Hardware Year in Review

What would our industry be like without competition between Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo? Boring as hell is our answer. If you want a recap on what happened in 2005 with the big three, read on.

Sony

...

PlayStation 3

The wraps were taken off the PlayStation 3 at Sony's pre-E3 press conference. Non-playable demos and canned footage games in development (over which arguments still rage over what was 'real' and what were renders made to be 'representative') wowed the media and stole a good bit of thunder from the somewhat underwhelming Microsoft presentation that followed.

All of the numerical comparisons between PS3 and Xbox 360 have been done but in terms of real-world application, I'm still not certain that the public at large or the media is any closer to determining whether there's any significant difference between the capabilities of the two systems. To be fair, developers have had far less time with the scant PS3 development systems that are out there as compared to the Xbox 360 kits so an apples-to-apples comparison is difficult. E3 2006 will obviously be more telling.

Blu-ray is the big and obvious difference between PS3 and anything else. Clearly, Sony's strategy is to use PS3 to get Blu-ray into the homes at a subsidized price point. Depending upon who you speak to, Blu-ray is either the factor that makes PS3 the clear winner in the upcoming generation (studio support gives a positive reason to adopt, developers praise the increased storage capacity) or a boat anchor (Merrill Lynch says Sony's cost of goods and ability to compete on price is screwed due in large part to Blu-ray's inclusion and Sony's overall financial wellbeing).

The other major question mark is Sony's online approach. Microsoft is clearly the front runner so far in the online space with robust but simple systems for connectivity, community management, e-commerce and limited e-distribution. Nintendo's Wi-Fi connection implimentation, while still early, shows promise for a company that has previously eschewed online arenas. On the PS2, the staunch approach that publishers are responsible individually for anything they do online has not generated the same attention or delivered the quality of experiences of the other two manufacturers. There are some rumors that Sony is working on something in this space, but no details have ever been forthcoming.

As we close out 2005, we've still not yet seen an actually playable PS3 title; we know nothing about launch dates or pricing other than vague hints and innuendo. Rumors that it won't be available in 2006 (and several analysts have expressed serious doubt for Europe to get it in 06 under the best of circumstances) have done the rounds but this is nothing new. PS2 was allegedly not going to make its 2000 ship year either, but it did for the US and Japan at least.

Nintendo

...

Revolution

At GDC in March, Iwata dropped hints regarding the system's unique features and Nintendo's need to expand the market once again. At E3 in May, the unveiling of the industrial design of the console and announcement of backwards compatibility and availability of Nintendo's vast library spanning 20 years of content wowed consumers and the media. At the Tokyo Game Show, Iwata's keynote unveiled the visionary gyroscopic controller. And last month, Shigeru Miyamoto indicated that there were still more secrets to be revealed.

Developer feedback on the early kits has indicated the system technically won't be up to the tasks that the Xbox 360 or PS3 are. Iwata indicated that Revolutions battle wouldn't be fought with technical prowess and it wouldn't support HD formats (presumably beyond the base 480p that even the Gamecube supported). Reggie Fils-Aime has pointed to market research that indicates improved graphics aren't what consumers are looking for in terms of innovation. As with the DS, Nintendo says that interface is what it's all about and that Nintendo is seeking to be a market disruptor with Revolution.

In the console space in terms of marketshare, Nintendo was largely being written off coming into 2005. In terms of mindshare and interest, and Nintendo's unique approach with the Revolution is giving much of the industry reason to pause; not just because of the different stance Nintendo has taken, but because many of its messages (stagnancy in game innovation, cross platform ownership inflating the sense of true market growth, and 2005's particularly paltry software offerings and sales) are opportunistically timed and well delivered.

As with the PS3, there are still a lot of questions to be answered. When is the system coming? And at what price point (hinted to be attractive as compared to Xbox 360 and PS3, but how much more attractive) and of course, how will the games actually play. Technical demos showing the controller interface are one thing, but building entire game experience from this interface is quite another. Also, with more limited technical prowess, even with the traditional controller 'sleeve' interface being available, will Revolution conversions of PS3 and Xbox 360 titles remain compelling or will the Revolution titles have to stand on their own as far as financial viability goes? 2006 will hold the answers.

Microsoft

...

Xbox 360

Most publishers and developers are resistant to participating in platform transitions because they're costly and fraught with uncertainty. Let's come right out and say it, Microsoft forced this transition to come sooner than many would have liked (including Sony and probably Nintendo). The opportunity to milk the large user bases and take advantage of the technology investments and solid tool chains made during the PS2/Xbox generation was abbreviated by the Xbox 360's arrival just four short years after the introduction of the first Xbox.

That's not to say that there won't be a PS2 and Xbox market now that 360 is here, but the attention that the older market segment would have had, as far as marketing and development resources go, has been curtailed greatly. The media spotlight is now firmly set upon the Xbox 360 and to some degree, PS3 and Revolution, largely because Microsoft saw strategic value in accelerating the cycle.

