Xbox 2 late 2005, Ps3 in 2007?

[JoeyN]

If you head over to IGN.com they have a article entitled Xbox 2005, ps2 2007?

 

 

In it they say that it looks like xbox 2/next will be coming out Christmas time 2005 ahead of ps3 . They also mention that ps3 may not arrive till 2007.

 

A intresting read. Who really knows

 

capt

[foogledricks]

I honestly don't know if either of those dates would be a good or bad move for Sony or Microsoft.

[rustyjaw]

Without reading the article, my feeling is that 2007 would be quite bad for Sony.

[Josh]

Hard to say.

 

I only have a few minutes, but a possible scenario is that 2005 will come and go, Xbox2 will be a better Xbox, Microsoft will continue to slowly grow their market, Sony will lose a little ground, but then...

 

Bam!

 

Because of an extra 2 years of development and unusual features, the PS3 kicks the Xbox2's ass technologically and everyone notices this. It will be just long enough after the Xbox2's release that people will suddenly have disposable income again, won't need to DECIDE between two consoles, and Sony creeps back in.

 

The notion of staggering the releases may just be a brilliant idea.

 

Or it could be Sony's demise.

 

Either way, I like the idea.

[foogledricks]

Ok, now that I have read the article, it seems that IGN seems pretty confident about the Xbox date. At this point I know of nothing that would make me think otherwise. Honestly, what games have Microsoft announced that aren't coming out this winter or next Spring? Perfect Dark, Dead or Alive 4, and Ninja Gaiden 2 are the only games I can think of, and they're all rumored as Xbox Next titles? Looking more and more like Fall 2005 is the date.

 

I'll reserve judgement until I read the official specs for the system, but I wish they would have waited one more year.

[JFo]

Let's please keep in mind that IGN is the one running the story here, and we all know how accurate some of their "news" can be.

 

Assuming that these dates are correct, I wonder why the big three (Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo) can't agree to meet in the middle and release all their systems in 2006. 2005 seems far to early to abandon the current generation consoles.

 

Originally posted by FreakTornado

Without reading the article, my feeling is that 2007 would be quite bad for Sony.

That was my impression, too. I always thought that one of the N64's downfalls was that it was released long after the Playstation came out. Hence, the PSX got quite a head start on the competition. Reading the article, however, it sounds as if Sony wants to incorporate their Blu-Ray technology into the PS3 and make it the only system capable of playing HD-DVDs. That might be as strong a selling point as the DVD playback was on the PS2.

 

Once again, assuming that these rumors are true, perhaps Sony thinks its success in two generations of gaming has earned it the right to release its next system whenever it wishes. The Dreamcast was crushed partly because Sony hyped the PS2 to the point where would-be Dreamcast purchasers decided to wait for the PS2 instead. Maybe Sony believes the same will happen with to the Xbox 2 if the PS3 is released later. To that I say, not likely. The Xbox has built up a lot of momentum, and I could certainly see a lot of gamers turning away from Sony and moving over to Microsoft to get their fill next-gen gaming goodness.

[JoeyN]

Putting Blu-Ray in the Ps3 could also be bad if blu ray looses the format war. A format war which is going to happen and may be like the old VHS vs Betamax battle. You can read about it on thedigitalbits.com. They had a little thing about it a few days back. PSX came out earlier and did well, PS2 came out earlier and did well. (yes i know Dreamcast came out early and didnt do so well, but that started with the saturn and the downfall of the sega consoles) Bringing Xbox 2 out at least a year early may help microsoft a lot if they can get a bunch of killer aps out in that time frame, keep growing there online community, and keep releasing killer games/exclusives which they have started to do. On the other hand it could go bad if they dont do all of that stuff. Like i said. Intresting to see what happens. Either way my pre-order would be in

 

capt

[Dino]

2005 seems far to early to abandon the current generation consoles

 

I have to agree.

[Graeme]

If this is true.... and MS can pull off a great lauch with a good system, and some good games, including 1 or 2 must buys.. the I'd say that the console war will be truely on this Generation.

 

A year and a half to 2 year advantage could be exactly the kind of slip up from Sony that MS and Nintendo need this round. If MS and/or Nintendo can get a strong enough foothold in the market, then it will be very hard for Sony to catch up, no matter how powerful the system is.

 

This seems most similar to the 16-bit war (except with a 3rd party involved). The Genesis had a huge jump in terms of time of the SNES, and it managed to etch out a lead before the SNES finally hit the market. Nintendo was able to crawl back... but there's one HUGE difference in this current senario. The Genesis did not have a great start, and it was extremely expensive at launch. It took Sega forever to get some decent 3rd parties invloved, and even their first party software wasn't all that fantastic. The system (IMO) was pretty much saved by EA's sports games, and a Blue Hedgehog. The fact that EA was a bit slow on porting their games to Nintendo's system, and they first generation from them was pathetic certainly didn't help Nintendo in the important (but not all important) sports genre.

[iainl]

On the other hand, a million rabid PS3 owners, starved as ever of quality launch games (and I don't just mean the PS2 - there are rarely if ever more than about 3 games worth buying in the first few months) could be just the push BluRay needs, actually. Launching PS3 six to twelve months after BluRay and HD-DVD would be their best chance at winning that war.

