Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Nvidia CEO Talks Next-Gen Consoles 173

Posted by Zonk
from the probably-knows-what-he's-talking-about dept.
kukyfrope writes "Jen-Hsun Huang, CEO of Nvidia recently shared his thoughts with the San Jose Mercury News about next-gen consoles, claiming that developing a chip for the 360 was too expensive and that the inclusion of a Blu-ray player will help the console last for 10 years. Huang also predicts that the 360 cannot afford to be a DVD-only system by Christmas 2007, likening the 360-DVD vs PS3-Blu-ray battle to the Dreamcast-CD vs PS2-DVD battle. 'The first PlayStation had a CD-ROM drive. The PlayStation 2 had DVD. It makes no sense for the PlayStation 3 to use DVDs. To postpone it by a few months so they could include Blu-ray was a master stroke. When that comes out, it's going to look so much more advanced than last-generation game consoles,' Huang said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nvidia CEO Talks Next-Gen Consoles

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @12:46PM (#15776845)
    Doesn't Nvidia make the graphics chip for the PS3, but not the 360? Isn't that a bit like Firestone saying that Chevies are better than Fords because Fords use Goodyear tires, but the Chevies come with Firestone?
  • But, will I, as the consiumer buy it at that price? For me, the answer is no. Not enough incentive for me.
    • by MrSquirrel (976630)
      Not to mention it's not like Blu-Ray is the GPU/CPU/RAM/controller -- it's just the media that the game comes on. DVD's already offer hefty storage, I have yet to own a game that takes more than 1 DVD (not counting bonus materials)... so having a Blu-Ray drive in a VIDEO GAME SYSTEM doesn't seem very important to me, or anyone who actually cares about gaming, considering it increases the price by $200 while increasing the level-o-fun by zero.
      • The PS3 is priced $100 more than the 360; the $600 version of the PS3 adds an integrated memory-card reader, HDMI output, wifi, and an extra 40gigs(none of which are included with the 360). Blu-Ray adds at most $100 to the PS3's initial price.

        If you remember back when DVDs were first introduced, the same arguments were used. Some console games still ship on regular CDs, however a lot(most?) of the current console games are bumping against the single layer DVD limit. If/when single-layer Blu-Ray discs be
  • Blue-ray (Score:4, Insightful)

    by another_fanboy (987962) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @12:49PM (#15776876)
    the inclusion of a Blu-ray player will help the console last for 10 years

    How many consoles have games available ten years after launch?

    • Re:Blue-ray (Score:3, Informative)

      by Spluge (888605)
      Other than the PS1?
      You can still buy the console let alone games for it.
    • Re:Blue-ray (Score:4, Informative)

      by tolan-b (230077) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @12:59PM (#15776953)
      There are still games released for Neo Geo :D
    • Re:Blue-ray (Score:3, Insightful)

      That would be the PS1, and soon enough the PS2 I suspect. Unless developers suddenly ignore the huge number of people who own them, of course, which one would hope won't happen overnight!
    • The atari 2600. [boingboing.net]

      I personally don't understand the logic behind viewing the blu-ray part of the PS3 as a selling point. Who really cares? Is the subtle (in most cases) graphical advantage really going to make my gaming experience sufficiently more fun to justify the extra cost? I really doubt it.
    • Ironically, Dreamcast games still come out once in a while. So much for the Dreamcast/CD vs Playstation2/DVD.
      • Ironically, Dreamcast games still come out once in a while. So much for the Dreamcast/CD vs Playstation2/DVD.

        PS2 games come out by the dozen each week, DC games are one or two a month. I don't think MS would want that.
    • Re:Blue-ray (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ObligatoryUserName (126027) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @01:10PM (#15777046) Journal
      EA and others have said that they feel they made a huge mistake by abandoning new game development for the PS1 as early as they did. Their current plans seem to indicate that they will keep putting out new games for the PS2 for at least 10 years after the system's launch date.

