Console

[PhantomJedi]

The only thing I really could decide is that I want it to come out on one of the next gen consoles. I don't know if it should stay on the Xbox because from what I hear the PS3 is going to out strip it in the power and graphics department. However, Xbox does have the great Xbox Live service. I think you can see my delima. Don't know if they could do both though.

[Darkside]

Obviously it should be on next gen consoles so they can do more with the game and take advantage of the new technology. I've seen some gameplay on the 360 and all I can say is, WOW. Both consoles look promising, and by putting the game on more consoles you make it available to a wider variety of gamers. So yeah, they should put it on both the PS3 and the 360 (and of course the PC).

[Kalfear]

They should bring it out on current console.

 

Finish the series on the system they started it on.

 

Course that will never happen as KotOR franchise to good a seller and would increase XBox 360 sales greatly.

 

Forget PS3 and that. It will be a xbox/pc release again, bet your bottom dollar on that.

[Darque]

It should come out on the PS3.

 

The PS3 is lightyears ahead of the XBox 360

[Reveilled]

The Nintendo Revolution. :cool:

[Palmtree]

I'm guessing that the majority of Xbox owners will be buying an Xbox 360. If this is the case, then the only logical choice is to release KOTOR 3 on the X360. KOTOR 2's ending was so open that anybody who hasn't played it is likely to be very confused as to what's happening in KOTOR 3.

[Oerwinde]

The Phantom. It rocks.

[Archmonarch]

[SteveThaiBinh]

Is it common for a franchise to jump horses in mid-stream, so to speak? I mean, surely a sequel tends to sell well to people who bought the original, which is PC and XBox users. So why change it? Unless lots of people are so sick of the XBox that they buy the new Playstation instead.

[Reveilled]

Is it common for a franchise to jump horses in mid-stream, so to speak?  I mean, surely a sequel tends to sell well to people who bought the original, which is PC and XBox users.  So why change it? Unless lots of people are so sick of the XBox that they buy the new Playstation instead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

AFAIK, it's only common if the developer and the console maker fall out, like happened with Square and Nintendo over Nintendo's plans to use cartridges for the N64.

 

 

On another note, I used to have a very, very old SNES-exclusive games magazine, and I remember reading once about Nintendo teaming up with Sony for their next-generation console, called the "playstation". However, between this and Sony's solo release of the Playstation, I never heard anything more of it. What I've always been curious about is whether the magazine was wrong and Sony were always developing the PSX independently, or if Nintendo and Sony had a falling out of some kind in the development process?

[Archmonarch]

Given that in the end the graphical difference between the PS3 and 360 will be barely noticeable, I believe the franchise will stick with the Xbox/X360.

 

 

And in case anyone did not understand my smiley comments to the Phantom, the Phantom is a proposed console that would download PC games and allow you to play them on your tv. Despite the large amount of investments, it turned out a farce, with only around 5 prototypes produced, and will almost definitely never be released.

[Reveilled]

Given that in the end the graphical difference between the PS3 and 360 will be barely noticeable, I believe the franchise will stick with the Xbox/X360.

 

 

And in case anyone did not understand my smiley comments to the Phantom, the Phantom is a proposed console that would download PC games and allow you to play them on your tv. Despite the large amount of investments, it turned out a farce, with only around 5 prototypes produced, and will almost definitely never be released.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Shares are 13 cents each! Buy now! Buy low, sell high!

 

Though the impression I got was that it was a con, rather than a farce.

[Archmonarch]

I think it started out as a legitimate concept, and only turned into a con when Infinium Labs realized they couldnt produce. Especially as the technology they depended upon (the ability to play games while still downloading them by spontaneously callling up needed code) was neither owned nor developed by them.

[metadigital]

Given that in the end the graphical difference between the PS3 and 360 will be barely noticeable, I believe the franchise will stick with the Xbox/X360.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Much as I hate to regurgitate hype and gossip (as I haven't seen any of the next-gen consoles), I believe that the PS3 graphics are quite far advanced of the Xbox 360 (based on reviews of E

[Archmonarch]

Sony is famous for their hype of the PS2 and their failure to live up these boasts. I wouldnt be surprised if a similar event occured with the PS3. Indeed, many, if not all, of the PS3 demonstrations were prerendered tech demos. Also, the X360 games shown at E3 were running on alpha dev kits using around a third of the actual next-generation console's power.

 

And I would like to say this is based on what I have read. I too have not yet formed an opinion on which is superior, and will most likely buy both if they have games I want.

[metadigital]

Sony is famous for their hype of the PS2 and their failure to live up these boasts. I wouldnt be surprised if a similar event occured with the PS3. Indeed, many, if not all, of the PS3 demonstrations were prerendered tech demos. Also, the X360 games shown at E3 were running on alpha dev kits using around a third of the actual next-generation console's power.

 

And I would like to say this is based on what I have read. I too have not yet formed an opinion on which is superior, and will most likely buy both if they have games I want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't take my word for it: GamesIndustry review

...

Looking at the content of the two conferences today in Los Angeles - and the MTV special last week, in the case of Xbox 360 - "outclassed" is a word that comes to mind a lot. The bar which was set by Microsoft last week has not only been met, it has been vaulted over. PlayStation 3 is more powerful, more fully featured, more innovative and better supported than Xbox 360. When the Sony conference kicked off, we expected to see something "a bit better" than Xbox, technologically. We didn't expect to have our most fundamental beliefs about what next-generation games will be capable of changed. That, however, is exactly what happened.

...

