Is The PS3 Sony's Last Console?

[racketboy]

Hmm... Maybe they are getting tired of losing money on the hardware and realized they won't achieve world domination:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/sony/is-the-ps ... 218433.php

Could they be going the way of Sega?

[Mozgus]

It's over. Nintendo is finis-WAIT WHAT?!

Lol, I think nothing of this.

[durkada]

Hmm... Maybe they are getting tired of losing money on the hardware and realized they won't achieve world domination:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/sony/is-the-ps ... 218433.php

Could they be going the way of Sega?

Considering the cash cow that PSX and PS2 have been, I doubt they would just drop those plans because of some PS3 blunders. And again, only the hardcore gamers seem the least bit miffed about Sony -- out of its many millions of console owners of the past, thats gotta be a very small minority. Every time I turn on the news, listen to the radio, when a next gen console is discussed, its the PS3 which is mentioned.

Frankly, I'd be nervous if I were Nintendo simply because of the way in which new software is made. The way in which games are designed does not make the Wii a primary build machine -- instead games are programmed for the top end machine, and then stripped down for the lower boxes. The gulf between the Wii and the Xbox360 could mean third party support doom, if the consumer base of the Wii doesn't rival that of the XBOX360 and PS3. I don't know if the Wii can make the stretch for the next four or five years.

[metaleggman]

Hmm... Maybe they are getting tired of losing money on the hardware and realized they won't achieve world domination:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/sony/is-the-ps ... 218433.php

Could they be going the way of Sega?

Considering the cash cow that PSX and PS2 have been, I doubt they would just drop those plans because of some PS3 blunders. And again, only the hardcore gamers seem the least bit miffed about Sony -- out of its many millions of console owners of the past, thats gotta be a very small minority. Every time I turn on the news, listen to the radio, when a next gen console is discussed, its the PS3 which is mentioned.

Frankly, I'd be nervous if I were Nintendo simply because of the way in which new software is made. The way in which games are designed does not make the Wii a primary build machine -- instead games are programmed for the top end machine, and then stripped down for the lower boxes. The gulf between the Wii and the Xbox360 could mean third party support doom, if the consumer base of the Wii doesn't rival that of the XBOX360 and PS3. I don't know if the Wii can make the stretch for the next four or five years.

I'd definately have to disagree. Considering how cheap it is to develop for the Wii, there is no way in hell they will have third party doom. I could see a bunch of awesome Atlus games, and actually see most developers making individual versions of games for the wii in mind in addition to next gen consoles. Sort of like how Rayman Raving Rabbids was created. Originally it was going to be the whole cut'n'paste port-a-rama, but they decided to focus on the Wii port first, then do Next-gen from the Wii version by enchancing the graphics and then making current gen versions by stripping down the graphics of the Wii version.
Also, I think you are really underestimating the Wii. No one has really tried to harness the true power of the Wii graphically, focusing more on the wiimote and stuff, which led to quite a few bad looking games. I'm not saying the Wii is a powerhouse. There is no way it could even be considered one, but looking at movies of (remebered those are being compressed quite a bit) Super Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros. Brawl, I can say the gap will only be noticable in the HD aspect, something only few consumers care about as the majority of consumers really don't have HDTVs yet AND play games, or even know the different between hooking up something with composite or component. I actually wouldn't be suprised if they are eventually able to get up to 720p or 1080i on Wii, like the XBOX. Also, I don't think people understand that even though the XBOX and Wii are clocked at relatively close speeds, the Wii a tiny bit faster I believe, they are completely different architectures. Considering the Wii is using an ATi+IBM combo and the XBOX used a nVidia+Intel combo, with the Wii also using GDDR3 Ram as main ram and having the original Gamecubes more efficient architecture, I believe as well, it's like apples to oranges, or AMDs and Intels.

[All Hail The New Flesh]

