Which CONSOLE!?

[Oihan]

Here is another article I found on IGN. It is 3 pages long. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

CONCLUSION

When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth.

GPU

Even ignoring the bandwidth limitations the PS3's GPU is not as powerful as the Xbox 360's GPU.

Thank you for that bit of info! So I was right about the XBox 360 out performing the PS3. Either way, I'll probably still pick up both systems, and maybe the Revolution if Zelda, Mario Kart, and Smash Brothers look insane. I only wish MGREXX was still around. =( Would like to hear what he/she has to say on the above article.

Edited May 24, 2005 by Oihan

[Oihan]

After reading the GPU specs on the next-gen consoles, it's obvious these GPUs are much better than what's out on the market right now for PCs (unless there are graphics cards out there that I don't know about, which is very plausible). So my question to you all is: Do you suppose these next-gen consoles will hamper the gaming market on the PC, if not kill it? The only thing I see going for the PC right now is the ability to use the keyboard to play instead, with these next-gen consoles coming out.

[Max Jenius]

After reading the GPU specs on the next-gen consoles, it's obvious these GPUs are much better than what's out on the market right now for PCs (unless there are graphics cards out there that I don't know about, which is very plausible).  So my question to you all is:  Do you suppose these next-gen consoles will hamper the gaming market on the PC, if not kill it?  The only thing I see going for the PC right now is the ability to use the keyboard to play instead, with these next-gen consoles coming out.

Consoles generally appear to get a 6 month lead time where they are superior, but PCs always catch up quickly. Also, when you get a console you're stuck with what you got for 2-3 years. Its not terribly difficult to keep up though. I dunno, things are looking to me like PCs, Consoles, and TVs will all converge someday.

[F360°]

After checking out the memory system bandwidth comparsion.

I have a question, will sharing memory from GPU and CPU lower it's proformance?? Because the Xbox 512mb will with shared with it's GPU and CPU.

This is similar to Shared memory for onboard videocards right?

[Abombz!!]

I love when people talk about specs... is it some kind of sick twisted fetish? If the console doesn't have good games, the specs mean jackshit, and so far neither of the next generation consoles have done that, so F*CK specs

Edited May 25, 2005 by Abombz!!

[Shadow Skull]

Hmm..... that`s something but we have to wait for final products to see how turn out form using the consoles capability, in the end it`s the games and the 3rd party support that will judge the system.

Yeah, Halo for the Xbox is a good example. The ways things are going, it looks like all three have a nice line up of exclusive titles.

[Lightning]

so does this mean MGRetardo is gone for good now?

[Druna Skass]

Here is another article I found on IGN. It is 3 pages long. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

CONCLUSION

When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth.

GPU

Even ignoring the bandwidth limitations the PS3's GPU is not as powerful as the Xbox 360's GPU.

Thank you for that bit of info! So I was right about the XBox 360 out performing the PS3. Either way, I'll probably still pick up both systems, and maybe the Revolution if Zelda, Mario Kart, and Smash Brothers look insane. I only wish MGREXX was still around. =( Would like to hear what he/she has to say on the above article.

So, that's Microsoft's analysis. What do you make of it?

Don't forget to take into account that arcticle was written by some microsoft guy. I'll wait till someone not affiliated with Sony or microsoft makes an evaluation.

[ewilen]

As the poll shows, PS3 is clearly in the lead........and you all say my gospel is not the truth??????

This poll is crap, no offense directed at Agent ONE, because it's not a random sample of the world wide population. Most people are here a fans of Macross and seeing how both the PS and PS2 had Macross games. I would say some of those people may get the PS3 because they are hoping another Macross game will be made for it. Besides this poll doesn't even represent the community on here because not everyone has voted either.

Dude, nobody here pics systems based on Macross games.

Actually, I've seen it said before.

Yup, I think the decision process in my case was

a) Mess around with my wife's cousin's PS2 when bored.

b) Buy Battlecry so I could play it their house while housesitting one weekend.

c) Figure that if I get a console, I'll get a PS2 so that I can play SDF Macross (PS2) on it.

d) Have a used pre-modded one drop into my lap (thanks again, Chowser, it's still working great).

Basically, the only issue on my mind was, do I want to play Halo or SDF Macross on my bargain-rate used console? I chose SDF Macross, reckoning I could always play Halo on a computer.

