360 or ps3?

[v-ault]

Hey, I'm looking to buy the system that is more graphically powerful. I read that the 360 has a better gpu and is overall more efficient. Is any of that true, or are they pretty much equal? I know 360 has great games, but the ps3 will also have great games in the future.

[wwooden]

Well....do you want to play great games now? Or do you want to play them in the future? I think the PS3 has a lot of potential, but all the great games right now are on the 360 (Gears of War, Dead Rising, Lost Planet).

Most games that will be cross platform will look pretty much identical on both systems, it will be the exclusives that will look good.

Ask yourself what games you want to play? Are you a Halo fan? Then you'll have to get a 360.

[clayj]

360.

Unless, of course, you feel some need to have Blu-ray support built in to your console. Just remember, the 360 supports HD-DVD as an OPTION.

[raggedjimmi]

Buy a PC then. I mean really, if you want power then head to expensive GPU land :rolleyes:

360. Without any shadow of a doubt. See MS, tch, yea I know how silly of them, decided to launch games on their system with a very very good online system. Well if you're paying for it then it better be good!

[zap2]

I'd go with the 360....but then again I'm not a huge graphics fan, so I wouldn't care if PS3 ended up with better graphics, which I think it still will. I think I was sucked in by the Sony hype Machine!

Either way I think 360 is the way to go, it got better title NOW, with better online and slightly better graphic(but I don't think anyone can tell)

[aholden12592]

PS3 no doubt. check out this interview to see why the ps3 dominates.
http://www.us.playstation.com/News/Editorials/38?DCMP=EMC-PS3News1206&ATT=Editorial

[apachie2k]

hahaha from playstation.com -- nice source

[viccles]

360 of course

[aholden12592]

hahaha from playstation.com -- nice source

even if it is from playstation.com i still found the info about the machine compared to other very good

[cyberddot]

360

[aholden12592]

when considering this look at the demo of motorstorm. After a year of 360 no racer on the 360 looks that good. And that's only a demo. And also - alot of people are saying that launch titles for ps3 are not quite as good as 360 (close though), but really it took a year of develpment by MS to get those graphics. So really compare the launch titles.

[risc]

http://gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html?tag=features;title;0

...We expected the PlayStation 3 to ship with several games that first appeared on the Xbox 360, similar to how the Xbox 360 had a lot of Xbox ports at launch. And the PS3 did indeed arrive with a good number of games that originally shipped for the Xbox 360. This gave us the perfect opportunity to compare the graphics on both systems with several cross-platform games. You'd think that the PS3 versions would be exactly the same or slightly superior to the Xbox 360 versions, since many of these games appeared on the 360 months ago, but it seems like developers didn't use the extra time to polish up the graphics for the PS3. We found that the Xbox 360 actually had better graphics in the majority of the games we compared...

[crazycat]

I have both the 360 and the ps3, i dont really like the ps3 anymore. The XboX 360 has better games and more of them.

[MacRumorUser]

If people keep expecting that PS3 games are going to look better than 360 games - they are just deluding themselves.

All the crap about how launch games were going to be far graphically superior to 360 games and they are not.

For god sake even the PS3's most over hyped game MGS4 has already gone on record as stating it would look identical bar very minute differences 'maybe' on the 360, so if the PS3's killer app would look identical on 360, why do you assume that the PS3 is suddenly going to be graphically a whole lot more than the 360?

Listen to the developers and not sony marketing :rolleyes:

[Nym]

If you want to get straight information about consoles don't get it here.

IMO at this moment xbox 360 is probably the "safer" choice because it already has many available games, stable online system and etc, however, the PS3 will not flop! Just let it arrive to Europe and you will see their sales growing a lot.
Also there are few games available for the PS3 right now but no way the developers are going to put aside the Sony platform which is the only one who offers 40GB Blu-Ray capabilities, if anyone thinks that this doesn't matter.. well.. a lot of people used to say that 16 mb ram would be enough for everything.
Just wait a few months, you'll see the games popping out and then decide with real facts instead of biased opinions, nor Sony's, nor this Forum's.
Coming here asking about PS3 vs 360 Is like asking "should I buy a PC or a Mac?", you know what the most likely answer is going to be :o

FWIW, I wouldn't buy a PS3 now because I don't buy anything that recent, but I'm not so quick to sending it to the trash like most people here, my advice is... give it some time, it's a very recent product, not even available everywhere in the world.

[raggedjimmi]

even if it is from playstation.com i still found the info about the machine compared to other very good

BWHAHAHAHHA.

Sorry. That is just absolutely incredible. You actually listen to what Sony bosses have to say? Sweet child, poor sweet child. Do you honestly believe the PS3 is 4D, has super magical CPU powers that put it on par with an older, cheaper system etc?

You brightened up my morning :)

You know the Windows website says that it's the best OS too?

[MacRumorUser]

Just wait a few months, you'll see the games popping out and then decide with real facts instead of biased opinions, nor Sony's, nor this Forum's.
Coming here asking about PS3 vs 360 Is like asking "should I buy a PC or a Mac?", you know what the most likely answer is going to be :o


In fairness to the gaming section. If you were to ask that question normally youd get 'neither buy a wii' ;)

[Haoshiro]

when considering this look at the demo of motorstorm. After a year of 360 no racer on the 360 looks that good. And that's only a demo. And also - alot of people are saying that launch titles for ps3 are not quite as good as 360 (close though), but really it took a year of develpment by MS to get those graphics. So really compare the launch titles.

I'd disagree there. Motorstorm didn't look bad, but I wouldn't say it much outclasses even Burnout: Revenge on the 360.

Burnout Revenge: (360)

Screenshot #1 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/045/928661_20060215_screen005.jpg)
Screenshot #2 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/045/928661_20060215_screen004.jpg)
Screenshot #3 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/036/reviews/928661_20060206_screen002.jpg)
Screenshot #4 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/008/928661_20060109_screen006.jpg)


MotorStorm: (PS3)

Screenshot #1 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/325/928393_20061122_screen013.jpg)
Screenshot #2 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/344/reviews/928393_20061211_screen002.jpg)
Screenshot #3 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/325/928393_20061122_screen003.jpg)
Screenshot #4 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/344/reviews/928393_20061211_screen001.jpg)


Now I won't say there aren't some parts that might look better, and the games are different (one offroad, one onroad, etc) but I don't think MotorStorm looks an order of magnitude better, not even close.

I might also mention that Burnout Revenge is probably the most fun I've had with a racing game in a long time, it wins my "best arcade racer" award, heh. It's incredibly fast, MotorStorm seemed downright sluggish.

I also skimmed that article, and notice the bit where he says "Many of the launch titles are 20GB already" -- you do realize people already confirmed this wasn't actually the case, right? Anyone here have the source to that? Weren't they actually like 7GB max?

[apachie2k]

I'd disagree there. Motorstorm didn't look bad, but I wouldn't say it much outclasses even Burnout: Revenge on the 360.

Burnout Revenge: (360)

Screenshot #1 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/045/928661_20060215_screen005.jpg)
Screenshot #2 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/045/928661_20060215_screen004.jpg)
Screenshot #3 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/036/reviews/928661_20060206_screen002.jpg)
Screenshot #4 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/008/928661_20060109_screen006.jpg)


MotorStorm: (PS3)

Screenshot #1 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/325/928393_20061122_screen013.jpg)
Screenshot #2 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/344/reviews/928393_20061211_screen002.jpg)
Screenshot #3 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/325/928393_20061122_screen003.jpg)
Screenshot #4 (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/344/reviews/928393_20061211_screen001.jpg)


Now I won't say there aren't some parts that might look better, and the games are different (one offroad, one onroad, etc) but I don't think MotorStorm looks an order of magnitude better, not even close.

I might also mention that Burnout Revenge is probably the most fun I've had with a racing game in a long time, it wins my "best arcade racer" award, heh. It's incredibly fast, MotorStorm seemed downright sluggish.

I also skimmed that article, and notice the bit where he says "Many of the launch titles are 20GB already" -- you do realize people already confirmed this wasn't actually the case, right? Anyone here have the source to that? Weren't they actually like 7GB max?

those screenshots don't show what it really is like...those are like "cinematic" shots...

[Haoshiro]

those screenshots don't show what it really is like...those are like "cinematic" shots...

Of which game are you talking about?

Regardless, I've seen both running in realtime (I own Burnout, watched a friend play MotorStorm) and those screenshots seem pretty accurate in representing how good each game looks.

[mkaake]

Honest question to the OP:

If they're close enough to each other that it causes days of argument, who cares?

Do people honestly (serious question here) buy based soley on which one they think is more powerful? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask yourself: What kind of games to I like to play? Which system has a better selection (quality wise) of those games available?

And then choose a console. Otherwise, you're strictly arguing based on theoretical numbers... and it'll end up something like: Well technically, the PS3 has more raw power, but the slightly less powerful 360 can make better use of it, so it ends up being a wash - the 360 will likely have slightly better visuals, while the PS3 might accel in areas with large amounts of AI...

Which in the end is pretty meaningless. All three systems will look great so long as you're having fun while you're playing.

And just to appease MacRumorUser, viva la Wii!! :D

Seriously though, pick the console that has more of the games you enjoy, and suddenly a 2% difference in poly count or (my personal favorite) 50% difference in *space required on disc* won't be important anymore. It's all about having fun...

<edit>

Just to finish off my rant, I (personally) think that when a game is really good, I spend more time focused on the game than focused on looking *at* the game - maybe that's a function of the type of games I typically play, but I can't picture myself stopping what I'm doing to get close to the screen and think "man, if only I had gotten the _ _ _ _, I could see 10 more strands of hair on this character...". Extreme case in point? Firing up the NES a few days ago to play Super Mario Bros 3 - I was so focused on the game itself, the thought never crossed my mind "this would have been so much better if they had improved the graphics, or if it had been in 720p"...

[islandman]

Gamespot.com has an article about the graphics of both consoles, and concluded that the 360 has better graphics at the moment (in terms of comparisons between existing games). Either way, the difference is not significant, so if I were you, I'd make my decision based on what games are available.

[Nym]

Gamespot.com has an article about the graphics of both consoles, and concluded that the 360 has better graphics at the moment (in terms of comparisons between existing games). Either way, the difference is not significant, so if I were you, I'd make my decision based on what games are available.

Of course the graphics on the 360 look better right now, but as far as I'm concerned (and most people on this forum) graphics are not the main feature of a gaming console and I doubt that the PS3 graphics don't at least match those in the 360 in one year from now, give it a chance!
However, that's the only reason why the Wii is on the bottom of my list, because I haven't heard of a game that would be worthy of buying the console for, I respect those who like titles like Zelda (for example) but I don't appreciate the RPG genre (I've never finished one, maximum time I spent playing FF7: 30 minutes) so as of now for me the Wii is the console with less value.
My favorite titles usually don't make it to Nintendo consoles so you have to understand that it's not a good deal for myself and lots of people who come in here looking for some opinions.
From all I've read you guys don't even give a chance to the PS3, you say it's bad, expensive, 360 has better graphics, more games, and yeah, I can understand, these are all valid points, still, the 360 has been out for a year relatively to the PS3 and that's the point where you usually "fast forward".

I'll say, at this moment 360 is a best buy, but in a year from now, I seriously doubt it and I for one always wait at least a year after a console has been released before buying it because the only time I failed to do so I ended up with a Dreamcast, which later I found out only had one game I truly liked: Shenmue 2.

It's healthy to discuss these things but you need to understand that the Wii is not for everyone.

[Haoshiro]

Of course the graphics on the 360 look better right now, but as far as I'm concerned (and most people on this forum) graphics are not the main feature of a gaming console and I doubt that the PS3 graphics don't at least match those in the 360 in one year from now, give it a chance!
However, that's the only reason why the Wii is on the bottom of my list, because I haven't heard of a game that would be worthy of buying the console for, I respect those who like titles like Zelda (for example) but I don't appreciate the RPG genre (I've never finished one, maximum time I spent playing FF7: 30 minutes) so as of now for me the Wii is the console with less value.
My favorite titles usually don't make it to Nintendo consoles so you have to understand that it's not a good deal for myself and lots of people who come in here looking for some opinions.
From all I've read you guys don't even give a chance to the PS3, you say it's bad, expensive, 360 has better graphics, more games, and yeah, I can understand, these are all valid points, still, the 360 has been out for a year relatively to the PS3 and that's the point where you usually "fast forward".

I'll say, at this moment 360 is a best buy, but in a year from now, I seriously doubt it and I for one always wait at least a year after a console has been released before buying it because the only time I failed to do so I ended up with a Dreamcast, which later I found out only had one game I truly liked: Shenmue 2.

It's healthy to discuss these things but you need to understand that the Wii is not for everyone.

I think PS3 gets ripped so much for the same reasons you are not interested in Wii - games. Right now there is nothing compelling game-wise for PS3 over 360. Just as there is not on the Wii for you. So I could say to you the same about Wii: Give it a chance! It hasn't even been out a year! There could be lots of great games for you by that time! ;)

Based on your comments about Wii and Dreamcast, though, seems maybe there just isn't many games/genres you actually like. Must be hard for you! ;)

[kuyu]

360. It's a better value. Both systems have great graphics. With 360 you get Live (which I'd pay $100/year for in a heartbeat. It's that good). Barring the obvious advantage there it comes down to a battle of exclusives.

PS3:
Metal Gear Solid
Final Fantasy
Gran Turismo
Killzone

360:
BioShock
Mass Effect Trilogy
Halo
Forza
Too Human
Crackdown
Alan Wake
Lost Planet
Gears of War Trilogy
Splinter Cell
Geometry Wars
Blue Dragon
Eternal Sonata

You can use the $300 you save (if you get a 360 at Toys 'R' Us in the next week) to buy some extra controllers, a year of Live, games, a Wii, or whatever strikes your fancy.

/starts thinking of all the sweet 360 games my PS3 budget will buy
// or beers
/// or lap dances

[Nym]

I think PS3 gets ripped so much for the same reasons you are not interested in Wii - games. Right now there is nothing compelling game-wise for PS3 over 360. Just as there is not on the Wii for you. So I could say to you the same about Wii: Give it a chance! It hasn't even been out a year! There could be lots of great games for you by that time! ;)

Based on your comments about Wii and Dreamcast, though, seems maybe there just isn't many games/genres you actually like. Must be hard for you! ;)

LOL, it's not like that, I am giving Wii a chance, I said that it's in the bottom of my list as of now, maybe in a year or so it will be different, hence me waiting one year before buying any console :)
Ok, I'll tell you games that I'm playing right now on other platforms and you'll tell me if they are available on the Wii (maybe they are but I don't know right?):

Swat 4, F.E.A.R, GTA, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid, Company Of Heroes, Need For Speed Carbon, Pro Evolution Soccer 6, Silent Hill.

The thing is I wouldn't puy a PS3 now, as I've said earlier, but (like the Wii) it's still very young and from what I can see people here are always putting it down, let me give you an example, there's a thread on this forum called "My Wii Bricked!", if you look through it you'll see that everyone is telling the OP to take it easy because it's not Nintendo's fault and etc. If it was the same thread saying "My PS3 Bricked" everyone would be "yeah, we know PS3 sucks" "Sony sucks" "Crap console".. and you know that this is true :)

[savar]

Hey, I'm looking to buy the system that is more graphically powerful. I read that the 360 has a better gpu and is overall more efficient. Is any of that true, or are they pretty much equal? I know 360 has great games, but the ps3 will also have great games in the future.

I don't think anybody knows yet which one is more powerful graphically. We won't know that for a few years, probably.

The 360 is cheaper and easier to find. I really like mine except that it sounds like a harrier jet.

The main appeal of the 360 to me is that xbox live is clearly miles ahead of the competition from Nintendo and Sony -- and I love playing online.

[zap2]

Also there are few games available for the PS3 right now but no way the developers are going to put aside the Sony platform which is the only one who offers 40GB Blu-Ray capabilities, if anyone thinks that this doesn't matter.. well.. a lot of people used to say that 16 mb ram would be enough for everything. [/SIZE]


RAM is far more imporatant then 50Gb disk...you can just use 2 or 3 disk. Sure you have to get up but for the money it saves I'd do it.

Also I don't think anyone who knew anything about computer thought that 16mb RAM was going to be enough, just like people know more disk space is important, but currently there is not a big enough need for that big of a disk for most games

[Haoshiro]

Ok, I'll tell you games that I'm playing right now on other platforms and you'll tell me if they are available on the Wii (maybe they are but I don't know right?):

Swat 4, F.E.A.R, GTA, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid, Company Of Heroes, Need For Speed Carbon, Pro Evolution Soccer 6, Silent Hill.

Splinter Cell: Double Agent is on Wii, as well as Call of Duty 3. Sadness sounds like it'd fit in with Silent Hill pretty well.

Konami is working on a Soccer title too. I'm pretty sure SWAT 5 is *not* headed to Wii (it was supposed to be a PS3 launch title, but is also headed to PC/360) but I could ask (know a guy working on it).

And I'm not sure about racing. I didn't like the new NFS games all that much, Burnout (Revenge) is just a lot more fun to me (no tuning, more inventive tracks, crazy speed).

