Support NeoGAF

[Ceros]

cool, it'll use cutting edge technology! now do we know if it'll play games too?!?

I coulda SWORE we were talking about Nintendo here.....

 

[jarrod]

Could someone please list the facts about the new systems? I'm not arguing with anyone here. I'm simply stating my take on things...as I see others doing the same.

Xenon's the furthest along, all things indicating a mid to late 2005 release and the basic chipset design (dual multicore G5s plus an R600 series based GPU) has been leaked. Developers are already working on games, including EA and Tecmo.

Revolution is using the same technology partners, will launch before PS3 (2006/2007) and add features beyond just higher spec. Hardware will be formally unveiled at E3 2005. Nintendo hasn't approached developers yet, or at least EA, regarding any specifics.

Going off that, I'd guess Xenon will probably have a full year of release on Revolution (and PS3). Xenon's actually fallen behind schedule it seems, as the original plan was a possible 2004 release (but that was pushed back and specs upgraded). Given the year in technology dispairity (in addition to Microsoft Reps suddenly pushing software/XNA, talking of hardware plateaus and looking to not lose their ass on hardware losses) I wouldn't say it's hard to image Revolution coming out on top technologically. It's not like Nintendo hasn't been pushing cutting edge 3D technology for it's past two hardware solutions, the last one being such an efficent option that they've got MS following in their footsteps...

 

[MrPing1000]

well im in shock

 

[gofreak]

You really need your old tag back. ;P Who said "much less"? I said lesser than. That's my take, based on what I feel the companies are likely to do.

It seems like N5 will be "different" from Xenon/PS3. Nintendo seems to be aiming to have features that Xenon/PS3 don't. So would you count that as "less than", or are you talking purely in terms of system horsepower in the traditional sense?

Even if it is the latter, all bets are off if Microsoft really does launch much earlier than the other two.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Xenon's the furthest along, all things indicating a mid to late 2005 release and the basic chipset design (dual multicore G5s plus an R600 series based GPU) has been leaked. Developers are already working on games, including EA and Tecmo.

Isn't the basic chipset you mention just an early development kit? I thought it was a dual G5 Apple system with a pre-production ATI 420? Dave Baumann suggested that the Xenon's final 3D hardware could be beyond the R500...closer to the R600 design.

Revolution is using the same technology partners, will launch before PS3 (2006/2007) and add features beyond just higher spec. Hardware will be formally unveiled at E3 2005. Nintendo hasn't approached developers yet, or at least EA, regarding any specifics.

Yeah. The article that kicked off this thread has only meaty statements made by the writer and not Nintendo. Cutting edge technology is a very loose term.

Going off that, I'd guess Xenon will probably have a full year of release on Revolution (and PS3). Xenon's actually fallen behind schedule it seems, as the original plan was a possible 2004 release (but that was pushed back and specs upgraded). Given the year in technology dispairity (in addition to Microsoft Reps suddenly pushing software/XNA, talking of hardware plateaus and looking to not lose their ass on hardware losses) I wouldn't say it's hard to image Revolution coming out on top technologically. It's not like Nintendo hasn't been pushing cutting edge 3D technology for it's past two hardware solutions, the last one being such an efficent option that they've got MS following in their footsteps...

Though he may not be the most unbiased person on the subject, Oxygen has repeatedly stated that the Xenon was never really intended for an '04 release. I've not seen a confirmation of a once-planned '04 release as fact yet.

As for the technological edge, like I stated before, I cannot easily see that Nintendo will have something that is perceptually better than the new MS machine. Iwata's own statements of their intention of not trying to compete with the raw power of the new MS and Sony machines and more on potentially innovative gameplay features seems to indicate that their machine will be 'less-powerful' than either of their competitor's machines. With Nintendo supporting three platforms (GBA, GC, and DS) with a fourth (Revolution) due, their past history of not being the the one to spend the most on their hardware and to have more immediately profitable piece of hardware, I believe that it's less likely that Nintendo have the more powerful design than their competitors.

MS is actively trying to alleviate some of the pressure and cost of software development with their XNA (aka super-duper Direct X) initiative as development costs will rise beyond the already-exorbitant development costs of today's games. I don't see this as having to do directly with the potential capability of the system or its budget.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

You really need your old tag back. ;P Who said "much less"? I said lesser than. That's my take, based on what I feel the companies are likely to do.