 

These hi-def formats I'd guess would be out around 2006, as they are going to want SD DVD sales to stabilise before they try to push another upgrade on consumers. So a 2007 release for PS3 sounds right. Sony will need those PS3 machines to use BluRay to justify all that research money, and tooling the plants up to make PS3 games spreads the cost of doing it for films as well.

 

But they won't want the PS3 out at BluRay's launch, for two reasons. Firstly, as with any format I'm expecting initial manufacturing capacity to start low, and you don't want to have both games and films fighting for that. Secondly, no-one would buy those $1000 first-gen dedicated players if they could buy a PS3 that does everything and play games too for far less, and you're not going to tell me that the PS3 would launch at anything like that much.

 

All this leads to one final interesting prediction: Since PS3 is almost certainly going to be able to play PS2 games, Sony are going to need a cost-effective way of reading both BluRay and DVD in the same player. From which its a very short leap to dual-format BluRay and HD-DVD players; we already know that they plan to be using largely the same encoding formats for the data.

[JoeyN]

I dont think that 1 year is gonna be enough if there is a format war for HD DVD to put it into a game system. Say HIgh Def dvd formats come out in 2006. the first year is pretty much going to be only early adapters into HT who are going to spend $600-$1000 or more on a player. Normal people who just got into dvd the last few years and bought all these movies/tv shows arent going to be so quick to get buy a new technology right away, expecially if they dont even have a HD ready TV yet. The second year price will drop a bit to around $300-$800 and so on down the line. Just look at how dvd progressed and that was with one solid DVD format with no compeition(divx was no competition). By the time the PS3 would come out in 2007 Blu Ray and HD-DVD would still be expensive, and still in a format war will be going on. If blu ray were to loose that war while its in the PS3. It would be screwed

 

capt

[Robot Monkey]

Originally posted by CaptDS9E@Jun 16 2004, 12:17 AM

(yes i know Dreamcast came out early and didnt do so well, but that started with the saturn and the downfall of the sega consoles)

I was going to mention the Dreamcast and you beat me to it!

 

One difference in my experience, however, was that when Dreamcast came out, I heard an awful lot of people saying things like "Yeah, Dreamcast looks great, but Sony has a new PlayStation coming out soon! Sony!" and "Did you know the PS2 plays DVD's?! How wild is that?!"

 

I've been hearing (and believe) that releasing the Xbox2 in advance of the PS3 can be a big deal. But if Sony's hype machine beats MS's hype machine, we could be hearing "Yeah, Xbox2 looks great, but Sony has a new PlayStation coming out soon! Sony!" and "Did you know the PS3 can act like a Tivo?! How wild is that?!"

 

-j

[merlot]

I'm not crazy about a 2005 release date for the Xbox. I'm pretty content with the current Xbox (and Gamecube). I think there's still much potential left in both systems.

 

I don't like everything I've been hearing about the next Xbox. I don't like this early release, I don't like it won't have a HD or backwards compatibility. The current Xbox's advantage over the PS2 is that it's more powerful and most games look much better on it. Having a more powerful PS3, it would lose that advantage, although I'm assuming later release = more powerful console. Secondly, the current Xbox has a much better structured online component. Is Sony planning somethig similar with PS3?

 

At any rate, I will still support the next Xbox and look forward to it. I'm just worried MS is doing things wrong by going the more conservative route. It seems there won't be anythig to make it stand out. Sony has a huge library and Nintendo has it's first party. What will MS have?

[Baiter]

I'll wait to pass judgement on either system, but 2005 for the xbox sounds just about right. :tu: MS wants to keep developers happy by making games easily ported from the xbox to a pc, or vice versa. To do this the xbox needs to at least have the horsepower of a low end gaming pc, which it currently doesn't have. :roll:

 

You can bet I'll be taking a day off on the release date.

[The Daisy]

They just have to weigh the release of the console when the bulk of their previous console sales have happened in the last two years.

 

I think releasing a new console 4 years after your last one is probably not the best idea, but they're Microsoft, they can afford to take risks like this.

 

It took me two years to buy an Xbox, and I'd guess that I wouldn't be picking up an Xbox 2 for a few years at least. I'd rather evaluate all of the console options and see where to go with my cash then.

 

Glen

[Mark E]

I'd rather evaluate all of the console options and see where to go with my cash then.

 

Pfft, c'mon Glen, you'll be first in line to get the new Nintendo console and I'll likely be there right behind you .

 

I'd personally rather MS left things for another year, as noted before, I believe the current crop have life left in them still. Capcom is clearly working the Cube like a mill to get graphics out of it, the X-Box titles have always looked great. It'd seem more likely for the PS2 to get a jump on the current systems since hardware-wise it's typically singled out as the lesser of the three.

 

But again, they have the majority market share, so they can wait too. Blech, I don't want consoles to turn into the arms race equivalent of PC gaming, that's why I have a console.