[SpankyPenzaanz]

[QUOTE=savar;3169481The main appeal of the 360 to me is that xbox live is clearly miles ahead of the competition from Nintendo and Sony -- and I love playing online.[/QUOTE]

ditto for me - I love the gamertag, 1 sign in for all games, the achievements are a nice distraction, the friends list is great, and more and more games are finally coming out co-op or at least some sort of co-op mode

[Nym]

RAM is far more imporatant then 50Gb disk...you can just use 2 or 3 disk. Sure you have to get up but for the money it saves I'd do it.
Also I don't think anyone who knew anything about computer thought that 16mb RAM was going to be enough, just like people know more disk space is important, but currently there is not a big enough need for that big of a disk for most games

Ok, but you got my point, a few years ago having a 1GB hardrive was BRUTAL and right now we have 250Gb Drives comming standard on the iMacs. The thing is, if someone can make a game 9Gb in size, if they're really devoted (like Hideo Kojima's Team) imagine what they'll be able to do with 40Gb of creative freedom.
I think right now this is indifferent because no one is taking advantage of the Blu-Ray power, but in two, three years, you'll see the possibilities of having 40Gb limit to build a game into. I know you probably have a Wii and if I had it too I'd be defending it, still, you cannot deny that our perspective of what technology is capable of and it's importance changes as time goes by.

As for Burnout:Revenge, I had it too, loaned from a friend, it's a very good game, excellent physics behaviour, amazing speed, destructible cars, sound track, all of it was great :) too bad I had to return it to it's owner, eheh.

I bet that within a year I'll have a more precise database of facts to decide which console I'm gonna buy, right now my PS2 serves me fine, I play a little everyday (usually), 20 mins or so, and it's still fun :D

[zap2]

Ok, but you got my point, a few years ago having a 1GB hardrive was BRUTAL and right now we have 250Gb Drives comming standard on the iMacs. The thing is, if someone can make a game 9Gb in size, if they're really devoted (like Hideo Kojima's Team) imagine what they'll be able to do with 40Gb of creative freedom.
I think right now this is indifferent because no one is taking advantage of the Blu-Ray power, but in two, three years, you'll see the possibilities of having 40Gb limit to build a game into. I know you probably have a Wii and if I had it too I'd be defending it, still, you cannot deny that our perspective of what technology is capable of and it's importance changes as time goes by.


If a dev wants a 40Gb game, they can use more then one DVD disk. I have RE4 and its 2 disks on the NGC. Sure it would be nice to have it on one disk but I wouldn't buy an extra few hundred for it.

Me defending the Wii(and 360 as it uses DVDs) has nothing to do with me owning one(I don't even own a 360) I didn't buy the Wii because it use DVD. I'm defending the use of DVDs because 1) Those huge disk are not needed 2) Sony is using the PS3 to profit from forcing Blue-Ray in the market.

[Haoshiro]

Ok, but you got my point, a few years ago having a 1GB hardrive was BRUTAL and right now we have 250Gb Drives comming standard on the iMacs. The thing is, if someone can make a game 9Gb in size, if they're really devoted (like Hideo Kojima's Team) imagine what they'll be able to do with 40Gb of creative freedom.
I think right now this is indifferent because no one is taking advantage of the Blu-Ray power, but in two, three years, you'll see the possibilities of having 40Gb limit to build a game into. I know you probably have a Wii and if I had it too I'd be defending it, still, you cannot deny that our perspective of what technology is capable of and it's importance changes as time goes by.

As for Burnout:Revenge, I had it too, loaned from a friend, it's a very good game, excellent physics behaviour, amazing speed, destructible cars, sound track, all of it was great :) too bad I had to return it to it's owner, eheh.

I bet that within a year I'll have a more precise database of facts to decide which console I'm gonna buy, right now my PS2 serves me fine, I play a little everyday (usually), 20 mins or so, and it's still fun :D

PS2 has always been considered "RPG Mecca", funny that is the system you have but don't play RPGs.

Burnout, btw, just gets better the more you play. I thought it was very good when I played it, then thought it was great... now I think it's incredible... best racer I've played. Gets better with time I guess, that is a great sign.

As for Blu-ray, I still don't think 50GB is a big advantage for games. Console games require less space then PC games because the don't need extra content for different class systems (variety of the same textures for different settings, etc) FEAR I believe was 13GB on PC yet fits on a single DVD for 360 (and looks as good or better, imho).

The thing is with that much space, if someone wanted to actually make a huge game that used that "potential" it would be horribly expensive and take a ridiculous amount of time.

Developers could, if they wanted, make a unique high-resolution texture for everything in a game so they had NO repeating textures (check out the MegaTexture tech in Quake Wars) but the truth is the time to do that is something developers/publishers will not see the benefit of and will not be willing to pay for.

Geometry (models, objects, levels) does not take a lot of space, so Audio, Video, and Textures is what eats space in games. Having a huge amount of space would let you store all that uncompressed, but with the great compression technology out there really is no good reason to do that besides "because you can". Graphics are good enough in games to NOT use CGI footage, so there isn't much point in storing HD video for games, just use the in-game engine for cutscenes.

All that is just to say, yeah there might be some small benefit to extra space, but who is going to be willing to pay to take advantage of it for a minimal increase in fidelity?

[Nym]

Yes, but by that logic they could still use CD's and make a game fit on 5 or 6 right? The dev's don't need Blu-Ray as of now, it's true, but I doubt the market will be static in the next 10 years, and if it evolves, it's only natural that bigger disc sizes will become standard the same way it happened with DVD's. Would you mind if the Wii would come with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray capabilities? I wouldn't :rolleyes:

Anyway, it's perfectly natural that people defend what is their own, I for one defend my buying choices with a passion! :)

PS2 has all kinds of games, it's hard to find a title that isn't available for it :o

[raggedjimmi]

I think we're missing the biggest statement yet,

I respect those who like titles like Zelda (for example) but I don't appreciate the RPG genre (I've never finished one, maximum time I spent playing FF7: 30 minutes) so as of now for me the Wii is the console with less value.

Zelda similar to Final Fantasy? FF is an RPG. Zelda is a plain old action/adventure. Though one could argue that in anygame where you play a single character that it is a 'role playing game'. But talking traditions -

Zelda doesn't have levelling up, rather than getting stronger you as the player have to get better at performing the moves, get better at the controls or learn a better combo and execute it at the right time etc. No turn based battles either. No bosses that change their own stats dependant on the players level etc. No traversing a giant map in faster than real-time speeds to visit key areas. Folks I know love Zelda and hate Final Fantasy (and vice versa) and never once stick them under the same genre.

If Tomb Raider suddenly allowed for backtracking and non-linear gameplay would that become an RPG?

[Haoshiro]

Yes, but by that logic they could still use CD's and make a game fit on 5 or 6 right? The dev's don't need Blu-Ray as of now, it's true, but I doubt the market will be static in the next 10 years, and if it evolves, it's only natural that bigger disc sizes will become standard the same way it happened with DVD's. Would you mind if the Wii would come with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray capabilities? I wouldn't :rolleyes:

Anyway, it's perfectly natural that people defend what is their own, I for one defend my buying choices with a passion! :)

PS2 has all kinds of games, it's hard to find a title that isn't available for it :o


No, I don't think the comparison of CDs really works. It does based on storage capacity differences, but not on the financial end.

Developers were making multi-CD based games before DVD was really a mainstay in computers. Far Cry (PC), for example came on 5 CDs at its release. DVD became a cheaper storage solution (or at least close enough that it made economical sense to switch) later and has now been getting more widely adopted for PC games.

We aren't there yet with DVDs, I have yet to see a multi-DVD game. So in that sense, the technology (Blu-ray) is ramping up faster then is needed at this time. For gaming, this makes it pointless. Trying to accomodate a Blu-ray disc in a game and fully utilize it would be a fools errand at this point, making that much content is just too expensive - and that was my point.

When the space on a DVD becomes an issue then we will be ready for a bigger storage medium, Blu-ray is just being pushed to fast and the reasons are not because we need it - it's Sony wanting to cash in early.

This process should be slow, get a standard (HD-DVD or Blu-ray), then work on improving it and by the time it becomes cheap enough for mass market the need for it might actually be there, we might be doing mulit-disc DVD games by that time (and on to Xbox 3 and PS4).

The only need for it we have now is for movies, and that probably isn't actually necessary yet. You can download 720p HD movies and they are about 6 GB right now. That leaves 3GB for extras on a 9GB DVD.

They are pushing an "HD format" when HD penetration is at about 30% right now. It almost seems like they are TRYING to go bankrupt and bring as many people with them as they can! :rolleyes:

[zap2]

Yes, but by that logic they could still use CD's and make a game fit on 5 or 6 right? The dev's don't need Blu-Ray as of now, it's true, but I doubt the market will be static in the next 10 years, and if it evolves, it's only natural that bigger disc sizes will become standard the same way it happened with DVD's.
well 5 700Mb CDs is only 3.5Gb, a little less then half of a DVD. That not the point, the reason gaming companies use DVDs is because DVDs are useful AND cheap. The extra price of a DVD disk makes it worth using them, mainly because its cheap. The extra MASSIVE price of blue-ray makes it not worth the money now. When xBox 3, PS4 and the next Nintendo console come out, then HD-DVD/Blue-Ray disk will be cheap, so price will no longer be a big issue.


Would you mind if the Wii would come with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray capabilities? I wouldn't :rolleyes:

I would, because they aren't need yet and the price would make the Wii SO much money. GameCube used 1.5Gb disk, and that was enough for most, no way I need 50Gb disk.

[Nym]

Regarding Zelda, I wasn't specifically saying it was a RPG, but it's definitely a game "worth buying the console for" if you're a fan, I was only saying I'm not a Zelda fan :o And as far as I know, it was one of the most "awaited" Wii games.

As to the CD/DVD/BR discussion, probably you're right, Sony IS trying to push it into the market sooner that what it's needed, however, from what I've learned from technology is that it WILL be needed someday, I guess that the problem is that right now it's too early for that transition, hence I won't be buying any next-gen console until I really see them pan out and show me how they endure "time", the next year will be crucial to see that IMO.

My main question was: don't you agree that is too early to throw the Ps3/Wii in the garbage at this stage of their existence? Because the same way that you discard the Ps3 a lot of Ps3 fanboys are also doing the same with the Wii and I don't agree with that either. I don't see this as a console wars, I'm glad we have three choices available :)

[zap2]

[QUOTE=Nym;3169700

My main question was: don't you agree that is too early to throw the Ps3/Wii in the garbage at this stage of their existence? Because the same way that you discard the Ps3 a lot of Ps3 fanboys are also doing the same with the Wii and I don't agree with that either. I don't see this as a console wars, I'm glad we have three choices available :)[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone said the PS3 is a terrible system FOREVER, but currently it would be a better idea to get a X360

[Nym]

I don't think anyone said the PS3 is a terrible system FOREVER, but currently it would be a better idea to get a X360

Of course, but you know what I'm talking about, just look at our "Games" forum section, it's full of PS3 bashing, it's way too early to do that IMO :)

Anyway, I was just stating my opinion regarding this whole issue, as you can see at this moment I'm not looking to buy a new console, I feel love for them all ;)

[Haoshiro]

My main question was: don't you agree that is too early to throw the Ps3/Wii in the garbage at this stage of their existence? Because the same way that you discard the Ps3 a lot of Ps3 fanboys are also doing the same with the Wii and I don't agree with that either. I don't see this as a console wars, I'm glad we have three choices available :)

Yes and no. Wii is a simply gaming machine with innovative control, that is good for consumers and for the industry (a lot of developer intend to make Wii games because it will cost them MUCH less to make a game for it). Nintendo also makes different kind of software that appeal to different tastes, so they are filling an area of the market that would be empty otherwise.

The problem with PS3 is that I, personally, view it as something that doesn't really benefit anyone but Sony.

Power aside, it is carrying a lot of hardware people don't need and letting consumers foot the bill for it. It's almost too much too early. The technology in it isn't bad, but it hasn't been allowed to mature yet. Cell and Blu-ray would be more beneficial (and more competitive) later. Cell2/etc is something that really could be good for computing but its too early to make that call.

When you think about it, PS3 isn't offering anything that would really be missed if it were to simply not exist. Final Fantasy games, Metal Gear games, etc, could all go nicely on 360. A piece of hardware that benefits the consumer because it is not trying to push unmature hardware on consumers (It's using PPC processors, DVD, etc) and it's very developer centric allowing developers to make better games easier (read: cheaper). That is good for gamers and it's good for consumers.

That is my feeling regarding the PS3, that it's simple a pointless product. It's not offering anything we don't have on the market already, making it's main feature the fact that it's a trojan horse for pushing Blu-ray into market earlier then it's needed - just so Sony can capitalize on owning the technology.

Imagine the gaming world without PS3... is it really that different? I don't think so, I think all those PS3 games people are wanting would still exist, on PC and on 360. Nobody would be missing anything.

[Nym]

Sure, I see your point Haoshiro and it makes perfect sense the "Trojan Horse" technique your saying, however, I'm going to let a year pass before I make any decision regarding consoles, usually when I wait it only brings me good stuff. Look at my example:
I always loved Mac's and always wanted to buy one, still, I had this big issue with them that was "I love them, but I like to play some stuff online and I (unfortunately) need a PC for that", so I waited a year and Apple made it's transition to Intel, Bootcamp became a possibility and now I am a 24" iMac proud owner, i'm very glad I didn't rush into buying an iMac G5 or I would be so pissed of right now :) See my point in waiting a year to see how the consoles behave? who knows what the future brings?

[raggedjimmi]

Why wait a year then? If you wait 5-6 years until the next next-gen systems are out then you could pick up a 360 for what, how much are Xbox 1's going for now? And with it's (potentially) massive game line up too!

Theoretical future 'last gen' console versus buying today and having a while of a time? If it was a computer then I would wait. But for the cheap prices of (most) consoles it's not really needed.

[Nym]

Humm, consoles are supposed to last what? 5/6 years? I guess I can wait one for the following reasons:

1- More games available
2- More 3rd and non-3rd party acessories
3- Dev's overall knowledge of a console's limits improves
4- Lower prices
5- Much larger online community

This regarding both the PS3 and Wii, the 360 is different because it has already been out for a year and yeah, I admit it, I'm becoming very willing to buy it because from what I've read here it looks like it's a very good console in every aspect :)
Besides being M$ of course, do you think they got it absolutely right with the 360? Isn't it strange to see them doing a "very good product"? :D

[Haoshiro]

Sure, I see your point Haoshiro and it makes perfect sense the "Trojan Horse" technique your saying, however, I'm going to let a year pass before I make any decision regarding consoles, usually when I wait it only brings me good stuff. Look at my example:
I always loved Mac's and always wanted to buy one, still, I had this big issue with them that was "I love them, but I like to play some stuff online and I (unfortunately) need a PC for that", so I waited a year and Apple made it's transition to Intel, Bootcamp became a possibility and now I am a 24" iMac proud owner, i'm very glad I didn't rush into buying an iMac G5 or I would be so pissed of right now :) See my point in waiting a year to see how the consoles behave? who knows what the future brings?

Jimmi does have a point. If you a PS2, then I suppose you've already wait 4-6 years already. ;)

In fact it sounds like you can count out a Wii already (as Nintendo-style games aren't your thing). By the list of games you provided you are more of a PC-style gamer anyway, and in that regard 360 fits in very well. You year wait for that is now over. ;) Personally I would encourage against PS3 solely on the basis of Blu-ray. Sony has their hands on it too much, and forcing consumers to help them spread it (even if it's not a bad technology) is good enough reason to not buy into it. I'm actually considering the HD-DVD addon for 360 partially to "put in my vote", moreso against Blu-ray then "for" HD-DVD. But cheaper consumer costs for the media are an advantage in my eyes.

But maybe you are more worried that PS3 will put Microsoft out of business? And you'll end up with a 360 with a short lifespan ala Dreamcast? Microsoft is no Sega, they won't be going anywhere... ;)

This regarding both the PS3 and Wii, the 360 is different because it has already been out for a year and yeah, I admit it, I'm becoming very willing to buy it because from what I've read here it looks like it's a very good console in every aspect :)
Besides being M$ of course, do you think they got it absolutely right with the 360? Isn't it strange to see them doing a "very good product"? :D

No, I think they should have included a larger harddrive (price per-GB isn't that much to warrant only launching a 20GB). And they should have included Wireless. It's a cheap part, and I've said in the past it's not a big deal and most people are still wired. But looking forward it will be, and the fact it isn't a big deal shows they should have done it... it could have only helped them.

I also think they should have gone with SD or CF for memory cards (which would help camera integration anyway).

And HDMI, that's something they should have considered as well, which I'm sure they did.

But those are the things that I don't think would have increased cost all that much: Built-in Wireless, SD/CF support, 40GB+ HDD, and HDMI.

I probably wouldn't have used all that, but I still think that would be something they would need to get it "absolutely right." :)

[MacRumorUser]

And just to appease MacRumorUser, viva la Wii!! :D


phew, i am appeased young padawin ;) I feel a balance in the force :D

[siurpeeman]

I have both the 360 and the ps3, i dont really like the ps3 anymore. The XboX 360 has better games and more of them.

well, yeah. ps3 just came out. of course it won't have as many good games as xbox 360 or even that many total games out. ps3 has a lot of potential, though, with metal gear solid 4, final fantasy xiii and tekken 6. those are the three i'm waiting for. but it's going to take some time. if you want good games now, get the 360. if you can wait, then wait and compare the good 360 games to the good ps3 games.

