Here we sit with the so called next generation of gaming, but what really has it brought us that we didn't have before?
This article raises a good point, however, I'd say all the negativity is fueled by things being uncovered on the Internet.
However, I'd say Xbox 360 is the most logical step up on generational terms. PS3 is trying to pack too much, Wii too little. It's an upgrade, but that's what makes it safe. I'd rather have a secure technology then things like PS3's browser that can be hacked to high heaven.
I don't know what this guy's asking for but video games are video games and theres only so much you can do with the limited resources of EARTH!. lol The future is the 360's and now PS3's social gaming, although surfing the net on the PS3 is kind of stupid unless you are single and don't have room-mates or a wife and kids.I'll be suprized if those motion sensing controllers last one generation.(Ya! the Wii's too). Microsofts Xbox 360 with the vision on bringing the Arcade to the living room on a planetary scope is the future, I don't know what they have in plan but i know this; it's only the begining.
i don't even give the motion controllers a year before the gimmick runs dry. it seems like it would be fun at first...but after a couple hours, i can see it getting old fast. everyone will want to try it...but the fun will wear thin real fast in my opinion. i believe microsoft made all the right moves to be the leader in this next generation of gaming. And all they have thun over the last 9 months is only the appetizer.
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with anyone who writes off the new controllers so fast. Admittedly, I can't see many developers taking full advantage of the PS3 controller's motion sensing abilities, but then it strikes me as a rushed feature. The wii design is more single minded, and that's why I think it will be successful. The only things that ever bring me back to arcades was the different controls, especially light guns. I know that these are available for consoles, but the thought of a fully realised motion sensing controller will sustain that feeling of interacting in the game world more than fancier graphics ever could.
I understand your excitement over the Wii controller. And I think its neat. But its not new tech buddy. Microsoft created a motion sensing controller many years ago and it was cool at first...but I agree with the people who say it the fun of the so called "new' concept in gaming will wear off quickly. But I do understand your excitement. You'll see what we are talking about a few months after the "Newness" wears off and you realize you are playing an enhanced Game Cube.
I think the GameCube is great, and I'm sure the Wii will be great also. Stop the hate buddy, you can enjoy more than one console.
I think a person would have to be in a special mood to play games that were a workout. I ran 3 miles after work yesterday and fired up the 360 to play Saints Row and it was too much and i turned it off and it's a standard method of playing. Now try to picture millions of consumers same that have simular live styles. It looks silly (all you're friends better be drunk or hardcore gamers). No fat game-troll is going to exercise(will be buying games with out this feature).PS3's pad is not enough [lame rip off from the Wii](no kids dogs girl friends NO BEER can be near you) Wii's pads (well the Glove comes to mind and like i said before Japanese wemen and very young kids will prolong the death of this console).
I think if sony and nintendo were smart, they'd offer (or another 3rd party developer) a standard connection controller to alternatively use for playing the games. As I see it, most gamers and I do mean most will "NOT" want to play a majority of there new next gen. titles using any type of swinging in the air motion controller, it's just not going to be the norm, not now anyway's.
I do think if MS is smart they'll not dwell into the motion controller side of things unless it could be done w/a standard XBOX 360 controller and you still have the option of motion or standard w/rumble. I'd most alway's opt for the standard w/rumble myself.
XBOX 360 is miles ahead of all as we speak, due to many area's but mostly I wanna say that it's XBOX LIVE that has truly pushed gaming into the 21st century.
This is of course just my opinion. My fiancee likes the pretty colors in Kameo, that's her definition of 21st century next gen, lol.
When does the virtual era start? My dream is to one day move into a virtual visor gaming world in then into a holodeck type world! You can call me crazy but around 15 years ago that was the vision everyone had and im sure it will one day return! I still remember sega had that hologram game and then there was an actual virtual goggle game that they pretty much put aside in search of trying to find ways to make us really believe that we were in those worlds by adding senses! We can go on and on about which console is the best but I know that if there is ever a virtual era these consoles will be forgotten!
This is the future of gaming! Unfortunally once this becomes a reality it will be banned, nobody will want to leave their virtual wonderland.
KEN K. STFU web freak... Hope Sony can keep up.
Wouldn't it be great if each of the big 3 offered only exclusive titles to there machine, then we'd really have something to argue about, right?
Seriously, all do offer something different and on different levels of the field so it's really just a great time to be a gamer w/many choices and ways to play as well, be it LIVE or against a neighbor or your brother or best friend, you can choose your way to play.
Competition is a good thing.
Competition only forces better products and games. In the end the consumer wins, that's us BTW for all you fanboyz.