I said correct me if I'm wrong didn't I? The GC's specs were finalized much sooner than the X-Box's if you recall, despite them launching basically simultaneously. And if Art-X had been acquired by ATi a tad sooner, both systems would've had dedicated vertex shaders. MS doesn't have that advantage this time, (essentially grabbing off the shelf PC parts hurriedly & modifying a GPU which was already in development) in fact they're launching earlier may in fact put them at a technical disadvantage. That's my take, which differs from yours. I may debate you, & provide my reasons why, but I still respect your stance. Yet you cannot respect mine? Cost is definitely a factor with the Xenon. How else did IBM win out over Intel & AMD? Because of the lowest bid. IBM's Eastfishkill's labs were a virtual money pit, & this is where they'll be manufacturing Xenon's tri-core CPU. (MS undoubtedly got a "sweet" deal here) Their partnerships & contract structurings are now nearly identical to Nintendo's. (ATi included) Except we don't know all of Nintendo's partners as of yet, or technologies they're pursuing like RAM providers for instance. Or its internal architecture for that matter. You do remember Xenon's diagram correct? The playing field will be more than level next-gen, with each system possessing its various advantages, though clearly not nearly as pronounced as they were this generation. RAM is no longer an advantage for Xenon either, which really had the most impact this generation regarding textures, custom lighting, etc.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

It seems like N5 will be "different" from Xenon/PS3. Nintendo seems to be aiming to have features that Xenon/PS3 don't. So would you count that as "less than", or are you talking purely in terms of system horsepower in the traditional sense?

Even if it is the latter, all bets are off if Microsoft really does launch much earlier than the other two.

I was referring to a more general and traditional sense of power. Yes. It's still not clear that Xenon will launch all that much earlier than its competitors. There's just been so much repeated talk of the subject that it might seem to be true.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

The next X-BOX will have lower specs than the next Nintendo console. It's launching sooner and thus will have older technology AND Microsoft wants to eventually turn a profit. Splurging on a "generation ahead" of the competition cost them this generation and I seriously doubt them doing it again just to be as powerful as the next Nintendo and/or Sony console(s).

That being said (and apply what Mr. Iwata has been saying for a while) specs don't matter past bragging rights *cough*X-BOTS*cough*. Besides, I can see PLENTY of casuals actually believing that the next X-BOX is more powerful, despite launching up to a year before the competition *cough*DreamCast*cough*. This is a good thing for MS's image in the short run (before PS3 launches), but in the long run they have LOST one of thier major advantages for garnering more support/fans 'cos they LOSE the power edge *cough*SonySaysThanks*cough*.

Sony will have the power edge next generation...they've invested the most, worked on it the longest and will likely be launching last (and up to a year after the next X-BOX) so as to ensure thier power when it comes to specs. They might even be under the assumption that they can use the: "wait for the next Playstation instead" hype and thus make the competitions next systems look like DreamCast all over again. Sony has the power, the content, the fanbase and the image next generation...the only thing they lose is thier headstart, but by extending the life of the PS2 then they're basically maximizing profits AND telling thier fans: "hey, a system (PS2) that can last you over 7 years is a great value...wait for (and buy) our PS3 for more of the same value" and *BAM* PS3 will have double the userbase that the next X-BOX will have in a half the time it took MS to get it.

I don't see that bright of a future for MS next generation...if (a questionable if too) they can have momentum going into next generation then they'll have to deal with cutting thier current X-BOX short, no BC to help the transition, no HD or extra features, losing the power edge ALL of which alienates thier current and potential fans. I'm not saying that the next X-BOX won't be good, nor am I saying it can't be successful, but if they think they can compete with Sony by skimping, losing the power edge, alienating buyers and launching prematurely to get a "head start" on PS3 (a sure success by default) then they're sorely mistaken...All that and they're ignoring thier closest competitor (Nintendo) yet again. And next generation Nintendo won't have a silly purple lunchbox KILLING thier image (and thus killing thier fans, support, content, market perception, etc. as well) so MS has to worry about a healthier Nintendo, not a handicaped one. This market is still very young and a company has to have a certain image to be "cool" and Nintendo really did scare people away with the GAMECUBE's design...take away that mistake and Nintendo would've done better this generation. I think, when the next Nintendo console is unveiled that the market as a whole will be shocked that it DOESN'T look like a toy and that right there will change perceptions about Nintendo and the dirrection they're headed, nothing helps an image more then a make-over. What will MS do when they're expecting Nintendo to just fall off the planet and create another obscure lunchbox, but instead Nintendo comes out kicking ass and taking names instead?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

That's my take, which differs from yours. I may debate you, & provide my reasons why, but I still respect your stance. Yet you cannot respect mine?

