Are Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft jumping into the next gen too soon?

[Batman's Biggest Fan]

It's a thought that strikes me. I'm not sure if I want to spend money on the next big console system in a year or maybe even 6 months? So what's your view? Do you think Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are rushing into the next generation too soon?

[Strollymonster]

5 years is a pretty decent run for a system...and since the PS2 is going, there's pressure to keep up on both the other systems...the last time Sony got a jump on Nintendo, Nintendo pretty much lost the console "war".

Anyways, so long as there are still good games and the system costs less than 250, I'm cool with it...

[Batman's Biggest Fan]

^Which is why Nintendo released the DS before the PSP. Though time will tell, (and we'll probably know in the coming weeks) if it worked or not.

[guinaevere]

Personally I think the ps2 has outlived it's run and Sony is overdue for the PS3.

Xbox showed some of it's limitations with Halo 2, so yes, the developers could easily handle the NextBox or whatever you want to call it.

Nintendo... eh, not too sure.

[Killtacular]

PS2's hit its limit, and the Xbox is showing its limit as well. A lot of people are resorting to upgrading their xbox console's video card/hard drive (voiding warranty) in order to get better performance. I think it's due time.

I prefer console lifetimes to be 4 years average. That way the Dreamcast's death doesn't seem so horrible.

Besides the fact that people will still be making PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox games long after the new generation of systems come out.

[Kasumi]

PS2 is long, long overdue for an upgrade. That thing is about to die. I won't buy it anytime soon since I bought mine in like 2002 I think. I still need to get a decent collection before I switch.

XBOX? Well, I'm kind of neutral in that. It's not very old but since people seem to need to update their graphics card, XBOX 2 sounds good right now.

GameCube? I think it might be going a little too fast for an upgrade.

And maybe if they all update, I bet post-GC and post-XBOX will still beat the hardware on the PS3 but who knows.

[Punisher]

2006 would be a great time to release a system. Microsoft seems to be rushing out early, but oh well. I'm fine with the Revolution being released Q3 to Q4 in 2006, so Iwould have more time to buy games I need. PS3 is getting released the same time as Revolution, so I see no problem there. The only one I have a problem with is Xbox Next, but I don't own a Xbox or plan on getting it or its sequel, it doesn't effect me.

[JohnCrichton]

Abso-freakin'-lutely.

We're finally seeing the true greatness of what these consoles can really do (Xbox and GameCube, I mean...) and now they're coming to an end?

That really sucks. I would've liked to see more games that're RE4 and the New Zelda's calibur on my lil' silver cube.

[okendri]

PS2's hit its limit, and the Xbox is showing its limit as well. A lot of people are resorting to upgrading their xbox console's video card/hard drive (voiding warranty) in order to get better performance. I think it's due time.

I prefer console lifetimes to be 4 years average. That way the Dreamcast's death doesn't seem so horrible.

Besides the fact that people will still be making PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox games long after the new generation of systems come out.
Who has upgraded their video cards? Everything I've heard is that it is virtually impossible due to the card being part of the motherboard. Most people who switch out hard drives are doing it just to have extra space to store their game to decrease their load times. I think that 4 or 5 years has almost become the standard life span of consoles. After that time, the console's older technolgies start to show their age.

[Beat]

The people that do the upgrading are part of the hardcore modder crowd, not the everyday Halo-playing college fratboy.

As far as I'm concerned, it always takes 6-12 months for a new console, once introduced, to phase out the old one, although backwards compatibility is lowering that. (see PS3 and Revolution)

PS2 has had a good run, and the 2006 due date is gonna give Sony and Nintendo plenty of time to finish cleaning up their crowds and get them to the new systems. Microsoft I'm not so sure about. Their early release of XBOX next/YBox/XBox Blue/whatever screams Dreamcast, i.e. people will fall in love early on then dump it for the other guys.

[fuchikoma]

Yes, they are rushing it since Nintendo/Microsoft are jockeying for better positions in the next generation to cut their losses short in this generation and Sony must move on to stay competitive with the others. The PS2 has at least 2 to 3 years left in it if they weren't jumping the gun. This mess is just going to cater to overclocker/modder/replaces-their-pc-at-least-every-two-years types. In the end those people would be happier with a pc rather than a console. The average console gamer is not ready yet. There is also the fact that the Japanese and Americans are both throw away cultures which is partially behind this push.

[okendri]

Even among the hardcore modder crowd, I haven't seen more than a handful of people even attempt to mod the video portion of the xbox. The modding that was done was adding more video ram. From what they said, the added ram really had no effect. The most common mods are adding a mod chip and hard drive, but those are not performance enhancers.

[Zach]

I think the PS2 is junk technically. Microsoft is rushing to teh market to soon, which gives Sony and Nintendo a whole year to correct upon whatever Bill Gates screws up on.