[Spartacus]

After reading this thread all the way through I've decided the original poster's question can be answered very briefly: If you are in the market now buy a 360, but if you are going to wait a year then wait a year and ask this question again when you are ready to buy. It's a pretty safe bet the 360 is going to continue to be an amazing system for a long time...but relative to the PS3? No one can answer that yet.

That's about as simple as I see it.

Sort of Off Topic: Another thing to consider is resale value. My $400 Xbox 360 I purchased early last summer (no tax - Amazon) could sell for $350 on Ebay/Craigslist. That's a pretty safe investment if you are concerned you won't like it 6 months from now. Buy a used one (you won't be getting mine - love it too much!) and either be happy and keep it or be unhappy and resell it. I'm sure the same will be true with the PS3. When a 'killer-app' arrives for the PS3 I might actually buy one for that game and then sell both for fairly little loss. I've 'tested' almost every Apple computer they've released that way for sometimes even a profit.

I heart Ebay/Craigslist.

[MacRumorUser]

Me defending the Wii(and 360 as it uses DVDs) has nothing to do with me owning one(I don't even own a 360) I didn't buy the Wii because it use DVD. I'm defending the use of DVDs because 1) Those huge disk are not needed 2) Sony is using the PS3 to profit from forcing Blue-Ray in the market.

Technically on the wii, its a high capacity optical disk, not a DVD. Come on we dont want to have to pay a licence fee now ;) :)

[aholden12592]

BWHAHAHAHHA.

Sorry. That is just absolutely incredible. You actually listen to what Sony bosses have to say? Sweet child, poor sweet child. Do you honestly believe the PS3 is 4D, has super magical CPU powers that put it on par with an older, cheaper system etc?

You brightened up my morning :)

You know the Windows website says that it's the best OS too?

i knew alot of the stuff was bullcrap but I thought some stuff like blu ray can hold 50GB compared to DVD's that only hold 9GB.

[gkarris]

Wow, just a new take on "Which do I buy, the Atari or the Intellivision?"

It's all about the games. Look at the games you'd like to own and play and buy that system...

[raggedjimmi]

i knew alot of the stuff was bullcrap but I thought some stuff like blu ray can hold 50GB compared to DVD's that only hold 9GB.

Funny, 9gb seems to be enough room for games I play! How big is HL2? 4gb? Lovely stuff.

Though it has been said, the 360 is far from perfect.

Small HDD, no WiFi are instant put offs for me. Hell I'd pay the full amount if it had them things rather than waiting for a price drop. Then there's the little niggles like not being able to transfer across paid Live accounts to another profile, the super loud DVD drive, the worry of the red ring of death (Mate had to pay out 60 quid just to send it back to MS), not being able to transfer saves to computer for back up purposes. Regular SD memory card slot too, I mean how much for a 64mb 360 memory card?!

Personally... I'd like a slot loading tray too :)

And if I'm dreaming; lower power consumption.

[OdduWon]

:rolleyes: If only the PS3 had that little green light that the 360 has, you know the one that changes location based on which controler your using. This is the cooles thing ever, its super duper cool. awhh wow man if only the PS3 had one i would buy for sure:rolleyes:
but all stupidity aside what is the "media experience" comparisons? I haven't seen any on The Ps3's media'ness (except for the extremely creepy tv commercials)????

[aholden12592]

:rolleyes: If only the PS3 had that little green light that the 360 has, you know the one that changes location based on which controler your using. This is the cooles thing ever, its super duper cool. awhh wow man if only the PS3 had one i would buy for sure:rolleyes:
but all stupidity aside what is the "media experience" comparisons? I haven't seen any on The Ps3's media'ness (except for the extremely creepy tv commercials)????

i'm not quite sure what you're talking about the light on the 360 but if you want to see videos of games on the ps3 go to ign.com or gamespot.com

[OdduWon]

i'm not quite sure what you're talking about the light on the 360 but if you want to see videos of games on the ps3 go to ign.com or gamespot.com

Im talking about the four lights that frame the power button on the 360 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lcTomxyncZU&mode=related&search=). there was a video some where around launch that had them bragging about how "smart" the 360 was because it knew to rotate the player sequence 90 degrees. ( player one in the top left quadrant and player two clockwise from there). Not that impressive hers another example of M$ sense of cool (http://youtube.com/watch?v=u2NzPyBsaug) it's just a power on off symbol with a circle around it right, and it's called the 360 :rolleyes: . this is not there style? oh wait there is windows in a bubble to of course :D

[clayj]

You may make fun of the 360's Ring of Light, but at least the 360 doesn't look like a George Foreman grill. :p

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

I vote 360. More games + Cheaper = Better. :)

[Gyroscope]

If you want to spend your money twice then go ahead and get an XBox 360 console now. :D 1-2 years down the track PS3 will be the best console to get.

Regards

[raggedjimmi]

If you want to spend your money twice then go ahead and get an XBox 360 console now. :D 1-2 years down the track PS3 will be the best console to get.

Regards

Um... how? The PS3 is losing exclusives left right and centre, the 360 gaining them. I don't understand how it can be better really. Especially with the 360 costing less to begin with.
Explain?

[clayj]

Um... how? The PS3 is losing exclusives left right and centre, the 360 gaining them. I don't understand how it can be better really. Especially with the 360 costing less to begin with.
Explain?The only way the PS3 will ever be better than the 360 is if Blu-ray somehow wins the Format War over HD-DVD.

And even then, Microsoft can easily build a Blu-ray add-on for the 360. The PS3 is *committed* to Blu-ray and if HD-DVD wins, there's going to be a lot of pissed off PS3/Blu-ray users out there.

[gkarris]

Um... how? The PS3 is losing exclusives left right and centre, the 360 gaining them. I don't understand how it can be better really. Especially with the 360 costing less to begin with.
Explain?

Aren't you up on the LATEST? The PS3 is the GREATEST! I want to get one to put next to my Betamax and Minidisc recorder...

[Gyroscope]

Um... how? The PS3 is losing exclusives left right and centre, the 360 gaining them. I don't understand how it can be better really. Especially with the 360 costing less to begin with.
Explain?

Left and Right Centre? PS3 lost few exclusives just because it was launched late and in limited ###. Developers must make their buck so there you go. Some games never meant to be exclusives to start with. It is just so that dev. cost are so high in this generation (with xbox 360 and ps3) and there must be an return on investment. After initial quirks are sorted out and price comes down PS3 will shine. Processing power of Cell, Blu-Ray capacity and standard Hard Drive will make games on PS3 better than on XB360 over the time.

Also look how quickly MS dropped XBox after they launched XB360.

Its just you being a cheerleader for the product that you already bought.

Nothing more that that really.

Cheers

[Gyroscope]

Aren't you up on the LATEST? The PS3 is the GREATEST! I want to get one to put next to my Betamax and Minidisc recorder...


Bet you, that you haven't even been born when betamax was still roaming the earth. :D

[clayj]

Left and Right Centre? PS3 lost few exclusives just because it was launched late and in limited ###. Developers must make their buck so there you go. Some games never meant to be exclusives to start with. It is just so that dev. cost are so high in this generation (with xbox 360 and ps3) and there must be an return on investment. After initial quirks are sorted out and price comes down PS3 will shine. Processing power of Cell, Blu-Ray capacity and standard Hard Drive will make games on PS3 better than on XB360 over the time.The Cell's really not any more powerful than the triple G5s in the 360. Blu-ray capacity is irrelevant unless they're going to start filling games with lots of pre-rendered cut scenes, and virtually no one with a 360 doesn't have a hard drive. Oh, and the 360 has the ability to upscale games to ALL supported resolutions via its built-in frame buffer. The PS3 can't.

Try again.

Also look how quickly MS dropped XBox after they launched XB360.What's that have to do with the price of tea in China? And besides, Sony will probably drop the PS2 in about the same amount of time... unless, of course, they need to keep the PS2 around because no one's buying PS3s.

Its just you being a cheerleader for the product that you already bought.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not 100% sure that raggedjimmi owns a 360.

[raggedjimmi]

Its just you being a cheerleader for the product that you already bought.


Whoa, don't get your knickers in a twist :rolleyes: I have no 360. I'm certainly getting a Wii, always was. But I always get a second console and it was always a toss up between a 360 (always going to be on top with online abilities) or PS3 (B/C with PS1 and 2 games). I look at both systems objectively, it just so happens the PS3 has a lot to object about ;)

[gkarris]

Bet you, that you haven't even been born when betamax was still roaming the earth. :D

Actually, I remember the day it came out.... talk about huge...

[Gyroscope]

The Cell's really not any more powerful than the triple G5s in the 360. Blu-ray capacity is irrelevant unless they're going to start filling games with lots of pre-rendered cut scenes, and virtually no one with a 360 doesn't have a hard drive. Oh, and the 360 has the ability to upscale games to ALL supported resolutions via its built-in frame buffer. The PS3 can't.

Try again.

What's that have to do with the price of tea in China? And besides, Sony will probably drop the PS2 in about the same amount of time... unless, of course, they need to keep the PS2 around because no one's buying PS3s.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not 100% sure that raggedjimmi owns a 360.

Ever heard programers talking about compressing game textures in order to fit on DVD?

CPU in XBox 360 is not G5.

As said again you are all comparing 1,5 old XBox360 to PS3 that is only 1,5 mnth on market. Let's all be realistic here.

If you are not buying PS3 that doesnt mean other won't. You are all talking like you have any idea how good/bad ps3 is (will be) selling.

Cheers

Whoa, don't get your knickers in a twist :rolleyes: I have no 360.


I apologise for my wrong assumption.;)

Actually, I remember the day it came out.... talk about huge...

Yeah they were huge. Remember those buttons? But hey I was disap. with VHS picture quality after I had to ditch beta in order to watch any porn :D :D .


Regards

[clayj]

Ever heard programers talking about compressing game textures in order to fit on DVD?Sure. But that's just being efficient.

Or are you saying that the PS3 will allow programmers to be lazy?

CPU in XBox 360 is not G5.Sorry... it's BETTER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Central_processing_unit) than a G5.

[e²Studios]

It all boils down to preference. I have a PS3 and a Wii, i own more games for my Wii than my PS3 but im sure eventually it will even out. To be honest i dont care if bluray wins or loses nor do i care about the multimedia features of a console. All i care about is that i have fun when i play it, imho both have succeeded at that, with a slight edge to the Wii in the fun factor.

Ed

[madfresh]

360 :cool:

[zap2]

LProcessing power of Cell, Blu-Ray capacity and standard Hard Drive will make games on PS3 better than on XB360 over the time.
s


Is the Cell going to stop global warming while its at it? I've heard WAY to much talk about the Cell from Sony, and not enough results

[Gyroscope]

Is the Cell going to stop global warming while its at it? I've heard WAY to much talk about the Cell from Sony, and not enough results


You are just being impatient. :)

Sure. But that's just being efficient.

Or are you saying that the PS3 will allow programmers to be lazy?

Sorry... it's BETTER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Central_processing_unit) than a G5.

:eek: You are comparing in-order exec. styled CPU with out of order one.

3 G5 cores would kill Xbox360 cpu.

[zap2]

You are just being impatient. :)

When a company talks up a product as much as Sony did the PS3, it better kick arse on the first day, and it didn't. Because of that I'm dissapointed but even more important is the games which I never felt that Sony would meet the wants of myself.

[xparaparafreakx]

It all boils down to preference. I have a PS3 and a Wii, i own more games for my Wii than my PS3 but im sure eventually it will even out. To be honest i dont care if bluray wins or loses nor do i care about the multimedia features of a console. All i care about is that i have fun when i play it, imho both have succeeded at that, with a slight edge to the Wii in the fun factor.

Ed
Yay, there someone out there that has both a Wii and a PS3.

I agree that its preference. I got a PS3 and love it. Me and my bro play co-op resistence then after a few hours, we play doubles tennis on wii.

[Haoshiro]

Gyroscope:

Personally I don't think you are being realistic yourself.

A few Sony employees shuffled? Not many important exclusives lost?

The exec Sony "shuffled" was the father of the Playstation who was in charge of PS1 and PS2. That is a big deal, you act like one simple mistake could have caused that. We are talking about taking that guy away from his position at the beginning of the launch of his latest project, the third in a series of very successful products.

And what exclusives have they lost? Let me name three:
- Grand Theft Auto - *The* best selling game in North America (biggest market). Xbox 360 exclusive.
- Dragon Quest - Moved to the DS Lite
- Virtua Fighter - A *huge* game for Japan and is considered one of reasons PS2 did so well in japan. VF is the most popular arcade game in the country. Now coming to 360.

I'm sure other people could name more, but that is enough to make the point.

Also, MS just has better developer relations and better developer tools. If you want to talk about developers, then you should already know Xbox 360 has the best dev tools out there and is considered the easiest system to make games for. That is cash money in developers/publishers hands and that matters a lot.

Now consider the price. Let's just say that PS3 is a steal and worth every penny. Yet it still costs $200 then 360 if people just want to play games. That extra cost translates into lost game sales. Even if the system is worth the price, it's still money people can't spend on software. And developers and publishers are going to be looking at *software* sales numbers. Xbox 360 has a better attach rate, because it costs consumers less money to buy into.

[e²Studios]

And what exclusives have they lost? Let me name three:
- Grand Theft Auto - *The* best selling game in North America (biggest market). Xbox 360 exclusive.
- Dragon Quest - Moved to the DS Lite
- Virtua Fighter - A *huge* game for Japan and is considered one of reasons PS2 did so well in japan. VF is the most popular arcade game in the country. Now coming to 360.

Virtua Fighter 5 PS3, ship date = Feb, 2007 http://ps3.ign.com/articles/751/751474p1.html

Grand Theft Auto IV http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/grandtheftauto4/news.html?sid=6149853

As for the executive shuffle if you really paid attention its not like they fired the father of Playstation, THEY PROMOTED HIM. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,233742,00.html "Father of PlayStation' Promoted to Head Sony's Game Unit"

Before you go off on a tirade i would get your facts straight, otherwise you just sound like an ignorant fanboy.

Everyone has a preference, one of mine is to never willingly give money to M$...

[Haoshiro]

Virtua Fighter 5 PS3, ship date = Feb, 2007 http://ps3.ign.com/articles/751/751474p1.html

Grand Theft Auto IV http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/grandtheftauto4/news.html?sid=6149853

As for the executive shuffle if you really paid attention its not like they fired the father of Playstation, THEY PROMOTED HIM. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,233742,00.html "Father of PlayStation' Promoted to Head Sony's Game Unit"

Before you go off on a tirade i would get your facts straight, otherwise you just sound like an ignorant fanboy.

Everyone has a preference, one of mine is to never willingly give money to M$...

I could say the same to you. ;)

I never said those games weren't coming to PS3, I said they lost exclusivity. There is a difference.

Also, I know they promoted Kutaragi. The position he WAS in was where he was able to make the decisions about the Playstation products, just like he's done from the beginning. They put someone else in that position, which is the point. He is now chairman, with Kaz Harai now taking over as president.

I have my facts straight, you are getting worked up simply because you misunderstood me. Please don't blame me for that. :rolleyes: :)

[e²Studios]

I could say the same to you. ;)

I never said those games weren't coming to PS3, I said they lost exclusivity. There is a difference.

Also, I know they promoted Kutaragi. The position he WAS in was where he was able to make the decisions about the Playstation products, just like he's done from the beginning. They put someone else in that position, which is the point. He is now chairman, with Kaz Harai now taking over as president.

I have my facts straight, you are getting worked up simply because you misunderstood me. Please don't blame me for that. :rolleyes: :)

It's more in how you delivered it, don't play dumb facts were omitted ;)

[Antares]

Let's have this conversation a year from now. There's no point arguing PS3 or 360 right now. Wait till both systems are running at full steam....which will probably take the PS3 2 years. Give it 1 year and lets see what the PS3 has going.....

[Haoshiro]

It's more in how you delivered it, don't play dumb facts were omitted ;)

No, if you look I was responding directly to Gyroscope, who I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed/gathered already knew said "facts". No point in me bloating my posts with information he (and you) already knew.

You interpretted my post as if I was saying something I did not say, which prompted your response. It's not the fault of delivery or omissions, but about what you read "inbetween the lines", I doubt MRU, clayj, or other posters would have drawn the same conclussions.

But again, I was responding to someone specifically and was not trying to make a generalized post that filled in all the extra details I expected to already be known, and did not change the validity of my points. :D

Hopefully if you re-read the original post of mine you will understand what I was getting at, and why I ended it discussing attach rates and sales.

[zero2dash]

Some of you guys (Gyroscope) need to educate yourself with facts instead of posting baseless opinions. :rolleyes:

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
XBOX 360 / PLAYSTATION 3 PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

SUMMARY
Now that the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 specifications have been announced, it is possible to do a real world performance comparison of the two systems.

There are three critical performance aspects of a console:

Central Processing Unit (CPU) performance.
The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell.
Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) performance
The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU.
Memory System Bandwidth
The memory system bandwidth in Xbox 360 exceeds the PS3's by five times.

The Xbox 360's CPU has more general purpose processing power because it has three general purpose cores, and Cell has just one.

Cell's claimed advantage is on streaming floating point work which is done on its seven DSP processors.

The Xbox 360 GPU has more processing power than the PS3's. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance.

Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth.

CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the PlayStation 3.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p2.html
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

CPU
The Xbox 360 processor was designed to give game developers the power that they actually need, in an easy to use form. The Cell processor has impressive streaming floating-point power that is of limited use for games.