Oh I respect yours in a general way...but when you state the following:

Good points as always jarrod. Some X-drones simply cannot fathom Xenon being on par with Revolution, or even worse yet, the weakest of the 3. MH, Xenon doesn't have the same carte blanche monetarily as it did before. Their primary specs. are very close to, or have already reached finalization. DX10 isn't in the cards, nor is Longhorn. (pushed back) Read the handwriting upon the wall. All current systems even possess certain technical advantages over the other, *shock & awe.*

I have to wonder.

 

[jarrod]

Isn't the basic chipset you mention just an early development kit? I thought it was a dual G5 Apple system with a pre-production ATI 420? Dave Baumann suggested that the Xenon's final 3D hardware could be beyond the R500...closer to the R600 design.

Er, maybe you should reread what I've written? :/

Yeah. The article that kicked off this thread has only meaty statements made by the writer and not Nintendo. Cutting edge technology is a very loose term.

Loose maybe but looking at Nintendo's past platform history, I don't see why one wouldn't take the term at face value and assume Nintendo would come out with a competitive platform? Were N64 and GameCube behind the curve?

Though he may not be the most unbiased person on the subject, Oxygen has repeatedly stated that the Xenon was never really intended for an '04 release. I've not seen a confirmation of a once-planned '04 release as fact yet.

That's not what's been leaking and all due respect to Oxy, he's not exactly top of the food chain there.

As for the technological edge, like I stated before, I cannot easily see that Nintendo will have something that is perceptually better than the new MS machine.

To be fair what about the reverse? Or do you think Nintendo will come out with a custom ATi solution a year later that's comparably deficent to Xenon? Was N64 deficent compared to PS1? Was GameCube to PS2?

Iwata's own statements of their intention of not trying to compete with the raw power of the new MS and Sony machines and more on potentially innovative gameplay features seems to indicate that their machine will be 'less-powerful' than either of their competitor's machines.

"We at Nintendo aren't brushing off the need for high technology, but we think that there are other ways of taking advantage of it,"

...sounds more like he's pointing towards both competitive hardware and new hardware features.

With Nintendo supporting three platforms (GBA, GC, and DS) with a fourth (Revolution) due, their past history of not being the the one to spend the most on their hardware and to have more immediately profitable piece of hardware, I believe that it's less likely that Nintendo have the more powerful design than their competitors.

Nintendo's always curcumvented upfront payoffs in favor of lower risk royalty sharing. That how they got the high spec Flipper GPU as well as N64's Reality Engine. Besides, Nintendo actually said they're increasing spending for Revolution ($1 billion+ went into GCN) and Iwata mentioned possibly opening the $6 billion+ warchest...

MS is actively trying to alleviate some of the pressure and cost of software development with their XNA (aka super-duper Direct X) initiative as development costs will rise beyond the already-exorbitant development costs of today's games. I don't see this as having to do directly with the potential capability of the system or its budget.

XNA is a mixed bag, PR claims aside. From people who've actually examined it, XNA seems more like a way for Microsoft to try and force it's own standard across all gaming platforms as well as help XBox/PC developers onto their relatively foreign Xenon architecture. Right now it's mainly sound and fury though, most people don't even understand what XNA is (and to be fair, Microsoft isn't exactly clear on it either).

I'd say the talk of a "hardware plateau" and software being key is more telling anyway, particluarly when Microsoft pushed hardware as the main advantage this generation. The reliance on spreading XNA FUD just strengthens that impression...

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Er, maybe you should reread what I've written? :/

Ah yes...it's late.

Loose maybe but looking at Nintendo's past platform history, I don't see why one wouldn't take the term at face value and assume Nintendo would come out with a competitive platform? Were N64 and GameCube behind the curve?

I'm not saying that it won't be competitive...never have. Just that I think it will be 'less than' the others. Assuming the trade-offs usually inherent to console hardware design, I think it will be that Nintendo makes a tradeoff to release a 'less powerful' system to have a much different input as standard.

That's not what's been leaking and all due respect to Oxy, he's not exactly top of the food chain there.

Please just say what this is about, already.

To be fair what about the reverse? Or do you think Nintendo will come out with a custom ATi solution a year later that's comparably deficent to Xenon? Was N64 deficent compared to PS1? Was GameCube to PS2?

Like I stated above, It seems to me that Nintendo will make a tradeoff for their 'revolutionary' feature(s). While it's totally possible that it will be the best of both worlds, I'm just not seeing it as a likely possibility yet. Iwata's comments seem far too direct about the comparable power of their system and that of MS and Sony's next gen machines.

"We at Nintendo aren't brushing off the need for high technology, but we think that there are other ways of taking advantage of it,"

...sounds more like he's pointing towards both competitive hardware and new hardware features.

Could be. But again, I never said that it wouldn't be competitive...just that it wouldn't be as 'powerful' as their competitors' hardware.

