compete against each other.
RancidWAnnaRIot said:
if you want a tester im here
anyways back on topic...so you think that the next console will be around 2010?...
personally if i was microsoft id be thinking about a mid 2008 release date or 2009 because it would obviously be A LOT better than the 360 and the ps3 and that could really bury sony...
if sony are aiming for a 10 year lifespan for their console why dont microsoft piss them off greatly and bring something 3 times more powerful and more cost effective than the ps3 in 2009? that would only give the ps3 a 2 year lifespan if you consider the ps3's launch will be in 2007 worlwide.
what do u guys think?
Mayhs said:if you want a tester im here
anyways back on topic...so you think that the next console will be around 2010?...
personally if i was microsoft id be thinking about a mid 2008 release date or 2009 because it would obviously be A LOT better than the 360 and the ps3 and that could really bury sony...
if sony are aiming for a 10 year lifespan for their console why dont microsoft piss them off greatly and bring something 3 times more powerful and more cost effective than the ps3 in 2009? that would only give the ps3 a 2 year lifespan if you consider the ps3's launch will be in 2007 worlwide.
what do u guys think?
I don't think its as straight foward as you put it.
Firstly despite Sony's claimed ten year lifespan they tend to release a new console like every 5-6 years.
Now lets look at our current situation.
In 2005 MS launched the Xbox 360. By Around ~May 2006 people were actually able to simply walk into a store and buy a system without needing to jump through hoops. However because because the console has such a small install base and the PS2 has a much much larger one at the time devolpers continue to devolp PS2 games and original IP which can later or at the same time be easily ported to the Xbox because the Xbox can handle any game for the PS2 with little "Enhancements" (Like better textures but notice not really better models) needing to be made. While Xbox 360 its not so easy to port titles to....Better Textures won't suffice. New models are needed, high definition support required, Xbox Live features etc. On top of that the cost of making a 360 game is higher than making one for the PS2/Xbox so with such a small install base and much higher costs there is little reason for them to devolp new next generation games.
Now with the PS3 out and to a lesser extent the Wii devolpers will probably finally start shifting to the next gen consoles. Its now easier to make a profit for them. They can make a new next gen game but now it can be made for the 360 and then ported to the PS3 with minimal enhancements and have a much higher install base to target. Probably by 2008 you will see that almost all devolpers have switched to the next gen systems and the current generation being phased out.
So that being said to release a new console in 2009 when Game Devolpers are finally just switching to the new generation, is not very smart. Devolpers would have to rush yet again to start devolping for a new system which would probably be even more expensive and MS would need to spend a ton of mone yon something that probably wouldn't even sell well because most people after just probably getting a PS3 will not want to buy yet another new system.
2 generations in a row....perhaps but then first we need to see if the Xbox 360 being released a year early will help it or hurt it. As it stands right now its too soon to tell.
Its a double edge sword by releasing a system early you get a head start on your competitiors however you are also going to end up in a technical disadvantage. The thing is the wild card this round which is the Nintendo Wii...if the Wii managed to upset both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 in surprise victory then there may be a serious shift in focus in what makes a game system successful.....and then the next generation you may see everyone with a lot more refined motion controls
Its a double edge sword by releasing a system early you get a head start on your competitiors however you are also going to end up in a technical disadvantage. The thing is the wild card this round which is the Nintendo Wii...if the Wii managed to upset both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 in surprise victory then there may be a serious shift in focus in what makes a game system successful.....and then the next generation you may see everyone with a lot more refined motion controls
As it is right now the 360 does have an advantage...because the hardware is readily available and the games library is larger than the other consoles it will probably win the sales war this holiday season. The thing is...the 360 doesn't really have much if any at all technical disadvantage over the competition...I saw an indepth technical article comparing the 360 to the PS3 and the conclusion was that in most areas they were even and the author actually thought the 360 had a more robust graphics gpu. The Wii of course is a totally different animal and doesn't even try to be anything more than a game machine.....many people will get a Wii along with either a 360 or PS3 but only the extreme gaming diehards will own both 360 and PS3 or all 3 right away.stabilep said:
could you post the article please?
and yeah its true about releasing a console early is a gamble but if microsoft release one in 2009 thats about 3 years ahead of sony being able to make enough of a profit to make another console...so in the 4th year (2013) microsoft could release another one
and yeah its true about releasing a console early is a gamble but if microsoft release one in 2009 thats about 3 years ahead of sony being able to make enough of a profit to make another console...so in the 4th year (2013) microsoft could release another one