"Who do you think will turn out ahead with this next gen of cons?"
I think this depends on how you are defining 'ahead'. If you mean who will generate the most revenue from their console, thats got to be Sony pulling trumps, with the 360 2nd and the poor lil wii in last.
If, however you mean how many consoles will be sold of each then its a very close race between the 360 and the wii with the ps coming a flat last.
My reasons are as follows,
1.for Sony to win, profit wise, they only need to sell 5/8 of the amount of consoles MS do, as each console costs about 35% more.
2.For the above reason this means nintendo need to sell excessive numbers of the console to be within a fighting chance of making as much revenue (not profit)
3.MS already have a big head start, sales wise, and it will take Sony atleaast 12 months to make those numbers back (although by then the 360 will be even cheaper). Im sure with the mega corp marketing Sony have embedded into us all that won't be a problem.
Onto this 'bigger capacity = bigger games'. Potentialy, yes ofcourse this is true but when backing up a game have you ever seen previous generations of game fill up a normal dvd, let alone a hd-dvd or blu-ray. I really don't think a blu-ray drive is worth the investment atm, as much as i think investing in a hd-dvd drive is a bad idea. What ever happens to be attached to these drives, they are too expensive for the lack of effort on the developers side.
Can you imagine how long it would take to develop a game that fills up a blu-ray disk. You're looking at a staff of like 1000 per game, one texture would take a couple of weeks and there would have to be millions of textures for a blu-ray disk. And how about the audio, music companies would have to sell their entire back catalogue at a time to get the disk full. Ofcourse none of this will happen and you PS3 fanboys will be left with a disk capable of 30gb and games that are about 15gb.
Just my opinion but, I think people who will buy the PS3 have too much money and not enough sense. Like spending an extra 80£/$ on a pair of nikes just because they put more air in them (THEY ARE SELLING YOU AIR AND AN IMAGE...FOOL!). Or buying a Mclaren Mercedes for and extra 20k because it has a limited edition keyring. I mean, damn it, you can buy a Wii and a top spec 360 for the priice of a top spec PS3.
Sorry for the rant but it drives me crazy when Sony think they can dictate the price of new tech just because 'they know the market'. It seems to me a lot like the AMD vs Intel battle. Even though the manufacturing quality of Intel is superior (65nm instead of 85nm) AMD are pulling ahead because their chips are more reliable and can take harder punches before you need a new one, which costs less.
Although the PS3 is more advanced, I think there is a line to be drawn between 'next gen tech' and 'next next gen tech'. The blu-ray revolution will not really be a popular as good ol' dvd for about 6-8 years yet and by then the 'next next gen' consoles will be here and im sure even nintendo will have blu-ray by then.
If the 360 has a similar developers bit which you can conveiniently put mod-chips onto and PS3 sticks with their lame 'no! we shall make our chips so complex you have to have a degree to attach a modchip' (exageration ofcourse) then it will be an easy win for MS. After the PS5 (i called it) is out there will still be the 360 humming along modded to the max. Ofcourse, if the reverse happens and PS3 is easier to mod than the 360 then Sony will win in the long run for tha same reason, moded to the max.
The ramblings of a madman
Edit: btw. I heard that there is a bottle neck (one piece of hardware stopping the others from functioning at full potential) in the PS3. Is this just MS fanboy propaganda or is there any truth to this. I cant remember exactly where i read it but I remember they did have stats to back it up (mighty stats mwahaha). Was this a temporary issue they they have dealth with or is it true?This post has been edited by NeoPlato: Sep 27 2006, 12:59 PM