Nintendo's always curcumvented upfront payoffs in favor of lower risk royalty sharing. That how they got the high spec Flipper GPU as well as N64's Reality Engine. Besides, Nintendo actually said they're increasing spending for Revolution ($1 billion+ went into GCN) and Iwata mentioned possibly opening the $6 billion+ warchest...

I didn't know that. At least, it seems that they are more serious about the next gen than the current one.

XNA is a mixed bag, PR claims aside. From people who've actually examined it, XNA seems more like a way for Microsoft to try and force it's own standard across all gaming platforms as well as help XBox/PC developers onto their relatively foreign Xenon architecture. Right now it's mainly sound and fury though, most people don't even understand what XNA is (and to be fair, Microsoft isn't exactly clear on it either).

Yes, I didn't paint it as a fix-all, but acknowledged that it was basically a souped-up Direct X. It's a bit too early to tell what it will actually do, but the effort is still important.

I'd say the talk of a "hardware plateau" and software being key is more telling anyway, particluarly when Microsoft pushed hardware as the main advantage this generation. The reliance on spreading XNA FUD just strengthens that impression...

Personally, I think its an effort to garner more support from developers (including more PC ones) to join early development on their console. That and to make development on their more 'exotic' hardware less-unappealing. I still don't see the direct correlation between XNA and less powerful hardware.

 

[Timbuktu]

Is it confirmed that the next xbox is still going to use multiple G5s? I just don't see how IBM can ramp up production by that time when their Fishkill plant can't even meet the demand from Apple at the moment.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Nothing's confirmed about the final specs of the system...at least from what has been made publicly known, anyway. I think the CPUs in the final system will be customized versions of the PPC970. Who knows.

 

[jarrod]

I'm not saying that it won't be competitive...never have. Just that I think it will be 'less than' the others. Assuming the trade-offs usually inherent to console hardware design, I think it will be that Nintendo makes a tradeoff to release a 'less powerful' system to have a much different input as standard.

Sorry maybe I should've been clearer... by 'competitive' I mean to say 'at least equal to'. Besides, when was the last time Nintendo launched a year later than a competitor and was underpowered in comparison?

Please just say what this is about, already.

Rumors of a late 2004 launch... that's also what DCharlie and the JP crew were hinting at early this year.

Like I stated above, It seems to me that Nintendo will make a tradeoff for their 'revolutionary' feature(s). While it's totally possible that it will be the best of both worlds, I'm just not seeing it as a likely possibility yet.

So wait, you're willing to assume notable phantom costs on unknown 'revolutionary' features, enough so that Nintendo will be forced into offering a weaker chipset than a year old platform, but when it comes simply applying Moore's law suddenly things become too early to tell? Convienent.

Iwata's comments seem far too direct about the comparable power of their system and that of MS and Sony's next gen machines.

Er yes? He said they're not making technology an after thought, just exploring additional avenues beyond simply souping up the chipset. I don't see how that implies an inherently weaker chipset, that's clearly not what Iwata's said.

Could be. But again, I never said that it wouldn't be competitive...just that it wouldn't be as 'powerful' as their competitors' hardware.

PS3 is a given, let's leave that out. Microsoft and Sony are in different leagues here though in terms of technology and timeframes... also refer back to my clairified point on 'competitive'.

I didn't know that. At least, it seems that they are more serious about the next gen than the current one.

Well, you always learn from your mistakes... Nintendo's problem with GameCube was that they made a ton of new mistakes after fixing as many from N64. :/

Yes, I didn't paint it as a fix-all, but acknowledged that it was basically a souped-up Direct X. It's a bit too early to tell what it will actually do, but the effort is still important.

The effort might be important. Really though, I've yet to see any evidence that XNA will actually shorten development cycles in any significant way that other middleware can't. Again, sound and fury right now...

Personally, I think its an effort to garner more support from developers (including more PC ones) to join early development on their console. That and to make development on their more 'exotic' hardware less-unappealing.

That's definitely part of it, I believe I said as much actually. Funny though that accessable API and toolsets was also something Nintendo was crowing about with GameCube. Xenon seems more like 'GameCube 2' than Revolution does...

I still don't see the direct correlation between XNA and less powerful hardware.

Well it's not just XNA... it's that combined with decreasing losses, a "hardware plateau", "software is key" PR, a year's head start, nailed down hardware...

 

[JasoNsider]

Xenon seems more like 'GameCube 2' than Revolution does...

