Playstation 3 this year?

[Johnny Awesome]

I suppose MS could launch in 2004 if they wanted, but only if they had a real plan to lure PS2 users over to Xbox Next and get a leg up on Sony's PS3 by one year. It's not likely.

You can bet that Bungie, Rare, Bizarre Creations, Digital Anvil and Lionhead are already developing Xbox Next titles though.

I think that Sony would have ridden out the generation until 2006 in the US. Now that MS is in the US market, they pretty much have to launch in 2005.

Although, the Sony exec who said this probably figured that Xbox developers would have been able to put the PS2 to shame more than they have. Other than Splinter Cell, Halo, and Panzer Dragoon Orta, the Xbox software hasn't made the PS2 look all that dated yet (if you don't have HDTV/5.1 that is).

Everyone here knows that I expected Xbox to be running at closer to 67% of PS2 sales by now and at least parity by the end of the year, but Xbox developers have failed to consistently show the Xbox advantage (hard drive, ethernet, more graphics horsepower). Had they done so, then the Xbox might have been able to overtake the PS2 in run-rate by holiday 2004.

Sony really can't afford to fall behind in run-rate and lose their momentum. So far they still have the momentum and it looks like it could actually continue until the next-generation, though I'm betting they run out of steam when many PS2 players pick up an Xbox at $99 in 2004 and beyond.

 

[Phil]

The two points you've emphasized are fillrate and programmability. What I'm trying to say is that neither qualify as an end result - they're not goals in themselves. A developer doesn't try to "accomplish" a technical feat of fillrate or of programmability in their app; those are characteristics of the hardware/architecture that, along with many other factors, enable them to pull off what their goals actually are. They "use" fillrate and programmability to achieve the end results to which I'm referring.

A significant end-result/technical-goal I'm talking about could be something like the realization of a detailed terrain engine for a flight simulator with heavy support for multitexturing, draw distances, and minimal texture errors as you look out towards the horizon... you know, things like that.

Lazy, don't make things complicated will ya. Lets focus on the relevant part: I said

"At least now, their all about in the same generation with both offering different advantages and disadvantages."

PS2 having more fillrate is an advantage that developers may know how to utilize to pull of things that may be more difficult or not possible in the exact same way on a different architecture. This can be either postive or negative, but the potential is there. Programmibility is another advantage that developers can use to their advantage. I'm not sure if you are familiar with what "freedom" in programmibility can do in development, but I'm certainly not the one to explain why. I never implied that PS2 is better, nor did I state how significant said advantages/disadvantages are. It's a plain and simple fact that different architectures [eg. PS2 <-> Xbox] will often give developers different kinds of advantages. I'm sure there are some games that already indicate the strengths of each platform, although it can be quite hard to distinguish which games are doing the hardware justice and could be used for an accurate comparasment.

 

[Vince]

You can bet that Bungie, Rare, Bizarre Creations, Digital Anvil and Lionhead are already developing Xbox Next titles though.

I'm not trying to be biased, but I don't think so. Other that thinking threw some gameplay ideas, topics, What If's, etc - I don't think there is that much hard knowledge to go on. Microsoft sent out their intended requirements to IHV's and vendors a few months ago, but obviously have yet to make a decision and their hardware is in a state of flux.

If anything, it's like the speculation on GTA4 for PS3 in which Rockstar is exploring gameplay advances and what they can do based on PS3 and what Sony's told them. Which is a smart idea (as MS dev's are probobly internally exploring) because with the massive increase in development time necessary on Next Gen. titles, they can't afford to model a world and have the gameplay suck, necessetating a redesign.

Sony really can't afford to fall behind in run-rate and lose their momentum. So far they still have the momentum and it looks like it could actually continue until the next-generation, though I'm betting they run out of steam when many PS2 players pick up an Xbox at $99 in 2004 and beyond

Hehe.. I'm not even going to respond...