What are you talking about buddy? I havan't showed any hate toward Nintendo's Wii. some of my best memories of gaming has been through Nintendo. But since when was the GameCube Great? That was probably Nintendo's worst system yet. It had some Very Good games sprinkled in there but as a whole it was a dissappointment to me compared to their previous efforts. Now the Wii is cute. But they said themselves its the gamecube on steriods. The main focus is the controller. Which I believe will be neat. But Its my opinion, with all my years of gaming, that it will be a fad that will wear off quick. Everyone will want to try it. I'm far from hating. I'm just being honest and frank about it. Just like with the ps3. I think the ps2 in my opinion was a dissappointment. But I loved the PS1. Ps2 had a few great games. But as a whole, I was dissappointed. I have always been a pc gamer at heart. I remember playing games in "DOS" that was all "text" based games. You typed commands and it would type back to you the actions. Kings Quest I was the first game to wow me. But i played Intellivision, Coleco vision, every sega console, Nintendo consoles, Sony consoles, Microsofts consoles, I even bought the Jaguar and the 3D0 systems. I love games. I have a strong opinion on games but I have absolutely "NO" bias or hate towards any consoles. As it stands right now, I'm very pleased with the xbox 360. I will get the ps3 and the Wii as well. I'm skeptical about the ps3 but I'm positive there will be great games at some point and I will enjoy them and talk positive about them. Same with the Wii. I just think that Nintendo should have sold it at 150 or 200 being since its just a minimal upgrade over the Gamecube with a new controller. I love the fact that Microsoft open the doors to all gamers with the 299 and in some countries 199 core system. Thats what I believe gaming is about. Letting everyone Jump In. Not just the rich folks. Half a grand is out of reach for millions of people just to play games. Thats just being real. Even 400 is a stretch for many many gamers. 199 to 299 is where most consoles will sell the most units at. Thats a fact. History states that in every console war. I'm not alone in my opinion. Sony basically handed over a big part of their fan base to Microsoft and nintendo. Who wins the console war don't matter to me. I will enjoy all 3 systems as I have always done for many years. But I do have my opinion and its based off of common sense and many articles that I read. I tend to not believe sony and its not my fault. They lied to me and many other gamers with the ps2. They shouldn't have said "toy story" in game graphics and they should have said 10 times more powerful than a computer. It never match a sinlge high end computer through its whole consoles life cycle. I'm the type of person that don't like to be lied to. I will still give them a second chance with me. I'm just skeptical....and can you blame me for that?
In terms of raw performance without antialiasing or anisotropic filtering, the cards actually perform quite similarly. Both cards will produce roughly the same frame rates in most games. Only in Quake 4 do we see the Radeon pull away by a significant amount.
The Radeon also scored two victories in Oblivion and 3DMark06, primarily because of the card's ability to render Shader Model 3.0 HDR and antialiasing at the same time (both of these victories would have been ties otherwise). It feels a little cheap to penalize the GeForce for technical failures, but we can't deny the fact that HDR is becoming an important graphical feature and anyone willing to spend $500 on a video card will likely want to play games with antialiasing and HDR enabled.
The Radeon X1950 XTX has an MSRP of $449, and you can easily find the GeForce 7900 GTX anywhere between $430 and $500, depending on the model. With the prices so close together, we'd easily opt for the Radeon X1950 XTX to get HDR and antialiasing at the same time. However, with DirectX10 and Windows Vista just around the corner, a cash outlay this large might be too much, too late for either card.
PlayStation 3 GPU Less Powerful than GeForce 7800
When Sony unveiled its next-generation PlayStation May 2005 , one of the slides displayed in the presentation showed that the PlayStation 3 GPU had the power of two GeForce 6800 Ultras working in SLI mode (nVIDIA's Scalable Link Interface multi-GPU technology). At that time, nVIDIA (the developer of the PlayStation 3 RSX GPU) has not yet unveiled its latest graphics architecture, formerly code-named G70.
But now that the GeForce 7800 GTX and its little brother, the recently announced GeForce 7800 GT graphics processing unit, have been announced, and an interesting tidbit comes from none other than the Official PlayStation Magazine.
The Inquirer reports that an nVIDIA spokesperson was quoted in the magazine saying that the RSX GPU is basically a slightly less powerful GeForce 7800.
That means that almost a year before launch, there’s a PC graphics chip that is more powerful than the RSX GPU found in the PlayStation 3. And make no mistake, this is not a crazy, speculative conclusion ; this comes straight from the company that makes both parts: the RSX and GeForce 7800 graphics processing units.