[Jon Hanson]

5 years is a nice long run. Computers are getting pretty far ahead in the power race race, which means it's time for an upgrade. While I approve of their timing, that's pretty much the only decision any company has made regarding the next generation of consoles that sounds like a good idea so far.

[Martianinvader]

Microsoft is definately jumping too soon. Any hope that I had of X-Box eventually holding ANY appeal for me at all was dashed with the revelation that nothing will ever come out for it again beyond Halo 2. No thanks.

[Dogbert]

You can look at this two ways:

1. Historical: The average successful console lasts five years: NES (86-91), SNES (91-96), N64 (96-early '01), PSX (95-00), Genesis (90-95), etc. If you go by the average length, Microsoft is the only one jumping the gun, which is typical for them.

2. Current Needs: PS2 has its limits and they are showing. I recall reading that Resident Evil 4 for PS2 is being delayed because they are having a hard time adjusting the graphics for PS2's limited video RAM. GCN has limited storage space, but that mostly affects how many cut scenes are in a game. Both PS2 & GCN could benefit from a better processor and faster loading drive. XBOX is the only one not yet reaching a problematic limit. Microsoft just thinks they'll make more money if they move on.

Either way you look at it (at least the way I see it), Microsoft is moving on too fast and Nintendo/Sony are waiting until their systems have lived the average length. Plus, rumors are that Microsoft isn't including backwards compatibility. If that's true, I think that's so that developers will have to switch to their new system, which Nintendo and Sony won't need to worry about that because their transitions won't be forced.

[Noukon]

Plus, rumors are that Microsoft isn't including backwards compatibility. If that's true, I think that's so that developers will have to switch to their new system, which Nintendo and Sony won't need to worry about that because their transitions won't be forced.
I've heard it's because the next Xbox console uses a completely different graphical chipset than the current one, so backwards compatibility would be extremely difficult to implement, and wouldn't work well anyway. It's still a disadvantage, though.

I wonder if the PS3 will be compatible with both PS2 and PS1 games. The PS2 requires extra hardware to run PS1 games (similar to why the DS can play GBA games, but not original Game Boy games), so it will be interesting to see if they bother including extra hardware for both PS2 and PS1 compatibility in the PS3.

[guinaevere]

Even among the hardcore modder crowd, I haven't seen more than a handful of people even attempt to mod the video portion of the xbox. The modding that was done was adding more video ram. From what they said, the added ram really had no effect. The most common mods are adding a mod chip and hard drive, but those are not performance enhancers. They are the most common as they're pretty darn easy to do. Hence, the blokes doing just this are not of the hardcore modder crowd to which Matt Wilson and Beatdigga alluded to.

[James]

Certainly with the PS2, while I do enjoy it's output still, visually in particular, it's looking comparatively dated. I think another gen will also fire up some interest in consoles again, which of late I think has been on the downward spiral.

[Mynd Hed]

I'd say Microsoft is definitely jumping the gun. The whole appeal of the X-Box is that it's the biggest, baddest machine out there; multi-platform games typically look the best on the X-Box and the cream of X-Box's exclusive crop are shinier than anything else out there. The way things are shaping up, Microsoft's multi-monikered next-gen system may well be the weakest of the three graphically as a result of being rushed to market, which would leave it without a leg to stand on. Why would anyone buy a (relatively) graphically weak system without backwards compatibility when Sony is in bed with all the third-party developers and has the biggest library and Nintendo has those great exclusive franchises like Mario Kart and Zelda?
Sony and Nintendo I think have the right idea as far as their timetable goes.

[Snailbait]

PS2 is getting to be dated. The graphics really fall short of what the current console generation's graphics should be. Sony is the one that should move on first, in my opinion. They started first this time, they should start first next time.
PS3 should be a success. It's got backwards compatibility, and have you guys seen the graphics predictions yet? Wow! It's looking good, especially now that I have the PSP. I think Sony has learned something (even though PS2 probably sold the most overall). And what's this I heard about the PS2 no longer being sold? This true?
GameCube should wait a bit longer. The online will be there next time, which should be an added plus. The "innovation" is what I'm not so sure about. How's Nintendo going to make the Revolution innovative? I guess we'll find out a bit more at E3. I personally think that Nintendo's focus on innovation is hurting more than helping. If their system is way different, it will not have as much third-party support (for obvious reasons). As I stated previously, PS3 will succeed. Oh, and it's good that Revolution will have backwards compatibility with GCN. Nintendo is learning a little from Sony now. ;)
XBox2 -- this I'm unaware of. When's Microsoft planning on launching it? I know this, being the first to launch can be bad. Obviously, it will have the weakest graphical power. When gamers see pictures of the upcoming Nintendo and Sony systems, they may decide to wait for those instead of buy this one. I really don't think Microsoft is going to win this "console war". No backwards compability? There's no contest here. It can pretty much be agreed that PS3 will win this battle, with Nintendo's Revolution close behind.
I am also awaiting news about the next handhelds. PSP just launched, but there have been rumors about Nintendo's next GameBoy (which I won't be buying). And is Microsoft planning on launching a handheld? If they do, it will fail too.