The majority of game code is a mixture of integer, floating-point, and vector math, with lots of branches and random memory accesses. This code is best handled by a general purpose CPU with a cache, branch predictor, and vector unit.

The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming.

Xbox 360 has three general purpose CPU cores. The Cell processor has only one.

Xbox 360's CPUs has vector processing power on each CPU core. Each Xbox 360 core has 128 vector registers per hardware thread, with a dot product instruction, and a shared 1-MB L2 cache. The Cell processor's vector processing power is mostly on the seven DSPs.

Dot products are critical to games because they are used in 3D math to calculate vector lengths, projections, transformations, and more. The Xbox 360 CPU has a dot product instruction, where other CPUs such as Cell must emulate dot product using multiple instructions.

Cell's streaming floating-point work is done on its seven DSP processors. Since geometry processing is moved to the GPU, the need for streaming floating-point work and other DSP style programming in games has dropped dramatically.

Just like with the PS2's Emotion Engine, with its missing L2 cache, the Cell is designed for a type of game programming that accounts for a minor percentage of processing time.

Sony's CPU is ideal for an environment where 12.5% of the work is general-purpose computing and 87.5% of the work is DSP calculations. That sort of mix makes sense for video playback or networked waveform analysis, but not for games. In fact, when analyzing real games one finds almost the opposite distribution of general purpose computing and DSP calculation requirements. A relatively small percentage of instructions are actually floating point. Of those instructions which are floating-point, very few involve processing continuous streams of numbers. Instead they are used in tasks like AI and path-finding, which require random access to memory and frequent branches, which the DSPs are ill-suited to.

Based on measurements of running next generation games, only ~10-30% of the instructions executed are floating point. The remainders of the instructions are load, store, integer, branch, etc. Even fewer of the instructions executed are streaming floating point—probably ~5-10%. Cell is optimized for streaming floating-point, with 87.5% of its cores good for streaming floating-point and nothing else.

Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult.

Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p3.html
GPU
Even ignoring the bandwidth limitations the PS3's GPU is not as powerful as the Xbox 360's GPU.

Below are the specs from Sony's press release regarding the PS3's GPU.

RSX GPU

550 MHz
Independent vertex/pixel shaders
51 billion dot products per second (total system performance)
300M transistors
136 "shader operations" per clock
The interesting ALU performance numbers are 51 billion dot products per second (total system performance), 300M transistors, and more than twice as powerful as the 6800 Ultra.

The 51 billions dot products per cycle were listed on a summary slide of total graphics system performance and are assumed to include the Cell processor. Sony's calculations seem to assume that the Cell can do a dot product per cycle per DSP, despite not having a dot product instruction.

However, using Sony's claim, 7 dot products per cycle * 3.2 GHz = 22.4 billion dot products per second for the CPU. That leaves 51 - 22.4 = 28.6 billion dot products per second that are left over for the GPU. That leaves 28.6 billion dot products per second / 550 MHz = 52 GPU ALU ops per clock.

It is important to note that if the RSX ALUs are similar to the GeForce 6800 ALUs then they work on vector4s, while the Xbox 360 GPU ALUs work on vector5s. The total programmable GPU floating point performance for the PS3 would be 52 ALU ops * 4 floats per op *2 (madd) * 550 MHz = 228.8 GFLOPS which is less than the Xbox 360's 48 ALU ops * 5 floats per op * 2 (madd) * 500 MHz= 240 GFLOPS.

With the number of transistors being slightly larger on the Xbox 360 GPU (330M) it's not surprising that the total programmable GFLOPs number is very close.

The PS3 does have the additional 7 DSPs on the Cell to add more floating point ops for graphics rendering, but the Xbox 360's three general purpose cores with custom D3D and dot product instructions are more customized for true graphics related calculations.

The 6800 Ultra has 16 pixel pipes, 6 vertex pipes, and runs at 400 MHz. Given the RSX's 2x better than a 6800 Ultra number and the higher frequency of the RSX, one can roughly estimate that it will have 24 pixel shading pipes and 4 vertex shading pipes (fewer vertex shading pipes since the Cell DSPs will do some vertex shading). If the PS3 GPU keeps the 6800 pixel shader pipe co-issue architecture which is hinted at in Sony's press release, this again gives it 24 pixel pipes* 2 issued per pipe + 4 vertex pipes = 52 dot products per clock in the GPU.

If the RSX follows the 6800 Ultra route, it will have 24 texture samplers, but when in use they take up an ALU slot, making the PS3 GPU in practice even less impressive. Even if it does manage to decouple texture fetching from ALU co-issue, it won't have enough bandwidth to fetch the textures anyways.

For shader operations per clock, Sony is most likely counting each pixel pipe as four ALU operations (co-issued vector+scalar) and a texture operation per pixel pipe and 4 scalar operations for each vector pipe, for a total of 24 * (4 + 1) + (4*4) = 136 operations per cycle or 136 * 550 = 74.8 GOps per second.

Given the Xbox 360 GPU's multithreading and balanced design, you really can't compare the two systems in terms of shading operations per clock. However, the Xbox 360's GPU can do 48 ALU operations (each can do a vector4 and scalar op per clock), 16 texture fetches, 32 control flow operations, and 16 programmable vertex fetch operations with tessellation per clock for a total of 48*2 + 16 + 32 + 16 = 160 operations per cycle or 160 * 500 = 80 GOps per second.

Overall, the automatic shader load balancing, memory export features, programmable vertex fetching, programmable triangle tesselator, full rate texture fetching in the vertex shader, and other "well beyond shader model 3.0" features of the Xbox 360 GPU should also contribute to overall rendering performance.

Bandwidth
The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s.

The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.

Why does the Xbox 360 have such an extreme amount of bandwidth? Even the simplest calculations show that a large amount of bandwidth is consumed by the frame buffer. For example, with simple color rendering and Z testing at 550 MHz the frame buffer alone requires 52.8 GB/s at 8 pixels per clock. The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches.

The PS3 uses Z and color compression to try to compensate for the lack of memory bandwidth. The problem with Z and color compression is that the compression breaks down quickly when rendering complex next-generation 3D scenes.

HDR, alpha-blending, and anti-aliasing require even more memory bandwidth. This is why Xbox 360 has 256 GB/s bandwidth reserved just for the frame buffer. This allows the Xbox 360 GPU to do Z testing, HDR, and alpha blended color rendering with 4X MSAA at full rate and still have the entire main bus bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s left over for textures and vertices.

CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the PlayStation 3.
Lastly, we were sent updated spec numbers on the Xbox's numbers, and we spoke with Microsoft's Vice President of hardware, Todd Holmdahl, about the Xbox 360's final transistor count.

Another bit of information sent our way is the final transistor count for Xbox 360's graphics subset. The GPU totals 332 million transistors, which is spit between the two separate dies that make up the part. The parent die is the "main" piece of the GPU, handling the large bulk of the graphics rendering, and is comprised of 232 million transistors. The daughter die contains the system's 10MB of embedded DRAM and its logic chip, which is capable of some additional 3D math. The daughter die totals an even 100 million transistors, bringing the total transistor count for the GPU to 232 million.

So, that's Microsoft's analysis. What do you make of it? Tell us what you think on the boards.

pwned. :p

OT:
Buy a 360.
Better games. Better online features. Better price.

[Mackilroy]

You know that they're going to say "But Microsoft wrote it and therefore can't be trusted!" While it's certainly true MS wrote it, if you're merely comparing numbers… ;)

[Spartacus]

You know that they're going to say "But Microsoft wrote it and therefore can't be trusted!" While it's certainly true MS wrote it, if you're merely comparing numbers… ;)

No, IGN wrote it.

[stagecustom]

just got GAW. and all i can say is 360 is actually amazing, never played it much till now... holy crap its a good game. alot of my buddies are getting it for christmas or getting a 360 + gaw for christmas. So xbox live is gonna get some use when all my friends are all on playing. haha
PS3 is cool, but 360 is actually good.

[blitzkrieg79]

Some of you guys (Gyroscope) need to educate yourself with facts instead of posting baseless opinions. :rolleyes:

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html


http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p2.html


http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p3.html


pwned. :p

OT:
Buy a 360.
Better games. Better online features. Better price.

... And people here were criticizing a guy for defending a PS3 by using quotes from a Playstation fan based site :rolleyes:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/buyingguides/Playstation3vsXbox360.php

You know, bandwith and actual processing performance are two different things, when it comes to raw processing power Playstation 3 pretty much oblitirates XBox 360, you can have all the bandwith in the world but if your processor unit is not up to task then it all looks good on paper but in reality Cell is really one amazing processor and add to that IBM is already working on a more general purpose computing friendly version of it ( http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36335 ), whether you like it or not, Cell is the blueprint for the next generation of computer processors (highly parallel architectures, combining general purpose computing with GPU-like performance).

After all said and done IBM is the leading pioneer in computer technology, its' because of them that Microsoft and Intel are where they are right now. I wouldn't even care about the Cell if it wasn't for a fact that IBM actually did most of the design and one thing about IBM is that they certainly know how to design processors (in my book they have the most talented processor engineers in the world) and it took them over 4 years and $400 million bucks to design the Cell. Cell is an all new design from ground-up. It requires all new programming techniques to get the most out of it. Of course it will take some time for the developers to learn how to write software for it but the performance gains will definetely be worth it.

Back to topic: if you are looking to buy a gaming system right now, then yeah get a 360 but 1-2 years from now when the developers (exclusive titles) will get a hang of the new programming schemes of the Cell, you will see a difference in PS3 favor.

Some of you guys (Zero2Dash) need to educate yourself and actually gain first hand knowledge instead of just providing links with facts that you don't understand to begin with :rolleyes:

[SpankyPenzaanz]

I have one minor beef. People saying they do not support microsoft just for being microsoft (and everything they have done in the past) yet at the same time blindly support sony for attepming to do what ms (or as so many put it M$ - come on people grow up) has done in the computing/software industry. sony is attempting to do the same to the living room and video games (thats the way i see it).

[clayj]

Geez, someone oughta trademark the PS3 Fanboy Mantra:

Just wait a couple of years. Then you'll see how great the PS3 is.™

Like the hardware is going to improve between now and then. Sure, the programmers might figure out how better to use it, but the Xbox 360 programmers will be doing the same thing on THEIR end of things and the 360 will *still* have the edge.

As far as raw processing power goes... so what? IBM's Deep Blue has more processing power than the PS3 or the Xbox 360, but all it's good at is playing chess. The PS3 has all kinds of power, but it's the wrong kind of power (in the wrong proportions) for gaming.

[blitzkrieg79]

Geez, someone oughta trademark the PS3 Fanboy Mantra:

Just wait a couple of years. Then you'll see how great the PS3 is.™

Like the hardware is going to improve between now and then. Sure, the programmers might figure out how better to use it, but the Xbox 360 programmers will be doing the same thing on THEIR end of things and the 360 will *still* have the edge.

As far as raw processing power goes... so what? IBM's Deep Blue has more processing power than the PS3 or the Xbox 360, but all it's good at is playing chess. The PS3 has all kinds of power, but it's the wrong kind of power (in the wrong proportions) for gaming.

I understand you are not a programmer. Cell is an all new architecture where XBox 360 is pretty much based upon old principles (easy to program using old and tried techniques) and the games won't see that much improvement over the next few years. As radically new as Cell is, pretty much developers need to learn how to get the most out of it while not spending ages doing so but that takes time anyway. Remember that it took STI 4 years to design the processor, and I don't think that programmers will learn in a day how to efficiently code for it.

[raggedjimmi]

I understand you are not a programmer. Cell is an all new architecture where XBox 360 is pretty much based upon old principles (easy to program using old and tried techniques) and the games won't see that much improvement over the next few years. As radically new as Cell is, pretty much developers need to learn how to get the most out of it while not spending ages doing so but that takes time anyway. Remember that it took STI 4 years to design the processor, and I don't think that programmers will learn in a day how to efficiently code for it.

Tee hee. Replace Cell with Wii and Xbox 360 with Xbox 360 and PS3.

All this talk about innovation. One system has Zelda. One has a lot of games. One has no decent games. That's all it boils down to right now, to consumers at least :)

[blitzkrieg79]

Tee hee. Replace Cell with Wii and Xbox 360 with Xbox 360 and PS3.

All this talk about innovation. One system has Zelda. One has a lot of games. One has no decent games. That's all it boils down to right now, to consumers at least :)

Oh I totally agree with you, those are gaming systems and at the end of the day it all comes down to who offers better games. Original post was about whether to buy a 360 or a PS3, and if I would have to buy a gaming system today it would be 360 but simply because of the large arsenal of available games, Wii and PS3 just came out so they are at a disadvantage.

But anyway when someone touches hardware issues I just can't let it slip :p Besides, I am not so much of a fan of a PS3 as I am of the Cell processor.

[greatdevourer]

No, I think they should have included a larger harddrive (price per-GB isn't that much to warrant only launching a 20GB) And it will stay that way. It's the same reason the 360 won't be getting browsing or proper IM - they're worried people would just use it to replace a PC (and thus not buy a copy of Windows or machine that comes with it [thus essentially buying it anyways])

... And people here were criticizing a guy for defending a PS3 by using quotes from a Playstation fan based site :rolleyes:

Some of you guys (Zero2Dash) need to educate yourself and actually gain first hand knowledge instead of just providing links with facts that you don't understand to begin with :rolleyes: He was using the actual Sony governed Playstation official site. Not a fansite

And the PS3 sucks for game programming. It has no L2 Cache, it has no branch prediction, it has only one general purpose core. When it comes to things like AI, it sucks. Real bad.

[mac17]

go for the ps3 right now the games may look the same but it takes at LEAST a year until they can make the games live up to the graphic potential of the ps3 which is ALOT better than the 360 think about it a bluray disc goes up to 60gb think of wat they could do with that (theyl prob never use all that though) as for the price for the 360 if u add the extra $200 add on for a hd dvd player it comes to about the same as the ps3 and blueray is better than hd dvd.

[clayj]

go for the ps3 right now the games may look the same but it takes at LEAST a year until they can make the games live up to the graphic potential of the ps3 which is ALOT better than the 360 think about it a bluray disc goes up to 60gb think of wat they could do with that (theyl prob never use all that though) as for the price for the 360 if u add the extra $200 add on for a hd dvd player it comes to about the same as the ps3 and blueray is better than hd dvd.Criminy. At least you remembered the period at the end of the paragraph. :rolleyes:

And Blu-ray's ONE *potential* advantage over HD-DVD is capacity... but they can both already store a full 3 hour movie in 1080p, so it's really academic, isn't it? (That means it doesn't matter how much bigger Blu-ray can be.)

[zero2dash]

... And people here were criticizing a guy for defending a PS3 by using quotes from a Playstation fan based site :rolleyes:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/buyingguides/Playstation3vsXbox360.php

An opinion based article (yours) versus a fact driven article (mine).
I don't see a problem here.
The numbers Microsoft provided echo what anyone who's 'anyone' in the tech field reports (Ars, Anandtech for instance).

You're comparing an opinionated buying guide over factual numbers.
Umm...no comparison. kthxbye

You know, bandwith and actual processing performance are two different things, when it comes to raw processing power Playstation 3 pretty much oblitirates XBox 360, you can have all the bandwith in the world but if your processor unit is not up to task then it all looks good on paper but in reality Cell is really one amazing processor and add to that IBM is already working on a more general purpose computing friendly version of it ( http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36335 ), whether you like it or not, Cell is the blueprint for the next generation of computer processors (highly parallel architectures, combining general purpose computing with GPU-like performance).

Let's see. How many times does the tired "G5 performance vs. Pentium 4 clock speed" debate have to be brought up?

Enjoy your raw performance data. I'm sure it'll help you sleep at night when you're crying yourself to sleep because your games are plagued with framerate problems because (gasp) your cpu, gpu, and memory don't all get along. Whereas the competition, just like the lowly turtle in the rabbit race, passes you by with its superior throughput.

I love how when any other company has issues like this, it's a flaw, but when it's Sony and a Playstation fanboy is defending them, well,...we don't wanna talk about the flaw, it's not a flaw, it's a look at the bottom line debate.

Some of you guys (Zero2Dash) need to educate yourself and actually gain first hand knowledge instead of just providing links with facts that you don't understand to begin with :rolleyes:

I completely understand that article. It states with raw data that the 360 outperforms the Ps3. You know, admitting that you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery. :rolleyes:

[MacRumorUser]

I love the unfounded belief that things like BluRay and Cell are magically superior to anything else, especially considering the actual real world test of these things has proven complete opposite.

So far HD-DVD is kicking BluRays backside, and producing a greater movie quality experience generally.

And Cell so far means slightly choppier frame-rates in practically all the multi-format titles, even those that have had 10 months extra development time to optimize them for ps3 (fight night), therefore I can not beleive these claims that its just because developers havent got to grip with the Cell ?

[OdduWon]

Shadow of the colossus for PSP and an HD version for PS3. this game would make the PSP worth playing, HA and the new music visualizes :D

[Haoshiro]

zero2dash/MRU:

If you've read many of my posts in this forum you'll know I don't have much PS3 love, but I wouldn't be so fast to criticize Cell.

Talking over the architecture with a programmer friend of mine who has read up on it more made me realize more of how it was designed. Keep in mind this friend of mine is an extremely good programmer, he's programmed compilers, operating systems, game engines, and used to write things in assembly just to get some extra performance out of his code. He definitely knows what he's talking about.