      However, new games don't imply new IP! The floundering of Prince of Persia in the marketplace, in spite of what many industry insiders considered a very well executed game, convinced many in the industry that there's only a small window at the beginning of a system's life to launch new IP in. After a certain point it's just not worth it because people don't buy AAA games that aren't sequels in sufficent quantities to recoup development costs. Sad, but apparently true.

      Strangly enough, a theory has also developed that says that while you need to rush out new IP at the beginning of the life of a new system, if you're doing a sequel to existing IP on a new system it's not worth it to push it out in that early window. It's better to take your time and "get things right"/wait for the install base to develop before you push out things like GTA 4 or Halo 3.
      • I don't quite follow your post. Are you trying to say the 3D Prince of Persia isn't a sequel?
        • I think it's a case of "It sucks, to me it doesn't exist" that fans of a series often employ on the part that jumped the shark. Can't blame them, Prince of Persia 3D really wasn't that hot.
      • Re:Blue-ray (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        And yet, God of War, being new IP released during PS2's midlife, was a grand success.

      • The floundering of Prince of Persia in the marketplace

        Which Prince of Persia are you referring to?

      • Re:Blue-ray (Score:3, Insightful)

        by steveo777 (183629)
        Your post demands some clarification. I'm pretty sure you're talking about "Prince of Perisa: The Sands of Time" when you talk about an IP. Well, it's not the first. The first was on a Mac. It also made an appearnce on the SNES.

        OTOH, it is sad that some incredible games (Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, Metal Arms: Glitch in the System) don't get the install base they deserve. Or perhaps the sequels they deserve. But I'm sure it has a lot to do with the fact that games aren't anywhere near as makete

        • The first Prince of Persia game was released for DOS somewhere in the 80s. Awesome game too; probably, one of the best platformers I've played. I'm pretty sure this was about 3-4 years before the SNES came out.
          • Not DOS, Not Mac (Score:3, Informative)

            by Cadallin (863437)
            The First Prince of Persia was an Apple II release. It later saw PORTS to other platforms, including but not limited to: the Mac, the PC, and the SNES.
      • Re:Blue-ray (Score:3, Informative)

        I'll just reply to myself since a number of people seem confused by my calling Prince of Persia new IP. I was indeed talking about Sands of Time.

        Yes, there were quite a number of Prince of Persia games that came before, and Jordan Mechner was involved with Sands of Time. However, from the point of view of the publisher it was treated as new IP for a few reasons, the main one being the spotty release history of the series and the low brand awareness in the target market. The previous version, Prince of Persi
    • How many consoles have games available ten years after launch?

      The Atari 2600 was available until around 1990. It launched in 1977.

      The Intellivision was available until the early 90's. It launched in 1980.

      The NES was available until 1995, being launched in America around 1985/86. ('85 was the test market.)

      The Famicom was released in 1983, and ran until 2003, for a complete run of 20 years. (!)
    • The original Playstation, for one. It launched in 1994 and still has sales pushing past 2005. However, I suspect you meant to ask how many consoles have games being very actively developed for them on a commercial basis.
    • How many consoles have games available ten years after launch?

      The Wikipedia entry for "Video game consoles" has some charts showing the lifespans of selected consoles in North America, Japan, and Europe.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console [wikipedia.org]

      The only consoles to approach a ten-year lifespan in the United States were the Atari VCS/2600 and the original Nintendo Entertainment System. It must be noted, too, that after each's 6-year mark or so, the manufacturers were looking to move on to the next gene
      • Re:Blue-ray (Score:3, Informative)

        by AKAImBatman (238306) *

        The only consoles to approach a ten-year lifespan in the United States were the Atari VCS/2600 and the original Nintendo Entertainment System.

        The Intellivision should also be showing a 10+ year lifespan, but someone screwed up by the numbers. The charts list the Intellivision as ending in 1984. This was the date that Mattel Electronics closed down, however, not the date that the Intellivision stopped being supported. A former VP of Mattel purchased the Intellivision properties and formed INTV Corp. Not only

    • How many consoles have games available ten years after launch?
      A few of them still see releases. Heck, even the Sega Genesis, which launched in 1988, got a new game [beggarprince.com] recently.
    • I believe the PSOne was released in 1994 and is still in production, and I personally know professional developers who still develop for the platform.
  • by neonprimetime (528653) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @12:50PM (#15776886)
    Just as Sony has talked about the PS2 having a ten-year lifespan, Huang believes that the PS3 will also last ten years

    So, we're talking about perhaps a 2016 Release Date for PS4? Just making sure, so I can start saving up my $$ now ... cause I'm sure it'll be pricey!
    • sigh (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Nazmun (590998)
      Yeah because the ps3 was released ten years after the ps2.... What they mean is that the console will be in production for that long. For example, the psone was just bought out of production last year. That's pretty close to ten years if it hasn't passed it.

      The ps2 will be a ten year system if they can still sell it for the next 5ish years. Which they probably can due to strong brand name appeal and the expense of the new system. (ps2's still outsell xbox360's week by week now).
      • The ps2 will be a ten year system if they can still sell it for the next 5ish years. Which they probably can due to strong brand name appeal and the expense of the new system. (ps2's still outsell xbox360's week by week now).

        Also add in the available library (wether you factor in backward compatibility or not).

        I hadn't thought of it, but the PS3 coming out now makes more sense.

        I don't think Sony expects to initially sell to anyone other than hard core gamers/fans. Once those units are sold, hopefully they

      • (ps2's still outsell xbox360's week by week now).
        That barely means anything : the PS1 sold more than the PS2 months after the PS2 launch.
    • Re:PS4 Release Date (Score:3, Interesting)

      by _xeno_ (155264)

      Actually, it's more ironic than that, because Sony (well, Ken Kutaragi, head of the division that makes the PS3) has in the past said they're planning on upgrading the PS3 throughout its lifecycle. See, since it's really a computer, apparently he thinks they can get away with announcing "upgraded" versions. So by 2016, the PS4 might finally replace the PS3-OSR2-SP5 or something.

      The actual quote is:

      In the PC world, specifications rarely last more than two years. You need to update them. I believe the P

      • by MBGMorden (803437)
        If they try this it will be the final nail in the coffin of this system. People buy console games because they just work. No wondering about "does in work on my version of the console or anything", just work.

        There is a reason why only hardcore gamers play PC games more complicated than Solitaire or Tetris. They're the only ones with the time and energy to keep the system working with the latest games.

        The consoles serve the rest of the market, and Sony is about to shoot themselves in the foot by messing t
    • Oh please. By then, organic, non-volatile memory will be within the average consumers reach. Mind you they'll only be able to fit a few TB on the head of a pin....
  • For those of you that were confused by the intro, here's a rundown that makes more sense
    The point about Blu-Ray and DVD is that the playstation is following an evolution pattern, waiting for the correct time to updrage. PS1 had CD, PS2 had DVD, PS3 has to evolve.
    as for my opinion, i still use my PS2, and have no intention to buy an XBOX of anykind, (IE i don't have a XBOX 1) the PS2 can do everything i want, soon i will want to upgrade to newer technology, and i'll be looking at what's going to last me long
    • its too bad that not all PS2's actually play DVDs as well as the Xbox (360) or some standard DVD players can. I even have one of those slimline PS2's and I can't watch more than half of any movie before it stutters and soon after just plain freezes. I have heard others who have similar problems, though its not necessarily a problem with ALL PS2's.
  • I do not own a 360. I do not own an X-Box. I do own a PS2. Me, personally, I won't be purchasing the PS3 because it's too damned expensive! Wii all the way. Also, how much do you think Sony paid Nvidia to have him say that? I'm taking bets.
    • Nothing. NVIDIA is just happy to have a partner now that Ati is in bed with microsoft... but that's my oppinion
    • Also, how much do you think Sony paid Nvidia to have him say that? I'm taking bets.

      I'm going to go out on a limb and say Sony paid him a contract for the GPU in the PS3. In addition to that, that's the only next-gen console GPU nVidia made so they have a reason to hype the PS3 over the other consoles.