-TheNewSF326

[TwoPossums]

I don't think Xbox is jumping the gun really. They started late in this game and the PS2 had already been out for awhile. Really to stay competitive they all have to jump when the others jump so if Sony's life span is up then so is Nintendo and Micorsoft. The Xbox's main appeal is that it is a stronger system if it doesn't come out with a new console when the PS3 launches then they could find themselves in second place. I haven't seen the specs for the PS3 but I would assume that they would at least be up to what the Xbox can do now.


As for me personally I'm not ready for the jump. I just got an Xbox a little over a year ago and a PS2 like 2 months ago. I'm loving them. And there are still games comming out that blow our minds graphically. The latest Splinter Cell game looks georgeous. God of War looks amazing on the PS2. Are we tired of seeing this stuff? Have we gotten that jaded that Republic Commando doesn't look good anymore. I haven't.

I'm just glad I have a better job now and will be able to afford these at launch. Still got to get a PSP as well......My girlfriend is gonna leave me. LOL.

TwoPossums

[solarflere]

PS3 will have Blue Ray technology in it. Meaning more space on a dvd, like 50GB, and that means better game graphics and so on. Beat that M$ Xbox, GameCube...forget about it.

[Artimus Gigan]

PS3 will have Blue Ray technology in it. Meaning more space on a dvd, like 50GB, and that means better game graphics and so on. Beat that M$ Xbox, GameCube...forget about it.
You do realise that Blue-Ray and HD-DVD have TOO MUCH space. Developers are already having enough trouble filling just one DVD.

The newer technology just means a bigger price tag...

[Dogbert]

Oh, and it's good that Revolution will have backwards compatibility with GCN. Nintendo is learning a little from Sony now.It's the other way around. Nintendo has known the value of backwards compatibility since 1999. GBC was the first system to have backwards compatibility (with GBA, DS & the Revolution following). You could try to say handhelds and consoles are different, but it still shows that Nintendo knew the value of a smooth transition. The only reason they didn't include backwards compatibility with GCN is because it would have cost too much because N64 used a very different medium (and N64s were cheap enough & not popular enough in 2001 for it to be worth the extra cash).

You do realise that Blue-Ray and HD-DVD have TOO MUCH space. Developers are already having enough trouble filling just one DVD.

The newer technology just means a bigger price tag...Yes, they are having trouble using all 4.4 GB on a DVD, but that's no reason to not make an upgrade. The next generation will have a larger base using HDTVs, so higher resolution is a must (which means more space needed). Plus, who knows how much space will be used on average in 2010? I'd rather shell out an extra $50 now than have to buy a new system a year or two earlier (and yes, it won't be much more for bluewave laser based discs; all of the prices so far on the market are for recordable devices, PS3 will likely only read the format).

Plus, there are other reasons for including Blu-Ray. Including DVD movie playback in the PS2 helped make DVDs popular in Japan, so using Blu-Ray on the PS3 will help it get ahead of HD-DVD. Since Sony is one of the founding members of Blu-Ray, that's something they're interested in.

I think Microsoft is the one making the mistake. No one is going think, "oh, it has a DVD player! I'm in..." And in 2009, when X-Box 360 (or whatever they call it) is four years old and clearly showing its age on HDTVs, PS3 and the Revolution will have HD graphics. As long as Nintendo uses a bluewave laser, they'll get at least 15 GB on a mini-disc, nearly twice what the next X-Box will have (about 8.5 GB).

[Ickis]

Yes,they are.I wish they'd just stay with what they've got as when the next-gen consoles come out shows and stuff like Xplay will only reveiw the new games for the next-gen consoles,and Blockbuster will only carry the new stuff (atleast around here).On the good side,the prices for Xbox and PS2 games may drop.:D

[True Noir]

I'd say Microsoft and Sony are ready but Nintendo just came out with something and now the DS! They're moving really fast. They are probably doing this to stay in competition with Sony's PSP, but still chill out Nintendo. Give it some time.

[Snailbait]

DS is a handheld system, though. That's not what this is about. It's not like it matters. Game Boy Advance and GameCube launched within the same five months (in 2001). GameCube has been out since Nov. 2001. I think it's getting to be time, just as soon as the new Zelda game comes out. With backwards compatibility, GCN games could still come out for a while.

[RAINMAN]

The VG systems lifespanes has always ben 5 years apart. The ps2 is still kicking butt so sony can afforid to delay their system lunch for a year. N at first was gonna do what MS is doing but they relaze that would be a big gamble. Sega did that whit both the saturn and DC and look what happend?:sad: