Which company will blink first?

[godslabrat]

Okay, let's put aside personal feelings about who WILL and SHOULD come out on top this generation. Objectively speaking, based on what you know about each company, which of the big three will be first to announce the current system's successor? And by "announce", I mean they'll provide an actual launch date. I mean, we already know they're working on the next system, but it'll be hush-hush until each company is almost ready to give up on their current console. And, this doesn't have to be the first system to be released, just announced.

Edited August 17, 2008 by godslabrat

[PressureCooker2600]

I voted Nintendo......not because I hate them or anything.....I just feel that they will announce first, then Microsoft, and finally Sony.

 

The PS3 is still basically brand new.........at least in my eyes...........so it will be at least another few years before they attempt to announce another system.

[AtticGamer]

Unfortunately Nintendo will win. They're like the Apple iPod of videogames.

 

I think the Xbox 360 should win as it has the most diverse library.

 

My bet is that MS will anounce the successor sooner.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Atari_kid

[ninjarabbit]

Nintendo still can't produce enough Wiis and they're making record profits, I don't see Nintendo breaking the status quo anytime soon.

 

Sony seems to have a 10 year plan with the PS3 and the sales for the system are finally coming around. They won't change the course now that things are doing better for them.

 

That leaves Microsoft. The 360 seems to have almost run its course and Microsoft has shown with the original X Box that they won't hesitate to make the change quickly. The 360 is in 3rd place in Japan and Europe and barely in 2nd place in the US now that the Wii is outselling it 2:1 even with the price drops.

[+Random Terrain]

Damn! I don't have a 360 yet and it's time for the next console? How much will this one be, two thousand dollars?

[PressureCooker2600]

I finally got a 360 for the first time about 4 monthes ago, RT.

 

I mainly got mine for two things:

 

1. Fallout 3

 

2. Call of Duty 4 multiplayer

 

Extra bonuses: XBLA games

[8th lutz]

Nintendo Wii too hot of a seller for that to happen at this point. I don't see a new Nintendo Game console being release before 2011 or 2012 despite it being the weakest game console of the 3.

 

Playstation 3 is starting to pick up ground on the 360. Sony has has a lot of money on the ps3. The parts of the system should cost less as time goes on and Sony is very dedicated to keep the ps 3 for 10 years.

 

I think Microsoft should the first to blink

 

They are starting lose ground to Sony. Nintendo Wii already passed the 360 for hardware sales or very close to it. The 360 is hurting in Japan. It seems like rpgs is the only thing that sells in Japan for the 360 and they are getting their butts kick by sony and Nintendo.

 

I think a new system from Microsoft should be announced next year or the year after.

[JamesD]

The Wii is technically the weakest and will show it's weakness more and more as prices of large HDTVs fall. But sales will need to fall as a result or they will still shovel them out the door. I can't say I agree that they aren't keeping up with demand. I see them in stores on a regular basis now.

 

Microsoft will be under pressure to stay ahead of Sony but all they would need to do is add a couple CPU cores and 1080p while still running existing games. This would be over 2 years away though. I think the smaller die process will allow them to drop prices and shrink the size or include more for the money. The machine hasn't seen it's limits, just look at the previews of Gears of War 2 on XBOX live. One demo shows 100 bad guys running through the street and the images are more realistic than the previous generation. I think Microsoft's best bet isn't drastically new hardware... it's added software features. The PS3 outsold the 360 worldwide last month but the 360 outsold the PS3 in Japan for the 1st time. That is a HUGE deal if Microsoft can build on it. That means more wins like Final Fantasy.

See Geers of War 2 previews here (see top right trailer for preview I mentioned):

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/g/gearsofwar2/

 

SONY is going to be least likely to blink, but they will continue to make the hardware cheaper.

 

 

Nintendo HAS to update the hardware. Microsoft will have to introduce sooner than the others to stay ahead... it's going to be close. So what does that mean? SONY will blink first... by discontinuing the PS2.

 

Seriously, Microsoft will want to take the lead to beat the others to market. Expect DirectX 11, more cores, and a sleeker box.

Edited August 18, 2008 by JamesD

[moycon]

Seriously, Microsoft will want to take the lead to beat the others to market. Expect DirectX 11, more cores, and a sleeker box.

