I\'m no expert, but I base my beliefs on the past business models I\'ve seen from Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony. These things can easily change, but based on what I see now, this is sort of where things stand with each system:
XBox
Microsoft has a bad habit of accellerated hardware/software turnover, abandoning technology faster than most other companies. I believe the lifespan of the XBox is going to be pretty short compared to other, more grounded console makers like Sony and Nintendo. While the PS1 has been going for 6 years and is still having titles released for it, and the Nintendo 64 has been out a little over 5 years, I think we\'re going to see around a 3, maybe 4 year lifespan on the XBox, and that\'s being generous. The XBox is very much based on PC architecture, using the latest in PC 3D gaming technology with a mid-range scaled back 733MHz Pentium 3. Ths Nvidia chipset used to move data works at an incredible 6.4GB/sec, while the fastest the PC can currently muster is around 2.1GB/sec. The XBox, on paper, is very impressive, but both Intel and Nvidia\'s technology base has been sifted through for years, and any seasoned developer knows what makes them tick through and through. Games designed by developers who are familiar with the architecture look incredible, as they should, but as others have noted, x86 coding is old hat to most game makers. I believe that while developers may be able to gleen small performance boosts and graphics improvements from the XBox, it\'s not going to be as significant as the life cycle of the PS1, where gamers were constantly suprised by new effects and designs that were previously thought impossible on such an overall weak system. If you need proof based on previous experience, you need look no farther than Nintendo\'s console history. The NES, SNES, and N64 were all based on the same core programming system, so when you look at the beginning of the N64 life cycle and then the end, the graphical and speed improvements in games were minimal, because Nintendo\'s programmers were so familiar with the code behind the games by then, there was very little they could accomplish. I\'m oversimplifying this, but you get the idea. I could be wrong about this, there could be a goldmine of performance and graphics enhancements that XBox game developers will be able to take advantage of over the next few years. It just seems to me that because the x86 architecture is so widely known and even Nvidia\'s base technology has been poured over again and again, the beautiful texture design and speed you get in Halo and DoA3 is probably very close to the actual limits to the technology. One thing that does appeal to me if that Microsoft included a hard drive and ethernet connection in their system for $300, where Sony\'s hard drive/ethernet implementation has yet to be announced in the states and will probably cost over $150 when it finally ships, more on this later.
Gamecube
Where to start? Nintendo has taken the road less traveled with the Gamecube, following in Microsoft\'s footsteps with a console that\'s closely related to a standard 3D accellerated PC. I could be wrong about this, but I\'m betting that ATI\'s video chipset in the GC is very similar to the Radeon based chipset for the PC. Unlike most people, I think Nintendo made a good move by excluding DVD movie playback capability in favor of a smaller, less expensive gaming console. If they had included a DVD player, it would likely be mediocre at best, and you would end up paying $300 for a console plus a mediocre DVD player when right now you can pay $200 for the console and easily buy a mediocre DVD player anywhere for $100 or less these days. From a games standpoint, it will be interesting to see what developers support the GC in the long run. It\'s got Tony Hawk 3, which is a great title, but not an exclusive one, and it\'s got the potential for Pokemon, Zelda, and Mario titles, which tend to be fairly popular with a younger audience. Third party games for Nintendo consoles have gone downhill in the past 5 years, so gamers usually have to depend on Nintendo core developers for any sort of quality titles. This may change with the GC, which would be nice, and hopefully help the company stay afloat in the console market, instead of living and dying off of their handheld division. I have no idea whether or not the GC will survive in this cutthroat market with no indication of a working online network for gaming , and few games that really appeal to a more mature gaming audience. It will be interesting to see if the GC flourishes or just holds the market that was dominated by the N64, which was mainly Pokemon fans under the age of 18.
I think Nintendo is in a critical situation where, although they\'ve moved up to a CD based system, which they should have done 5 years ago, they haven\'t made room for a fully functional online gaming community, and they haven\'t shown that they can provide content for the older audience of gamers that are gravitating towards the XBox and PS2 systems for more adult content in gaming.
Playstation 2
Already a year old, the PS2 still held it\'s own this Christmas season, selling more than the XBox and Gamecube according to current figures. The PS2 offers a dozen or so games which really shine graphically, and diehard fans will tell you that even these games don\'t take full advantage of the PS2\'s capabilities. Whether or not this is true remains to be seen. With a solid worldwide user base of over 20 million gamers, it\'s safe to say that the PS2 isn\'t going anywhere anytime soon, and owners can expect more great titles in the next year. How long the good times roll is another question. Rumors abound saying that Sony is accellerating their production schedule for the PS3 in order to compete with Microsoft, but Sony still has plans in the works to release a hard drive/ethernet addon for the PS2, probably 40GB+, and for more than $150. Whether or not gamers are interested in paying $300 for a PS2 then another $150 or more for the hard drive when they can pay $300 for an XBox, which comes with the hard drive AND ethernet as part of the deal, only time will tell. This will also depend on how much the hard drive is going to be used when it\'s finally released. Microsoft\'s hard drive can be used to store saved game, while PS2 owners are stuck paying $25 or more for an 8MB memory card that seems to fill up all to quickly. Also, the PS2\'s graphics capabilities continue to come into question. Can it compete with the XBox in the long run? Again, PS2 diehards say the full potential of the PS2 hasn\'t even come close to being realized. Time will tell. I doubt Sony is going to roll over and play dead for Microsoft\'s new technological marvel like Sega did for Sony, though. It\'s going to be a good battle, and hopefully in the end it will mean lower prices and better options for consumers. One way or the other, 2002 will be an interesting year for console and PC gamers alike.
In the end, I think a hard drive/ethernet add-on for the PS2 will hurt Sony\'s plans more than helping them. Sure, it will provide extra functionality, but so did the Sega 32x add-on for the Genesis, and look how well that went over. Even looking at the $35 memory upgrade for the N64, how many gamers actually bought this upgrade? History shows that when it comes to upgrading a current console system for more functionality, most people will simply gravitate towards a newer, faster system like the XBox instead that already offer these features for a little more cash. It\'s critical that Sony makes the hard drive/ethernet add-on a financially viable add-on and show that it won\'t be a useless purchase in the long term, and the longer it takes to get it out, the worse off the situation will get.
Right now, I do think the PS2 is the best option of the 3 systems, mainly due to the wealth of quality titles available for it like MGS2, GTA3, DMC, and THPS3. The XBox has a few good titles, Halo, DoA3, both of which seems to get overly repetitive very quickly. The Gamecube has Tony Hawk 3 and a few other notable titles, but nothing to make it stand out from the pack.