If the day could be summed up in a microcosm, it would be Square Enix' story that explained events best. Yoichi Wada, the firm's president, made two stops today. At the Sony conference, he was one of many developers presenting stunning tech demos - in his case, a truly stunning real-time recreation of the opening to Final Fantasy VII, using characters almost as high quality as those seen in the forthcoming Advent Children movie. Within a matter of hours, he had another stop to make - this time with a headline billing at the Microsoft conference, where he revealed that Square Enix will be supporting Xbox 360... With the release of a four year old massively multiplayer game that's already available on PS2 and PC.

...

Remember that libel laws are in effect and Microsoft is not afraid to take punitive legal action. I think it is quite clear that the PS3 is a better piece of hardware than the Xbox 360. (I have heard that from several different sources now, and the published specifications back up the demos, at least as far as the graphics chips are concerned.) This article also states that Sony have the lead in software. Of course that is the real battlefield: no need to tell Sony about Betamax!

[Palmtree]

I believe that the article was written before Sony admitted that most of their game demos were rendered. I don't think there will be a huge difference in graphics, but I think there is no doubt that the PS3 is more powerful and will have, if only slightly, better graphics.

[Archmonarch]

I concur.

[metadigital]

Well, the stats are pretty close, so I would be foolish to try to argue -- especially without seeing the performances.

 

It all depends on the games, in any case.

[medevac99]

For me it is a no-brainer - I will purchase whichever platform obsidian, bioware and bethesda are making games for! :D

[Yst]

Sony is famous for their hype of the PS2 and their failure to live up these boasts. I wouldnt be surprised if a similar event occured with the PS3. Indeed, many, if not all, of the PS3 demonstrations were prerendered tech demos. Also, the X360 games shown at E3 were running on alpha dev kits using around a third of the actual next-generation console's power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed.

 

The bottom line is that the PS3 for most purposes offers potentially higher performance than the Xbox 360.

 

...but potentially is the very, very, very key word there.

 

It's also a less conventional architecture. And radically unconventional architectures have a rather unfortunate history in the gaming world. It may be that everyone jumps right into the Cell architecture, figures it out immediately and makes fantastic use of its remarkable potential.

 

But there have been innovators who thought that way before. Sega was pretty sure that everyone would figure out the Saturn's very remarkable and forward-thinking, if rather complex, chipset right quick and make use of its fantastic potential. Unfortunately, by the time they had released adequate documentation and a quality SDK, the damage had already been done, and that potential was only ever demonstrated in a limited way.

 

This is Sony, though. They're the big guys. They'd never make the mistake of afflicting developers with a lousy SDK which makes things harder for coders trying to make the most of their platform.

 

Except that's exactly what they did with the Playstation 2.

 

1. Overhype esoteric system design

2. Release problematic SDK and documentation which does not make the maximisation of the design's potential at all easy.

3. ???

4. Profit!

 

They've got IBM behind them on this one. That's a very good thing.

 

But whether this design's potential gets realised will be dependent on whether Sony can ease developers into it successfully. And they don't have a good history of doing that.

 

Annecdotally, I was just playing on my (1981) TI/994A console/computer. Playing Munchman, a Pac-Man clone from 1982. It's a system with the history of whose architecture I'm intimately familiar.

 

The TI 99/4A was a 16-bit machine. It possessed a whopping 16KB of graphics RAM. To put this in perspective, the total system RAM available to the Atari 2600 with which it most directly competed was 128 bytes. The TI 99/4A's on-die CPU cache alone, for that matter, was twice the 2600's total system RAM, nevermind the fact that it was operating on a 16 bit bus, interacting with a 16 bit CPU at over twice the clock rate.

 

Which system's games look better? Well, they're mostly of similar calibre. Why? Because despite a number of high-quality components, the TI 99 was an arcane design with inadequate developer support.

 

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Sony may well help developers make the most of their (though moreso, IBM's) unconventional architecture, but we'll have to watch and see. If they don't, expensive components can rather easily be made to come to naught.

[Archmonarch]

You shame my meager words with your insightful post. :">

[metadigital]

... The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Sony may well help developers make the most of their (though moreso, IBM's) unconventional architecture, but we'll have to watch and see.  If they don't, expensive components can rather easily be made to come to naught.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe Sony haven't learnt that much from the Betamax ... IBM have also been guilty of head-in-the-sand arrogance wrt their customers in the past (especially the late 80s early 90s), lets hope the two big boys are backing up their platform with some good developer support.

 

I'd be surprised if Sony haven't locked in a bunch of exclusive titles for the launch, though (and Microsoft for the Xbox 360, too, for that matter).

 

It will be interesting to see if we finally approach convergence with this next gen; I think we might need to wait for the next one after. I will probably just buy a new PC and kit it out with a projector ...

[Volourn]

"Halo 2 took $70 million in its first weekend, much more than any film ever has.)"

 

Not quite true. Movies have taken as much as 114 mil in one weekend. i believe that was Spiderman2. A few others have reach 100 mil. Also, considering that SW E3 took 18mil in its first night + 50 mil on ots first full day; I think it's also gonna crush that record.

 

 

Anyways, on topic, I say keep KOTOR3 on x-box/x-box 360 as well as PC. If possible, and all aprties agree, let it be avaialble to PS3 as well. Nintendo is dead as far as I'm concerned, and they ahve been for a while. Outisd eof Mario, Zelda, and afe wother frnachises they have nothing good to offer and I haven't really played those in, like, forever.

[metadigital]

"Halo 2 took $70 million in its first weekend, much more than any film ever has.)"

 

Not quite true. Movies have taken as much as 114 mil in one weekend. i believe that was Spiderman2. A few others have reach 100 mil. Also, considering that SW E3 took 18mil in its first night + 50 mil on ots first full day; I think it's also gonna crush that record.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apologies, that was