That’s not good news for consoles, being that the typical 4-to-5 year lifecycle a console must survive allows computers to catch up quickly with the technology found on next-generation consoles.
Usually, game consoles ship with hardware that is not available on personal computer at the time of launch, and a few months later, PC hardware manufacturers create hardware parts that surpass console technologies.
But launching with a technology that is already available on PC is not good at all for a “next-generation” console. By the time the PlayStation 3 launches, there will be already a new GPU from nVIDIA that will be more powerful that their current flagship GPU, the GeForce 7800 GTX.
So, what about the Xbox 360? In the case of the graphics processing unit designed for the Xbox 360, ATI has included technology on the Xenos GPU that won’t be available for PC graphics chip in the next twelve months, including the unified shader architecture and the embedded DRAM daughter die.
A so called R600, which might debut towards the launch of Windows Vista, in the fourth quarter of 2006, might incorporate the special technologies ATI put into the Xbox 360 GPU.
With a three-core processor and its state-of-the-art GPU, the Xbox 360 hardware won’t be matched by PC until late 2006, when quad-core processors from AMD and Intel arrive and Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0-compliant GPUs, featuring unified shader architecture, arrive.
The next-generation begins with the Xbox 360. Don’t you forget!
playin' test drive unltd. 360 on a 150" hd-beamer - this is next gen.
I only say one thing why this guy isn't right in the sense of things
That has changed my gaming experience 180 degrees from the same to a whole new world.
I already played a lot first on MSX(-2), then Amiga, then some PC, followed by consoles, PS2 but the drive broke down really soon. Too expensive to repair, so bought XBOX, played more, got online and it kicks ass...
Then 360 came and whow... XBL has been taken further, implemented so well I got on XBL before some times in the week, with 360 I am only if I can every night!
Yeah gaming changed and 360 leads the way back to the fun we had the old days with C64/MSX etc
Live is a great innovation for games, I know XBL has been around for a few years now, but it continues to shine, thats a definite plus on M$ for making games better with Live. I understand that this guy wants to see more innovation in games, but it seems as if he's looking for some kind of extreme leap forward overnight, I mean they can only make graphics/AI do so much with today's tech, and yes gameplay can always be molded and done in better ways, but thats easier said than done, so unless you have some suggestion then you are just another critic. I'm not down-playing his point, but my impression of his article is he's expecting more than what can be produced on consoles right now....in 10-15 yrs. I know there will be games that will make us say to our kids...."damm I remember when videogames were like.....", and its OK to demand more, but remember it takes time, so just enjoy what we have today
And if I look at for example Dead Rising, Saints Row, GRAW or upcoming games like Viva Piniata where the Piniata's you design will have a tag with the name you created, your Livename or other things, then it leaves your online garden and goes to someone on the other end of the world...
If that isn't innovation, shoot me. This will be huge. It's like that bottle you trew in the water when you were a kid. With a piece of paper with your address and you hoped you would get a card from the other end of the world. It's exciting like that and it goes on and on.
The future is here with 360 and XBOX Live
ok, someone said MS came first with motion.....in a controller i dont think thats correct...and why do ppl always claiming that after hard work ( flipping burgers?) they dont even have the energy to game...so lets leave out the Wii-controller?
and if a developer wants to make a game thats not made for the Wii-mote...there are always classic controllers and GC controllers.
ppl are scared to something thats unknown.....we welcome something that we all know and its only improved.( talking about GFX)
but when there is something that is gonna change the way of gaming......you have all these things ready to say....and they aint posetive.
i do think all console will do great but!
in the end its just what the consumer want....and thats GAMES............you would never buy a PS3 if there was no MGS or the other games for PS3
you would never get a Wii if there wasnt mario,zelda, metroid,pokemon
xbox360 halo3 ETC ETC.
we can all talk about GFX or gameplay......but in the end the console's life is depending on what games it will get.
This guy brings up a couple of points that are worthwhile, but he seems to be pointing fingers in the wrong direction. The console makers put out hardware. Microsoft seems to be the initiator in actual services, like online, marketplace, developers tools, etc. Sony and Nintendo also seem to be following suit, at least with online services.
With these options, it's up to developers to make the games. I think some people are expecting that 'next gen' means 'jacked into the Matrix' and this just isn't the case. Also, since developers spend so much money in development costs, they need to develop a game the will at least return their expenditures. Therefore they go with what they know sells, for the most part, and add in just enough new stuff to separate their game from others.
True, as a gamer, I would like revolutionary new stuff, but if I ran a game developing company, I would make sure it made money. Because of this, we will see new additions/features of games come around slowly. This is the fault of the developers, not the console makers, but since this is a business, can you really blame them?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.