      I'll wager an insightful mod point.
    • The gamecube was the cheapest of the last generations as well, and at least as far as I can see the PS2 was the most expensive of the last generation too. Yet of the last genetation you own the most expensive console, not the cheapest. mmm, so why is this generation different?

      Please remember your history, if price has never mattered before why should it now? I am not saying that the PS3 will be a success. I just don't think price will be the deciding factor. Or maybe my PC gaming has just made me think th

    • If you like various PS2 exclusive franchises then yes you will be buying a PS3, and Sony knows that. You however, looking at the initial price of the PS3 won't be buying it at launch. Sony knows that too.

      in 6-12 months the PS3 will not still cost $600, it will slowly be creeping down. As it does more and more people who were holding off on buying it will finally pick it up which will keep the PS3 sales numbers high, which is very good for Sony.
    • You forget the revenge factor. When microsoft stripped nvidia of the xbox video chip for what seemed like no other reason than nvidea producing video drivers that worked for that other penguin popular operating system and then to twist the knife microsoft gave it to nvidia's main competitor ati, those devlopment costs must have bit really hard into nvidia's bottomline, especially as they were likely selling the chip at near cost and were hoping to generate real profits later in the life cycle of the xbox.
  • by chudgoo (812186) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @12:59PM (#15776951) Homepage
    The actual uses of Blu-Ray versus the initial outpouring of cash are the real concerns.
    Dreamcast's failure had little to do with the storage medium as many games released for PS2
    were also released for dreamcast. (Not every game USES the full capacity of the medium)

    Another thing to think about is that the world hadn't had a *significant* change in home video formats
    for more than a decade when DVD first surfaced. The public was ready and willing to buy into DVD.
    This time around the *demand* simply doesn't exist. Sony will of course try to *generate* demand
    via bruteforce marketing, but ultimately this may prove to be a mistake.

    BTW. There does seem to be a slight hint of bitterness in his comments, which is understandable given
    that EVERY one of the next-gen consoles are powered by their rival's GPUs. (ATI)

    It seems odd for Nvidia to claim that developing a GPU for the 360 was too expensive when ATI managed to
    do not only that, but the PS3 and Wii GPUs as well.

    Nvidia dropped the ball big time by not developing a new GPU for at least one of the nextgen consoles...

    • Um, Nvidia developed the RSX GPU for the PS3. The comments made here have a bit of the conflict-of-interest aspect to them.
    • Wow... just waking up to the fact that *I* completely dropped the ball big!
      Just to set things right cosmically...

      Nvidia developed the "RSX" GPU for the PS3.

      Nvidia RSX @550MHz

              * 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
              * Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
              * Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines ...Sorry!
    • Umm, Nvidia did the graphics chip for the Playstation 3, not ATI, I'm not sure what you're on about?

      If you'd read the full article, or even the linked to snippet, you'd know this.
    • Just disregard everything after the bit about Blu-Ray!
      Soooorrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyy!

      NVIDIA DEVELOPED THE GPU FOR THE PS3!
      NVIDIA DEVELOPED THE GPU FOR THE PS3!
      NVIDIA DEVELOPED THE GPU FOR THE PS3!

      (how many "Hail Nvidia"'s do I have to do to make penance!?!)
    • The PS3 GPU is made by NVidia [teamxbox.com]
    • I totally agree, this guy is just crying that MS dumped NVIDIA for ATI on the 360
    • Dreamcast's failure had little to do with the storage medium as many games released for PS2
      were also released for dreamcast


      I seem to remember something about dreamcast games being easily ripped on CD (without any modifications). Easily pirated games leads to less game manufacturers, leads to less interest, leads to...well, you know.

      Maybe the media didn't cause the 100% of the failure, but I think it contributed significantly.
      • The media had absolutely nothing to do with the failure, at least not in the way this article is talking about. Theoretically, piracy should have been impossible because the DC used a proprietary disc format. There should have been no way for pirates to put the games on CDs. The problem is that the theory really didn't pan out. With a minor hack (that found its way into every self-booting image since) the DC could boot games from CDs, and worse, most DC games fit perfectly on one disc for each GD-ROM disc.
    • This time around the *demand* simply doesn't exist. Sony will of course try to *generate* demand
      via bruteforce marketing, but ultimately this may prove to be a mistake.


      That is spoken as if you have not seen how much better true HD content looks. Even on just a 720P display the difference between HD video and DVD is striking and easy to see. All it takes is a few viewings and people want HD sets - that is why sales of the things have been pretty good.

      Migration of a new HD format is also vrey easy for those
      • Even on just a 720P display the difference between HD video and DVD is striking and easy to see.
        I've seen it, and it was not enough of a reason for me to get it, unless I sit very close to the TV -- which I don't.
  • by Albert.Three (990176) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @01:04PM (#15777007) Homepage
    My issue with this article is that it assumes that the winner of the next-gen console war will be largely based on which console comes out on top as the graphics powerhouse between the PS3 and the 360. The fact that the PS3 has Blu-Ray and the 360 has the pedestrian DVD format is not going to swing buyers to Sony's side in and of itself. What will contribute to the success of the respective consoles will be the same thing (and arguably only thing) that has ever mattered when it comes to video games: the games themselves. Graphics will only take a console as far as they are able to make games that people want to play. The only thing that movitates anyone to go out and drop $XXX on a console is the fact that there is at least one game on it that they HAVE to play. I think that dispite all of the clamouring over prices and graphics power, in the buyers mind it will eventually come down to "do I want to play Halo 3 or Metal Gear Solid 4?" (or whatever the must have exclusive games end up being)
    • Actually, the fact that the PS2 had a DVD player was one of the main reasons I bought it. It didn't have any games that I HAD to have at release, in fact I got a really crappy game after waiting in line all night to get it (actually next day cause WallyWorld wouldn't sell me the game). If I had an HD TV I would seriously think about getting a PS3, even if there weren't many (good) games at release.
    • Indeed. There are certain franchises that make consoles succeeed, especially in certain markets. For instance, no console which has the main Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series will ever fail in Japan (and, at this point, likely never in the US, either).

      • Mod parent up!

        Agreed. Whoever has the favor of Square-Enix has a great chance of "winning" next-gen.

        However, what's interesting this time around, is that Square-Enix may be moving more cross platform than ever before. It all started with FF:Crystal Chronicles on the GC, and now we're getting news of their games on all the platforms. Sony still seems to have the most favor, with the main Final Fantasy franchise still exclusive to the PS3 (at least for now), but I imagine that could easily change. It'll still
    • The fact that the PS3 has Blu-Ray and the 360 has the pedestrian DVD format is not going to swing buyers to Sony's side in and of itself.

      Back in the day I bought a PS2 because it allowed me to also play DVDs. Blu-Ray is the reason that I'm waiting for the PS3.

      $600 for a next gen console that also plays all my PS2 games and a next gen movie player? Sign me up!

      I gotta this there's a hell of a lot of people that see this value proposition besides myself.

      Cheers,

      Bill

      PS But I hope Sony can speed it up a bit. I'

    • While I agree with your primary point that in the end games matter most to console success, I do think that the extra storage space the PS3 offers will lend some advanatages, especially in a few years. Game developers will take advantage of that space and were complaining even before launch about the 360 not including HD-DVD drives.

      Basically that extra space gives game makers more options, which can in turn lead to a potentially wider number of good games (just on a percentage basis).
  • Next-gen? (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by ichigo 2.0 (900288)
    The XB360 has been out for almost a year soon, and the PS3 and Wii will be released in the near future. Isn't it about time to start calling them current-gen? Or will we wait until the XB^3/PS4/WWii is out until we start calling the previous incarnations current-gen?
    • Lets wait until all the major players are out.
      PS2 was probably "nextgen" til Xbox and GC rounded it out and made it a generation.
      Right now, 360 stands alone.
  • by The-Bus (138060) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @01:09PM (#15777040)
    Just in case no one noticed, Nvidia is the graphic processor provider for the PS3. See this quote from the article:

    "No one has enough extraneous resources around to build chips for all the game consoles. You have to build one or so at a time. In a lot of ways, they also pick you. Sony picked us and Microsoft didn't."