[JFo]

Originally posted by Pharmboy@Jun 16 2004, 04:07 PM

Pfft, c'mon Glen, you'll be first in line to get the new Nintendo console and I'll likely be there right behind you .

Meanwhile, I'll just be sitting at home, playing games on the one I imported from Japan. :green:

 

(That is assuming that I can get it to play American games, but that's getting into modding territory, which we don't allow here on the forum. I'll shut up now.)

[Dan B.]

Blech, I don't want consoles to turn into the arms race equivalent of PC gaming, that's why I have a console.

Ditto on that. Late 2006 is what I'm planning on, a little later would be OK, but I'm not looking to buy anything next year already.

[Calvin]

I'll still most likely get all 3 systems - but I think that MS & Xbox Next coming next year (2005) would be a mistake. You don't need to be the first coming out of the gate,IMHO. As long as you are competitive,have good/superior product,that is fine with me.

 

I really can't think of many PS2 games I'll be buying for the rest of the year. That's simply because most multiplatform games look & sound better on my Xbox. If that happens to change in the next round, & either Nintendo's system or the PS3 have the best lot of those type of games,that is where my gaming dollars will go.

 

I also hope that they will put in backwards compability for Xbox 2/Next. It is a convinence thing for me. I love to collect systems - but I only have so much space in my stand for so many systems.

 

For Microsoft to advance in the gaming wars,they need to learn from their mistakes & apply what they have learned. Time will tell if they have done so...

[Big Daddy Bling Bling]

I think this is a bad move for Microsoft and it could damage the Xbox brand. Both Playstation consoles have survived on having a huge selection of games and Nintendo consoles have a reputation for excellent first party games. Up to this point, the Xbox has really made a name for itself as the most powerful console with the best features. A weaker system with a reduced feature set is not really what I expected out of Xbox2, and I suspect that many other people who fell in love with the original Xbox feel the same.

 

Most of the Xbox games I own right now are quality PC ports, games that are on other systems but best on Xbox, Sega stuff, and MS first and second party games. An early launch means that the ability of the Xbox2 to handle PC ports will be severly hurt later on down the line, and multiplatform games will no longer be best on Xbox. Sega seems to have moved to other consoles. That leaves only Microsoft's own games as selling points. While I am a HUGE fan of Microsoft's efforts so far, only Halo has a lot of mainstream exposure. Most of the world doesn't know how great Project Gotham, Crimson Skies, Mechassault, Rallisport, etc. are.

 

I think it will be a kickass couple of years from 2005-2007, much like the Dreamcast provided. However, Microsoft's only chance for life beyond 2007 is drastically growing Xbox Live, and using that 2 year window to get a lot of support from companies like Capcom, Konami, etc.

[foogledricks]

An early launch means that the ability of the Xbox2 to handle PC ports will be severly hurt later on down the line

Bling, I agree with almost every single point you made - except this one. Whether XBOX 2 comes out next year, in 4 years, or tomorrow, it has no bearing on its shelf life for handling PC ports. PC technology advances at the same rate no matter what the consoles do or when they are released.

[Big Daddy Bling Bling]

It won't have an affect on the length of time that the Xbox2 can handle good PC ports, but it will have an effect on the timing of it. What I mean to say is, th Xbox1 is doing a great job right now, and squeezing every last drop out of it means that the Xbox2 will be viable for a longer point of time in relation to the PS3. With such a big time gap between the Xbox2 and PS3 and my current impression that the PS3 hardware may be revolutionary while the Xbox2 merely evolutionary, we will end up with a magnified reversal of what is occuring on the current systems. Even the technological gap between Xbox and PS2 has had gameplay implications in titles like Splinter Cell: PT. Under the current plans, the technological gap between Xbox2 and PS3 looks to be much bigger than what we're experiencing in the current generation. Perhaps this might be mitigated if MS keeps the Xbox2 life cycle shorter than average. I'd actually like that, I don't mind buying new hardware on a more frequent basis than what is currently the norm.

[General Zot]

Here's a nice article saying why this may be a disaster for MS:

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page....me=pub&aid=3635

 

Good food for thought.

[Baiter]

Originally posted by Snakefish@Jun 18 2004, 05:35 PM

Here's a nice article saying why this may be a disaster for MS:

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page....me=pub&aid=3635

 

Good food for thought.

Interesting article, but I think a lot of the logic is flawed. :? I would think developers would welcome developing the frame work for xbox 2 prior to playstation 3, the worst case scenario would be having to develop both simultaneously, no?

 

I also find it hard to believe that MS hasn't already locked up sufficient titles to ensure an eye popping launch, and a framework for developers to build on. :tu:

[General Zot]

I agree Baiter, but it does bring up a few interesting points.

 

Like if a developer had to support all the current gen consoles and then xbox 2, would the xbox 2 version stand out or just look like a slightly upgraded port of the xbox / ps2 version? And would people buy a $300 console if most of the games looked the same as the console they already owned? I think a lot of the people on this forum (and me) would say yes, but would Joe Six-Pack? I don't know...

 

I don't think it's a mistake by MS and I don't think it'll be a disaster, but it might not work out exactly the way they have it planned either.