Well put jarrod. It's actually kind of nice to see Nintendo playing ahead of the game this time. If Nintendo has technology as powerful as the other two competitors with all sorts of these cool "revolution" extras to boot, they've essentially taken the generation gap formula up a notch.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Jarrod, are you saying that Nintendo is willing to lose as close to as much, if not more money on their next hardware initially than MS is to have comparable specs? If it is actually releasing a year or so ahead, that probably won't be the case for Nintendo. Still, I don't see the disparate difference in release timing. MS has only stated that it wants to beat Sony to launch. There's been nothing on their take on Nintendo's next gen system, that I've read.

I think Xenon and Revolution will be very close to each other in release timeframe. How else could we be seeing both debut at E3 next year? Though MS hasn't confirmed as much, its pretty much a given, I think. Nintendo's tended to show off their new console at E3 the same year they are releasing. It could still be possible that they release in '06, but I don't think so. It seems likely that MS wouldn't dare release without showing their system off at E3 first (no Saturn stealth-launch disaster wanted)...and that means that they'll be releasing that year, as well.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Nintendo's tended to show off their new console at E3 the same year they are releasing.

While that's true, it neglects to take into account that the last two consoles were first shown off much earlier (6 months for N64, 9 for GCN).

 

[MightyHedgehog]

But even 9 months doesn't seem long enough a space of time for the hardware to be all that different, if at all, from the final form. Nintendo generally seems to want their hardware locked down as early as possible to ensure that 1st party games are afforded a fairly normal development time.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

My point is that drawing some conclusion about launch times from the first E3 showing works differently if the E3 showing is the first _absolute_ showing. I see it is easily conceivable that E3 2005 will be the big show for Xenon, while for Revolution it would be more of "We'd be showing this off soon anyway, so we might as well now to counteract the Xenon hype."

 

[jarrod]

Jarrod, are you saying that Nintendo is willing to lose as close to as much, if not more money on their next hardware initially than MS is to have comparable specs? If it is actually releasing a year or so ahead, that probably won't be the case for Nintendo.

Hey, you answered your own question! Neat!!

Still, I don't see the disparate difference in release timing. MS has only stated that it wants to beat Sony to launch. There's been nothing on their take on Nintendo's next gen system, that I've read.

Okay, let's lay this out...

Microsoft: mid to late 2005 Xenon launch

Nintendo: mid 2005 Revolution hardware (not even software) unveiling

Nintendo has yet to even mention revolution to EA, meanwhile EA is already hard at work on their 4-6 Xenon launch games... it's pretty clear they're on different cycles already. Looking at Nintendo's unveiling history a summer to fall 2006 launch seems like a good bet based off what we know.

Actually, I've yet to see you show anything infering a similar or even close launch timeframe. Put up or shut up.

I think Xenon and Revolution will be very close to each other in release timeframe. How else could we be seeing both debut at E3 next year?

Er, because they're not? Xenon hardware will likely debut at GDC, with software at E3. There might be a demo or two at GDC a la Malice though. It's worth noting that Xenon was set to debut (and subsequently pulled last minute) at both GDC and E3 this year though...

Nintendo's tended to show off their new console at E3 the same year they are releasing.

Software yes, hardware no. They usually debut hardware the year before (E3 1995 for N64, SpaceWorld 2000 for GC)

It could still be possible that they release in '06, but I don't think so.

Based off? The fact Nintendo intends to show hardware at E3 2005? It's pretty clear so far you haven't been paying attention concerning Nintendo and when they show stuff...

It seems likely that MS wouldn't dare release without showing their system off at E3 first (no Saturn stealth-launch disaster wanted)...and that means that they'll be releasing that year, as well.

Guaranteed 2005 for Xenon. Who knows, Revolution could see 2055 release also but right now things are definitely leaning towards 2006... remember Nintendo was also criticizing Microsoft releasing early and cutting the console cycle short...

" Microsoft, according to Gosen, is attempting to drive the industry into the next hardware transition too early by aiming to launch its next console in 2005--just four years after the Xbox launch. Gosen even went so far as to suggest that games profitability is not Microsoft's key motivation, and described the current generational cycle as a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

"In every cycle, some manufacturer not profiting from the current cycle is eager to kick-start the next one," said Gosen, who went on to cite the failed 3DO console as an example of why he believes being the first console to market isn't necessarily important. "

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Well, a winner is you, I suppose. I'll just have to wait until next year to see if I'm right.

 

[beerbelly]

N5 and Xenon will have equal power...

That's because it will be the same system! Microsoft sharing intellectual property like Halo for gameboy is the first clue of the puzzle!!! [*crosses fingers*]

 

[jarrod]

While a Microsoft/Nintendo joint console was looking possible for a little while, that ship's already sailed it seems. I think the closest anyone can hope for a "united front" now is maybe Nintendo using XNA as an optional API/environment in Revolution...