    He sounds remorseful enough that it indicates he wished Microsoft had picked Nvidia. But then again, he's also a bit glad:

    "I know I couldn't afford it. I would love to build it. I just can't afford it."

    So, here's the president of one of the main suppliers for the PS3 talking about how Microsoft didn't choose him, but even if they did, his company couldn't afford to actually build the GPU for the 360? Excuse me if I don't take his comments with a bucket full of salt.

    To top it off, as in any article discussing graphics, we're about ten years away from photorealism, just as we were in 2001 and 1996.

    To his credit though, I really liked this exchange which is in the full interview [mercurynews.com]:

    Q. Where do you want to see graphics go?
    "I would like to see it go in a couple of directions. I would like [games] to be easier to access."

    His response is, "Screw graphics, let's work on gameplay." I can't knock him for that.

    • We ARE 10 years away from photorealism! Just like we ARE 10 years away from AI! Face the facts...
      2016 will be a whole new world. Reminds me of the Conan sketch:
      "In the year 2000..."
    • So, here's the president of one of the main suppliers for the PS3 talking about how Microsoft didn't choose him, but even if they did, his company couldn't afford to actually build the GPU for the 360? Excuse me if I don't take his comments with a bucket full of salt.

      Remember, it was nVidia that made the graphics chips for the original XBox. It is possible that this guy knows what he's talking about in terms of the cost to develop a brand-spanking-new GPU and the price that Microsoft was willing to pay for
  • Advanced (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ludomancer (921940)
    ...it's going to look so much more advanced than last-generation game consoles


    Now there's an ignorant statement if I've ever read one. Since when did storage medium directly affect the talent and output of a development team? That's like saying your daughter will be a better driver if you buy her a Lexus instead of a Honda.

    • or its like using a car metaphor instead of a bicycle metaphor!
    • More storage = bigger/better textures and more detailed worlds/characters which lead to better graphics.
    • Now there's an ignorant statement if I've ever read one. Since when did storage medium directly affect the talent and output of a development team? That's like saying your daughter will be a better driver if you buy her a Lexus instead of a Honda.

      Trust me, there are stupid people who actually believe that, not because of any additional safety features, but simply because it's a different car.

      So it's not that large a leap to imagine people making these ridiculous promises about how better graphics are going
  • by engagebot (941678) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @01:27PM (#15777177)
    "360-DVD vs PS3-Blu-ray battle to the Dreamcast-CD vs PS2-DVD battle"

    Eh, I'm not so sure about this. First of all, the Dreamcast didn't use a CD-ROM. It was a proprietary 'GD-ROM' that was actually a higher capacity disk (at least 1GB, i don't remember the details). The point wasn't that the dreamcast's media wasn't big enough to hold the content the developers were looking to put out, it was just that the machine didn't play DVD movies.

    The 360 can play DVD movies just like the PS2 and PS3. It just can't play *BluRay* movies. The catch is, we're yet to find out whether people are even going to even care about that or not (format wars, HDTV requirement, DRM, etc).

    Back then, one system had functionality that the other lacked, and that added functionality happened to be something that was important to alot of consumers. That being said, it surely wasn't the lack of DVD video functionality that broke SEGA.

    We won't be seeing *games* that push the limits of each system's storage capacity for some time. Not to mention, most buyers buy the system that has the games they want to play. The only exception to that is a parent who doesn't care either way, so they'll more than likely opt for the cheaper (360/wii) or more kid-friendly (wii) of the bunch.
    • Also, we'll have a HD DVD playback accessory for the Xbox 360 available this year. Given how much more successful HD DVD has been compared to Blu-ray so far (many more titles, with much higher average video quality).