His basic conclusion was that both 360 and PS3 have great performance capacity, but they are designed differently in a major way. The 360 architecture is the standard scheme everyone is used to, which is a benefit, especially early on. 3 cores capable of general purpose computing. Problem with the current design (which includes PCs) is developers often have to worry about syncing the cores, etc. Which can lead to decreased performance. Shared memory pool is convenient, but adds another layer of problems just because the program has to have extra code to ensure each core isn't messing with each others data.

PS3, with it's 7 SPEs is a different story. He says contrary to what you read on the internet, Floating Point calculations are extremely important to any game that is 3D. Even if that equates to, say, 30% it's still a huge amount because FP is so extremely slow compared to integer math. The Cell SPEs on the other hand are great for FP.

So how do these SPEs work if they have such limited access to the system? Think of them as programmable hardware functions. If you've done even a small amount of programming you should know the concept of a function. You send it data, it does the job its supposed to with that data, and then it returns the results.

In this case the SPEs each have a small 256K memory dedicated to them. The reason for this, rather then giving them access to main memory is so the SPE code never needs to worry about its data getting changed by an outside source, so you need no memory management code for that. Also, the SPEs are completely independent of everything else, which also means they do not need to sync with anything. They can just do there job and when they finish they pipe the results back to memory through DMA (direct memory addressing).

Conceptually this means the main core can manage the game (as would be done on the 360 anyway) and when it has a task it needs done but doesn't really have to worry about "waiting" for that to get done and syncing with another core, all it does is pass that to an SPE which is setup for that function. So maybe enemy AI needs path finding to figure out how to navigate a map, it passes the necessary info to the SPE and the SPE goes to work without interupting the game. Maybe the game needs to process ballistics of weapons fire, etc.... just pass that to an SPE.

Being able to use 7 of those could prove to be really great in gaming, but requires a different thought process when programming. It's something programmers aren't familiar with and the architecture will not perform well if you are trying to do things the way your used to. But when you wrap your head around it you have potential to do massive parallel processing.

The potential problem, though, is the limited memory (256K) SPEs have. In theory a very complicated task might need to span several SPEs, and that could be a real problem. Cache, however, isn't even important because system memory and the spu are running at exactly the same speed.

In the end, that also means that if you take something made on 360 and try to port it you will really have a problem. PS3 architecture really demands you write the code for it form the start, trying to retrofit standard code from PC/360/etc to PS3 is going to suffer a LOT.

[w00master]

Strange for me to post this on a Mac site and myself being not a big fan of Microsoft. HOWEVER, I have to say that (for me) the XBox 360 is truly an impressive machine. I'd even be bold to say it's very Apple-like. From the hardware, down to the software, I really have to applaud MS for the 360. There are little touches here are there that time and time again just impresses me, and I have to say *MUST* have been influenced in some way from Apple. The biggest piece that impresses me is XBox Live. The ease of use, the unified structure, simplicity, and brilliant design make it truly the reason to own the 360 (IMHO).

I'm still amazed that I'm talking about a MICROSOFT product here, but it astounds me on how "Apple-like" it is. Plug in an iPod, it just works. Move through the interface, it just works. Play your own music in ANY game. See your friends online in ANY game. Chat with friends online while watching an HD-DVD movie. These are the little touches that really impress me about the 360.

The games? It just keeps getting better and better. Gears of War, Rainbow Six, Oblivion.

I honestly think Sony has a whole lot of work ahead of them. The 360 is nearly @ 10 Million Units sold worldwide, after just 1 year. The PS2 didn't even do that.

w00master

[blitzkrieg79]

zero2dash/MRU:

If you've read many of my posts in this forum you'll know I don't have much PS3 love, but I wouldn't be so fast to criticize Cell.

Talking over the architecture with a programmer friend of mine who has read up on it more made me realize more of how it was designed. Keep in mind this friend of mine is an extremely good programmer, he's programmed compilers, operating systems, game engines, and used to write things in assembly just to get some extra performance out of his code. He definitely knows what he's talking about.

His basic conclusion was that both 360 and PS3 have great performance capacity, but they are designed differently in a major way. The 360 architecture is the standard scheme everyone is used to, which is a benefit, especially early on. 3 cores capable of general purpose computing. Problem with the current design (which includes PCs) is developers often have to worry about syncing the cores, etc. Which can lead to decreased performance. Shared memory pool is convenient, but adds another layer of problems just because the program has to have extra code to ensure each core isn't messing with each others data.

PS3, with it's 7 SPEs is a different story. He says contrary to what you read on the internet, Floating Point calculations are extremely important to any game that is 3D. Even if that equates to, say, 30% it's still a huge amount because FP is so extremely slow compared to integer math. The Cell SPEs on the other hand are great for FP.

So how do these SPEs work if they have such limited access to the system? Think of them as programmable hardware functions. If you've done even a small amount of programming you should know the concept of a function. You send it data, it does the job its supposed to with that data, and then it returns the results.

In this case the SPEs each have a small 256K memory dedicated to them. The reason for this, rather then giving them access to main memory is so the SPE code never needs to worry about its data getting changed by an outside source, so you need no memory management code for that. Also, the SPEs are completely independent of everything else, which also means they do not need to sync with anything. They can just do there job and when they finish they pipe the results back to memory through DMA (direct memory addressing).

Conceptually this means the main core can manage the game (as would be done on the 360 anyway) and when it has a task it needs done but doesn't really have to worry about "waiting" for that to get done and syncing with another core, all it does is pass that to an SPE which is setup for that function. So maybe enemy AI needs path finding to figure out how to navigate a map, it passes the necessary info to the SPE and the SPE goes to work without interupting the game. Maybe the game needs to process ballistics of weapons fire, etc.... just pass that to an SPE.

Being able to use 7 of those could prove to be really great in gaming, but requires a different thought process when programming. It's something programmers aren't familiar with and the architecture will not perform well if you are trying to do things the way your used to. But when you wrap your head around it you have potential to do massive parallel processing.

The potential problem, though, is the limited memory (256K) SPEs have. In theory a very complicated task might need to span several SPEs, and that could be a real problem. Cache, however, isn't even important because system memory and the spu are running at exactly the same speed.

In the end, that also means that if you take something made on 360 and try to port it you will really have a problem. PS3 architecture really demands you write the code for it form the start, trying to retrofit standard code from PC/360/etc to PS3 is going to suffer a LOT.



Finally a guy that actually knows his stuff.

Zero2Dash, your article states numbers and so does mine if you actually bother to scoll down the screen and look at the floating point performance (which in gaming world matters), it's like anything you say or provide is a fact and if anyone else provides a link that basically contradicts yours it's an opinion? Tell me why the current crop of amd processors have a higher bandwith and faster system bus yet core 2 duo processors beat them at almost every real world test?

Cell procssor can be the best compared to when Intel/HP first released Itanium which was a totally new computer architecture, non x86 based, and actually I think that within a couple of years Intel will bridge the gap between it's current consumer based processors and Itanium series just because x86 architecture is plain simply limited, all they are doing is patching the best they can because they have a huge software base so they can't afford to start all over (which is what IBM did with the Cell) because they would risk losing the ground to another architecture. x86 processors were designed in the 70s with business applications in mind, Cell was designed in 21 century with multimedia apps in mind which are a whole lot more demanding. Cell is already gaining a user base in the scientific and Linux community, in 2008 IBM will release a more general computing friendly of Advanced Cell.

Intel is talking about 80 cores, and I bet they will get stuck at around 32 or even less just like they were aiming for a 10GHZ PIV when it reached 4GHZ.

[Haoshiro]

Finally a guy that actually knows his stuff.

Zero2Dash, your article states numbers and so does mine if you actually bother to scoll down the screen and look at the floating point performance (which in gaming world matters), it's like anything you say or provide is a fact and if anyone else provides a link that basically contradicts yours it's an opinion? Tell me why the current crop of amd processors have a higher bandwith and faster system bus yet core 2 duo processors beat them at almost every real world test?

Cell procssor can be the best compared to when Intel/HP first released Itanium which was a totally new computer architecture, non x86 based, and actually I think that within a couple of years Intel will bridge the gap between it's current consumer based processors and Itanium series just because x86 architecture is plain simply limited, all they are doing is patching the best they can because they have a huge software base so they can't afford to start all over (which is what IBM did with the Cell) because they would risk losing the ground to another architecture. x86 processors were designed in the 70s with business applications in mind, Cell was designed in 21 century with multimedia apps in mind which are a whole lot more demanding. Cell is already gaining a user base in the scientific and Linux community, in 2008 IBM will release a more general computing friendly of Advanced Cell.

Intel is talking about 80 cores, and I bet they will get stuck at around 32 or even less just like they were aiming for a 10GHZ PIV when it reached 4GHZ.


The problem is that Xbox 360 development might already be too far ahead. If publishers/developers intend to make their game multi-platform then they would probably choose the fastest/cheapest system to start developing on, and that would end up the 360.

So first party titles might catch up and really take advantage of Cell, but multi-platform games, if they keep starting out on 360 that could be an issue for PS3.

Plus, at this point the limits of PS3 are purely theoretical, while on paper it sounds good the potential bottlenecks could reduce any advantage the architecture might have.

That wouldn't mean the architecture isn't good, just that it might need a better configuration then PS3 provides.

[e²Studios]

The problem is that Xbox 360 development might already be too far ahead. If publishers/developers intend to make their game multi-platform then they would probably choose the fastest/cheapest system to start developing on, and that would end up the 360.

So first party titles might catch up and really take advantage of Cell, but multi-platform games, if they keep starting out on 360 that could be an issue for PS3.

Plus, at this point the limits of PS3 are purely theoretical, while on paper it sounds good the potential bottlenecks could reduce any advantage the architecture might have.

That wouldn't mean the architecture isn't good, just that it might need a better configuration then PS3 provides.

Right now the PS3 has been out for what a month? Saying that they started on the 360 is almost a given isnt it? Of course minus SOE games. I am sure Blazing Angels for the PS3 was a port, its also probably why its lacking in certain areas. Soon you will see it go the other way around, developed for the Cell, ported to the 360, its pretty much backwards compatibility after making it on the Cell to go back to the 360 processor.

It's way to early to call, but if you use google and do a search for the PS2 launch the analysts and the nay-sayers/media were pretty much saying the same exact thing that they are saying now. Its almost deja-vu for Sony right now as far as exposure goes. Cause we all know the PS2 failed right? :rolleyes:

One of the biggest problems will be the DVD space limitation for 360, you will start seeing games on multiple DVD's instead of 1 HD/BD disc. Look at this forums beloved GoW, its insanely short and the main reason for that is HD Video/Audio takes space, more than a DVD can handle with a decent sized story line.

Ed

[zap2]

Right now the PS3 has been out for what a month? Saying that they started on the 360 is almost a given isnt it? Of course minus SOE games. I am sure Blazing Angels for the PS3 was a port, its also probably why its lacking in certain areas. Soon you will see it go the other way around, developed for the Cell, ported to the 360, its pretty much backwards compatibility after making it on the Cell to go back to the 360 processor.



I think thats the point...the PS3 is behind the game. People will make games for X360 because its easier to make games on, and the graphic a currently as good if not better and xBox 360 has more users.

By the time PS3 has a similar market share users, dev will be used to making X360 and porting them to the PS3, so they will keep do that, which will result in the PS3 will have similar graphics for multiplatform.




It's way to early to call, but if you use google and do a search for the PS2 launch the analysts and the nay-sayers/media were pretty much saying the same exact thing that they are saying now. Its almost deja-vu for Sony right now as far as exposure goes. Cause we all know the PS2 failed right? :rolleyes:


Not really, Sega didn't have the fund to fight off Sony..this time around Sony is the one who is out dollared. Not to mention that xbox 360 isn't follow up to a system that was "failure" (Like the Saturn) while xBox didn't sell well in Japan, over all it beat out Nintendo.

[e²Studios]

I think thats the point...the PS3 is behind the game. People will make games for X360 because its easier to make games on, and the graphic a currently as good if not better and xBox 360 has more users.

By the time PS3 has a similar market share users, dev will be used to making X360 and porting them to the PS3, so they will keep do that, which will result in the PS3 will have similar graphics for multiplatform.





Not really, Sega didn't have the fund to fight off Sony..this time around Sony is the one who is out dollared. Not to mention that xbox 360 isn't follow up to a system that was "failure" (Like the Saturn) while xBox didn't sell well in Japan, over all it beat out Nintendo.

The PS2 was a followup to the PS1 which was far from a failure.

as far as your first response goes... what are you on, cause if it makes you that delusional then i want some ;)

[gloss]

I think thats the point...the PS3 is behind the game. People will make games for X360 because its easier to make games on, and the graphic a currently as good if not better and xBox 360 has more users.

By the time PS3 has a similar market share users, dev will be used to making X360 and porting them to the PS3, so they will keep do that, which will result in the PS3 will have similar graphics for multiplatform.

I have to concur. Purely from a logical (and logistical) standpoint, the 360 has more units out there, and will for quite a while. So more programmers are going to choose to work with it. So more games are going to be ports from the 360 to the PS3, rather than vice versa. Microsoft has a huge foothold already, and Sony has yet to introduce any sort of counterattack. They've released a console that is, in any current sense, the 360's equal, but a year late. Either they lower the price or they show some real advantage to owning a PS3 over a 360 or they suffer with reduced market share until it becomes economically viable for them to level the playing field a bit.

(this is, of course, concerning US/UK gaming companies. Japan is a whole 'nother Sudoku.)

[zap2]

The PS2 was a followup to the PS1 which was far from a failure.


I was talking about the Dreamcast...did you see where I said "Like the Saturn"?




as far as your first response goes... what are you on, cause if it makes you that delusional then i want some ;)
Staying clear of the facts....good call

:rolleyes:

[GFLPraxis]

as far as your first response goes... what are you on, cause if it makes you that delusional then i want some ;)

He's right, you know. Devs always aim for the lower spec, or easiest to develop for.

Last gen, everything multiplatform was made PS2-first. The XBox port was usually the same game with greater draw distance.

With Cell not being that good unless you completely re-code the game from scratch, PS3 ports might end up performing worse. We can already see that with PS3 launch titles looking worse than their XBox 360 counterparts.

[MacRumorUser]

zero2dash/MRU:

If you've read many of my posts in this forum you'll know I don't have much PS3 love, but I wouldn't be so fast to criticize Cell.


Thanks very interesting read. :)

Dont worry I'm sure I'll be buying a ps3 at launch anyway (even if I dont need one) :D

[Haoshiro]

Right now the PS3 has been out for what a month? Saying that they started on the 360 is almost a given isnt it? Of course minus SOE games. I am sure Blazing Angels for the PS3 was a port, its also probably why its lacking in certain areas. Soon you will see it go the other way around, developed for the Cell, ported to the 360, its pretty much backwards compatibility after making it on the Cell to go back to the 360 processor.

It's way to early to call, but if you use google and do a search for the PS2 launch the analysts and the nay-sayers/media were pretty much saying the same exact thing that they are saying now. Its almost deja-vu for Sony right now as far as exposure goes. Cause we all know the PS2 failed right? :rolleyes:

One of the biggest problems will be the DVD space limitation for 360, you will start seeing games on multiple DVD's instead of 1 HD/BD disc. Look at this forums beloved GoW, its insanely short and the main reason for that is HD Video/Audio takes space, more than a DVD can handle with a decent sized story line.

Ed

I don't think your really getting my point. It has nothing to do with the fact PS3 has only been out recently.

360 has a bigger marketshare and better and easier development tools as far as I know. This means it is cheaper to develop for, and it has the largest install base (PS2 was not competing with a system that had 10 million install base).

I'm suggesting that developers/publishers will start their games on 360 now and in the coming years for the same reasons. With the year head start 360 has that gave developers time to get settled in and get there development tools refined for 360.

It's unlikely they will switch over to PS3 anytime soon as their primary development platform, and in fact it may never happen. If it doesn't, then even if PS3 has huge potential we may only ever see it in a few of the exclusive titles, while every multi-platform game comes out with a superior version on 360.

[Killyp]

As for the DVD space issue, I reckon what Microsoft will do is supply games in both DVD and HD DVD versions, one with standard definition content, and the other for people with HD drives, with all the HD content etc... on it...

[Cassie]

360

MUCH better then the PS3, hands down.

[raggedjimmi]

As for the DVD space issue, I reckon what Microsoft will do is supply games in both DVD and HD DVD versions, one with standard definition content, and the other for people with HD drives, with all the HD content etc... on it...

MS have said that they will never release games on HD-DVD, but who knows? If it was Sony then they'd be lying but MS aren't that bad. Maybe when the majority of new 360 releases are on multiple DVD's a few years down the line there will be a rethink?

What about speed limitations though? I know USB2 is fast but could it load up a game as fast as the internal drive with it's quicker internal cables? *I really don't know this, any one care to put me straight? :)

[MacRumorUser]

MS have said that they will never release games on HD-DVD, but who knows? If it was Sony then they'd be lying but MS aren't that bad. Maybe when the majority of new 360 releases are on multiple DVD's a few years down the line there will be a rethink?

What about speed limitations though? I know USB2 is fast but could it load up a game as fast as the internal drive with it's quicker internal cables? *I really don't know this, any one care to put me straight? :)

M$ have been very honest and a lot of applause has to be given to them. They have stated their strategy and stuck too it.

