Note: This is a long post... so if you hate reading ignore 
It also is not anti-Sony as you will see. It is more inquisitive about how the next gen is shaping up... it is meant to stimulate discussion. None of my statements are to be taken as "this is the only way" but more of "what if" and "lets consider". Oh, and it was written at 3am Oh, and for those who do not want to read all of this, my basic conclusion is:
Are there chinks in Sony's PS3 strategy?
Before I begin my thought spamming, I will admit we do not know much about the PS3 yet. Just basics from the patents and news clippings here and there. So there are no new revelations here, just me pulling some of my ideas together concerning Sony's PS3 strategy.
The following is primarily is about the HW with a spattering of other relevant issues. As we all know, HW is only one of many factors that affect a consoles success. I personally believe that marketing and game developer support are more important than HW. You need good HW, but completive HW is more than sufficient with effective marketing and broad developer support with a good library of exclusives. So my thoughts/questions about the PS3 Strategy are skewed... just an FYI.
For MS/Nintendo to gain significant ground will require not only a great product with robust 3rd party support but also for Sony to make some noticeable mistakes that MS/Nintendo can capitalize on. I was thinking about this and began breaking down Sony's current Hardware strategy. Are their chinks in the PS3 HW strategy? I have to say I am pretty impressed with what we know:
• BR... 50GB of data for HD TV/DVD playback. Big and Fast. No arguing against bigger and faster, and considering exclusive support from Sony's in-house movie studios and growing support from the entire market it looks like BR has a better than good chance to be the HD storage medium of choice.
• CELL... If the CELL pulls of a couple hundred GFLOPs the PS3 CPU will have significant processing overhead compared to PCs and the other consoles. While the Xenon CPU looks very efficient and elegant, there is no denying that the CELL processor is going to chew through gaming data. And if the rumors that the CELL will be doing the Vertex Shading, PS3 may have geometry intensive games like we never imaged for this next gen--stuff that will blow current PCs away. CELL looks to handle AI, physics, and geometry like a champ--and those are important for game consoles. And this is if the CELL only does a hundred or two GFLOPs... no need to mention the marketing hype numbers
• nVidia NV50 / GF 7xxx series GPU... We all know the basic scoop on the R500 (Unified Shaders, SM 3.0+, enhanced memory interface) but we know nothing of nVidia's next big project. What we do know is that final silicone should be available at the end of 2005. This mean an extra 6-10 months of development compared to the R500. If CELL does all the vertex shading this may open up some transistor real-estate for more PS units. Having more, efficient "pixel shading only" PS units on the GPU, while CELL does VS, could be impressive to say the least.
• XDR Ram... 50+ GB/s of bandwidth for 256MB--and possibly more if Sony goes with 512MB and/or faster chips. This is ~80% increase in bandwidth over current top end GPUs which only have bandwidth issues at high resolutions (1600x1200) with AA/AF enabled. With a lot of bandwidth to spare we may be looking at features like high levels of AA, fp blending and HDRL, and other bandwidth intensive features (motion blur?) being standard features on the PS3, especially at 720p.
• Strong Gaming Brand... Playstation. Need I say more? 80M consoles sold within 5 years in each of the last 2 generations. Playstation is hip and the mainstream consumer trusts it and wants it. I remember when "Nintendo" was synonymous with video games, that can is no longer true. PS2's success makes it clear that Playstation and video games are tied at the hip, at least for the time being.
• Largest 3rd party support... The PS had a huge game library. And while the PS2 may be a pain to program for comparatively and tends to have the ugliest games on cross platform games, it still has done well. Why? Developer support is very broad and meets a huge range of gaming tastes. With top of the line HW next generation with more power than most developers will know what to do with, MS and Nintendo will need to come up with some significant reasons to get them to get off the winning bandwagon, especially when the future looks bright.
From a HW perspective I must say I am just floored that they are aiming to put this thing in a console. So I ask: Is there any weaknesses in Sony's PS3 strategy?
I honestly have a very good feeling about the PS3. I think Sony has done something Nintendo has had a problem with in the past: Swallowing their pride. The nVidia deal means good stuff for developers and gamers alike. Yet Sony has also assembled a cast of cutting edge HW and does not look to be cutting corners. From the rough specs it looks like the 3rd generation of 3D consoles are finally overcoming a lot of the hurdles creating 3D games and art in real-time and Sony looks to be on the forefront of this assault.
With that said I will raise some points for us to discuss. Some are more valid than others, and some may be totally irrelevant, but oh well Sometimes cracks show up in the most unlikely of places.
• Cost... It was stated in yesterdays news on XDR that Rambus is expecting to extract a "visible premium" for XDR prices compared to GDDR3. Spin this any way you want, there is no way getting around the fact this stuff will be initially very expensive. BR is new and has more expensive parts than DVD or HD-DVD. Add in the additional cost/time it takes to make BR media and we are looking at smaller profit margins on BR drives and BR media until things settle down. And CELL... how many Billion have they put into this thing? A lot... they have to recover this investment. And how many CELLs are they planning to put into each PS3 CPU? I thought the point of CELL was how numerous CELLs worked together, so only one CELL would be disappointing from this perspective as it neutralizes one of the main features of the CELL. If 1TFLOP was really the goal we may be looking at 4 or more CELLS! While we will not know for sure for at least another month or two, if Sony decides to pack a lot of CELLS in the PS3 CPU it is going to be a very expensive part until the process can shrink to 45nm. With a release in 2006 and most console sales coming after 2007 these may be less of an issue, but Sony will probably be losing a tidy sum on each new console at launch.
Possible negative: Very expensive; could end up being most expensive console.
• RAM... It seems to be a fair statement to say that RAM is expected to be a large, if not the largest, bottleneck on the new consoles. While Sony could splurge on the RAM and put 512MB into the PS3, look at the expensive stuff going into the PS3. CELL, XDR, a nVidia GPU (a license, so they wont do too bad there), and BR. Can Sony afford to pay 2x as much to double the RAM when they already have many expensive cutting edge components? What happens if MS (and Nintendo) decide to go with 512MB of RAM?
Possible negative: May be difficult to match other consoles if they have more RAM.
• Pricing war... With a year head start MS may be able to be the first to make price cuts. Price points are vital. A solid console with great games is not enough. It has to be affordable. Reaching a balance between price and perceived value is very important. With MS releasing a year earlier, and most likely with more affordable parts (GDDR3/4, DVD) it would seem the ball would be in MS court for pricing. If MS is very serious about building a large install base they may choose to be very aggressive on their price points to stay ahead of Sony, and not just on par. Consumers may be in a position that at the PS3 launch Xenon is $50 cheaper and has more games. If MS can keep a better price point and have a continual flow of games (which I think will happen now that MS is established in the console biz and XNA) this could really sway the console war. I think MS knows that when going against the leader it is not enough to be better, you have to be better and provide more at a lower price. If MS is aggressive with this philosophy it could get very expensive for Sony.
Possible negative: The expense of the PS3 may allow MS to undercut Sony on price, or at least dictate pricing.
• Xbox/MS gaining significant steam in the US... Halo and Halo 2 are having a nice little halo effect for the Xbox (pun intended). While doing miserably in Japan, Xbox has done pretty well, especially lately, in the US. And this is for a console that released later, had a slow start comparatively with software, has had to establish killer apps and exclusives, and most of all doing so at a higher price point. The momentum MS has may be able to be capitalized on in the beginning of the next gen just as the PS wave of success rolled right over to the PS2. Some of the hardest battle for MS was convincing developers and gamers that their console was worth giving a chance. 18M consoles later MS has shown they are serious about making good consoles and good games. MS and the Halo brand are really hot right now. MS did not have this with the Xbox launch, so we are looking at some quality momentum in the US.
Possible negative: MS has gained a lot of momentum in the US that may carry over into the Xenon launch.