Edited May 25, 2005 by ewilen

[Noriko Takaya]

I'm still playing my old Atari 2600. Why do I need another system? Nothing beats a game of Pong...

[Noriko Takaya]

so does this mean MGRetardo is gone for good now?

No, it lingers.

[NSJ23]

I'm still playing my old Atari 2600. Why do I need another system? Nothing beats a game of Pong...

I always liked combat on the 2600 better than pong.

[Wes]

Somehow I think MGREXX also goes by Leroy in some circles.

Actually, the only reason I bought the PS2 when I did was to import the new Macross. I've been satisfied with it for other games though as well.

So nothing definite on the Revolution's specs?

[Skull Leader]

so does this mean MGRetardo is gone for good now?

No, it lingers.

I'm almost sad that he can't post for a bit... I step away from the thread for a couple of days, and Exo, JB0, and Mike all have their turn bitch-slapping him around and I missed out

*sigh* thanks for handling my lightwork, boys

[JB0]

After reading the GPU specs on the next-gen consoles, it's obvious these GPUs are much better than what's out on the market right now for PCs (unless there are graphics cards out there that I don't know about, which is very plausible).  So my question to you all is:  Do you suppose these next-gen consoles will hamper the gaming market on the PC, if not kill it?  The only thing I see going for the PC right now is the ability to use the keyboard to play instead, with these next-gen consoles coming out.

Consoles generally appear to get a 6 month lead time where they are superior, but PCs always catch up quickly.

They APPEAR to be better.

But you have to remember, they're running at 640*480 at 30 Hz(technically 60 interlaced). 60Hz on the high end(Dreamcast VGA box, PS2/GameCube progressive scan).

Exception: XBox can do higher resolutions.

The average PC game is running more like 1024*768 at 75-100 Hz.

It's got a lot more work going on even when the games look equivalent.

This generation's a bit diffrent, though.

It's set up to be DTV ready. All 3 systems are supporting the higher resolutions available. There's a massive hop up here.

Hign-end is 1080i = 1920*1080=2,073,600 pixels.

A good moderate-high PC game res is what? 1600*1200? Which = 1,920,000. Almost identical pixel-wise.

However, 1080i is running at 60Hz interlaced, which is 30 full screens a second. The PC 1600*1200 is 60Hz progressive at the minimum, resulting in a doubled render job, and more likely 75 or 100Hz(60Hz looks like CRAP on a PC monitor).

More likely is 720p, though. Which is 1280*720=921,600 pixels at 60Hz progressive.

Console games generally LOOK flashier, but in practice they aren't. The display they use lets them get away with lower resolutions and smaller texture maps, along with such evil trickery as dithered shading and checkerboard transparency.

Having said all that, let it be clarified that I'm not a PC fanboy.

Games is games.

Edited May 25, 2005 by JB0

[JB0]

so does this mean MGRetardo is gone for good now?

No, it lingers.

I'm almost sad that he can't post for a bit... I step away from the thread for a couple of days, and Exo, JB0, and Mike all have their turn bitch-slapping him around and I missed out

*sigh* thanks for handling my lightwork, boys

No prob.

[JB0]

I'm still playing my old Atari 2600. Why do I need another system? Nothing beats a game of Pong...

I always liked combat on the 2600 better than pong.

Should I point out that "Pong" isn't available on the Atari?

Just Video Olympics.

And personally, I say Warlords is the best. Particularly if you get 3 friends crowded around the console.

[Noriko Takaya]

I'm still playing my old Atari 2600. Why do I need another system? Nothing beats a game of Pong...

I always liked combat on the 2600 better than pong.

Should I point out that "Pong" isn't available on the Atari?

Just Video Olympics.

And personally, I say Warlords is the best. Particularly if you get 3 friends crowded around the console.

Dude, I still have my original Atari system from back in the late 70's. Pong was the first game made for it.

[JB0]

I'm still playing my old Atari 2600. Why do I need another system? Nothing beats a game of Pong...

I always liked combat on the 2600 better than pong.

Should I point out that "Pong" isn't available on the Atari?

Just Video Olympics.

And personally, I say Warlords is the best. Particularly if you get 3 friends crowded around the console.

Dude, I still have my original Atari system from back in the late 70's. Pong was the first game made for it.

No, it wasn't.

The pack-in for the original 1977 "heavy sixer" decks was Combat, as it was with all VCS/2600s until PacMan replaced it in 1983.

And you will NEVER find a cartridge called simply "Pong."

The closest you will get is a TeleGames cart labelled "Pong Sports," which is the Sears-branded version of "Video Olympics."

You ARE half-right, however. Pong is present in Pong Sports, and PS/VO was one of the original nine games available at launch.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I had one of the original "pong" decks that could only play different versions of pong... no carts, no nothing... the darn rollers where built into the deck, too! Now THAT was a crappy game even back then.

I did have one quesiton though: so modern gen console systems are only 640x480 res? Why are they not 720x480 or NTSC 720x486?

[JB0]

I had one of the original "pong" decks that could only play different versions of pong... no carts, no nothing... the darn rollers where built into the deck, too! Now THAT was a crappy game even back then.

I've used a few of the clones before.

Neat for what they are, really. Not impressive by any standards, though.

I did have one quesiton though: so modern gen console systems are only 640x480 res? Why are they not 720x480 or NTSC 720x486?

As I understand things, 480 is the official # of image lines in a standard NTSC signal.

From there, 640*480 is nice, standard, and easy to work with(being 4*3, your pixels are square, which makes it easier to concieve how things will be viewed).

...

720*480 likely is used for games that support anamorphic widescreen.

I was thinking of strict NTSC, which defines a 4*3 image ratio.

It's important to note that, as far as analog displays are concerned, that there's only a "real" resolution for the vertical axis.

Horizontal is analog. While there is a max resolution for horizontal designated by wavelength, it's messy as well as diffrent for chroma and luma.

Also worht noting that in practice, very few sets display the full "visible image" portion of the signal. There's usually an "overscan" that drives the top and bottom scanlines off the top and bottom edges of the screen, and the endpoints of teh scanlines off the left and right edges.

This is less pronounced than it used to be, but still happens.

Visible effect of this: If you've ever played an NES on a nice TV, you've probably seen garbage data on the edges of the screen.

Some clever NES programmers back in the day realized that since all 240(NES used each half-frame as a full frame) lines weren't showing up on-screen, they could "steal" a row of tiles(each NES graphics "tile" is 8* from the beginning and end of the frame buffer and use them just like any other area of RAM with no visible effects.

At this point, it helps to remind people that in the NES days you only had one set of RAM, and all that distinguished video RAM from main RAM was that the graphics chip was looking at it, much the same way as when you look out at the world from a specific window of your house you always see a specific part of the world.

So they stole those 16 lines, it worked, and everyone that needed a little more RAM copied them.

And the NES rapidly became a system with a 256*224 resolution instead of the spec'ed 256*240(not 4*3, but 256 is a far more convenient # than 320, especially for an 8-bit machine).

Edited May 25, 2005 by JB0

[Oihan]

After reading the GPU specs on the next-gen consoles, it's obvious these GPUs are much better than what's out on the market right now for PCs (unless there are graphics cards out there that I don't know about, which is very plausible).  So my question to you all is:  Do you suppose these next-gen consoles will hamper the gaming market on the PC, if not kill it?  The only thing I see going for the PC right now is the ability to use the keyboard to play instead, with these next-gen consoles coming out.

Consoles generally appear to get a 6 month lead time where they are superior, but PCs always catch up quickly.

They APPEAR to be better.

But you have to remember, they're running at 640*480 at 30 Hz(technically 60 interlaced). 60Hz on the high end(Dreamcast VGA box, PS2/GameCube progressive scan).

Exception: XBox can do higher resolutions.

The average PC game is running more like 1024*768 at 75-100 Hz.

It's got a lot more work going on even when the games look equivalent.

This generation's a bit diffrent, though.

It's set up to be DTV ready. All 3 systems are supporting the higher resolutions available. There's a massive hop up here.

Hign-end is 1080i = 1920*1080=2,073,600 pixels.

A good moderate-high PC game res is what? 1600*1200? Which = 1,920,000. Almost identical pixel-wise.

However, 1080i is running at 60Hz interlaced, which is 30 full screens a second. The PC 1600*1200 is 60Hz progressive at the minimum, resulting in a doubled render job, and more likely 75 or 100Hz(60Hz looks like CRAP on a PC monitor).