Games will never be released on HD-DVD, there's no real need anyway.

and a HDMI cable will be released by M$ when it thinks there is sufficient demand to warrant one.



and usb2 would be enough to deliver games off HD-DVD, if it can deliever 1080p and true dolby digital audio at a sustained rate without hitch, data for a game should not be a problem.

[bmb012]

I got a 360 a few months ago, broken now... but either way, once I finally got around to playing that Motostorm demo that everyone's talking about, I just plain wasn't impressed at all. The framerate is awful, which seems to be a theme this gen on every system but the Wii (ironic, no?) Besides not looking too hot, the game was just plain boring.

So, I would go with the 360, definitely many more good games on the system, and I really can't see how anyone who's played Gears of War can be impressed with anything shown for ps3 yet. The latest footage of MGS4 looks mediocre, and oh yeah, all those ps3 exclusives? GTA, Virtual Fighter, Assassin's Creed... all multiplatform now.

[raggedjimmi]

Right. Woke up to find my brother angry as his Xbox has died. 3 red lights. So whats this now? 2 out of 3 360 owners have had one die. MS can do all the repairs they want, if I was just a regular ol' Joe consumer I'd be craply scared about buying a 360 at this moment. They need to up the build quality in the thing.

[MacRumorUser]

Right. Woke up to find my brother angry as his Xbox has died. 3 red lights. So whats this now? 2 out of 3 360 owners have had one die.

I dont think the figure is really 66.66% jimmi ;)

There are 160 people in our Irish Xbox Live clan. Of those about 5% (8 people) have had to have their machine replaced in the past year.

And it's not only 360 that has had problems. Remember around 5-8% of the wii's that lauched in the US bricked after the first software update.

[zero2dash]

it's like anything you say or provide is a fact and if anyone else provides a link that basically contradicts yours it's an opinion?

Actually your link said the same thing as the IGN link.
360 outperforms the Ps3 in every facet of the word.
Your link is also outdated. Ps3 does not display 1080p output x2 anymore, remember? They removed that feature when they realized it couldn't be done and they'd be called liars (rightfully so).

Ps3 also downscales 720p -> 480p rather than upscaling it 720p -> 1080i/1080p. This was discovered recently. It either outputs at 480p or 1080i/1080p. People all over the place have complained about this (including here, MR member Cooknn (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=256225)).

Cell is already gaining a user base in the scientific and Linux community, in 2008 IBM will release a more general computing friendly of Advanced Cell.

Intel is talking about 80 cores, and I bet they will get stuck at around 32 or even less just like they were aiming for a 10GHZ PIV when it reached 4GHZ.

IBM can come up with all the things they want to, but considering that IBM carries almost zero cache in the computer world anymore (especially now that their PC division is the overpriced "Lenovo" trademark), IBM won't be selling much in the PC world anytime soon. People largely know Intel as a PC cpu manufacturer, and secondly, AMD. Gear heads are more into AMD (or rather, were into AMD prior to the Core 2 lineup), the rest of the mainstream computer mass market knows one company...Intel. Does that mean an IBM product won't sell? Absolutely not. But I guarantee you that an IBM product still carries an IBM price premium and in today's world, a cheaper Dell will always win.

Haoshiro:
I understand the tech behind Cell and I'm not knocking the design or potential performance of the processor. What I am saying is that so far, we've seen nothing that Sony has promised. Considering that Sony is the only company publicly (AFAIK) using a Cell processor right now, they're all anyone has to go by. The other thing I'll say (reiterating what I said about IBM and their prices) - obviously the Cell design will carry a price premium. Will it be embraced based off of numbers and specs alone when the bottom line that most people see is the price tag? I doubt it.

Again, I'm not saying Cell = crap as a processor, I'm saying (OT to the OP) that the Cell powered Ps3 has overhyped and underdelivered and buy a 360. :D

[NewbieNerd]

Ps3 also cannot output 720p otherwise it wouldn't upscale/downscale it. This was discovered recently. It either outputs at 480p or 1080i/1080p. People all over the place have complained about this (including here, MR member Cooknn (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=256225)).


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the PS3 does 720p just fine...it's just on older HD sets that only support 480p and 1080i, it downscales a 720p game to 480p instead of 1080i.

[zero2dash]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the PS3 does 720p just fine...it's just on older HD sets that only support 480p and 1080i, it downscales a 720p game to 480p instead of 1080i.

Yeah, you were right; my bad.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746282p1.html
That's still pathetic that it downscales 720p to 480p instead of upscaling it.
If I had bought a $500 or $600 Ps3, I know I'd be pissed off. :cool:

[NewbieNerd]

Yeah, you were right; my bad.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746282p1.html
That's still pathetic that it downscales 720p to 480p instead of upscaling it.
If I had bought a $500 or $600 Ps3, I know I'd be pissed off. :cool:

Heh, good, I was scared... I have a TV that does 720p and will be getting a PS3 eventually.

EDIT: Just got a PS3 and Wii, so I am DEFINITELY glad. :)

[Haoshiro]

Haoshiro:
I understand the tech behind Cell and I'm not knocking the design or potential performance of the processor. What I am saying is that so far, we've seen nothing that Sony has promised. Considering that Sony is the only company publicly (AFAIK) using a Cell processor right now, they're all anyone has to go by. The other thing I'll say (reiterating what I said about IBM and their prices) - obviously the Cell design will carry a price premium. Will it be embraced based off of numbers and specs alone when the bottom line that most people see is the price tag? I doubt it.

Again, I'm not saying Cell = crap as a processor, I'm saying (OT to the OP) that the Cell powered Ps3 has overhyped and underdelivered and buy a 360. :D

Yet you bring up "zero cache" as if it is an issue. Whereas people I've talked to who did understand the architecture of Cell seem to say that based on the design, it isn't even needed. Making that a non-issue.

I'm just suggesting you might not understand it as well as you think, I know I didn't and it was only until more recently that I've understood it more.

But again, I've said in other posts that their could still be issues with the PS3 configuration, it might not take advantage of Cell as a system really could, and that could be a serious problem for it.

[blitzkrieg79]

Actually your link said the same thing as the IGN link.
360 outperforms the Ps3 in every facet of the word.
Your link is also outdated. Ps3 does not display 1080p output x2 anymore, remember? They removed that feature when they realized it couldn't be done and they'd be called liars (rightfully so).

Ps3 also downscales 720p -> 480p rather than upscaling it 720p -> 1080i/1080p. This was discovered recently. It either outputs at 480p or 1080i/1080p. People all over the place have complained about this (including here, MR member Cooknn (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=256225)).

IBM can come up with all the things they want to, but considering that IBM carries almost zero cache in the computer world anymore (especially now that their PC division is the overpriced "Lenovo" trademark), IBM won't be selling much in the PC world anytime soon. People largely know Intel as a PC cpu manufacturer, and secondly, AMD. Gear heads are more into AMD (or rather, were into AMD prior to the Core 2 lineup), the rest of the mainstream computer mass market knows one company...Intel. Does that mean an IBM product won't sell? Absolutely not. But I guarantee you that an IBM product still carries an IBM price premium and in today's world, a cheaper Dell will always win.


As someone said earlier, PS3 downscales 720p -> 480p but only on early HDTV sets, I know this doesn't happen with XBox and I guess it is a bug but then again I have a fairly new HDTV set that doesn't suffer from that problem. In floating point performance PS3 absolutely clobbers XBox360 and that is a fact (floating point performance is needed for 3D gaming). Xbox 360 may have a higher bandwidth but so do the current AMD based processors and yet Core 2 Duo is faster.

IBM sold their x86 division to the Chinese, however Cell processor is not x86 based, remember that IBM is the one that started the entire PC revolution, x86 architecture is over 20 years old, it is reaching it's limits, AMD and Intel are doing a great job by patching it but eventually they will have to design something from the ground up, something IBM did with Cell.

You say that IBM has no cache in the computer world, what are you smoking? Maybe you meant in average consumer PC world but in the high-end computing it absolutely dominates with Power series of processors even over Intel.

Last thing, Cell processor is definately not ready for mainstream computing as it would need an optimized OS as well as optimized software, but I wouldn't be surprised if Sony would include a Cell based accelerator chip in their VAIO computers to introduce the Cell to home market computing to accelerate audio/video encoding/decoding as well as optimize apps such as Photoshop to take advantage of it, I know power users would love it.

[SpankyPenzaanz]

their VAIO computers

now those are some overpriced pieces of garbage

[raggedjimmi]

now those are some overpriced pieces of garbage

Indeed. Their embarrassing take on the whole "I'm a PC" advert just took the whole system to new, low levels.

Did get an ounce of respect for them yesterday, found out TEAC are part of Sony.

[blitzkrieg79]

now those are some overpriced pieces of garbage

Overpriced or not they still sell plenty of them and actually some of their high-end laptops would give MacBook Pros a run for it's money. Don't knock it till you've tried it. I know a lot of people that knock down Apple computers and call them overpriced but funny thing is that most of those people never had actually owned or used a Mac. I know Sony is not a popular company on this forum but they are not that bad and some of their products are actually good.

[Haoshiro]

Overpriced or not they still sell plenty of them and actually some of their high-end laptops would give MacBook Pros a run for it's money. Don't knock it till you've tried it. I know a lot of people that knock down Apple computers and call them overpriced but funny thing is that most of those people never had actually owned or used a Mac. I know Sony is not a popular company on this forum but they are not that bad and some of their products are actually good.

But hasn't Sony's computer division been losing money the last few years? A division that is in the red can't be considered doing good.

I think Cell has potential, and therefor so does PS3, but honestly I think it would have been better to wait until the technology has matured for awhile.

Sony is betting on Blu-ray and their PlayStation brand to bring them through this and justify Cell/BD. Looks like IBM is as well, they are trying to push widespread adoption of unproven and immature hardware in hopes of long term gains. Regardless of how good the technology is or will be, it's too early to tell if their risks will be worth it.

It's my personal opinion it won't be, and rather it will radically change Sony as a company as they work to recover from their (imho) bad planning and strategy. They are betting it all, and they just didn't need to.

[blitzkrieg79]

But hasn't Sony's computer division been losing money the last few years? A division that is in the red can't be considered doing good.

I think Cell has potential, and therefor so does PS3, but honestly I think it would have been better to wait until the technology has matured for awhile.

Sony is betting on Blu-ray and their PlayStation brand to bring them through this and justify Cell/BD. Looks like IBM is as well, they are trying to push widespread adoption of unproven and immature hardware in hopes of long term gains. Regardless of how good the technology is or will be, it's too early to tell if their risks will be worth it.

It's my personal opinion it won't be, and rather it will radically change Sony as a company as they work to recover from their (imho) bad planning and strategy. They are betting it all, and they just didn't need to.

Well, I know one thing, if you want to have continuous business/financial success you can't become stagnant, you have to innovate, to gain large amounts one needs to make radical changes, if you'll become just another company that just follows trends and never leads/innovates than you'll never be at the top. BUT on the other hand sometimes when someone tries to make a change for a better it actually has far worse effects on the company, business is all about risks/"educated" predictions.

Cell processor has been out for only a year and it already is gaining Linux support, it is generating interest in supercomputing and in scientific fields, one thing for sure is that Cell has done a much better job of being widespread/adopted than Intel/HPs Itanium which Intel in 1994/1995 predicted that in 10 years all of Intels CPUs (including consumer CPUs) would be Itanium (IA-64; non x86) based, even Intel realizes that x86 architecture is a dead-end, question is how much longer can they push. Itanium in a sense is a failure but it hasn't killed Intel nor HP. There is a huge software library out there for the x86 and a radical change in architecture would probably mean abandoning that user base and starting from scratch and neither Intel or AMD are willing to take the risk (of course no one can blame them as it would require a lot of work/resources and in the end it might not pan out the way a company predicted) but eventually it will happen as x86 is over 20 years old which by todays technology standards is rather ancient.

[Haoshiro]

Well I don't disagree, yet Sony tends to change architecture with every game system they make, somehow I think Cell success is of more interest to IBM then Sony.

Apple just switched to Intel x86 as well. While I agree x86 looks like a dead end sometime in the future, there have been so many breakthroughs that it's life has really been well extended. Looking ahead at more multi-core systems and other breakthroughs I'm not sure we'll be seeing a need beyond x86 for many years to come, and by that time we'll have even better hardware and even better architecture innovation.

Just like these HD formats, sure we will eventually need them, but we aren't quite there, and when we are, there will probably be technology far surperior to HD-DVD and Blu-ray, now isn't really the best time for them, at least not for the mass market consumer.

I think it's all about timing, and I don't see the need as of yet in the current generation.

[zero2dash]

You say that IBM has no cache in the computer world, what are you smoking? Maybe you meant in average consumer PC world but in the high-end computing it absolutely dominates with Power series of processors even over Intel.

Performance wise IBM is respected.
Otherwise - no one gives two chits about IBM.
All IBM's been known for in the last 10 years is overpriced hardware (especially in the consumer market where it matters).

That and a computer that plays chess. :p

but eventually it will happen as x86 is over 20 years old which by todays technology standards is rather ancient.

Apple just switched to Intel x86 as well. While I agree x86 looks like a dead end sometime in the future, there have been so many breakthroughs that it's life has really been well extended. Looking ahead at more multi-core systems and other breakthroughs I'm not sure we'll be seeing a need beyond x86 for many years to come, and by that time we'll have even better hardware and even better architecture innovation.

Haoshiro nailed it.
If x86 was on the way out, why is it still around? And being welcomed with open arms?
Apple was the only consumer company marketing computers that weren't based on x86 (with all the PPCs) and even they switched. Hello? x86 is not going away anytime soon; it's not cost efficient to disown it. That'd be like disowning the PATA architecture or ATi/nVidia ceasing to make PCI-based video cards. There's money to be made therefore it will not go away anytime soon.

[crainial]

I seriously doubt it and I for one always wait at least a year after a console has been released before buying it because the only time I failed to do so I ended up with a Dreamcast, which later I found out only had one game I truly liked: Shenmue 2.
SIZE]

I made the same mistake but Shenmue made it worth it, then Shenmue 2 on Xbox was awesome

[blitzkrieg79]

Performance wise IBM is respected.
Otherwise - no one gives two chits about IBM.
All IBM's been known for in the last 10 years is overpriced hardware (especially in the consumer market where it matters).

That and a computer that plays chess. :p





Haoshiro nailed it.
If x86 was on the way out, why is it still around? And being welcomed with open arms?
Apple was the only consumer company marketing computers that weren't based on x86 (with all the PPCs) and even they switched. Hello? x86 is not going away anytime soon; it's not cost efficient to disown it. That'd be like disowning the PATA architecture or ATi/nVidia ceasing to make PCI-based video cards. There's money to be made therefore it will not go away anytime soon.

No one is saying that x86 is gonna go away soon (current user/software base is just too huge for that), I said it will eventually go, first Intel hit a roadblock by not being able to increase the Mhz so they switched their marketing campaign to multicore designs and even that has it's limit. What will eventually happen is simplification of processor architecture and offloading some of the workload to the actual software (something of the idea of the Cell). Look at the power draw when each additional core is added, it's increasing big time, electricity draw will again become a problem and there will be a day when instead of patching the x86 architecture again, Intel will decide to slowly go in a totally new direction.

IBM recently found a technique to double the clock frequency by not increasing the power draw (http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193105767) but they didn't implemented it anywhere yet and somehow I think it will be a tad expensive but it shows that it is possible. x86 some day will eventually go away, there of course will be a transition period, maybe some kind of hybrid processors that will be able to work within x86 standards as well as new architecture.

And Apple switched to x86 because they didn't want to pay for R&D of PPC processors, IBM didn't have enough market for them outside of Apple so they didn't want the burden of the cost when it would generate financial losses for them, besides they make much more money in gaming now. I never bought that Mhz per Watt thing Jobs was talking about. It is only about money and always has been. Afterall IBM and Apple are corporations.

[SpankyPenzaanz]

Overpriced or not they still sell plenty of them and actually some of their high-end laptops would give MacBook Pros a run for it's money. Don't knock it till you've tried it. I know a lot of people that knock down Apple computers and call them overpriced but funny thing is that most of those people never had actually owned or used a Mac. I know Sony is not a popular company on this forum but they are not that bad and some of their products are actually good.

I think Ihad my share of them when I had to sell their entire line at a computer retailer. They are crap and the sony rep would do everything possible to deflect blame from their shoddy computers. I remember an entire shipment of 30 desktops had bad motherboards and 25 laptops had bad powersuppllies.

[e²Studios]

I think Ihad my share of them when I had to sell their entire line at a computer retailer. They are crap and the sony rep would do everything possible to deflect blame from their shoddy computers. I remember an entire shipment of 30 desktops had bad motherboards and 25 laptops had bad powersuppllies.

And I remember a company named after a fruit that had a huge recall of batteries that had the possibility of exploding, and faulty mainboards that caused all sorts of issues. Every company has their QC issues. iPod batteries anyone? People seem to ignore the faults of the company that they support, take the blinders off for a little.

Once developers ramp up and MS takes their #3 seat I will be anxious to hear the defence that the fanboys here take.

MS killed themselves by sticking to DVD9, if you ever wondered why the HD games are short and have little to no storyline? Its because the disc can't hold HD video, audio, and still have enough room left over for a decent sized storyline. Pretty soon you will be seeing "Please insert disc 2".