Well, there is a time that if you know what I mean. like the brand became so cocky about being the dominant brand of the industry. It happens since the Atari years if you think about it. Atari was the dominant one and they became very cocky about being one so they just let the people create crappy games just to make shit loads of money. Just look at Pac Man, the game looked nothing like the one at the arcades. Same thing with ET, they think it was going to be the best selling game...but the game sucked and it did not sell well, after that everything went downhill, thats when we have "The Great Video Game Crash". Now lets fast forward to Nintendo, since NES was released, gaming was back in business, they where unrivaled at the time and became the most innovated at the time when they bought portable gaming possible. Until Sega released there 16-bit console the Genesis, soon the Genesis became the top selling with games like Sonic. This is when Nintendo dropped the ball, Mortal Kombat became a hit in the Arcades and one thing that made the game notorious was the blood. When the game was ported to the Genesis and the SNES, but there was a major difference...NOA with there strict censorship pretty much blew it sky high since the Genesis has the secret code to unlock the blood and gore in the game, so the Genesis out sold the SNES but not defeated. Lets fast forward to Sega's biggest mistake the Saturn (though I don't despise it) came out with the price tag of $499, it was all quiet until Sony came with the Playstation with a price tag of $299, since the release the system out sold the Saturn and Sony became the dominate one, and done it again with the Playstaion 2. After that Sony got cocky and unveiled the Playstation 3, there has some good press, some bad. Then everything went downhill since they announced the price of the PS3 for $599 then everyone was outraged because of the price. Then as we know it, the console did not sold as well, there was not much units out there to sell ect. ect.

Anyway, just to make this short, every company becomes so full of them selfs when they become the dominate ones. Its the old circle of life, and its Sony's time. but heres the big question, who is the next big thing? Microsoft? or is it going to be Nintendo again? In my personal opinion its going to be Microsoft. The reason why I do not pick Nintendo is because, to me in my opinion they are like Apple, Apple is a computer company but Apple's biggest selling product is iPod thats why Apple are still in the computer business because of the money from the iPod. Nintendo is a gaming company and there biggest selling product was the Gameboy, thats why Nintendo are still business because of the money from the Gameboy.

ok I am finished.

[Saraph]

I'd definately have to disagree. Considering how cheap it is to develop for the Wii, there is no way in hell they will have third party doom.

I think you missed the point of durkada post, games are expensive as is for developers right now, the reason why ports are made is because their game gets to reach a wider audience, thus more sales. Developing a game for the 360 and PS3 is fine, both systems can compete with each other in the graphics department and are around the same level. The only big hiccup is optimization between the two. Now take the Wii, you want to bring that same game over and not have it that noticeable? If anything, watching the comparison shots between Call of Duty and Marvel Ultimate Alliance proves that point entirely. So instead, you're asking developers to make a game for the PS3 and 360, then take that same development staff and create an entirely new game to take advantage of one system. Not everyone is Square, and the Wii is definitely not the Playstation. I'll give the Wii a few years to dig it's heels in before making any long term assumptions, but from what I can see, the Wii is going to get ports, and shoddy ports at that.

[metaleggman]

I'd definately have to disagree. Considering how cheap it is to develop for the Wii, there is no way in hell they will have third party doom.

I think you missed the point of durkada post, games are expensive as is for developers right now, the reason why ports are made is because their game gets to reach a wider audience, thus more sales. Developing a game for the 360 and PS3 is fine, both systems can compete with each other in the graphics department and are around the same level. The only big hiccup is optimization between the two. Now take the Wii, you want to bring that same game over and not have it that noticeable? If anything, watching the comparison shots between Call of Duty and Marvel Ultimate Alliance proves that point entirely. So instead, you're asking developers to make a game for the PS3 and 360, then take that same development staff and create an entirely new game to take advantage of one system. Not everyone is Square, and the Wii is definitely not the Playstation. I'll give the Wii a few years to dig it's heels in before making any long term assumptions, but from what I can see, the Wii is going to get ports, and shoddy ports at that.

Yes, but your problem with the comparison there is that companies where trying to get a game out for the wii rather than making it look pretty. I mean, to the average consumer, is there really that much of a difference between Kameo and Super mario galaxy? No. Yes, someone in the know can spot the fancy lighting effects and particle effects in Kameo, not to mention it's HD, but I really don't think there is that much of a distinction. Also, I'd like to note that COD always seems to look bad with their first run on a console. Even the PS3 version isn't that good looking. Then look at COD3 on the 360, looks darn perty. Flashback to COD2 on 360, looked like shit. Muddy textures and the lack of polys didn't realy scream "Next gen".

As for what Flash said, I really don't think nintedno's decision to have a cencored version of Mortal Kombat on their console was "cocky". It may have been misguided but not necesarily cocky. Considering the angry parents, it was the responsible buissness decision, maybe not the most buissness sound. Yes, some people bought Genesises for the uncencored version, but plenty didn't, as the sales of both versions weren't as far apart as some SEGA fan boys may make it out to be. Also, the Sega Saturn didn't seem to cocky to me. It really just seemed like a misguided attempt at a 32-bit console by SEGA. Considering it originally started out as a 2D machine, slapping on an extra CPU and an extra GPU for 3D processing just seemed to be stupid. Now, the way the prez of SEGA USA acted about not letting 2D games through to the US for the most part could be considered cocky.