 

[SolidSnakex]

While a Microsoft/Nintendo joint console was looking possible for a little while, that ship's already sailed it seems. /QUOTE]

Yah you have to wonder how many times Nintendo has to rip MS before people get they have no interest in teaming up with MS. MS might want to do it but Nintendo seems to have no interest in it. They both seem to have different views on the industry. As Nintendo keeps pointing out MS seems to be all ready for the next gen even though this one isn't done yet. They'd probably be too scared that if they did team up and things didn't go too well that MS would bail out and start up on another system.

 

[NWO]

Besides, I can see PLENTY of casuals actually believing that the next X-BOX is more powerful, despite launching up to a year before the competition *cough*DreamCast*cough*.

Well you already have many casuals that think that the PS2 is the most powerful system....so yeah I see that happening. You already see many people in denial that the Xbox's next system can even be the least powerful. They are like in shock or something thinking that THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY FOR IT TO BE WEAKER. MS already announced they want to make some money with the system and if they are cutting the harddrive and BC then I doubt they will even attempt to make this thing compete graphically.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

Having read the Gosen interview and also Microsoft's recent announcements about XNA, I find myself agreeing with Nintendo about the lifecycle of the consoles; basically a lot of it (except the violence issue).

I believe that even the PS2 still has 1-2 years left before the next next generation of consoles should hit. Nintendo is 100% correct about the current adopters and the current user base. I don't think that many people are excited and want their next gen fix now. In 1-2 years yes. Now, definitely no. In particular, with reference to the XBOX, it IS a souped up machine that can do hell of a lot and I expect to see even greater and more exciting titles on it (even though I don't/won't be buying them). The need/push on Microsoft's part to release a new console is simply ridiculous and Nintendo's statement nailed it. Their current XBOX1 console sales is going to cannibalise the sales of their XENON console and current adopters will not be happy. Launching early will not benefit M$. I believe that in the PS1/N64 gen, the need to transistion was quite apparent because of hardware improvements. And the PS2 with GT3 was quite the big step forward. There was a generational. And as good as I envision Next Gen visuals to be... I don't think it will be that much more different.

The biggest problem Nintendo created for themselves this gen was with their range of product at launch (no heavy hitters like Zelda, Prime or Mario).. and even more problematic was their kiddy lunch box cube design and launching INDIGO. (?!?) I have no doubt, next gen.. the new Nintendo console will be "cool". They've learnt this lesson from the GC,XBOX,PS2 gen debacle, the GBASP redesign and there is no question that after seeing the PSP and its cool design; we can expect a reshaped/reformed GBADS which will make it scream "look at me".

Nintendo next gen will be a force to reckon with. They can make the games and I do believe this (their news)

**

that comment about the casual's assumption that the xbox 2 will be more powerful. Trust me, if it ain't.. you're going to be hearing about it from EB to IGN to NIGER (if that's a real state that is)

 

[jarrod]

NIGER (if that's a real state that is)

It's a real nation at least. Geez, didn't anyone take geography in middle school?

 

[Redbeard]

I don't think that many people are excited and want their next gen fix now. In 1-2 years yes. Now, definitely no. ... The need/push on Microsoft's part to release a new console is simply ridiculous and Nintendo's statement nailed it.

What is this "push" you're talking about? In 1-2 years the Xbox 2 will launch, so by your own estimates Microsoft's timing will be spot on. Not that anyone actually knows when it'll launch. I would say holiday 2005 at the earliest, as MS still has some big games lined up for spring.

I have no doubt, next gen.. the new Nintendo console will be "cool".

I have a doubt.

 

[SolidSnakex]

"And the PS2 with GT3 was quite the big step forward. There was a generational. And as good as I envision Next Gen visuals to be... I don't think it will be that much more different."

You never know really, with the right developer next gen could be just as big. I mean Polphony's managed to go from this:

To this:

 

[TheGreenGiant]

how much candy can your eyes take?

I don't expect next gen games to be that much different from the best in this gen.Sure.. we have normal mapping. hdri.. but the games? And graphics wise, We've already seen super duper graphics via FMV so nothing can/will be startling. In FFVII-VIII, we have cruddy ingame graphics and stupendous FMV. FFX while not that close to being real FMV was way more impressive visually. The current gen manages to blur that line between FMV and ingame; especially with some of the XBOX titles like Rallisport, DOA, NG and REmakes/RE4.

Racers will be shinier and the roads more reflective/bumpy/real. Same games
FPS. More detailed. More immersive (could be good).