Ed

[Mackilroy]

And I remember a company named after a fruit that had a huge recall of batteries that had the possibility of exploding, and faulty mainboards that caused all sorts of issues. Every company has their QC issues. iPod batteries anyone? People seem to ignore the faults of the company that they support, take the blinders off for a little.

Once developers ramp up and MS takes their #3 seat I will be anxious to hear the defence that the fanboys here take.

MS killed themselves by sticking to DVD9, if you ever wondered why the HD games are short and have little to no storyline? Its because the disc can't hold HD video, audio, and still have enough room left over for a decent sized storyline. Pretty soon you will be seeing "Please insert disc 2".

Ed
And yet it's such a problem when there are two+ discs? There wasn't such a big uproar when PS2 games (or even Gamecube games) did this. But wait, now that they think the shoe is on the other foot it seems PlayStation fanboys believe that having more than one disc is evil. Do I detect hypocrites? And if you think Microsoft will be #3 this time, I pity you. ;)

Plus, you also seem to have forgotten that those batteries were made by – surprise – Sony.

[Haoshiro]

And I remember a company named after a fruit that had a huge recall of batteries that had the possibility of exploding, and faulty mainboards that caused all sorts of issues. Every company has their QC issues. iPod batteries anyone? People seem to ignore the faults of the company that they support, take the blinders off for a little.

Once developers ramp up and MS takes their #3 seat I will be anxious to hear the defence that the fanboys here take.

MS killed themselves by sticking to DVD9, if you ever wondered why the HD games are short and have little to no storyline? Its because the disc can't hold HD video, audio, and still have enough room left over for a decent sized storyline. Pretty soon you will be seeing "Please insert disc 2".

Ed

Are you serious? The trend for shorter games has been growing for awhile now and had nothing to do with disk space. PoP:SoT, BG&E, etc etc. 10-15 hour games is not due to size constraints, it's the Quality vs Quantity argument exemplified.

[Mackilroy]

Are you serious? The trend for shorter games has been growing for awhile now and had nothing to do with disk space. PoP:SoT, BG&E, etc etc. 10-15 hour games is not due to size constraints, it's the Quality vs Quantity argument exemplified.
Don't bring that up – he'll insist that it's disk space that matters. :p

[SpankyPenzaanz]

Are you serious? The trend for shorter games has been growing for awhile now and had nothing to do with disk space. PoP:SoT, BG&E, etc etc. 10-15 hour games is not due to size constraints, it's the Quality vs Quantity argument exemplified.

BG&E are u referring to beyond good and evil because I loved that game

[e²Studios]

And yet it's such a problem when there are two+ discs? There wasn't such a big uproar when PS2 games (or even Gamecube games) did this. But wait, now that they think the shoe is on the other foot it seems PlayStation fanboys believe that having more than one disc is evil. Do I detect hypocrites? And if you think Microsoft will be #3 this time, I pity you. ;)

Plus, you also seem to have forgotten that those batteries were made by – surprise – Sony.

Technology progresses, the 360 didnt progress at all in the format section.

Its easy to tell that it will be #3, Sony will sell just as well as it did with the PS2, the Wii will either be fighting Sony, and in 2nd, and the 360 will end up in #3. Enjoy the short plots and/or disc changes.

What i pity are the folks here that actually think the 360 outperforms the PS3.. talk about dreaming.. whatever makes you sleep better at night i suppose.

The bad PR was on Apple smart arse. Do you really think Sony made those power supplies that the poster was mentioning being bad, no but they took the heat for it. the iBook logic board failures were horrible, i went through 3 iBooks in order to get one that worked. I'm still a avid Apple supporter, but i think before i throw stones unlike many on these boards.

[Mackilroy]

Technology progresses, the 360 didnt progress at all in the format section.

Oh no, it's the end of the world that I have to get out of my chair and change a disc. Sheesh. If you seriously believe Blu-Ray is necessary, then why does the Resistance disc have so much padding just to make it to 22 gigabytes? With the game taking up perhaps four and a half gigs, and then each region taking a bit under half a gig, doesn't that argue otherwise? And sure, it means only one disc, but who really cares if they have all the regions on one disc? Are you going to be playing games in a language you don't speak? To read more, check here (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/26/resistance-17-75gb-of-garbage/). And perhaps you haven't heard of procedural generation, or this little game called .kkrieger which takes up a mere 97 kilobytes? Or SpeedTree, which allows forests to be dynamically generated, meaning you don't have to have a million different tree types to be loaded? To read about procedural generation click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation).

Its easy to tell that it will be #3, Sony will sell just as well as it did with the PS2, the Wii will either be fighting Sony, and in 2nd, and the 360 will end up in #3. Enjoy the short plots and/or disc changes

And why do you believe Sony's bull that they sold 100 million PS2s? Will PlayStation fanboys ever get it that they shipped 100 million units? Shipped does not equal sold. Plus, with innumerable stories of broken PS2s, it's not hard to imagine that maybe 1/2 to 2/3rds of the PS2s shipped were actually sold – still a significant number, yes, but nowhere near one hundred million units.

What i pity are the folks here that actually think the 360 outperforms the PS3.. talk about dreaming.. whatever makes you sleep better at night i suppose.

Since you think the PS3 is better, here's something to burst your bubble of FUD:

And the PS3 did indeed arrive with a good number of games that originally shipped for the Xbox 360. This gave us the perfect opportunity to compare the graphics on both systems with several cross-platform games. You'd think that the PS3 versions would be exactly the same or slightly superior to the Xbox 360 versions, since many of these games appeared on the 360 months ago, but it seems like developers didn't use the extra time to polish up the graphics for the PS3. We found that the Xbox 360 actually had better graphics in the majority of the games we compared.

Emphasis mine. Link to the article here (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html?tag=topslot;title;5&om_act=convert&click=topslot).

The bad PR was on Apple smart arse. Do you really think Sony made those power supplies that the poster was mentioning being bad, no but they took the heat for it. the iBook logic board failures were horrible, i went through 3 iBooks in order to get one that worked. I'm still a avid Apple supporter, but i think before i throw stones unlike many on these boards.
Because Sony did make those batteries. Duh. If you make something and it fails of course you're going to take heat for it. I know as a Sony fanboy you believe your beloved company can do no wrong, but Sony's messed up plenty of stuff. And presuming we don't think? How ridiculously elitist. It's almost as if you believe that you're the only one here who uses his brain, and that the rest of us are simply idiots blinded by <insert company of choice> and their marketing. Every company has issues. Everyone here acknowledges that. Why bring it up when it isn't true? If I didn't think, would I admit that Microsoft fouled up their launch? Or had bad systems? Or made an only-okay operating system? No.

So, please, actually look this stuff up before saying Sony's going to win. Please.

[Kevin83165]

I have not been keeping up with the arguments/flames in this thread too much, but I will not buy a PS3 because of the laser problems the PS2 had. I have been working on game systems as a hobby and the failure rate of PS2 lasers are phenomenal. Perhaps the PS3 has this corrected, only time will tell. But I would hate to see the price of a PS3 blu ray laser!

Even today, the KHS-400C laser is $60+ in the old style PS2. Sony changed the version of PS2's many times but never did a danged thing to correct the burn out problem. For this reason alone, my money will go to the more reliable system, the Xbox or 360.

[e²Studios]

Compare launch titles to launch titles.. oh right you cant because then the playing field might be too even? I can find just as many sites as you can written by fanboys as equally as jaded by Sony as you are by M$, whats next, a xbox forum page proving that the 360 is better? ah huh.

I never said Sony was perfect, in fact they are far from it. I never owned a PS2, i basically skipped a generation from PS1 to PS3. M$ as a company has screwed up and screwed over people far worse than Sony ever has.

I dont overly support any company with the blind allegiance that a lot of posters in the games forum seem to have. I have a PS3 and a Wii, the Wii actually gets more gametime than my PS3.

how bout these apples? http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060611-7030.html

"Since the release of the Xbox 360, Microsoft has averaged 246,000 console sales each month in the US, while the PS2 has seen an average of 473,000 units—a number bolstered by an estimated 1.5 million sales in December alone."

Don't fool yourself in to thinking that the PS3 wont do the same, if not better. Sony has a very loyal following.

[Haoshiro]

Are you serious? The trend for shorter games has been growing for awhile now and had nothing to do with disk space. PoP:SoT, BG&E, etc etc. 10-15 hour games is not due to size constraints, it's the Quality vs Quantity argument exemplified.

Quoted for emphasis. For pity sake stop acting like DVD9s force games to be shorter, that is just ridiculous.

[Mackilroy]

Compare launch titles to launch titles.. oh right you cant because then the playing field might be too even? I can find just as many sites as you can written by fanboys as equally as jaded by Sony as you are by M$, whats next, a xbox forum page proving that the 360 is better? ah huh.

I never said Sony was perfect, in fact they are far from it. I never owned a PS2, i basically skipped a generation from PS1 to PS3. M$ as a company has screwed up and screwed over people far worse than Sony ever has.

I dont overly support any company with the blind allegiance that a lot of posters in the games forum seem to have. I have a PS3 and a Wii, the Wii actually gets more gametime than my PS3.

how bout these apples? http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060611-7030.html

"Since the release of the Xbox 360, Microsoft has averaged 246,000 console sales each month in the US, while the PS2 has seen an average of 473,000 units—a number bolstered by an estimated 1.5 million sales in December alone."

Don't fool yourself in to thinking that the PS3 wont do the same, if not better. Sony has a very loyal following.

I can't, because the PS3 had an extra year for devs to make their games better. Had the 360 waited another year for release, I have no doubt that the launch games of last year would look better. Contrary to what you think I have no problem agreeing that the PS3's launch titles are better graphically than the 360's launch titles.

And you know what? The PS2 is much cheaper than the 360, and and even cheaper than the PS3. Sony may have a following, but do you honestly think people are prepared to drop $500-$600 on nothing but a games console? With no games, extra controllers, etc? No. I can pick up a low-end 360 and four games (accounting for tax) for the price of the low-end PS3. Granted, the basic 360 doesn't have a hard drive, but you don't need one to play games. And even adding a hard drive and wireless to a basic 360 brings it anywhere to somewhat lower to the same price. I could get the premium 360 and two games for the cost of the low-end PS3.

[gco212]

Compare launch titles to launch titles.. oh right you cant because then the playing field might be too even? I can find just as many sites as you can written by fanboys as equally as jaded by Sony as you are by M$, whats next, a xbox forum page proving that the 360 is better? ah huh.

I never said Sony was perfect, in fact they are far from it. I never owned a PS2, i basically skipped a generation from PS1 to PS3. M$ as a company has screwed up and screwed over people far worse than Sony ever has.

I dont overly support any company with the blind allegiance that a lot of posters in the games forum seem to have. I have a PS3 and a Wii, the Wii actually gets more gametime than my PS3.

how bout these apples? http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060611-7030.html

"Since the release of the Xbox 360, Microsoft has averaged 246,000 console sales each month in the US, while the PS2 has seen an average of 473,000 units—a number bolstered by an estimated 1.5 million sales in December alone."

Don't fool yourself in to thinking that the PS3 wont do the same, if not better. Sony has a very loyal following.

I find it hilarious that you chose that article, that is outdated by six months when talking about PS2 vs. Xbox 360 sales. Even the article mentions that the Xbox outsold PS2 in April, and was behind by a few thousand units in May, when demand was finally beginning to catch up to supply. And that was before the PS3 started getting bad press, and Xbox was getting awful press due to their hardware's failure rates. Here's a little quote from the article:

"In closing, I should note that we caution against putting too much weight on these sales estimates, especially in a comparative sense. The PS2 and the Xbox 360 are at opposite ends of their "console lifecycles," and the two are priced quite far apart as well (e.g., $129 vs. $299, PS2, Xbox 360 Core respectively)."

[jjohnson87]

This is turning into a fanboy war and I really would rather not to contribute to that so I will be as objective as possible. I own both a 360 and a PS3 and love them both for different reasons. Well the PS3 mostly for potential at the moment but resistance is awesome. That being said saying Xbox is going to get killed this generation is naive and stupid. The technical differences between the system are not nearly as different as sony would have you believe. Everything I have read put the cell with more theoretical power than the xenon but will harder to program for. On the other hand the Xenos is a more powerful chip than the RSX and the unified memory of the Xbox makes pure power between the two systems a near wash. The blu-ray support is nice but isn't a big deal. A two disc 360 is not the end of the world if memory serves the final fantasy games on the original psone shipped with either 3 or 4 discs and still were some of the best selling games to ever exist. The movie capability is not important because people willing to invest in hd movies this early are not people who will complain about paying the 200 for the hd dvd add on.

Many people assume because the PS3 is a year newer the technology inside of the PS3 must be a full year ahead of the Xbox. Also some careful spinning by Sony. I have yet to see a person point out the fact that the PS3 and 360's specs were both announced at the same event (E3 2005) and were in R&D during the same timeframe. If not for manufacturing problems the PS3 should have shipped in march earlier if Sony had it's act together from the start. Another huge plus for microsoft is the company is still holding its ace, Halo. The 360 is already close to 10 million before releasing its most profitable franchise on a next gen system. If you are ready to believe that Halo will not have a huge effect on the sales of next years holiday season you have clearly blocked out what happened in late 2004 out of your memory. If microsoft cuts 100$ off the price of their system (which is entirely possible due to the scheduled hardware revision) in the same time frame of halo 3 they will kill next year. The new and unproven technology inside of the PS3 has all but ensured there will not be a price cut for sometime. People already cant fathom paying 200 more for a PS3 imagine when that gap widens next year.

If microsoft can come up with one more exclusive "killer" franchise they can go from likely favorite of this generation to potential juggernaut. You could have a year of halo a year of gears of war and franchise 3 for the next 3-5 years ensuring not only a win but a complete burial of sony this generation. Couple all of this with the much better online service of the Xbox and the deep deep pockets microsoft has to make sure the consumers and developers dont forget the 360 is not going anywhere anytime soon. Don't get me wrong I love both of my systems but to look ahead a few years and not see that microsoft is in a substantially better position than sony is this generation is just pure blind fanboyism.

[Mackilroy]

I can find just as many sites as you can written by fanboys as equally as jaded by Sony as you are by M$
Forgot about this part – I'm jaded by Microsoft? So why do I use a Mac?

[e²Studios]

For the Week Ending 24-12-2006

Sales numbers speak wisdom, they don't lie

DS 508,750 (+57%) 13,944,500

Wii 286,500 (+185%) 859,000

PSP 106,250 (+106%) 4,644,250

PS3 101,500 (+40%) 420,500

PS2 69,750 (+65%) 21,818,000

X360 30,500 (+69%) 281,000

GBA 16,500 (+73%) 16,640,750

GC 1,750 (+40%) 4,015,250

Even with shortened production the PS3 is still blowing the 360 out of the water. +65% with only 30k in sales for the week.. what a joke.

[TheBobcat]

Where are those numbers from? I find it impossible to believe that in a month in sales that the PS3 has 160000 more than the userbase of the Xbox 360. Is this Japanese or something? Then it would make sense.

[greatdevourer]

And I remember a company named after a fruit that had a huge recall of batteries that had the possibility of exploding, and faulty mainboards that caused all sorts of issues. Every company has their QC issues. iPod batteries anyone? People seem to ignore the faults of the company that they support, take the blinders off for a little. Actually, the exploding batteries were made by Sony ;)

Where are those numbers from? I find it impossible to believe that in a month in sales that the PS3 has 160000 more than the userbase of the Xbox 360. Is this Japanese or something? Then it would make sense. Also, as with the "units shipped vs units sold" thing, does this include the many cases of people buying them then returning them within a week?

[raggedjimmi]

Technology progresses, the 360 didnt progress at all in the format section.

Its easy to tell that it will be #3, Sony will sell just as well as it did with the PS2, the Wii will either be fighting Sony, and in 2nd, and the 360 will end up in #3. Enjoy the short plots and/or disc changes.


Couple of things, and remember I don't own a 360 myself. MS don't have my money.

The 360 has the largest userbase at the moment. This means devs are going to develop for it and then port to other systems. These "short games" are going to be all over the PS3.
Plus, how long do you want to wait? How long did GoW take to complete :rolleyes: I love a good long game as much as the next person but when you have to wait 5 or so years for an epic, HD game then somethings wrong. Look at the Wii, with it's less focus on graphical detail and SD textures etc, the epics take just as long as they did on the GC, PS2 and co. How long did R:FoM take to develop too? And how much do you think these would cost in shops, how many studios could afford such big projects?! I tell you who - the EA's of the world who pump out rubbish, and Ubisoft recently.
Ironic as it seems, I can imagine the Wii having the epics this time. The Zeldas, Metroids and new IP 50 hour+ games. Online is where these HD games will pay off, less time in development and much more user replayability. Who has a stonking online system again? :D

Keep dreaming yourself if you think you'll be playing all these super huge games in plentiful supply.

Where are those numbers from? I find it impossible to believe that in a month in sales that the PS3 has 160000 more than the userbase of the Xbox 360. Is this Japanese or something? Then it would make sense.

Japan I reckon. Since the introduction of the DS Nintendo has dominated the sales charts only to be topped by 1 machine - the Wii.