• Xbox Live... I have read some comments that Sony (and Nintendo) will try to compete with Xbox LIVE! when online gaming is available to more consumers. While that sounds great is theory, the fact is a stable and gamer friendly network with the features and options gamers want does not spring up overnight. While Sony could certainly compete with a strong investment, Xbox! is here NOW and has a solid reputation. Anything Sony does will be compared to Xbox Live--to get the attention of online gamers Sony will need to be close to, if not better, than Live to get their attention. Online gaming is still a small portion of the gaming community, but it is growing quickly and will be an important factor in the "coolness" of the new consoles and a consideration for the thoughtful consumer. The "coolness" factor is important to any console with early adopters and the word of mouth of a console.
Possible negative: Online networks are not an overnight success. Sony has a lot of work ahead to catch MS.
• BR... a little to early to matter? When the PS2 came out DVD movies had been available for a couple years and there was a lot of public interest in the higher quality DVD movies that could be played on their current TVs. BR on the other hand only benefits users of HD TVs and has no movies out at all that I know of. While I am getting the feeling BR will best HD-DVD due to wide support, exclusives, and superior specs, those are all future. BR, to motivate large consumer interest, will require mass penetration of HD TV and a large library of movies. BR does not have this nor is likely to have it at the PS3 launch. DVD had the medium install base (TVs) and a large library of movies when the PS2 launch.
Possible negative: The HD TV install base and movie library wont be large enough to make the same impact that DVD support did with the PS2.
• CELL... Wasn't this thing supposed to work best with numerous CPUs? While no one is certain, there is a possibility the PS3 could ship with one CELL. While CELL is as much about the future as it is the present, this could affect Sony's projections they had for the PS3. Another issue is the CELL design. While the Xenon may have 3-6 CPUs, each with 1 or 2 vector units, CELL may have one PU CPU core and eight S|APUs. In such a scenario the Xenon would not look to bad, especially when we consider there is a good chance the CELL may be tasked with doing Vertex Shading. This is all conjecture on both ends, but the idea that CELL is going to wipe the floor with the Xenon/Revolution CPUs is by no means a forgone conclusion.
Possible negative: The CELL could be less than the hype.
• nVidia GPU... Working silicone is expected by the end of 2005. If the PS3 is released in the Spring of 2006 in Japan that leaves a handful of months to get games working before the launch. It also means Xenon developers would have had about a year of time working with the Xenon dev kits before the PS3 kits (with finalized GPU hw) were available. This means some larger developers will have released a game for the Xenon launch in 2005 and be starting their 2nd gen titles before the PS3 GPU is available. The nVidia GPU is already going to be substantially better for consumers to see the difference, throw in the short development schedule and 1st gen PS3 titles may not look much better, if at all, than 1st gen Xenon titles.
Possible negative: Final GPU wont be in developer hands until end of 2005 which is close to the Spring 2006 Japan launch.
• Programming difficulty... Ok, ok, we all heard about this with the PS2 but did it really matter? A large install base seems to balance out any difficulties... and the difficulty was tied more to the power of the console and not necessarily bad design decisions:cough::Sega Saturn and the late addition of an additional CPU::cough:. But CELL is proposing a new way to look at things--lots of CPUs doing a lot of threads at the same time. When you throw in the additional issues of the GPU accessing cache, well, I would expect some growing pains. When we consider the fact development costs for next gen games are expected to go up substantially, will a radically different architecture be the straw that breaks the camels back for many smaller developers?
Possible negative: The cost of next gen game development and possible difficulties with the PS3 may make some developers consider other options like...
• XNA... MS home turf. MS has done two things with XNA: 1) Made cross plat forming between the PC and Xenon easier. This means developers will have access to two install bases while developing games with XNA. This means more cutting edge PC games may make it to the Xenon faster. 2) Streamlining of middleware to help push development along. If this (a) cuts costs and/or (b) quickens the development process MS will get a lot of attention from developers.
