Mmm, messy.
I'm not going to hop in on the main line at the moment, but rather quip on one of the argue-tangents that occurred in the middle.
jvd said:
Last gen there were more factors than just hardware .
If the xbox and ps2 both launched at the same time with the specs the both had then i really believe that the xbox would have been a much closer number 2 mabye even number 1 .
How is this even an arguing point? The answer to that is, of course, "duh"--but it has no basis in reality and so no purpose. If the Xbox launched when the PS2 did, it would have been a substantially worse machine based on the tech it would have had access to at the time (and that it would almost certainly not have come with as much RAM), and if the PS2 launched when Xbox did it would have had 18+ months of additional development under its' hood and the shrinking tech prices to take advantage of (and even just simple changes like "more RAM" would go a long way to counteracting the complaints most people have with the system).
But yes, if all else were equal and you just stuck the launches together, the Xbox would most certainly have done a lot better, but there's too much "duh" and not any point to it in general.
The hardware was more powerfully and looking at the games the first generation games actually looked good and better than what was out from older systems at the time (dreamcast / ps2 ) Where as the ps2 games were at best on par with the dreamcast games .
A matter of consequence for their situations, and certainly expected. The Dreamcast was easier to program for and was a more mature platform, and the PS2 new in many ways; the Xbox launched with more powerful hardware, and though PS2 games certainly looked much better than at launch by that point, Xbox developers had an easier time accessing its strengths and could carry over a number of familiar PC techniques to boot. There is obviously comparative swing, but it still goes not a step towards validating the arguing point. (Especially since referring to a "headstart advantage" here is looking directly at a system where it failed notably; it cannot be by nature itself both an extreme advantage and a notable failure. There are many, many, many factors that come into play; it's not just hardware, and it's certainly no other single factor weighing in either, but a complex and shifting matrix of them all at many points in time.)
That said if ms can not only keep the performance crown in the hardware but also have an easier to develop for console they will gain alot of market share this generation .
True for the most part, but the "performance crown" will be subjective to the users, many of whom simply don't notice enough or don't care. (Obviously.) The differences may not be as notable, and if it still takes top-end TV's (or speaker systems if we're bringing audio into it) to really notice a difference, there will still be a small fraction who put much into it for many more years. As well, of course, there are "performance" aspects of consoles that have nothing to do with graphical performance, or audio quality, but to the included hardware itself; losing comparative hardware capabilities to the PS3 or N5 (or in comparison to the Xbox) will certainly counteract.
The only answer is, of course "who knows?" We shall see. But even this area is very multi-faceted.
It can be a whole diffrent game next gen for everyone .
Even nintendo can come out of no where and offer a very strong and polished line up and take first place .
To this point, I can only agree.
Short of a complete blowout in one direction, or a complete fuck-up on Sony's, however, I can't see next generation overturning their lead. As with AMD v. Intel, it doesn't matter how much smarter their design, better their chip, or more intelligent their strategy--there's just too much ground to cover, and the marketplace in general doesn't shift
that fast.