More likely is 720p, though. Which is 1280*720=921,600 pixels at 60Hz progressive.

Console games generally LOOK flashier, but in practice they aren't. The display they use lets them get away with lower resolutions and smaller texture maps, along with such evil trickery as dithered shading and checkerboard transparency.

Having said all that, let it be clarified that I'm not a PC fanboy.

Games is games.

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games. I can't set the settings to Ultra high when I play Doom 3 or WoW. If I do for Doom 3 I have set my resolution to 640x480. WoW seems to handle the high detail well, but I only get about 12 fps on avg. You'd think with my specs I'd have no problems...but I do. I hate to think that I have to upgrade already when I bought all of this sh*t in 2003, IIRC. If what you say is true, then these next gen consoles are just about as good as my current PC then? I was actually hoping for once that I could buy a gaming machine that had better graphics than a PC...for I wouldn't have to upgrade! But that went down the toilet.

[Max Jenius]

After reading the GPU specs on the next-gen consoles, it's obvious these GPUs are much better than what's out on the market right now for PCs (unless there are graphics cards out there that I don't know about, which is very plausible).  So my question to you all is:  Do you suppose these next-gen consoles will hamper the gaming market on the PC, if not kill it?  The only thing I see going for the PC right now is the ability to use the keyboard to play instead, with these next-gen consoles coming out.

Consoles generally appear to get a 6 month lead time where they are superior, but PCs always catch up quickly.

They APPEAR to be better.

But you have to remember, they're running at 640*480 at 30 Hz(technically 60 interlaced). 60Hz on the high end(Dreamcast VGA box, PS2/GameCube progressive scan).

Exception: XBox can do higher resolutions.

The average PC game is running more like 1024*768 at 75-100 Hz.

It's got a lot more work going on even when the games look equivalent.

This generation's a bit diffrent, though.

It's set up to be DTV ready. All 3 systems are supporting the higher resolutions available. There's a massive hop up here.

Hign-end is 1080i = 1920*1080=2,073,600 pixels.

A good moderate-high PC game res is what? 1600*1200? Which = 1,920,000. Almost identical pixel-wise.

However, 1080i is running at 60Hz interlaced, which is 30 full screens a second. The PC 1600*1200 is 60Hz progressive at the minimum, resulting in a doubled render job, and more likely 75 or 100Hz(60Hz looks like CRAP on a PC monitor).

More likely is 720p, though. Which is 1280*720=921,600 pixels at 60Hz progressive.

Console games generally LOOK flashier, but in practice they aren't. The display they use lets them get away with lower resolutions and smaller texture maps, along with such evil trickery as dithered shading and checkerboard transparency.

Having said all that, let it be clarified that I'm not a PC fanboy.

Games is games.

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games. I can't set the settings to Ultra high when I play Doom 3 or WoW. If I do for Doom 3 I have set my resolution to 640x480. WoW seems to handle the high detail well, but I only get about 12 fps on avg. You'd think with my specs I'd have no problems...but I do. I hate to think that I have to upgrade already when I bought all of this sh*t in 2003, IIRC. If what you say is true, then these next gen consoles are just about as good as my current PC then? I was actually hoping for once that I could buy a gaming machine that had better graphics than a PC...for I wouldn't have to upgrade! But that went down the toilet.

The cutting edge is the bleeding edge.

Though there are affordable upgrades you could make for DIII performance.

[Commander McBride]

FX5200 is the "budget" card in the FX line, and a generation behind current.

The big difference, as has been said, is resolution. You can have a high-quality CRT, say a 19", for a bit over $200. Build a whole top-of-the-line rig for under 4000. That's still far short of the $7,000 or so that a high-end Plasma TV will run you.

[Abombz!!]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/24/news_6126423.html

For the love of God... will someone just shoot this retard

[mikeszekely]

For the love of God... will someone just shoot this retard dry.gif

I'm taking it as good news. After arguing the merits of the other consoles and arguing the flaws of Sony's consoles with MGREXX, it feels a bit weird to come back with something positive now on the PS3. But it looks like the PS3 stands a fair shot of being reasonably priced after all, so I'm breathing a sigh of relief. For all the arguing about Xbox 360 and PS3, I've intended from the beginning to get both, and voted thusly in the poll. My philosophy is that if there really is nothing that interests you for a particular console, that's one thing, but if you have an anti attitude against some consoles just because you're a fanboy of another, you're the only one who suffers.