Possible negative: Even if the PS3 is not a bear to develop for, the Xenon may be easier. While the nVidia deal helps, MS has ATi and is on their home turf when we start talking about software and development.
• A year late... We all know being early does not guarantee success, and that being early can actually be a bad thing. But if Xenon can have a successful launch and ends up with a significant head start on Sony by the time the PS3 launches it could be in for a battle, at least in the states. If MS tosses out a quality Halo title at the launch of the PS3 and is able to impress gamers with a library of early "must have" games Sony could see themselves having their first real competition since the PS. The early release of the Xenon is most hurtful if Sony comes in at a much higher price point with the PS3 and if developers have had a hard time coping with the possibility of have little time with the GPU. MS will also have a year head start on Sony with their next-gen LIVE service. So MS would have Xbox Live and Xenon Live experience under their belt to go up against any services Sony had to offer. Another factor is that if MS sees the PS3 picking up steam in Japan MS could cut their prices before the US launch. Sony and MS may very well be switching roles on price in the next gen. A year late is not the end of the world, but throw in some other variables that make the Xenon desirable to consumers and we got a battle going.
Possible negative: In conjunction with other variables a year head start by MS could be bad news for Sony if they cannot deliver a competitively priced console with a library of quality games.
The CELL world... Is a lot of hype MS is serious about the living room. The living room is about using technology in a wise and realistic manner that is enjoyable and efficient. Many have tried to get into the living room, including MS, and failed. MS has experience, has a ton of resources, and has the software background to make this work. There are a lot of MS haters out there (and even on these forums) but MS is not dumb. The fact is MS knows the living room is a significant part of the future and will fight for it 'till the last. They will not be happy being 2nd best. MS also has a huge install base of PCs to leverage with the Xenon for networking and managing content and information. The living room is wide open, but Sony PR throwing around words like "CELL world" does not equate to success or even an enjoyable product. Sony makes good consoles, has good marketing, and has been able to develop good game libraries. And imo the living room wont be seriously fought over until 2010-12 when broadband is more available in the US.
Possible negative: Becoming the information/entertainment hub in the living room is a huge task that is a new battle with new consumers and is anyone’s game.
Nintendo!... Nintendo may actually make something revolutionary. Nintendo is also seeking to make the game development process more affordable. Nintendo still makes great games. We just do not know much about their HW or plans, so not much to say less Nintendo cannot be ignored. If Nintendo comes in with a "Games Only" Machine at $100 cheaper than the PS3 at launch and has some innovative features Sony may find fighting an established Xenon and innovative Nintendo a tough prospect.
Possible negative: Nintendo could surprise everyone (me included, and I like Nintendo's games a lot yet I still find myself doubting)... and if they offer a revolutionary product it may take attention away from the PS3 launch.
My conclusions: Are there clear chinks in Sony's HW armor? Not really. Are there opportunities? Yes. But they really require Sony to drop the ball and MS/Nintendo to have solutions to those problems.
So it would seem for MS/Nintendo to gain significant ground on the PS3 will require great marketing, killer apps people want, broad developer support, and a little luck. But my guess is that to be within 10% of Sony PS3 sales after 3 or 4 years of the PS3 release will require Sony to make some significant mistakes or some unforeseen changes in the industry.
And on a side note, the PS3 is very forward looking. BR will be a nice feature for HD TV users and with more and more people having HD TVs its effect will be more pronounced as time goes on. And CELL is as much about the PS4 as it is the PS3 imo. CELL creates a long-term platform for development and backwards compatibility. Imagine what developers will be able to do with one CELL after 5 years of experience... then hand them 16 or 32 CELLS on a single CPU. They will already be familiar with CELL and because of the streaming nature of CELL should be able to exploit the power of the PS4 quickly.
Things are looking very bright for Sony. But this has not put a cloud over my Xenon excitement--MS really looks to have put a great design together with Xenon. Rare launch titles and Halo 3 are some pretty good reasons to get excited... it will also be exciting getting more facts on all three consoles!