Better.. yes. But generational.. NO simply because for a long long time, developers will have to adjust. Look at how long DOOM 3/HL2 is taking to be produced

 

[ge-man]

I don't think the graphics jump will be huge either. I do expect a lot of exciting things to happen in the realm of AI. CPU power will hopefully will not be a strong of block as it was this generation. It's unfortunate that so much enegry is being wasted on debating next gen graphics when such more will be possible in other areas for games.

As for the main topic--I think MS and Nintendo will be close in specs, with Nintendo edging out MS. They will likely have more features availble to them because they are finalizing their specs latter than MS. Basically, I expect a reversal of positions in this next gen with the exception of even more parity between the platforms.

Even for one second I haven't believed that Iwata was planning on shipping a lesser console--developers will leave in droves in that scenario. I do think they have learned a valuable lessen from Sony and their own GB. That lessen is that software and gameplay are still the most important thing. The GB has slayed competitors that were much more powerful than it, while the PS2 could not be stop despite of other consoles that have more often than not shown real superiority in graphics.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Better.. yes. But generational.. NO simply because for a long long time, developers will have to adjust. Look at how long DOOM 3/HL2 is taking to be produced

Yes but look at the new UNREAL engine which is a definite generation jump. It's beyond anything we've seen technically. So that should be an idea of what we can expect next gen, and with it being shown now, we should get something even better toward the end of next gen. So I think we we'll see just as much of a jump next gen as we did this gen.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

yeah. but yeah. Its a FPS. They're really the same game, no matter how shiny the coat of paint. The dynamics/etc might help but its THE SAME GAME~! I guess its in the scripting and experience

core gameplay = A ----> B. Point, shoot. Reload.

mix in some storyline or slap in online modes.

Weee. FPS.

I am one of the few people who thought that E3 2003.. the crowd going ballistic over dual guns in Halo2 = gay. Teh Innovate.

 

[GigaDrive]

I really hope there are cross releases between Xenon and Revolution, meaning that a single disc could be played on both systems. But then people couldnt complain about sales unless everyone registered their game online.

well that cannot happen if Xenon and Revolution are using different chipsets. different memory. different bus configuration. etc. the two consoles won't be compatable.

 

[Duckhuntdog]

Nothing's confirmed about the final specs of the system...at least from what has been made publicly known, anyway. I think the CPUs in the final system will be customized versions of the PPC970. Who knows.

I can tell you final specs aren't that far off. Maybe a month or two.

 

[WordofGod]

I can tell you final specs aren't that far off. Maybe a month or two.

How certain are you sources?

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

Xbox2 may be finalized, if your to go by the interview in CVG.

 

[GuntherBait]

Could someone please list the facts about the new systems? I'm not arguing with anyone here. I'm simply stating my take on things...as I see others doing the same.

Sure.

There will be another Nintendo Console, there will be another Microsoft console, and there will be another Sony console.

Those are the facts, now you can argue.

 

[GigaDrive]

Sure.

There will be another Nintendo Console, there will be another Microsoft console, and there will be another Sony console.

Those are the facts, now you can argue.

I'm gussing there will be one more console, in addition to the three known ones. I predict someone like SNK-Playmore, Sammy-SEGA, or some other start-up company will introduce another next-gen console, between 2005 and 2007. even if it's just another Phantom/DISCover/APEX type console.

 

[GuntherBait]

I'm gussing there will be one more console, in addition to the three known ones. I predict someone like SNK-Playmore, Sammy-SEGA, or some other start-up company will introduce another next-gen console, between 2005 and 2007. even if it's just another Phantom/DISCover/APEX type console.

BUZZZZ Wrong. It's called the "Phantom"

 

[Particle Physicist]

Jarrod, are you saying that Nintendo is willing to lose as close to as much, if not more money on their next hardware initially than MS is to have comparable specs? If it is actually releasing a year or so ahead, that probably won't be the case for Nintendo. Still, I don't see the disparate difference in release timing. MS has only stated that it wants to beat Sony to launch. There's been nothing on their take on Nintendo's next gen system, that I've read.

I think Xenon and Revolution will be very close to each other in release timeframe. How else could we be seeing both debut at E3 next year? Though MS hasn't confirmed as much, its pretty much a given, I think. Nintendo's tended to show off their new console at E3 the same year they are releasing. It could still be possible that they release in '06, but I don't think so. It seems likely that MS wouldn't dare release without showing their system off at E3 first (no Saturn stealth-launch disaster wanted)...and that means that they'll be releasing that year, as well.

are you saying that MS is prepared to lose as much, initially, with the xenon as they did with the xbox? nintendo already stated that for the first time in their history, they will most likely sell hardware at a loss with the Revolution.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

And MH, Nintendo will most likely reveal their eye-toy, alternative control peripheral in the 4th qtr. of this year, or early '05 at the latest. So they would release a peripheral only to lose profit on it by launching their next console within that same, or the very next year? The Revolution is definitely '06 bound probably mere months before the PS3.