I love when people talk about specs... is it some kind of sick twisted fetish? If the console doesn't have good games, the specs mean jackshit, and so far neither of the next generation consoles have done that, so F*CK specs

This is absolutely true, and you'll get no arguments from me over that. But when you don't really have games yet, you just have some demos and renders, specs are like a estimate of what you can expect, and not just graphically. When I look at the specs for either the 360 or the PS3, I'm seeing things like GTA with larger areas with fewer loads and more things going on in the city, I'm seeing Dynasty Warriors with even more enemies on screen and none of the old fog and pop up. I'm seeing Tiger Woods PGA Tour load the entire course instead of loading one hole at a time. In fact, some of these things like faster and fewer loads matter more to me than just how much prettier the games look. After seeing games like Ninja Gaiden and Doom 3, I'd be satisfied with just the regular Xbox graphically.

As far as talking specs between the consoles, about which is more powerful and such and such, I think it's moot, for the most part. Like I said early, who cares if the PS3 supports 1080p if the developers are only going to support 720p in their games? And while console exclusives might show off what a particular console is capable of, look at the current generation. Probably at least 75% of the games that are released are released on at least both the Xbox and the PS2, with little or no difference between the two. I don't see that changing in the future... most of the games will come out for both the 360 and the PS3, and look the same on both.

guys can someone answer this for me? WIll Xboxlive free version have free online play 24/7 or is it just free skins and downloadable demos? I am a casual gamer so this is stuff I hear but am not really sure about. But a lot of you here are in the know, therefor eI ask.

From what I've read, anyone with a broadband connection can use all of the new Xbox Live features for free EXCEPT to play games online (excluding subscription-based games, like Final Fantasy XI). You can download new skins and demos, grab downloadable content for your games, maintain an online profile, keep a "friends" list and see what they're playing (all 360 games, regardless of whether or not they can be played on Live, will be Live enabled), and message/voice chat/videoconference with your friends. I've also heard talks that, kind of like HBO or Showtime, sometimes there will be free weekends where you can play games online without paying for the Gold service.

After reading the GPU specs on the next-gen consoles, it's obvious these GPUs are much better than what's out on the market right now for PCs (unless there are graphics cards out there that I don't know about, which is very plausible). So my question to you all is: Do you suppose these next-gen consoles will hamper the gaming market on the PC, if not kill it? The only thing I see going for the PC right now is the ability to use the keyboard to play instead, with these next-gen consoles coming out.

Like Max said. The GPU's in the new consoles look insane, but the gap is already closing. By the time the PS3 is released, it may still be impressive, but not as impressive as it is today. Within a year after, especially after Microsoft released a new OS, PCs will start to have even more powerful GPUs.

But something else to consider, along with JB0's very informative post on how resolutions come into play, is that a console is a more standardized platform. Developers often shoot for an average when developing PC games, and allow for tweeks if your system is above or below the average that they were shooting for (further complicated by the fact that some developers are shooting for a higher average than others... hence why people with relatively powerful machines still have trouble with Doom 3 etc). But with consoles, every console is identical. As the console's life cycle progresses, developers learn new tricks to get the absolute most out of that console as they can.

[Mule]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/24/news_6126423.html

For the love of God... will someone just shoot this retard 

Truly unbelievable. I've always figured that's what Sony wanted to do, but hearing it put so bluntly by one of the executives is kind of a shock. I really don't see this dream turning out as well as this guy thinks. Stuff like this is why I respect Nintendo's phillosophy of "games only."

[Abombz!!]

For the love of God... will someone just shoot this retard dry.gif

I'm taking it as good news. After arguing the merits of the other consoles and arguing the flaws of Sony's consoles with MGREXX, it feels a bit weird to come back with something positive now on the PS3. But it looks like the PS3 stands a fair shot of being reasonably priced after all, so I'm breathing a sigh of relief. For all the arguing about Xbox 360 and PS3, I've intended from the beginning to get both, and voted thusly in the poll. My philosophy is that if there really is nothing that interests you for a particular console, that's one thing, but if you have an anti attitude against some consoles just because you're a fanboy of another, you're the only one who suffers.