On the one hand, one could point to the Xbox 360 as part of the reason for the slowdown in the PS2/Xbox market (consumers waiting for the bigger, better deal). On the other, that slowdown might have already been happening and the cycle had been accelerated of its own volition (for evidence, look at the sales velocity of the PS2 hitting major PS1 sales milestones two or three years faster) and the Xbox 360 might be poised to take advantage of it. It's difficult to say whether Xbox caused or simply capitalized on the situation.

But Xbox 360 didn't just materialize out of thin air on November 22. Over the course of 2005, there were a number of announcements and proclamations made. The MTV unveiling just prior to E3 provided the world's first look at the games and the console's design. E3 itself saw the display of the first next generation playable games (albeit still on beta dev kits). Backwards compatibility questions were answered (again, sort of) at E3 and worldwide development support was shown to be fairly strong.

In August, the decision to have a core and premium pack, with disparate pricing was disclosed. Some quarters bristled with outrage that the hard drive wasn't standard given Microsoft's rhetoric for the original Xbox's drive. Others saw value in the flexibility that would be afforded to pricing efforts and the fruit that it could bear in terms of a larger user base.

Tokyo Game Show in September highlighted some of the Japanese support that was coming for the system. Peter Moore's insistence that Microsoft would improve its fortunes in the territory keeps ringing in our ears.

In October, X05 and media events in New York, San Francisco and Toronto gave the media extended hands-on time with a variety of nearly finished first and third party titles, which gave consumers the first valuable insights into what can expect. It was at these events that the true value of the new Xbox Live, Live Arcade and Marketplace became more than just buzzwords in presentations. It became clear that they were the real centerpieces of the Xbox 360 experience.
 
Side Story: Nvidia: 2005 in Review

Nvidia: 2005 in Review

Nvidia

In the never-ending game of leap frog that is the GPU wars, Nvidia stayed on top for most of 2005. In a two-part feature, Christian Svennson reviews the major players.

I'd liken the battle over 3D technology to a poker game, where bluffs and big bets are exchanged with technology, price, time and controlled leaks of information (or disinformation). Coming into 2005, Nvidia was sitting on a lot of 'chips' (ho ho) with the release and uptake of its SLI multi-GPU technology.

While ATI's X800 series had in some ways, better technology than the 6800 Ultra, the performance crown (and in many segments performance per dollar) would remain with Nvidia throughout the first half of 2005 in large part because of SLI.

The other obvious benefit is that SLI helped drive Nvidia's nForce4 motherboard chipset to the top of the sales charts (and gamer desirability charts) as it was the only solution that would support SLI.

The big bet that Nvidia made (and continues to make), was that a sizable chunk of consumers would be willing to absorb ever increasing costs in exchange for more performance. Even being one of those avid consumers who will pay almost any price for more frames per second and better image quality, I'm baffled that there has been enough of a market to support this approach.

...

The PlayStation 3 Connection

With ATI having tied up Microsoft and Nintendo's next generation GPU deals, Sony turned to Nvidia for its solution. The RSX is in many ways architecturally similar to the 7800GTX part aside from fabrication process and initially core clock speed (though the 512MB GTX can run at RSX clock speeds). That is to say, it's a beast by today's GPU standards. The 'unveiling' of the RSX at the Sony press conference at E3 in May by Nvidia president and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang was a major milestone for the company.

Exactly how the RSX meshes with the Cell CPU and what sort of real world game performance can be wrought from the system as a whole is still unproven publicly. What is certain is that the part is expensive (Merrill Lynch analysts estimate manufacturing costs of about $100 a chip for the RSX) but with Sony being the worldwide market leader for the past two generations, it's difficult to bet against big volumes of PlayStation 3 coming into the next.

As such, the deal should provide Nvidia a more significant amount of revenue than its deal with Microsoft for the original Xbox's GPU did. Also with the development of the RSX being a joint venture between Nvidia and Sony issues of chip pricing and inventory management are also presumably more appealing than they were in the Microsoft deal.

Do not post articles in their entirety, thanks - Moderator
 
Ah the memories :D Great post, "Nerve-Damage". Pretty good read, really makes you put the way we thought at the beginning to the end of the year in perspective.
 
Bad_Boy said:
Ah the memories :D Great post, "Nerve-Damage". Pretty good read, really makes you put the way we thought at the beginning to the end of the year in perspective.

Thanks :smile:

Something I truly agree with:
What would our industry be like without competition between Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo? Boring as hell is our answer.
 
Similar to the PS2, there were no significant hardware price changes, no pack-ins, no interesting movements or promotions to shift more hardware and attract new customers.
xbox does have a pack in... forza motorsports... and effectivly a price change, since the only packages MS is shipping are the forza bundles, and they are MSRP'd at $179.99US
 
But all is not rosy with the DS. Third parties are complaining that, as with the Gamecube, their titles are not selling terribly well, with few exceptions.

And customers are complaining that third party titles are absolute garbage, with few exceptions. Even IGN "We Overrate Everything" has given them horrible reviews. Out of the last 10 3rd-party offerings, the highest rated was Spongebob. Out of the last 35 3rd-party games, the average ranking was a 6.1. Comparitively, the 5 1st-party published titles released during the same time period got an average 8.26. The games have just been inexcusably bad.
 
Back
Top