It also is not anti-Sony as you will see. It is more inquisitive about how the next gen is shaping up... it is meant to stimulate discussion. None of my statements are to be taken as "this is the only way" but more of "what if" and "lets consider". Oh, and it was written at 3am Oh, and for those who do not want to read all of this, my basic conclusion is:Those were my conclusions, as of now. Feel free to try to change them any way you want
Are there chinks in Sony's PS3 strategy?
Before I begin my thought spamming, I will admit we do not know much about the PS3 yet. Just basics from the patents and news clippings here and there. So there are no new revelations here, just me pulling some of my ideas together concerning Sony's PS3 strategy.
The following is primarily is about the HW with a spattering of other relevant issues. As we all know, HW is only one of many factors that affect a consoles success. I personally believe that marketing and game developer support are more important than HW. You need good HW, but completive HW is more than sufficient with effective marketing and broad developer support with a good library of exclusives. So my thoughts/questions about the PS3 Strategy are skewed... just an FYI.
For MS/Nintendo to gain significant ground will require not only a great product with robust 3rd party support but also for Sony to make some noticeable mistakes that MS/Nintendo can capitalize on. I was thinking about this and began breaking down Sony's current Hardware strategy. Are their chinks in the PS3 HW strategy? I have to say I am pretty impressed with what we know:
• BR... 50GB of data for HD TV/DVD playback. Big and Fast. No arguing against bigger and faster, and considering exclusive support from Sony's in-house movie studios and growing support from the entire market it looks like BR has a better than good chance to be the HD storage medium of choice.
• CELL... If the CELL pulls of a couple hundred GFLOPs the PS3 CPU will have significant processing overhead compared to PCs and the other consoles. While the Xenon CPU looks very efficient and elegant, there is no denying that the CELL processor is going to chew through gaming data. And if the rumors that the CELL will be doing the Vertex Shading, PS3 may have geometry intensive games like we never imaged for this next gen--stuff that will blow current PCs away. CELL looks to handle AI, physics, and geometry like a champ--and those are important for game consoles. And this is if the CELL only does a hundred or two GFLOPs... no need to mention the marketing hype numbers
• nVidia NV50 / GF 7xxx series GPU... We all know the basic scoop on the R500 (Unified Shaders, SM 3.0+, enhanced memory interface) but we know nothing of nVidia's next big project. What we do know is that final silicone should be available at the end of 2005. This mean an extra 6-10 months of development compared to the R500. If CELL does all the vertex shading this may open up some transistor real-estate for more PS units. Having more, efficient "pixel shading only" PS units on the GPU, while CELL does VS, could be impressive to say the least.
• XDR Ram... 50+ GB/s of bandwidth for 256MB--and possibly more if Sony goes with 512MB and/or faster chips. This is ~80% increase in bandwidth over current top end GPUs which only have bandwidth issues at high resolutions (1600x1200) with AA/AF enabled. With a lot of bandwidth to spare we may be looking at features like high levels of AA, fp blending and HDRL, and other bandwidth intensive features (motion blur?) being standard features on the PS3, especially at 720p.
• Strong Gaming Brand... Playstation. Need I say more? 80M consoles sold within 5 years in each of the last 2 generations. Playstation is hip and the mainstream consumer trusts it and wants it. I remember when "Nintendo" was synonymous with video games, that can is no longer true. PS2's success makes it clear that Playstation and video games are tied at the hip, at least for the time being.
• Largest 3rd party support... The PS had a huge game library. And while the PS2 may be a pain to program for comparatively and tends to have the ugliest games on cross platform games, it still has done well. Why? Developer support is very broad and meets a huge range of gaming tastes. With top of the line HW next generation with more power than most developers will know what to do with, MS and Nintendo will need to come up with some significant reasons to get them to get off the winning bandwagon, especially when the future looks bright.
From a HW perspective I must say I am just floored that they are aiming to put this thing in a console. So I ask: Is there any weaknesses in Sony's PS3 strategy?