 

[GigaDrive]

remember the rumors & speculation about some form of sensory control in the Dolphin controllers? maybe this coming generation, that technology will finally be affordable for the mass market Nintendo aims at.

 

[Subitai]

The Gamecube has infinitely more power than the Xbox. Especially when it comes to completely sucking.

I keed! I keed!

You better be careful with that kidding. It hazardous to your health.

The good news for me is that Nintendo seems to have a concrete direction they want to go.

 

[Neutron Night]

Yay, Revolution will be MORE powerful than the GC! I thought it was going to be less. Yahoo! But if they think they can release their hardware 8 years after everyone else and still compete, they're sadly mistaken. This is Nintendo's last chance to get it right.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

"Who says it's launching a year prior? Who's presuming? Budgets won't be made known to the average gamer until they're both on the market, I'd guess. I don't see the new MS machine having something 'lesser' than the new Nintendo one."

Let them believe with that will. There is no point arguing with them. The day it's announced as 2006 console they'll post that they had a feeling all along that it would be just that .

Cutting costs on the Xbox design doesn't really need to be a complete abandoment of trying to create the most powerful machine. Anyone that has opened up an Xbox and looked at it after looking at a GameCube internally can see about a 100 ways to improve the design. The Xbox was just a collection of PC parts thrown together with some tweaks. Cost downs come from not going that route again imho, and not trying to make a machine that's going to get technically owned by either Nintendo or Sony. Don't blame Microsoft Xbox fans for hype. Read this thread, by all accounts there is nothing anyone could possible do to rival the PS3 technically. We haven't even seen Cell in action, and it's just so unbeatable. I'll believe it when I see it, just like I'll believe it when I see it for all 3 next gen. The best part about it all is going to be comparing the real specs when they are announced. That's the interesting part.

 

[GigaDrive]

in reply to what was discussed on the first page about Revolution's VPU vs Xenon's VPU, I believe the Revolution's graphics processor will be at least as good and strong as Xenon's, if not stronger. Revolution is coming later, Xenon earlier.


Gamecube had the disadvantage of being an older design than Xbox despite the fact they launched at about the same time. Gamecube was developed from 1998 to 2000. Xbox was developed from 2000 to 2001. Gamecube is at least 1 year older technology wise, if not a year and a few months.

Nintendo will have the luxary of seeing Xenon spec ahead of time, well before Xenon launches, and if they deem advantageous, Nintendo can choose boost Revolution's spec somewhat. therefore making Xenon the least powerful of the three. I don't expect Nintendo to match PS3 spec though. but they'll all be somewhat close anyway./

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Oh I respect yours in a general way...but when you state the following: I have to wonder.

I was speaking in general MH, & not singling you out as an X-drone.

 

[Duckhuntdog]

How certain are you sources?

They usually are spot on.

 

[Norse]

I wouldnt take the news of a 2005 launch to heart just yet...a lot of things can change if xbox has a great 2004. If sales of xbox start to challenge ps2 sales in the US and UK, and software sales do the same, why wouldnt MS just wait and launch in 2006...maybe a month or 2 before the others?

Even if the specs of the next xbox are finalized(per CVG), that doesnt mean its completely finalized. The gpu and cpu speeds could still change before its truely finalized.


Will it make much difference which machine is more powerful next gen? Maybe, but i think they will all be so close, the games will look and play the same on all 3.

Lastly, I don't think MS would launch a year earlier than the others without have the specs to be at least equal in power.

I still think it would be better to have consoles sold by multiple companies with the same chipsets. Like a pc...how many of us have the same pc model? We still play the same games on them. Some just have a better sound/video setup. But they still run the games. Xbox is just a pc in a smaller box. All the same chipset so its easier to get more power from it.

What if there were 3 consoles by the same manufacturer that all had the same basic specs? Only difference was price, and speed of cpu and video chip? That way, Madden football would play the same on all three...but the people that own HDTV's per say would buy the top model and Madden football would then have an option for 1080i mode? The middle console would top at 720p or so...game would play just as smoothe on the low end model but only support 480i as regular tv owners would buy it.

/shrug There are all sorts of things that could change down the road. Heck, with the above idea, you could go three console generations and still be able to play your old games just like on a pc. No emulator would be needed.

oh, XNA is good. Anything to help devs is good. Doesnt matter who the tools come from as long as they work across platforms.