Any other gamers and gadget geeks here?

---

Any thoughts on the next gen video game console wars?

Well, I'm no gadget geek, but I do have my fair share of computer stuff, mainly because dad buys a lot of it. Anyway, I'm looking into the XBOX 360, at present I have PS2 which I find pretty dull, so I'm eager to see what mircosoft can churn out. Forgetting Nintendo for the moment, I think the battle will always between Microsoft and Sony.Speaking in the way of games, I feel the PC and the XBOX both provide the type of games that suite my interest, e.g. first person shooters such as Halo, Half-Life, CS and so on. I have no idea about future releases as I haven't been following the scene for about 6 months, so feel free to fill me in.

I am a geek. I love gadgets and such. As for next gen gaming counsoles I say this, gaming is gonna be fun.

I find it all very interesting but a lot of the bickering between Microsoft and Sony right now is a huge turn off. These 'everything-but-the-kitchen-sink' addons are silly in my book. I'd like to see more game consoles dedicated to just that, games. I find it unecessary to browse the Internet through something like that. These addons also drive up the cost, which is already ridiculous.As a diehard fan, I'm very excited about Nintendo's Revolution.

Yeah...I just want an amazing gaming counsole. I have computers for the internet and other things.

Well, I am looking forward to all the systems but I feel X-Box 360 is going to sell the best and then PS3 afterwards. But still PS3 may be too high. Revolution should be okay but I don't know enough yet.

I believe differently...The PS3 may sell higher because of its once again diversity in games, plus all those PS2 and PS1 games.

The PS3 is gonna outsell the Xbox 360, and the Nintendo Revolution. PS3 will have 3 times as much power as the upcoming xbox 360, and will be backwards compatible, as someone mentioned already. It will almost entirely internet based--games can be played console dependent as well. it looks cooler and the processing chips, harddrive, and internal...guts...are just beyond compare. Even though it will come out a year later, it will still dominate the game market...at least that's what I think.

I think the PS3 is going to beat XBox360 in 2 primary ways:Processor power - The cell processor is going to blow away anything currently in existenceLongevity - Since it will be backward compatible, and have such massive power, I think the PS3 will be viable for new games much longer than the XBox360I can't wait for cell-based PCs to come around, too.One estimate showed that if you had 5 AMD Opteron Processors, overclocked to 3.0GHz each, and linked together via the full 1GHz HyperTransport link, that would come close to the power of one cell processor.

that sounds awesome.But cell-based pc's, explain more i have not heard of this yet.

Computer game geek here.. been playing Everquest for the last 5 years and Everquest 2 since release. FUn and ADDICTING games lol.

Gaming has always been the testbed for PC hardware. If the companies want to test out new ways to do things (ie. Vertex shading by nVidia, first tested in the Xbox, which runs a hybrid GeForce3/GeForce4 GPU), they go to the console market, who always want the latest and greatest. If it works out well, and it can execute x86 instruction sets, you'll see them in PCs before too long.IBM is actually making the lion's share of profits from the PS3 and XBox360, since they are a part of the cell processor development team, and they are the developer of the POWER architecture that the 360 is going to be running.

Loving the gadgets comes with the territory when you concider I've spent my carreer in the telecom industry.We have a PS2 and spawn of unsupervised just gave me Splinter Cell, Chaos Theory for my birthday. I'm just about to crack it open

gotta tell me how that is...I was wondering if it was as good as Pandora Tomorrow, which i have still not beaten.

if you look at the current generation of video games, you'll see that though the xbox is technologically superior to the ps2, the ps2 still sold many more consoles. the ps2 also happened to come out a year earlier and has a more comfortable controller. now if you look at the next generation, you'll see that the ps3 is technologically superior, however, the xbox 360 is coming out a year earlier and by the looks of it will have a more comfortable controller.
the better product doesn't always decide the winning sales (just look at vhs and betamax).

digging it so far. I'm not much of a gamer (due to my issues with patience) but I'm having fun!

How is a celeron(32-bit) technologically superior to a 128-bit superscalar processor?

From Microsoft's 2000 press release on the X-Box:In reply to:As a "future-generation" device, Xbox will deliver rich, compelling graphics, and will enable a user's playing experience to be better and faster than any other games console available. It will push about 300 million polygons per second -- more than three times the graphics performance of its closest competitor, Sony PlayStation 2, which was recently released in Japan.Perhaps the most significant difference between the two consoles is the hard drive built into Xbox, supporting 8GBs of hard disk space; PlayStation 2 does not have a hard drive. The hard drive will give Xbox gamers more realism, speed, expandability and storage, providing for richer game experiences. Fans of sports games, such as basketball, will no longer have to wait for their console to catch up to the action. "He shoots, he scores!" will be in real time.Of course, press releases are usually self-serving.By the way, didn't Microsoft switch to the Pentium at the last minute, before releaseing the X-Box?

ever notice dabating consoles is like debating theology? You'll never change anyones' mind.Our PS2 is fine for us. I probably use it the least. I really like the controller but can't resist sticking down my pants when it starts rumbling.

Yeah, but you can take a console apart and and see what parts it uses and hook up logic analyzers and reverse engineer it. In fact, I have a friend who did just that. He'd be retained by patent holders to see if video game makers were violating patents. He spent plenty of time giving depositions and testifying and so on. Unless there was a Ten Commandments monument in the court, they were not theological arguments. (For the record, he worked for Sanders Associates, which licensed some of the original video game patents to Magnavox, which licensed more stuff, etc.; then he started his own consulting business. Believe it or not, the original research was directed toward military applications.)