Official E3 Thread

Page: 1, 2
Online now: Bing (sucks), DEyncourt, Google [Bot], juice, maurvir
Post Reply
NightCougar of the Dawn wrote:
But the Xbox was the first true MAC in a box turned console and literally entered a market where it was tapped from the start.

I fixed that for ya. Remember when it was first Dev'ed it was running off Power Mac G5 Image
mmaverick my steady systematic decline
User avatar
NightCougar of the Dawn wrote:
The Wii was a fad machine. It never had any hope of competing toe to toe with Sony/M$ in terms of raw power. You can shout sales figures all you want but that doesn't change the fact that it was still a fad machine. In a way it was a smart move since Nintendo didn't lose money on it. But it just never had the power to really do much beyond that. If Nintendo had gone for power, they would have had something to compete with PS3/360 back then and right now all three would be likely sitting in the same spot. Nintendo sadly isn't willing to take risks about losing money on consoles. Shame cause they'd make it all up easily on software sales. Plus launching a cutting edge machine will attract developers even more.

Actually the 360 and PS3 were scheduled for being discontinued by now, think actually a year or two ago. But since they've been able to get more life out of them, their operation was extended.

Traditional design of gaming consoles was, build for tomorrow and tap it out maybe years down the road. By that time, its time to launch the successor. M$ changed this with the Xbox, although one could maybe argue it was the Dreamcast which changed this. But the Xbox was the first true PC in a box turned console and literally entered a market where it was tapped from the start. There wasn't anything special about it and it's life expectancy was as such. The 360 and PS3 both were completely tapped within the first year of launch. But they've lasted now for well beyond their limit because even tapped out they'd look pretty. Course most console gamers won't know the difference anyways unless they owned gaming PCs and could see the extra visuals that consoles can't do.

How this became a problem is simple. Console makers relied to heavy on mainstream PC part manufacturers. Using IBM for the CPUs is one thing since consoles have used a lot of RISC parts before, but going straight to NV/ATI for graphics...not good. Their stake in the market is not all there. They make a lot more money off other markets. Console gaming to them is just a side job. They slap together a chip, put a flashy name on it, and then boom...instant cash cow. The level of R&D required, which past consoles had, is effectively cut by a lot. This helps costs but it also hurts the consoles in the long run. Those who did all the custom chips really were awesome. They planned way ahead in advance and created works of art. PS1 is a fine example. By specs its crap now, but Sony got spectacular life out of it because it was designed especially for the console market. Really 2MB VRAM on even PC boards of the time could not handle effects as good as the PS1. Same as the 8MB VRAM PS2. Really that sucker should have been buried early on in it's era but the tricks they unlocked in it as time went kept it alive.

In a way, if Apple got serious about gaming...prolly post Jobs retirement/etc, they'd be in a great position to do it since they are doing inhouse designs on the iPad and such. Thats where things can get more creative. All the gaming companies besides M$ used to do this. Sure programming for some was a *bleep* but there was always a new trick they'd learn from the hardware that you can't from mainstreaming the parts.


Well, except that it wasn't supposed to be discontinued yet and the games from the first years don't look nearly as good as the newer games so that's just silly.
NightCougar of the Dawn +9650 postcount
User avatar
Nah it originally had a shorter lifecycle. I remember reading about it over on Gamasutra awhile back and they changed that as time went when they found they could keep it running longer.

First year games are never as good as later releases because they haven't totally utilized the hardware yet. You also have a lot of ports from the previous gen crossing over. Original PS2 games were like upgraded PS1 titles. Even later it struggled due to difficulty of programming for. If Sega hadn't gotten scared and pulled Dreamcast, they'd have had a good chance taking on Sony for a bit longer. Hands down Sega had the better system and games but Sony just had better momentum coming off Playstation. Yeah I got a PS2 early on but it wasn't till years went by before I finally saw titles that could obviously not have been done on the Dreamcast.

Another example...360 was launched in holiday of 05. It was a powerhouse at the time sure, but it was a year after and then in 07 when games were already taking it to the limits. Gears of War, Halo 3...really when you compare them to successors, they could not really push much more beyond what had been done. The games themselves had to be programmed specially for fitting within the console limits which had already been surpassed by the rest of the world at the time of launch. Really 512MB RAM/VRAM was a lot for basic rigs in 05 but no where near gaming grade. ODST and even Reach...are not giant leaps from original Halo 3. Reach I'd give special note for since it finally uses the tessellator of the 360, but its so bogged down by the limits of the system that the experience is like playing a modern game on laptop graphics. It has to constantly work to keep frames stable and that in itself causes it to get sluggish. If M$ hadn't allowed games to be installed to the HD, they'd be in trouble big time. This has helped extend life longer but the system cannot strain longer.

It was a great move of Sony to allow software installs early on. They were well prepared for this. It helped developers design for it instead of with 360 where you had hardware with or without HDs. Trouble was Sony's GPU choice being crap. Course I'm sure NV had a hand in that. What better way to make more off Sony than pitching them an older G70 chip. Guaranteed money in the bank with little cost to NV other than continued production of an aging chip.

I do not see games launching now that couldn't have been done years ago aside from titles like Battlefield 3, which is being built on PC first...the way it freaken should be. Seriously, build for high end first then tone it down for console instead of churning out crap then porting slightly better crap to PC later. The hardware is limiting and it needs to change. Yeah good job Nintendo for finally taking some initiative. But sadly I do not think they'll be able to take advantage of it before Sony and M$ respond. Nintendo has not had the greatest launches in history. We'll probably see some decent looking first titles, but they won't be things that far beyond Sony or M$. Then by the time we do, they'll have the next gen launched with titles already on par with whatever Nintendo can make.
mmaverick my steady systematic decline
User avatar
mmaverick wrote:


Note that the ps3 article is from 2006, you know, when it came out
mmaverick my steady systematic decline
User avatar
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/14/ms-co ... life-span/

Here's a 360 one giving the 360 a lifespan to 2012ish
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

Official E3 Thread

Page: 1, 2