 

and hopefully one that doesn't break down every year.

[JimmydelaKopin]

I think it'll be Sony...and here's why:

 

The Nintendo Wii has the feel of a true successor to its prior consoles, and they've made new games for all their old trademarks on it, so they'll probably keep it around a bit longer.

 

Microsoft seems to be utilizing that old American concept of "planned obsolescence"...and as long as they can still find suckers to buy what everyone knows is a system designed to break down after little use, they're not going to change a thing.

 

Sony is the one with the problem: it's competing with itself, and losing.

What I mean is that the competition between the PS2 and the PS3 is like the competition between the Atari 2600 and the Atari 5200. Son'y using the PS3 as an R&D tool to also make some recoupment money on the side, but they're still relying heavily on the PS2 as well foreasier money.

In the long run, the PS3 is a money pit, and Sony knows it. They'll announce the new system first, which will incorporate backwards compatibility while also pushing the technological envelope, probably by making its specs more powerful than its first few releases will need...thus giving them a jump on the market while also buying time to make games that will push the technology.

Sony needs it the most right now, if only to make something to replace both consoles they need to support right now.

[Hyper_Eye]

Microsoft will be under pressure to stay ahead of Sony but all they would need to do is add a couple CPU cores and 1080p while still running existing games.

 

They are already pushing triple 3.2GHz cores. The GPU is also more impressive then the PS3's GPU. There is juice left in the box. It also supports 1080p already (through HDMI on newer models, through VGA with DVD upscaling support on older models, and through component without DVD upscaling on older models.) You can argue that it doesn't render games in 1080p but neither does the PS3 the majority of the time. In many cases the PS3 actually renders at a lower resolution then the 360 on the same game. That leaves 1080p to scaling in both cases and the 360 has superior scaling with it's hardware scaler (ANA) that will continue to be able to scale any game of any graphical quality to any resolution due to it's removal of the work from the rest of the system. With it's superior GPU and scaler the 360 produces sharper images that scale better. Comparison after comparison has shown the PS3 rendering at lower resolutions with less AA and blurriness in comparison to the 360. The PS3 may have a processor advantage (arguable) but the 360 has an advantage when it comes to graphical output and that is what matters in a gaming system.

 

I keep seeing people talk about the 360 as if it is second in hardware and that the PS3 hardware is going to far outlast it. That is simply false. If Microsoft stuck with it they could get just as much juice out of the 360 as Sony will out of the PS3 if not more. They could have gotten more juice out of the original XBox as well. But they will be the first to announce their next console and they will be the first to release one. Just don't expect it to be as simple as a couple more cores. I hope that it is not a move towards a motion sensing driven console. I would just give up on console gaming and go to PC gaming exclusively if all three major consoles emphasized motion sensing.

[Atarifever]

Sega and Atari. I can dream.

[KrazyKaiju]

I could see Microsoft putting out a 360 HD in a year or two, probably around the time when the amount of game content forces them to resort to multi-disc games for most releases. Loading 50GB of content onto the hard drive for each game just isn't practical, especially after you factor in the space needed for other things like downloaded games, videos, etc. They could probably cut a sweet deal with Toshiba for the HD-DVD tech, which would give them parity with Sony for the amount of content they can distribute on each disc, even if HD-DVD is a dead platform for movies.

 

Then again, they might also pull a Sega and dump the 360 in favor a totally redesigned system.

[Atari5200]

i don't think Microsoft is that bad off, so what if it ends up third in console sales, the money is in the software, I think MS will just plug along, with the 360 getting great game after great game. Hardware sales being a bonus.

 

On a side note, the next system I would be most interested in knowing about first would be Nintendo's. I really want to see what their follow up to the Wii would be, and not a rehash system.

[liveinabin]

Although Ms is doing well, though it's lead is far more pronounced in America, I'm certain they'll be the first to announce the next console.

Sony and Ms are fighting the old technology war and (of course by simple virtue that it came out later) Sony is ahead in that respect, if only by a little. Don't get me wrong, it's not so bad as to really worry Ms, but I think as the PS3 gains momentum (as it's doing) after it's particularly disastrous launch, Ms will be the first to fire the shot across the bow.