      Given the price differential between PS3 and the 360, the consumer will have the choice between paying around the same for game consumer + HD playback, but those who just want to play games can ge the 360 without HD disc playback, with the option to upgrade later.
  • From TFA

    In the next several years, we will still just be learning to do the basics of film, like motion blur, depth of field -- all of that stuff alone chews up a lot of graphics processing

    Didn't 3dfx (now owned by nvidia) already have tech to do just this? I believe it was called T-Buffering. Can anyone in-the-know fill us in?

    BBH
    • by 2008 (900939)
      From the full interview:

      "SLI is probably one of the most important innovations that we have brought in the last several years."
      3dfx had a very similar, albeit not identical, system ages ago.

      "Nvidia 1.0 was building 3-D graphics. Creating the consumer 3-D market."
      No, that was 3dfx again.

      Of course, Nvidia bought the remains of 3dfx so perhaps they're counting that.

      Revisionist history aside, the full interview here [mercurynews.com] (not the watered down blog post), is really interesting, and exactly the sort of thing that shou
  • He may think the blue-ray drive is the natural evolution but what if it turns out to be the next beta-max. I was at best buy yesterday looking at the demos of HD-DVD and blue ray in between pitches for warrenties and 8 free magazines, and I can tell you I wasnt impressed. Not by the display qualites OR the warrenties, subscriptions or Dirk the sales guy (what a f'in moron he was). I might have purchased a PS3 if it came with DVD but at the price with the BR drive I'll gladly wait it out. If it does become t
    • To my mind, even if Blu-Ray does not succeed as a consumer movie format it's irrelevant - at that point it would essentially be like the myriad of other proprietary game delivery systems, like carts or the custom Gamecube discs. The game makers still get the benefits of a large amount of storage to deliver games upon.

      However I think it is unlikley that Blu-Ray will fail to that degree, in part because every PS3 will have one and so consumers will start using it, in part because those already having Netflix
  • I stopped reading after the second paragraph of the article:

    You can't build chips for all the game consoles. That's not possible. They would all like a slightly different style from the others. Difference is important. The same chip company would have difficulty designing chips for the different styles. It's also so high stakes that you need to focus. No one has enough extraneous resources around to build chips for all the game consoles.

    Tell that to IBM [reed-electronics.com]

  • The biggest contributor to the downfall of the Dreamcast was Electronic Arts. When they announced that they weren't going to support the console, for whatever reasons, public interest in it faded very quickly. Consoles are like operating systems. People care more about the software library available than the underlying hosting environment for those applications.

    No Madden no sale.

  • DVD vs Blu-Ray (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BigNumber (457893) on Tuesday July 25, 2006 @02:29PM (#15777710)
    IMHO, the more advanced the console is, the less capacity it needs on the media. Back in the PS1 days, a large portion of the disk was dedicated to pre-rendered video and audio. The graphics on the new systems are advanced enough to produce the same quality video on-the-fly using an instruction set that is much smaller than the amount of space needed for the pre-rendered stuff.

    So if the games don't need the extra space, the compatibility with movies is the only real reason to choose one media type over the other. Since I believe both new DVD formats (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) will fail, the added cost to the PS3 isn't worth it.
  • At the end of the day, he's right. Yes, the bias is clear to understand but it's not hidden. It's right out there in the open for all to see. Let's look past that and listen to the message for just a second.

    All he's saying is that the inclusion of a next generation movie format will be important to the success of the console. He's right for a couple of reasons.

    1) Whoever wins this round of the format wars will be the last optical format for the delivery of movies and games.

    2) By shipping a popular game cons
    • Odd that you were never modded up or responded to - you make excellent points and I think you have a great summary of all the major points in Sony's favor.

      I just cannot understand how people ignore the obvious advantage Blu-Ray and Sony have with millions of players in peoples homes by the end of the year. As a way to jump-start a format, it is an awesome sight to behold from just the sheer scale of it.

      If Microsoft had included HD-DVD I would not know which way the fight between formats would go down, not

Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. - Niels Bohr

Working...