I honestly have a very good feeling about the PS3. I think Sony has done something Nintendo has had a problem with in the past: Swallowing their pride. The nVidia deal means good stuff for developers and gamers alike. Yet Sony has also assembled a cast of cutting edge HW and does not look to be cutting corners. From the rough specs it looks like the 3rd generation of 3D consoles are finally overcoming a lot of the hurdles creating 3D games and art in real-time and Sony looks to be on the forefront of this assault.
With that said I will raise some points for us to discuss. Some are more valid than others, and some may be totally irrelevant, but oh well
Sometimes cracks show up in the most unlikely of places.• Cost... It was stated in yesterdays news on XDR that Rambus is expecting to extract a "visible premium" for XDR prices compared to GDDR3. Spin this any way you want, there is no way getting around the fact this stuff will be initially very expensive. BR is new and has more expensive parts than DVD or HD-DVD. Add in the additional cost/time it takes to make BR media and we are looking at smaller profit margins on BR drives and BR media until things settle down. And CELL... how many Billion have they put into this thing? A lot... they have to recover this investment. And how many CELLs are they planning to put into each PS3 CPU? I thought the point of CELL was how numerous CELLs worked together, so only one CELL would be disappointing from this perspective as it neutralizes one of the main features of the CELL. If 1TFLOP was really the goal we may be looking at 4 or more CELLS! While we will not know for sure for at least another month or two, if Sony decides to pack a lot of CELLS in the PS3 CPU it is going to be a very expensive part until the process can shrink to 45nm. With a release in 2006 and most console sales coming after 2007 these may be less of an issue, but Sony will probably be losing a tidy sum on each new console at launch.
Possible negative: Very expensive; could end up being most expensive console.
• RAM... It seems to be a fair statement to say that RAM is expected to be a large, if not the largest, bottleneck on the new consoles. While Sony could splurge on the RAM and put 512MB into the PS3, look at the expensive stuff going into the PS3. CELL, XDR, a nVidia GPU (a license, so they wont do too bad there), and BR. Can Sony afford to pay 2x as much to double the RAM when they already have many expensive cutting edge components? What happens if MS (and Nintendo) decide to go with 512MB of RAM?
Possible negative: May be difficult to match other consoles if they have more RAM.
• Pricing war... With a year head start MS may be able to be the first to make price cuts. Price points are vital. A solid console with great games is not enough. It has to be affordable. Reaching a balance between price and perceived value is very important. With MS releasing a year earlier, and most likely with more affordable parts (GDDR3/4, DVD) it would seem the ball would be in MS court for pricing. If MS is very serious about building a large install base they may choose to be very aggressive on their price points to stay ahead of Sony, and not just on par. Consumers may be in a position that at the PS3 launch Xenon is $50 cheaper and has more games. If MS can keep a better price point and have a continual flow of games (which I think will happen now that MS is established in the console biz and XNA) this could really sway the console war. I think MS knows that when going against the leader it is not enough to be better, you have to be better and provide more at a lower price. If MS is aggressive with this philosophy it could get very expensive for Sony.
Possible negative: The expense of the PS3 may allow MS to undercut Sony on price, or at least dictate pricing.
• Xbox/MS gaining significant steam in the US... Halo and Halo 2 are having a nice little halo effect for the Xbox (pun intended). While doing miserably in Japan, Xbox has done pretty well, especially lately, in the US. And this is for a console that released later, had a slow start comparatively with software, has had to establish killer apps and exclusives, and most of all doing so at a higher price point. The momentum MS has may be able to be capitalized on in the beginning of the next gen just as the PS wave of success rolled right over to the PS2. Some of the hardest battle for MS was convincing developers and gamers that their console was worth giving a chance. 18M consoles later MS has shown they are serious about making good consoles and good games. MS and the Halo brand are really hot right now. MS did not have this with the Xbox launch, so we are looking at some quality momentum in the US.
Possible negative: MS has gained a lot of momentum in the US that may carry over into the Xenon launch.