 

Nintendo won't be far behind. This Wii remote add on thingy is their 32x (albeit a little more successful). As the lowest common denominator gamer go inevitably HD (and remember, Nintendo have spent the last year or so farming an ever lower and more common denominator) they'll be dropping the new model.

Although it's usually folly to second guess Nintendo hardware releases, I really don't think they'll be releasing anything as radical next round. They wanted to broaden gaming and they have, but now they have a lot of people who's very idea of a games console IS the Wii+remote. They need to keep those people. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the 'Wii Too'.

[Artlover]

Sony is the one with the problem: it's competing with itself, and losing.

What I mean is that the competition between the PS2 and the PS3 is like the competition between the Atari 2600 and the Atari 5200. Son'y using the PS3 as an R&D tool to also make some recoupment money on the side, but they're still relying heavily on the PS2 as well foreasier money.

Don't aggree. For the longest time it was the PS1 and PS2. PS2 didn't suffer any. Quite the contrary.

 

There is no competition in as much as they are two different markets with different user bases.

 

There are a lot of PS2 users out there who have no interest in PS3. You can either cater to them, or do what Sega/Microsoft/Nintendo does: Alieniate them then hope they aren't so pissed off that they will buy your new console. In the case of the PS3 with it's cost and library, that's not likely.

 

That BS was a very signifigant factor in the death of Sega. People got tired of spending money for their console, and being spit on and kicked to the curb when the next hardware came out, kicked & spit on, new hardware, repeat. What's my incentive to buy your product when I know you aren't going to support it?

 

No, Sony's policy of supporting older hardware is spot on the right thing to do. That is what guanentees them their large user base and large game libraries.

[JamesD]

They are already pushing triple 3.2GHz cores.

You forgot to mention that each core can run two threads at once.

Doesn't change the fact that there is a perception that the PS3 is more powerful even if the theoretical numbers are way above what can practically be done with it. Cell = new and cool and technogeewhiz.

 

Preaching to the choir dude.

[JimmydelaKopin]

Sony is the one with the problem: it's competing with itself, and losing.

What I mean is that the competition between the PS2 and the PS3 is like the competition between the Atari 2600 and the Atari 5200. Son'y using the PS3 as an R&D tool to also make some recoupment money on the side, but they're still relying heavily on the PS2 as well foreasier money.

Don't aggree. For the longest time it was the PS1 and PS2. PS2 didn't suffer any. Quite the contrary.

 

There is no competition in as much as they are two different markets with different user bases.

 

There are a lot of PS2 users out there who have no interest in PS3. You can either cater to them, or do what Sega/Microsoft/Nintendo does: Alieniate them then hope they aren't so pissed off that they will buy your new console. In the case of the PS3 with it's cost and library, that's not likely.

 

That BS was a very signifigant factor in the death of Sega. People got tired of spending money for their console, and being spit on and kicked to the curb when the next hardware came out, kicked & spit on, new hardware, repeat. What's my incentive to buy your product when I know you aren't going to support it?

 

No, Sony's policy of supporting older hardware is spot on the right thing to do. That is what guanentees them their large user base and large game libraries.

Okay, Diskette, this post by Artlover is an example of what?

"Someone not paying attention?"

More specific?"

"Someone not paying attention to what you're saying, noble leader?"

Half right; he's also not paying attention to history.

"I was gonna mention that...but I found it silly that someone at the atariage forum is forgetting about the Atari 2600, 5200, and 7800."

Artlover, of course the PS2 didn't hurt in its sales when it came out.

That's because it had...what, Diskette?

"I know, I know...backwards compatibility?"

Correct, Diskette! The PS2 could play PS1 and Playstation games, as well as properly-coded DVDs and CDs, so of course its sales weren't hurting. It was designed as the perfect replacement for the other two systems.

"Just like the way the 7800 replaced the 2600!"

And where does the 5200 fit in with that?

"Uh...erm...as a way of pushing technology and trying to recoup costs on such R&D?"

Making it a parallel to...

"The PS3!!!"

Good job, minion! You got all the answers right!

"YAY! I win a free latte!"

As for you, Artlover...nice try, but you don't have what it takes to be a Lainite yet. I recommend a remedial course filled with 2600 games and 7800 games on a 7800, then a refresher course on Playstation and PS1 games as well as some PS2 games on a PS2. If you don't learn anything, at least you'll be having fun. Bye for now!