I don't have an anti attitude to either console, but neither have shown games that interest me at all, and to be honest I think this current generation could've gone on for at least another year or more.

I'm not getting either console at launch, I was stupid enough to do it once, but I'm not doing it again. I had to go through 4 PS2 consoles before those idiots at Sony could make a console that wouldn't break over night, the same thing happened to my PSX. Heck, even my current PS2 is being a bitch at reading anything that isn''t a DVD.

As for the Xbox... I'll wait till MS blows its load of FPSs till I get it. I don't like FPSs that much specially in a console.

As for Kutaragi.... he is a dumbass. Thats why I like Nintendo, they are in the market to make 1 thing, video games and video game consoles. MS and Sony are trying to be jack of all trades master of none, and I just want a video game, I don't want to have to pay $200 extra just so my f*cking console can play MP3 and browse the internet.

Whats next? Sony telling us that Disc Read Errors are actually work of arts and should be cherished as such?

Edited May 25, 2005 by Abombz!!

[mikeszekely]

I don't have an anti attitude to either console, but neither have shown games that interest me at all, and to be honest I think this current generation could've gone on for at least another year or more.

I'm not getting either console at launch, I was stupid enough to do it once, but I'm not doing it again. I had to go through 4 PS2 consoles before those idiots at Sony could make a console that wouldn't break over night, the same thing happened to my PSX. Heck, even my current PS2 is being a bitch at reading anything that isn''t a DVD.

As for the Xbox... I'll wait till MS blows its load of FPSs till I get it. I don't like FPSs that much specially in a console.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean you specifically, or to imply that you had an anti attitude. I was referring more to MGREXX and other fanboys with inability to even consider that a console besides a Sony console (or whatever brand they've pledged their soul to) has merits.

If you come to a rational conclusion that a particular console does or doesn't interest you, that's different. There's no reason to spend that kind of money if you're not interested (like me and iPods... a lot of people love their iPods, but I don't listen to music much outside of whatever CD I have in the car... so iPods are not for me). For me personally, gaming is pretty much my number 1 hobby, so I'm optimistically curious about the next gen. I share your concerns about Sony's track record with defective consoles, but I'm still interested, and as for Microsoft... well, I enjoy good games in just about any genre, FPS included.

As for Kutaragi.... he is a dumbass. Thats why I like Nintendo, they are in the market to make 1 thing, video games and video game consoles.

Ironically, I think Satoru Iwata is a dumbass. While I do agree that Kutaragi is losing with his whole "supercomputer entertainment center" bull, I blame Iwata for Nintendo's "this is innovation, so it must be good" attitude that kept the Gamecube mostly offline, that's just now using the DVD medium on the Revolution, and then squandered the real potential of the DS with gimmicky touch screen games, ran it up against the PSP, and then returned with, off all things, a tinier Gameboy. I still really like a lot of Nintendo's software, don't get me wrong, but they need someone who's going to go after consumer interest if they ever want to get out of third.

[Abombz!!]

I don't have an anti attitude to either console, but neither have shown games that interest me at all, and to be honest I think this current generation could've gone on for at least another year or more.

I'm not getting either console at launch, I was stupid enough to do it once, but I'm not doing it again. I had to go through 4 PS2 consoles before those idiots at Sony could make a console that wouldn't break over night, the same thing happened to my PSX. Heck, even my current PS2 is being a bitch at reading anything that isn''t a DVD.

As for the Xbox... I'll wait till MS blows its load of FPSs till I get it. I don't like FPSs that much specially in a console.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean you specifically, or to imply that you had an anti attitude. I was referring more to MGREXX and other fanboys with inability to even consider that a console besides a Sony console (or whatever brand they've pledged their soul to) has merits.

If you come to a rational conclusion that a particular console does or doesn't interest you, that's different. There's no reason to spend that kind of money if you're not interested (like me and iPods... a lot of people love their iPods, but I don't listen to music much outside of whatever CD I have in the car... so iPods are not for me). For me personally, gaming is pretty much my number 1 hobby, so I'm optimistically curious about the next gen. I share your concerns about Sony's track record with defective consoles, but I'm still interested, and as for Microsoft... well, I enjoy good games in just about any genre, FPS included.