• Xbox Live... I have read some comments that Sony (and Nintendo) will try to compete with Xbox LIVE! when online gaming is available to more consumers. While that sounds great is theory, the fact is a stable and gamer friendly network with the features and options gamers want does not spring up overnight. While Sony could certainly compete with a strong investment, Xbox! is here NOW and has a solid reputation. Anything Sony does will be compared to Xbox Live--to get the attention of online gamers Sony will need to be close to, if not better, than Live to get their attention. Online gaming is still a small portion of the gaming community, but it is growing quickly and will be an important factor in the "coolness" of the new consoles and a consideration for the thoughtful consumer. The "coolness" factor is important to any console with early adopters and the word of mouth of a console.
Possible negative: Online networks are not an overnight success. Sony has a lot of work ahead to catch MS.
• BR... a little to early to matter? When the PS2 came out DVD movies had been available for a couple years and there was a lot of public interest in the higher quality DVD movies that could be played on their current TVs. BR on the other hand only benefits users of HD TVs and has no movies out at all that I know of. While I am getting the feeling BR will best HD-DVD due to wide support, exclusives, and superior specs, those are all future. BR, to motivate large consumer interest, will require mass penetration of HD TV and a large library of movies. BR does not have this nor is likely to have it at the PS3 launch. DVD had the medium install base (TVs) and a large library of movies when the PS2 launch.
Possible negative: The HD TV install base and movie library wont be large enough to make the same impact that DVD support did with the PS2.
• CELL... Wasn't this thing supposed to work best with numerous CPUs? While no one is certain, there is a possibility the PS3 could ship with one CELL. While CELL is as much about the future as it is the present, this could affect Sony's projections they had for the PS3. Another issue is the CELL design. While the Xenon may have 3-6 CPUs, each with 1 or 2 vector units, CELL may have one PU CPU core and eight S|APUs. In such a scenario the Xenon would not look to bad, especially when we consider there is a good chance the CELL may be tasked with doing Vertex Shading. This is all conjecture on both ends, but the idea that CELL is going to wipe the floor with the Xenon/Revolution CPUs is by no means a forgone conclusion.
Possible negative: The CELL could be less than the hype.
• nVidia GPU... Working silicone is expected by the end of 2005. If the PS3 is released in the Spring of 2006 in Japan that leaves a handful of months to get games working before the launch. It also means Xenon developers would have had about a year of time working with the Xenon dev kits before the PS3 kits (with finalized GPU hw) were available. This means some larger developers will have released a game for the Xenon launch in 2005 and be starting their 2nd gen titles before the PS3 GPU is available. The nVidia GPU is already going to be substantially better for consumers to see the difference, throw in the short development schedule and 1st gen PS3 titles may not look much better, if at all, than 1st gen Xenon titles.
Possible negative: Final GPU wont be in developer hands until end of 2005 which is close to the Spring 2006 Japan launch.
• Programming difficulty... Ok, ok, we all heard about this with the PS2 but did it really matter? A large install base seems to balance out any difficulties... and the difficulty was tied more to the power of the console and not necessarily bad design decisions
:cough::Sega Saturn and the late addition of an additional CPU::cough:. But CELL is proposing a new way to look at things--lots of CPUs doing a lot of threads at the same time. When you throw in the additional issues of the GPU accessing cache, well, I would expect some growing pains. When we consider the fact development costs for next gen games are expected to go up substantially, will a radically different architecture be the straw that breaks the camels back for many smaller developers?Possible negative: The cost of next gen game development and possible difficulties with the PS3 may make some developers consider other options like...
• XNA... MS home turf. MS has done two things with XNA: 1) Made cross plat forming between the PC and Xenon easier. This means developers will have access to two install bases while developing games with XNA. This means more cutting edge PC games may make it to the Xenon faster. 2) Streamlining of middleware to help push development along. If this (a) cuts costs and/or (b) quickens the development process MS will get a lot of attention from developers.