[128bytes]

I voted Nintendo, for a Wii Plus, featuring:

 

- controller that includes Wii Motion Plus, and is grippy without a sleeve

- Support for 720p games

- increased internal flash memory (somewhere between 2GB and 8GB)

- SDHC support

 

 

The 360 should be second - another incremental upgrade, with Wireless-N, Blu-Ray, and 1080p support. {edit - I stand corrected - 1080p support already exists}

 

The PlayStation 3 is just now hitting its sweet spot -- in so many ways... for example, go look at HD camcorders, then find out that the easiest way to play your videos is online over a PS3, and the second easiest is to burn, using a standard DVD burner and a cheapo dual layer DVD+R, a AVCHD format disc that plays on the PS3. It will be last to upgrade. I would expect larger capacity disk models and some mods to decrease overall power consumption.

Edited August 19, 2008 by 128bytes

[Hyper_Eye]

The 360 should be second - another incremental upgrade, with Wireless-N, Blu-Ray, and 1080p support.

 

Does someone need to post after every other reply and remind people the 360 has 1080p support! Refresh your Sony talking points. They are out of date.

[liveinabin]

So what's the deal with 360 1080p then? I would have thought that unless you have an Elite with HDMi, you'd be depending on a VGA connection for 1080p. And even then, it'd be analog and most 1080p TVs wouldn't take it.

Do any games support it natively?

[128bytes]

The 360 should be second - another incremental upgrade, with Wireless-N, Blu-Ray, and 1080p support.

 

Does someone need to post after every other reply and remind people the 360 has 1080p support! Refresh your Sony talking points. They are out of date.

 

Thanks, I stand corrected on the 1080p support.

[NE146]

I think Microsoft will go first and introduce a new console, this time with 1080p support.

[Hyper_Eye]

So what's the deal with 360 1080p then? I would have thought that unless you have an Elite with HDMi, you'd be depending on a VGA connection for 1080p. And even then, it'd be analog and most 1080p TVs wouldn't take it.

Do any games support it natively?

 

The 360 can push 1080p over component. Many displays accept 1080p over component. It will switch to 480p when a DVD is inserted as regulations do not allow for upscaling of DVD content over component. When HD-DVD is inserted the display will switch to 1080i as 1080p is only allowed with HD when using HDMI. Games display in 1080p. With VGA you get the same except DVD can be upscaled with VGA. With the 360's scaler DVD's upscale very nicely and look great on HD displays. I use VGA with my projector (720p DLP @ 80") and it looks great. Of course you get the best support with HDMI but that does not even require a purchase of an elite anymore. Premium's now have HDMI as well.

 

I think Microsoft will go first and introduce a new console, this time with 1080p support.

 

Damn you! I know better from you though. I was playing the Geometry Wars 2 demo yesterday and saw your score. It's pretty sick buddy. I almost finally broke a million on regular Geometry Wars. I was damn close. I have a bunch of AA'ers in my Live list and I jumped passed everyone on my list. If I had lived for 20 more seconds that million would have been broken.

[Artlover]

Artlover, of course the PS2 didn't hurt in its sales when it came out.

That's because it had...what, Diskette?

"I know, I know...backwards compatibility?"

Correct, Diskette! The PS2 could play PS1 and Playstation games, as well as properly-coded DVDs and CDs, so of course its sales weren't hurting. It was designed as the perfect replacement for the other two systems.

1: What is it with everyone and backwards compatability. Somehow I really doubt this is a "majority" concern. Also remember, PS2 is not 100% backwards compatable either.

 

2: It's irrevelant to the point I was making. Do remember, people were still buying new PSOne's despite PS2 being available with 'backwards compatability'. The point here being, some people just didn't care about the PS2, just as some people don't care about the PS3. The only reason people stopped buying the PS1 is because Sony stopped making it.

 

People that want the PS3 are buying it, those that don't aren't. I have serious doubts that backwards compatability would change the numbers that much. You can view the people not buying PS3's now as the same people who didn't buy PS2's then. Some people just don't care about next gen, especially when it costs more then a month's rent for a lot of people.

 

No competition there, just two different markets.