As for Kutaragi.... he is a dumbass. Thats why I like Nintendo, they are in the market to make 1 thing, video games and video game consoles.

Ironically, I think Satoru Iwata is a dumbass. While I do agree that Kutaragi is losing with his whole "supercomputer entertainment center" bull, I blame Iwata for Nintendo's "this is innovation, so it must be good" attitude that kept the Gamecube mostly offline, that's just now using the DVD medium on the Revolution, and then squandered the real potential of the DS with gimmicky touch screen games, ran it up against the PSP, and then returned with, off all things, a tinier Gameboy. I still really like a lot of Nintendo's software, don't get me wrong, but they need someone who's going to go after consumer interest if they ever want to get out of third.

I'm not saying the next generation doesn't interest me, I'm just talking about launch titles. I can't predict the future, so I'm not going to completly dismiss the next generation. Another thing that worries me is price, I'm not going to pay more then $300 for a console, and if I do, its because its going to have must have games. My only concern is that the next generation is going to have the same games the past 2 generations had, I want inovation, I'm tired of getting that deja-vu feeling when playing games.

I enjoy good games too, I'm not a fan of FPSs, but there are plenty of them that I enjoyed (Farcry is at the top of my list). And its also my #1 hobby, thats why Í don't like to have to pay extra for stuff I don't plan to use on my consoles. I just hope someone starts releasing 2 versions of the consoles, the video game version and the bullshit version so I can avoid paying extra.

I think there are plenty of dumbasses working for video game companies now a days, all 3 companies have them, and they are usually the most vocal of them. Nintendo is known for dumbass claims, and calling their next system a revolution is just a way to hype it up. For every step in the right direction, its 10 steps backwards. Nintendo is naive, Kutaragi is stupid.

[Duke Togo]

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games.

Of course you do. The FX 5200 is a poorly rated, low end video card. That's not to say you can't do decent graphics on a budget, that's just a really shitty card.

[Abombz!!]

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games.

Of course you do. The FX 5200 is a poorly rated, low end video card. That's not to say you can't do decent graphics on a budget, that's just a really shitty card.

If I remember well the FX5200 was comparable to a high end GeForce 3

[Majestic]

I'll probably be buying all 3 consoles eventually. What annoys me is the usual Marketing PR bullcrap claims from all camps, although Microsoft appears to have played their cards right by being a little more honest, especially regarding Live plans.

This year, Sony's Ken Kutagari has gone on the record saying that the PS3 "is not a game machine". Instead they're calling it a "home entertainment convergence" device. Uh huh. I guess Xbox Live has them somewhat nervous.

I remember (like others have noted recently) when the PS2 was touted as displaying "true emotion" and being a home entertainment mega-server, or some crap like that. Turns out it was just another game console.

The pre-rendered/not pre-rendered mystery that came out of the PS3's "demo" of Killzone 2 was pretty underhanded as well.

Nintendo certainly had a crappy showing at this E3, with the requisite "we don't care about graphics, we care about gameplay" statements. They should have held back until pre-PS3 launch next year to show it off - along with flagship games well into development.

[Duke Togo]

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games.

Of course you do. The FX 5200 is a poorly rated, low end video card. That's not to say you can't do decent graphics on a budget, that's just a really shitty card.

If I remember well the FX5200 was comparable to a high end GeForce 3

I don't know, were the GeForce 3's crap, too? Seriously, though, the FX 5200 is considered to be a fairly poor video card. From performance to cooling, its gotten some pretty bad reviews.

[Godzilla]

Well, I have a 128 MB DDR GeForce FX 5200 video card, a 2.8GHz CPU w/HTT, and 1 GB of DDR ram and I still have trouble playing the latests games.

Of course you do. The FX 5200 is a poorly rated, low end video card. That's not to say you can't do decent graphics on a budget, that's just a really shitty card.

If I remember well the FX5200 was comparable to a high end GeForce 3

I don't know, were the GeForce 3's crap, too? Seriously, though, the FX 5200 is considered to be a fairly poor video card. From performance to cooling, its gotten some pretty bad reviews.

The FX5200 got beat by the GeForce4 TI4200 on benchmark tests if I recall. The FX5200 wasnt up to snuff againt the GeForce4 TI series.