7th December 2005, 1:53 AM
Well, your dealing with one architecture from the GC and the new architecture for the Rev. An 'add-on' and new controllers will atleast run you 150 bucks which is what people are churcning out in the rumor mill as the price of the Revolution itself. Not a biggie there.
And yes the whole dealings of 'Only twice as powerful!?!?" is totally blown out of proportion and really makes no difference. However you say the specs are all that matters - in my opinion what matters is that the graphical content of the games are on-par with Microsoft's and Sony's offerings. That doesn't always equate to similar specs, Nintendo is known for pulling major rabbits by reinventing current technology and offering cheaper system with on par graphical prowess.
Though, from what I understand, the PS3 is going to be leaps and bounds above anything the 360 or Revolution could do in terms of graphics. This opens a new door though, as the PS3 requires massive R&D for a totally new type of development. Which means, as a developer, who are you going to spend most if not all your R&D with? In other words, you could develop for 360 and Rev at the same cost (and time) as just developing for PS3.... which is what Sony is counting on. It'll be interesting for sure, especially when you look at the screen shots and movies of real-time PS3 stuff and it looks pretty much like current gen... until you find the Gears of War pics. :D
A side from that, the 360 and Rev will be toe to toe I think. The "We are not going to compete" is another way of saying "You cant compete with Revolution". It's a Japanese sales pitch. I think Nintendo knows that Microsoft is the new Sega and sony is venturing in to a realm where it truely is not trying to compete with any company other than its own sales figures from its other divisions. They dominate the market hands down, so Nintendo and Microsoft are left trying to be the 'compliment' piece next to everyone's PS3.
But still, everything's in the air. Sony could faulter by alientating the companies. It only takes one bad fiscal year to take a system down a notch or two and it only takes one game to put a company on the map (if its good). In 6 months time, as proven in th past, you can watch the PS2 get over taken by the GC, lose shares, cut losses, announce lower profits and then Rockstar releases "Nigga Stole my Bike: Fuck Your Mom 3" as a PS2 exclusive and they're back on top. Gotta love grossly saturated installed user bases. :D
My predictions are that sony will continue to rule the planet and Nintendo will overtake the 360 by a small margin. That small margin is going to be from two factors: Internally developed games and a shit-ton of exclusives from smaller independent developers. I dont think it will be too far fetched to see release lists that show more than 50 games in a month for Revolution. A throw back to the NES days.
For 360, I think their heel is going to be from the huge partnerships they're making with companies that love to produce krap. Mind you, some of that krap has a following, but anyone who plays video games on multiple consoles and buys/rents atleast 5 games a month knows that EA is pure uncut shit, their internal development consists of hordes in the thousands (mostly Hebrew) who are fed beer and forced to create meaningless cash-cow video games that are usually forgotten within the same week of their release.
Has anyone here played Big Red One? God damn, it was like having a hernia in my brain. imagine having a porcupine sewn in to your throat while 80 year old women hit you with hammers; That's what playing an internally developed EA game is like... and Harry Potter's there too, he keeps throwing sports games at me that he says are new but its the same one over and over and over and over.....
And yes the whole dealings of 'Only twice as powerful!?!?" is totally blown out of proportion and really makes no difference. However you say the specs are all that matters - in my opinion what matters is that the graphical content of the games are on-par with Microsoft's and Sony's offerings. That doesn't always equate to similar specs, Nintendo is known for pulling major rabbits by reinventing current technology and offering cheaper system with on par graphical prowess.
Though, from what I understand, the PS3 is going to be leaps and bounds above anything the 360 or Revolution could do in terms of graphics. This opens a new door though, as the PS3 requires massive R&D for a totally new type of development. Which means, as a developer, who are you going to spend most if not all your R&D with? In other words, you could develop for 360 and Rev at the same cost (and time) as just developing for PS3.... which is what Sony is counting on. It'll be interesting for sure, especially when you look at the screen shots and movies of real-time PS3 stuff and it looks pretty much like current gen... until you find the Gears of War pics. :D
A side from that, the 360 and Rev will be toe to toe I think. The "We are not going to compete" is another way of saying "You cant compete with Revolution". It's a Japanese sales pitch. I think Nintendo knows that Microsoft is the new Sega and sony is venturing in to a realm where it truely is not trying to compete with any company other than its own sales figures from its other divisions. They dominate the market hands down, so Nintendo and Microsoft are left trying to be the 'compliment' piece next to everyone's PS3.
But still, everything's in the air. Sony could faulter by alientating the companies. It only takes one bad fiscal year to take a system down a notch or two and it only takes one game to put a company on the map (if its good). In 6 months time, as proven in th past, you can watch the PS2 get over taken by the GC, lose shares, cut losses, announce lower profits and then Rockstar releases "Nigga Stole my Bike: Fuck Your Mom 3" as a PS2 exclusive and they're back on top. Gotta love grossly saturated installed user bases. :D
My predictions are that sony will continue to rule the planet and Nintendo will overtake the 360 by a small margin. That small margin is going to be from two factors: Internally developed games and a shit-ton of exclusives from smaller independent developers. I dont think it will be too far fetched to see release lists that show more than 50 games in a month for Revolution. A throw back to the NES days.
For 360, I think their heel is going to be from the huge partnerships they're making with companies that love to produce krap. Mind you, some of that krap has a following, but anyone who plays video games on multiple consoles and buys/rents atleast 5 games a month knows that EA is pure uncut shit, their internal development consists of hordes in the thousands (mostly Hebrew) who are fed beer and forced to create meaningless cash-cow video games that are usually forgotten within the same week of their release.
Has anyone here played Big Red One? God damn, it was like having a hernia in my brain. imagine having a porcupine sewn in to your throat while 80 year old women hit you with hammers; That's what playing an internally developed EA game is like... and Harry Potter's there too, he keeps throwing sports games at me that he says are new but its the same one over and over and over and over.....