Mad Rush

Does anyone else get the impression that manufacturers, developers, and the gaming media are really hell bent on getting the next hardware cycle to start before it really needs to? I remember being a bit surprised when Sega decided to first launch Dreamcast in Japan on November 20, 1998. But when you consider that Saturn was a commercial failure (outside of Japan, oddly enough) you can see why it may have seemed like a good idea to pull the plug on Saturn and try to start fresh. None of that factors in how much money they were losing on hardware or how much better off they'd have been by going third party after Saturn's demise, but I'll save that for another time.

Under normal circumstances, 2005 actually would be a reasonable time to start the roll out of new consoles. PlayStation came out in North America in 1995, PS2 followed suit in 2000. But with the way things are going now there aren't really any "normal circumstances." Microsoft wants to rush into the next generation hardware cycle. Some of the reasons are good. Many are not. On one hand, they still lose money on each Xbox unit sold, so there is really no incentive for them to drag out the life span of the product. There's also no hope of Xbox ever catching up with PS2's enormous user base or software library. On the other hand, the system is only a little more than three years old, and had a lot of momentum coming out of this past holiday season with the sales success Halo 2 has seen. I've had an Xbox for just under two years now, and it seems strange for things to be drying up this soon while we keep hearing weekly announcements bout developers starting next-gen projects. PS2 will be a five year old product on Friday (initial launch in Japan was March 4, 2000), but there is still a flood of quality releases coming out. Tekken 5 and Gran Turismo 4 just hit store shelves last week. God of War and Devil May Cry 3 are on deck. Meanwhile, yet another World War II FPS is coming out on Xbox. Oh yeah, there's a bad GT knock-off coming out next month as well. zzzzzzzzzzzzz

I understand the strategic angle of trying to get a product on the market first. Everybody knows that Halo 3 insn't coming out before 2007 unless a worse rush job is conducted than what we saw with Halo 2. So launching head to head in 2006 wouldn't accomplish much. But at the same time, I don't see how it can be regarded as a good thing that Xbox's life span is being cut short, and that Microsoft is surrendering the hardware superiority advantage. Without a new Halo or being the most powerful machine of the generation, what is going to make me want to purchase one this year? Ports of games like Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4 that I'll already be playing on my PC? Tony Hawk's Pro Vietnam Skater? A weak fighting game like Dead or Alive? I'm having a hard time considering under what circumstances I'd want to buy a new system this year. The same can largely be applied to Sony. I already know that there will be no new GTA, Metal Gear Solid, or Gran Turismo coming out this fall, so what would drive me (no pun intended) to run out and pick up a PlayStation 3? There's a possibility that Virtua Fighter 5 will be unveiled this year, running on a new arcade board that once again does not port easily to home consoles. Would it kill AM2 to take the Namco approach going into this generation and build arcade boards around ATI and nVidia chips? Anyhow, even in the hypothetical situation of a new Virtua Fighter launching with a console this year, I still wouldn't buy one.

Why would it be better to wait? There's a few reasons. First of all, even though we are nearing the end of the current generation, system and software sales are still extremely healthy. GTA and Halo 2 tore up the charts this past fall. 488,000 PS2's were just sold in January, which is usually a sales graveyard since it directly follows the Christmas shopping season. Secondly, developers are managing to pump out better looking games. Metal Gear Solid 3, Gran Turismo 4, Tekken 5, Resident Evil 4, and several other new games show that the current hardware can pump out visuals good enough to keep people satiated well into next year. Do any of them look as good as Half-Life 2? No, but consoles have to find a balance between topping what is the currently "drop dead gorgeous" games and being able to sustain a competitive output of games for the next five years. Launching a system in the next six to eight months limits what the system will be capable of going into 2008. That sounds ridiculous, but it is true. With the current development costs and the number of games getting delayed (do remember when we supposed to be playing Half-Life 2, Doom III, Halo 2, and Gran Turismo 4? neither do I), it seems obvious that the next generation of hardware will have to last until at least 2011, possibly 2012. To accellerate the cycle once again and rush out another system in 2009 would be suicide for the entire industry. So if I'm going to be using a platform for a while, wouldn't I want to wait another year or so and get more bang for my buck, and better performance in the long run? Ask someone who skipped the FX line of PC graphics cards in favor of waiting for the 6800's if their patience paid off.

Last, but most importantly, the consumer electronics industry is going to be entering a phase more important than the transition to a new hardware cycle: a transition to newer, bigger, and better storage mediums. A console launching this year is almost certainly going to be stuck with a DVD-ROM drive. That was cutting edge five years ago. Right now, it's par for the course, and it doesn't seem to be an option that will benefit me or any other consumer in the long run. When I've got UT2004 and Steam folders pushing ten gigabytes in size, I've got to wonder how well DVDs will hold up in a few years when games have even more detailed textures, more verbal dialogue, and more complex engines to fit onto a disc. The fact that TV's do not output a resolution as high as computer monitors will save some space in the textures department, but I still don't see the point of not opting for higher capcity discs. The FCC is going to make HD a standard, and there should be a storage medium compliant with the demands of this new standard. Twenty five gigabytes or just under nine? Seems like an obvious choice to me.

I'm sure when Xbox 2 (or Xbox 360 if some marketing retard actually thinks that is a good name) is unveiled at E3 this May it will impress people. I'm sure there will be enough visual candy in the launch titles to entice people. But can I really expect a system coming out in six months to be an enormous leap over Half-Life 2 and Doom III? Can I really expect it to deliver real-time visuals on par with those of Square's CG work? I guess we'll see, but waiting until 2006 could only help.

The next hardware cycle will start when the suits decide it is strategically viable, not when it will be best for gamers. But the good news is that if you're as put off by the this mad rush into the next generation as I am, all you have to do is... absolutely nothing. They need us to go out and buy the products. This isn't like computer application software that comes pre-installed and puts your money into a company's pocket whether you like it or not. I've got a ridiculous amount of current generation software left to play, and I'm a patient guy. Good luck trying to get me to jump the gun.