I wouldn't assume that the 3DS will necessarily outsell the Vita because of pedigree. In fact I found it interesting to read that Nintendo believes that part of the problem with selling the 3DS was in the fact that it's name was too similar to the previous generation product. (Nintendo usually prefers huge name changes when their product line advances.) At this point, good games for the 3DS have slowed to a trickle. By the end of the Vita's "launch window" the Vita and 3DS libraries may be on par with each other. But whereas the 3DS demands a lot of unique titles, the variety of input schemes available on the Vita will allow developers to easily port everything from PS3 blockbusters down to mobile phone apps to Sony's handheld. That could be a huge advantage in the long run. And if Sony does the smart thing and makes lots of their PSOne and PS2 classics available along with a good music/video store, then it could be a game-changer for Sony. Of course, I'm largely playing Devil's advocate here. Sony seldom does "the smart thing" and the 3DS will likely sell well if only because it's the most sensible way for DS owners to upgrade or replace aging or broken DS systems. Direct comparisons may be unfulfilling because the two systems seem targeted towards different segments of the same audience, and each system has its strengths and weaknesses.
I'm generally in agreement with Brendan, but Tom makes some good points too. Most notably, Sony and Nintendo will ignore the potential threat from Apple and Google at their own peril. They've got to realize that they're not just competing with each other anymore.
It's interesting to read about the research and technologies that led to the rise of the videogame industry before there were even videogames to consider. We take these things for granted today, but the people who imagined what was possible were visionaries. It's a shame that there aren't more places like Bell Labs and Xerox PARC that encourage pure research for its own sake anymore.
Wait..that goop in the original Portal was supposed to be ? It looked so much like dirty brown acid that I wasn't surprised that falling into it meant instant death.
The graphical differences are less an indication of console "power" than it is about the differences between the PS3's nVIDIA RSX GPU (graphics processing unit) and the Xbox 360's ATI GPU. The differences are similar to what you would get if you ran the same PC game on systems with an nVIDIA or ATI video card installed. Same code, different results just based on how each card renders. For beginners, FPS (frames per second) is the biggest consideration in which video card is best. Purists look at things look color accuracy, texturing, shadows, bump mapping, and other details. There are plenty of debates posted online about which company is doing their rendering "right." Nonetheless even if the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 on paper (which is debatable), I doubt that any developers are going to try to squeeze that extra juice out of it. The extra development time and cost probably wouldn't be worth it. Platform exclusives can go the extra mile, but once you have matching feature sets on a cross-platform title, you ship it.
I'm in agreement with many of the points here, but I suspect the argument for the PS3 will be a lot more compelling by the end of 2007. But I suspect that Sony will still be playing catch-up with Microsoft, who has shown no signs of slowing down.
Does anybody know what the PS3 is going to cost in Japan? I hope that the U.S. and the U.K. aren't going to be subsidizing cheap PlayStations for Sony's home territory...
theKSMM's comments