Story here.

I believe that the attach rate there is only for Europe, but I could be wrong.

What does that mean? No clue. The 360 had an attach rate of 5:1 back in November of last year (believe its higher now). Around the time of that announcement, some analysts had mentioned that the attach rate was actually too high for various reasons. I'm not sure how they would view the PS3 attach rate either, though. MS was too high, maybe Sony's too low; typical "no-win" scenario.

I think what they would agree on, however, is that they would say for both systems that there simply aren't enough of them out there. They believe that it would be better to have more systems out there with a lower attach rate than to have a small user-base with a high one. For example:

1:6 @ 100 million systems = 600 million games sold
1:8 @ 50 million systems = 400 million games sold
1:12 @ 20 million systems = 240 million games sold

Why does this matter to us? Well, according to a story on Kotaku and citing numbers from Video Game Chartz (thanks Shaz!) the Wii has surpassed the 360 in terms of installed user base (I'm a little dubious of their numbers, though). Not bad for a system less than a year old. Amazing even. If the Wii can keep up a decent level of growth over the next few years and acheive a decent tie-in rate, its going to impact the high-end systems, like it or not, and will undoubtedly impact the next generation of hardware. How?

1) It will extend "last generation" a few more years by providing publishers with a relatively inexpensive (development-wise) and large (read: safer) market. Scoff at the minigames all you want, but you can't ignore something that size.

2) Next generation's hardware might not be so power-driven. Power is expensive and drives up prices considerably. A greater balance between power and price will be struck in all likelihood; we might not see anyone attempt to make another system like the PS3 (Blu-Ray, Cell and RSX), but rather choose to go a more 360-ish route (Xenon and Xenos, no change in optical media) at most. Of course, by then we'll have multi-layed HD discs and grotesquely huge but inexpensive harddrives too (1 terabyte, perhaps?).

3) A great emphasis on the total market thats presenting itself at the moment. New systems will retain the high-end features and services we see creeping into the 360 and PS3 (IPTV, DVR, online, etc), but instead of just courting the hard-core gamers and early adopters, will be pitched to the rest of the market in targeted advertising campaigns promoting and educating casual and non-traditional gamers all around.

For this generation I think we'll see a polarization of casual and hardcore games. The more hardcore, the more likely it'll only be on the PS3, 360 and PC for retail. The more casual or niche, the more likely it'll be a purchased download (all platforms) or on the Wii and PS2 for retail (possibly on the PSP and DS, also).

Thoughts?

Story here.

Sounds like Denis Dyack needs to have lunch with Trip Hawkins to converse about the 3DO.

To be perfectly honest, I think such a move would be beneficial to everyone, consumers and developers alike. The trick is, however, since no one company will own the hardware and get all the royalties, what incentive will console licencees have to subsidize the hardware bringing the costs down to what people are willing to pay (3DO licensensees had to share the royalties based off of marketshare)? Even as expensive as the PS3 is, you're still not paying full price for it. If the hardware is kept scaled back in order to have a market price of $300-500, how much (or little) will that buy you? How do you coordinate marketing? Minimum standards? What about royalties and incentives for console makers to make money on something that will start off as a low-profit item?

Its an interesting idea that's been tried once with the 3DO, and we see aspects of it in the PC market (especially video cards) today, but its going to require revamping of the money side of things if anyone is going to bite. The closest thing we've got these days in would be Windows and DirectX 10, but even then there are too many variables and the costs are too high compared to consoles (forget the cost of the OS - just put together a decent budget machine or even a mid-range and you've already bought a PS3 or 360 Pro plus Wii).

From Gamespot, no less.

Ars had a quick write-up on it (just a few thoughts), and some of the comments left by people make me feel pretty confident about my computer's ability to run the game decently. Hell, one guy is running it at 1600x1200 and says its like playing a movie (1080p is 1920x1080) - believe he said his video card is a Radeon x1900 (DX9), no AA, although he doesn't mention his CPU or RAM total. Other people are getting good results on older machines provided the settings are turned down (including one guy on a 17" iMac (C2D 2ghz, 2g ram, x1600 video).

Sadly, everything's swamped (high demand, it seems), so I'm going to wait a little while (maybe Wednesday) before I attempt to download it. But I'm ready! Good grief, though - the demo is 2 gigs!

Story here.

Well, I didn't see this coming, to be perfectly honest.

From the article:

What makes this decision so remarkable is the fact that Paramount was a fence straddler: the company has issued movies in both HD DVD and Blu-ray over the past several months, choosing to evaluate the market. Paramount says that its evaluation uncovered two benefits to HD DVD. First, the format is less expensive to produce, as we have touched on before. Second, Paramount described HD DVD as being superior owing to "market-ready technology."

Speilberg's movies are an exception, and could come out on either or both formats.

Just when I thought things had stopped getting interesting...

Story here.

This should be a surprise to noone, really. EA favored the PS2 over the Xbox, now the 360 over the PS3.

The question is this: how big a deal is this? Better yet, who else is doing things this way?

Right now, arguably, the PS3 and 360 cater to people with a bit more money and perhaps a bit less patience. Does the prospect of getting a game a bit later majorly impact buying decisions for people right now? Likewise, is there a price point for a system that negates that? Where it no longer matters? After all, if you're willing to wait out the PS3 or 360 Pro hitting $300 or even $200, waiting an extra few months for a game shouldn't bother you much, right?

February 17, 2009; the day standard analog broadcast ends.

And that, coincidentally, is the day that IBM will be the winner of this generation.

Consider the following:

1) IBM makes the CPU's for all three consoles.

2) IBM specializes in business software and hardware, online and off.

3) And now, IBM will be running the coupon program for Digital to Analogue converters for SDTVs.

#1 and #2 relate to the forward push of HD and HD content. #3 is making sure nobody is left behind in terms of accessing broadcast media. And IBM has their fingers in it all. Regardless of which console comes out on top, IBM wins. Regardless of what your business is doing, they have a solution for you, be it setting up your own servers, e-commerce and digital distribution, or just managing what you've already got. And if you're not ready to make the plunge into HDTV when the time comes, or want to extend the life of a perfectly good SDTV you own, IBM will be assisting you in doing just that.

It might not be anywhere nearly as glamorous, but you have to admit, IBM has certainly played their cards well...

Story here.

Imagine this; I'm online playing Unreal 3. I'm in a game with Bossjimbob and K1LL, when Shacks jumps on, wanting in on the action. Sweet. He loads up, gets in, and we go on our merry way fragging, chatting, and having fun.

I'm on a Windows PC, Boss and K1LL are on 360's, and Shacks is on a PS3.

Impossible? Right now, yes. But Gamespy claims to have tech to allow for online play across all platforms. But my question is this: Would Sony allow you to play 360 players? And would Microsoft allow you to play with PS3 players? Console to Windows is new feature as is (first seen with Quake 3 Dreamcast/Windows, further in FFXI PS2/Windows), but would console makers allow you to actively play in a non-MMO game with rival platforms?

What do you think? I'll post my opinion after there are a few responses...

Story here.

Bottom line, wait until next year. The PS3 isn't even a year old yet, and is much harder to work with. Madden '09 on the PS3 will be a significant improvement over '08. Madden 09 should at least be even next year.

Just want to pitch in my 2-cents before all the monkies jumped on it. Hope I ruined some fanboy's day :)

This was probably one of the best reads I've come across in a while.

Go ahead, read it, and tell me what you think.

Tell you what; I certainly won't look at Rockstar quite the same way again O_o

...that apparantly most people don't know the half of what they're capable of.

Arstechnica and Next Generation reporting on the same issue (not the first time for Next Gen, either).

The question then is do the features really matter? Or do consumers need to be better educated? Of course, then one must ask, do they want to be educated or would they even care?

Read up and let me know what you think. Pretty much any hobby has its casual, enthusiast, semi-pro/prosumers and "pro" level followers; gaming is no different. Sometimes us folks who sit a little higher up on that tiering can get a distorted view of what's important, what people care about and what they know, forgetting we're part of the "high-profit margin" group (ie, we're more likely to pay more/a premium for our hobby than other people) in addition to being better informed and more opinionated.