Possible negative: Even if the PS3 is not a bear to develop for, the Xenon may be easier. While the nVidia deal helps, MS has ATi and is on their home turf when we start talking about software and development.
• A year late... We all know being early does not guarantee success, and that being early can actually be a bad thing. But if Xenon can have a successful launch and ends up with a significant head start on Sony by the time the PS3 launches it could be in for a battle, at least in the states. If MS tosses out a quality Halo title at the launch of the PS3 and is able to impress gamers with a library of early "must have" games Sony could see themselves having their first real competition since the PS. The early release of the Xenon is most hurtful if Sony comes in at a much higher price point with the PS3 and if developers have had a hard time coping with the possibility of have little time with the GPU. MS will also have a year head start on Sony with their next-gen LIVE service. So MS would have Xbox Live and Xenon Live experience under their belt to go up against any services Sony had to offer. Another factor is that if MS sees the PS3 picking up steam in Japan MS could cut their prices before the US launch. Sony and MS may very well be switching roles on price in the next gen. A year late is not the end of the world, but throw in some other variables that make the Xenon desirable to consumers and we got a battle going.
Possible negative: In conjunction with other variables a year head start by MS could be bad news for Sony if they cannot deliver a competitively priced console with a library of quality games.
The CELL world... Is a lot of hype
MS is serious about the living room. The living room is about using technology in a wise and realistic manner that is enjoyable and efficient. Many have tried to get into the living room, including MS, and failed. MS has experience, has a ton of resources, and has the software background to make this work. There are a lot of MS haters out there (and even on these forums) but MS is not dumb. The fact is MS knows the living room is a significant part of the future and will fight for it 'till the last. They will not be happy being 2nd best. MS also has a huge install base of PCs to leverage with the Xenon for networking and managing content and information. The living room is wide open, but Sony PR throwing around words like "CELL world" does not equate to success or even an enjoyable product. Sony makes good consoles, has good marketing, and has been able to develop good game libraries. And imo the living room wont be seriously fought over until 2010-12 when broadband is more available in the US.Possible negative: Becoming the information/entertainment hub in the living room is a huge task that is a new battle with new consumers and is anyone’s game.
Nintendo!... Nintendo may actually make something revolutionary. Nintendo is also seeking to make the game development process more affordable. Nintendo still makes great games. We just do not know much about their HW or plans, so not much to say less Nintendo cannot be ignored. If Nintendo comes in with a "Games Only" Machine at $100 cheaper than the PS3 at launch and has some innovative features Sony may find fighting an established Xenon and innovative Nintendo a tough prospect.
Possible negative: Nintendo could surprise everyone (me included, and I like Nintendo's games a lot yet I still find myself doubting)... and if they offer a revolutionary product it may take attention away from the PS3 launch.
My conclusions: Are there clear chinks in Sony's HW armor? Not really. Are there opportunities? Yes. But they really require Sony to drop the ball and MS/Nintendo to have solutions to those problems.
So it would seem for MS/Nintendo to gain significant ground on the PS3 will require great marketing, killer apps people want, broad developer support, and a little luck. But my guess is that to be within 10% of Sony PS3 sales after 3 or 4 years of the PS3 release will require Sony to make some significant mistakes or some unforeseen changes in the industry.
And on a side note, the PS3 is very forward looking. BR will be a nice feature for HD TV users and with more and more people having HD TVs its effect will be more pronounced as time goes on. And CELL is as much about the PS4 as it is the PS3 imo. CELL creates a long-term platform for development and backwards compatibility. Imagine what developers will be able to do with one CELL after 5 years of experience... then hand them 16 or 32 CELLS on a single CPU. They will already be familiar with CELL and because of the streaming nature of CELL should be able to exploit the power of the PS4 quickly.
Things are looking very bright for Sony. But this has not put a cloud over my Xenon excitement--MS really looks to have put a great design together with Xenon. Rare launch titles and Halo 3 are some pretty good reasons to get excited... it will also be exciting getting more facts on all three consoles!