I think them sales also tell me that Nintendo is going to dominate this generation, though with anti-Nintendo people croaking about "but they're mostly non-gamers so they don't count". I mean the Wii has broke UK launch records, who'da thought it! A Nintendo console doing well in the UK!? It's like the whole portable audio world again. Sony dominated with the Walkman. Refusing to go the way of MP3 at an early stage meant them losing out to iPod. Sony seem to be too stuck in their ways, and it might really hurt them. I mean during the height of the walkman who wouldn't have laughed at someone saying "in a few years Apple will be kings of the market!"? An example of brand loyalty? hmm. Consumers drop products and brands as soon as something better or cheaper comes out.

[blitzkrieg79]

I can't, because the PS3 had an extra year for devs to make their games better. Had the 360 waited another year for release, I have no doubt that the launch games of last year would look better. Contrary to what you think I have no problem agreeing that the PS3's launch titles are better graphically than the 360's launch titles.


Developers may had an extra year to develop for PS3 but one important fact that can't be ignored is that Cell is a totally new architecture, totally new programming techniques, compilers, etc etc had to be introduced and they still need time to be perfected. XBox 360 went with a traditional CPU design (easier for developers) but in the long run PS3 games (at least from aesthetic point of view) will look better than XBox 360 simply because Cell (when fully/properly optimized) has currently no equal in the gaming world. One problem though is that ports from XBox 360 won't play/look so good on PS3 because Cell requires the program to be designed from ground up for Cell architecture. The key here is the amount of developers willing to develop directly for Cell.

[zero2dash]

For the Week Ending 24-12-2006

Sales numbers speak wisdom, they don't lie

DS 508,750 (+57%) 13,944,500

Wii 286,500 (+185%) 859,000

PSP 106,250 (+106%) 4,644,250

PS3 101,500 (+40%) 420,500
PS3 Units resold on eBay at 200%+ markup 101,000 (+40%) 420,000

PS2 69,750 (+65%) 21,818,000

X360 30,500 (+69%) 281,000

GBA 16,500 (+73%) 16,640,750

GC 1,750 (+40%) 4,015,250

Even with shortened production the PS3 is still blowing the 360 out of the water. +65% with only 30k in sales for the week.. what a joke.

Yeah, it's not as if every launch Ps3 would be sold or anything; that's ridiculous to think otherwise.
/sarcasm

Let's look at some total sales, eh Ed? Who's blowing who out of the water again between the 360 and Ps3? :cool:

BTW I fixed those figures for you. :p

Your argument about switching discs is also equally ridiculous.
Oh noes! Sephiroth just killed Aeris and I have to get off my butt, quit crying, and put in disc 3?? Don't I get a grieving period?! Damn you Square! Damn you!!!!! I'm boycotting the Playstation version so I can do a full install on the PC version and never have to change discs again! :rolleyes:

[gloss]

Your argument about switching discs is also equally ridiculous.

I agree. The only thing Blu-Ray is going to bring us is 15 hours more pre-rendered cutscenes per JRPG. Honestly, I'm happier seeing them generated in game.

There's currently no reason to create games on Blu-Ray versus DVD. Sure, it offers more space, but that space is not being utilized. Look at Lair, which was supposed to be the big Show Off Game for Blu-Ray due to its high-res textures. It has 17GB of filler information on the disc, meaning that it would actually have fit just fine on regular DVD.

Sony is digging itself into a hole.

[Haoshiro]

Developers may had an extra year to develop for PS3 but one important fact that can't be ignored is that Cell is a totally new architecture, totally new programming techniques, compilers, etc etc had to be introduced and they still need time to be perfected. XBox 360 went with a traditional CPU design (easier for developers) but in the long run PS3 games (at least from aesthetic point of view) will look better than XBox 360 simply because Cell (when fully/properly optimized) has currently no equal in the gaming world. One problem though is that ports from XBox 360 won't play/look so good on PS3 because Cell requires the program to be designed from ground up for Cell architecture. The key here is the amount of developers willing to develop directly for Cell.

To be fair, many developers are most familiar with x86 and single-core chips. Xbox 360 is a triple core PPC as you know, I'd say that would look pretty different to a lot of developers as well.

The disadvantage might not be as large as with PS3/Cell, but it seems safe to assume developers were working on a completely new architecture with 360 as well.

I wonder, if this was a Sony vs Microsoft argument who would win? Has Sony ever been as successful and profitable as Microsoft? Like them or not, MS seems to be the more successful business in its field, and when you have really powerful hardware it becomes a lot more about software then hardware, and MS trumps Sony in that department any day of the week.

Anyone remember the robot car races? I think it aired on BBC. I don't remember the name of the show, but the challenge was to make a vehicle that drove itself, and then have all the contenders race through a desert. The winner was the one team who thought the solution was all in the software. Second place was the team who tried to do it through hardware/robotics. They still did well, but the software focus is smarter and cheaper, and that seems to me the same as MS vs Sony.

[raggedjimmi]

Anyone remember the robot car races? I think it aired on BBC. I don't remember the name of the show, but the challenge was to make a vehicle that drove itself, and then have all the contenders race through a desert. The winner was the one team who thought the solution was all in the software. Second place was the team who tried to do it through hardware/robotics. They still did well, but the software focus is smarter and cheaper, and that seems to me the same as MS vs Sony.

That rings a distant bell :D
To be honest that's Nintendo's strategy too. In Game Play (damn fine book if you can find one) Shigsy goes on about how he crafted the N64 around Mario 64. Create a limitless idea then set about building something to run it on. Software then hardware.

[blitzkrieg79]

To be fair, many developers are most familiar with x86 and single-core chips. Xbox 360 is a triple core PPC as you know, I'd say that would look pretty different to a lot of developers as well.

The disadvantage might not be as large as with PS3/Cell, but it seems safe to assume developers were working on a completely new architecture with 360 as well.

I wonder, if this was a Sony vs Microsoft argument who would win? Has Sony ever been as successful and profitable as Microsoft? Like them or not, MS seems to be the more successful business in its field, and when you have really powerful hardware it becomes a lot more about software then hardware, and MS trumps Sony in that department any day of the week.

Anyone remember the robot car races? I think it aired on BBC. I don't remember the name of the show, but the challenge was to make a vehicle that drove itself, and then have all the contenders race through a desert. The winner was the one team who thought the solution was all in the software. Second place was the team who tried to do it through hardware/robotics. They still did well, but the software focus is smarter and cheaper, and that seems to me the same as MS vs Sony.

Well the triple core XBox 360 CPU is an evolution of a PPC design, Cell is more of a revolutionary design from scratch. Intel released dual core Pentiums a while ago so developers are familiar with traditional symmetrical multicore designs, Cell is asymmetrical processor with one core and seven SPEs (which are not traditional CPUs but more like independent vector processing units capable of general computing environment). Anyway, from what I understand is that Cell is definately more difficult to program for but when done right, performance wise, XBox 360 is left in the dust. But it also requires more time and money to develop for. But as time will go on and better/improved programming tools and compilers will get released it will gain more momentum.

Anyway, Microsoft hasn't always been successful or as successful as competition. Look at the first generation of XBox, PS2 worldwide sales basically clobbered it, then there is Apple iPod, how many attempts (direct and indirect) did MS try to detrone it and the iTunes store. It's not like anything MS touches turns to gold. Overall MS is a more profitable company than Sony but it's not like anything MS touches turns to gold and is an automatic success, they had plenty of failures throughout their existance.

Anyway, we can argue all we want but in reality only time will tell. I guess I am excited about the Cell because it gives me a processor (or co-processor) capable of really increasing the speed of my workload by an order of magnitude especially in photo/video department.

[greatdevourer]

Well the triple core XBox 360 CPU is an evolution of a PPC design, Cell is more of a revolutionary design from scratch. Intel released dual core Pentiums a while ago so developers are familiar with traditional symmetrical multicore designs, Cell is asymmetrical processor with one core and seven SPEs (which are not traditional CPUs but more like independent vector processing units capable of general computing environment). Anyway, from what I understand is that Cell is definately more difficult to program for but when done right, performance wise, XBox 360 is left in the dust. But it also requires more time and money to develop for. But as time will go on and better/improved programming tools and compilers will get released it will gain more momentum. A better (and more accurate) explaination of the SPE is Altivec - a SIMD, not all too different from what you'd find littered on a graphics card

[blitzkrieg79]

A better (and more accurate) explaination of the SPE is Altivec - a SIMD, not all too different from what you'd find littered on a graphics card

I guess so but the main difference is that SPE is an independent unit capable of general purpose computing where Altivec is dependent/limited by the processor. Basically SPE are a new class of processing elements, its not a traditional CPU, it's not a vector unit like SSE or Altivec, it's not a shader unit like found in GPUs, it's basically a combination of those things, IBM really did a good job on this, raw performance of a GPU but capable of general purpose computing and easier to program for than GPUs.

[Haoshiro]

Well the triple core XBox 360 CPU is an evolution of a PPC design, Cell is more of a revolutionary design from scratch. Intel released dual core Pentiums a while ago so developers are familiar with traditional symmetrical multicore designs, Cell is asymmetrical processor with one core and seven SPEs (which are not traditional CPUs but more like independent vector processing units capable of general computing environment). Anyway, from what I understand is that Cell is definately more difficult to program for but when done right, performance wise, XBox 360 is left in the dust. But it also requires more time and money to develop for. But as time will go on and better/improved programming tools and compilers will get released it will gain more momentum.

Anyway, Microsoft hasn't always been successful or as successful as competition. Look at the first generation of XBox, PS2 worldwide sales basically clobbered it, then there is Apple iPod, how many attempts (direct and indirect) did MS try to detrone it and the iTunes store. It's not like anything MS touches turns to gold. Overall MS is a more profitable company than Sony but it's not like anything MS touches turns to gold and is an automatic success, they had plenty of failures throughout their existance.

Anyway, we can argue all we want but in reality only time will tell. I guess I am excited about the Cell because it gives me a processor (or co-processor) capable of really increasing the speed of my workload by an order of magnitude especially in photo/video department.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but there have been very few games that were developed for a multi-core system, PC included.

Which was basically my point, going from Xbox or PC, to Xbox 360 was very different. Xbox 360 having three 3.2 GHz cores as well as a GPU, plus running on PPC is likely a very different beast to a lot of developers. PPC isn't new, perse, but not the same as many developers are accustomed to.

Multi-core systems have been out for awhile, but not long enough to have many developers working with them. The work required to really push the limits of a multi-core system is still a relatively new thing, as multi-core systems are only recently becoming prevelent enough to be a development consideration.

For me, I think the problem for PS3 could be its use of the Cell. The specs seem to indicate the PS3 design could end up limiting the potential of Cell through memory constraints (such as only 256K per SPE, and 256M for system), plus (iirc) only 6 SPEs are usable for games, and bandwidth on the system seems less then desirable.

I'm sure as time goes on it'll be more obvious where the bottlenecks are, but it seems entirely possible that the performance potential for PS3 was capped through design of the rest of the system.

Not to say that would be anything new, Sony has never had the most powerful system. As I recall PS1 was actually technically inferior (at least in most ways) to both N64 and Saturn (moreso concerning N64), and PS2 was weaker hardware then GameCube and Xbox, and in some areas even Dreamcast. This didn't stop some developers from doing good things with the hardware.

Whether or not which system is more powerful doesn't necessarily matter, 360 could be weaker and win, or stronger and lose, same for PS3.

I still think that Xbox 360 will probably remain the primary development system for multi-platform games and that, in the end, will really hurt the PS3 software market. That will make the PS3 ports less impressive and longer in development. Until PS3 really starts matching 360 in market penetration that probably won't change, and with 360 a year ahead in terms of production, that may take years to actually happen.

[Antares]

I say we all get off our high horses and stop arguing about which system is better. It's too early to tell and both systems are very close, graphically, regardless. Instead, this is what I suggest: Whenever we have the money, each of us should get a PS3. :)

[blitzkrieg79]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but there have been very few games that were developed for a multi-core system, PC included.

Which was basically my point, going from Xbox or PC, to Xbox 360 was very different. Xbox 360 having three 3.2 GHz cores as well as a GPU, plus running on PPC is likely a very different beast to a lot of developers. PPC isn't new, perse, but not the same as many developers are accustomed to.

Multi-core systems have been out for awhile, but not long enough to have many developers working with them. The work required to really push the limits of a multi-core system is still a relatively new thing, as multi-core systems are only recently becoming prevelent enough to be a development consideration.

For me, I think the problem for PS3 could be its use of the Cell. The specs seem to indicate the PS3 design could end up limiting the potential of Cell through memory constraints (such as only 256K per SPE, and 256M for system), plus (iirc) only 6 SPEs are usable for games, and bandwidth on the system seems less then desirable.

I'm sure as time goes on it'll be more obvious where the bottlenecks are, but it seems entirely possible that the performance potential for PS3 was capped through design of the rest of the system.

Not to say that would be anything new, Sony has never had the most powerful system. As I recall PS1 was actually technically inferior (at least in most ways) to both N64 and Saturn (moreso concerning N64), and PS2 was weaker hardware then GameCube and Xbox, and in some areas even Dreamcast. This didn't stop some developers from doing good things with the hardware.

Whether or not which system is more powerful doesn't necessarily matter, 360 could be weaker and win, or stronger and lose, same for PS3.

I still think that Xbox 360 will probably remain the primary development system for multi-platform games and that, in the end, will really hurt the PS3 software market. That will make the PS3 ports less impressive and longer in development. Until PS3 really starts matching 360 in market penetration that probably won't change, and with 360 a year ahead in terms of production, that may take years to actually happen.

Well, I am not much of a gamer, I used to be but I guess I "matured" :p Anyway, I am not much of a fan of any console system, but I do like the Cell processor no matter where it ends up to be. Cell is more of an idea/an architecture that is customizable to given needs. For example, IBM will release a general purpose computing Cell in 2008. There are already plans for the next generation of Cell in 2010-2011. Like you said in earlier posts, I think IBM has its own agenda when it comes to the Cell, I think that over time the gap between Cell and their Power series of processors will merge. Anyway, for some interesting reading check out:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36335

http://www.cercs.gatech.edu/docs/SC06_Cell_111606.pdf

[raggedjimmi]

Instead, this is what I suggest: Whenever we have the money, each of us should get a PS3. :)

HAHA. no. I could spend £450 of that money of that on 360/Wii games. I could buy an awful lot of them too. 15 Wii games. 10 360 games.

Or 1 system with no games :D

[greatdevourer]

Well, I am not much of a gamer, I used to be but I guess I "matured" :p Anyway, I am not much of a fan of any console system, but I do like the Cell processor no matter where it ends up to be. Cell is more of an idea/an architecture that is customizable to given needs. For example, IBM will release a general purpose computing Cell in 2008. There are already plans for the next generation of Cell in 2010-2011. Like you said in earlier posts, I think IBM has its own agenda when it comes to the Cell, I think that over time the gap between Cell and their Power series of processors will merge. Anyway, for some interesting reading check out:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36335

http://www.cercs.gatech.edu/docs/SC06_Cell_111606.pdf Oh, yes, Cell is a wonderful idea (can't wait to see how well real-time ray-tracing is on it - should be summat to really show off the SIMDs), but, unfortunately, poorly executed and put to the wrong industry by Sony

[blitzkrieg79]

Oh, yes, Cell is a wonderful idea (can't wait to see how well real-time ray-tracing is on it - should be summat to really show off the SIMDs), but, unfortunately, poorly executed and put to the wrong industry by Sony

Ahhhh, ray-tracing on CELL, well check this interview out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr-R4bUZIQw

There is a ray-tracing demo where basically they say Cell is 40 times faster than a G5 at it (it came from the mouth of an IBM guy, Cell accomplished about 20fps and a G5 about 0.5fps)

[raggedjimmi]

Ahhhh, ray-tracing on CELL, well check this interview out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr-R4bUZIQw

There is a ray-tracing demo where basically they say Cell is 40 times faster than a G5 at it (it came from the mouth of an IBM guy, Cell accomplished about 20fps and a G5 about 0.5fps)

A little OT but that guy was the spit of Mark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6SUC5k-58o).

[coffey7]

what the hell is up with playing the ps2 games on the ps3, they look like total garbage. When I play my xbox games on my 360 they look the same or better. Sonys ps3 is sitting on shelves in stores and nobodys buying them. This is in NY state. I wanted to buy one but they better get that ps2 games thing fixed first.

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&thread.id=808212&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

[huntersville]

you wanna know the real true reason why the ps3 lost these games as exclusives because it has alot to do with 180 fans i know you all go over to the sites of these developers and insist that these games come to your poor weakling box now thats only part the other part is that microsoft knows they have already lost as far as graphics this time but if they could take away exclusives then that could keep sony from truely bringing out the true power of the ps3 and cause microsoft makes them offers that cant be refused (money):mad:

[Mackilroy]

Excellent job trolling and making biased points with no proof. I applaud you, I really do.

[greatdevourer]

you wanna know the real true reason why the ps3 lost these games as exclusives because it has alot to do with 180 fans i know you all go over to the sites of these developers and insist that these games come to your poor weakling box now thats only part the other part is that microsoft knows they have already lost as far as graphics this time but if they could take away exclusives then that could keep sony from truely bringing out the true power of the ps3 and cause microsoft makes them offers that cant be refused (money):mad: Stop! Grammar Time!

[raggedjimmi]

Whoa. Call it a mental block or whatever but I couldn't understand what that guy said, at all. Anyone care to summarise?

I'm not even joking. I cannot understand!

[Haoshiro]

Whoa. Call it a mental block or whatever but I couldn't understand what that guy said, at all. Anyone care to summarise?

I'm not even joking. I cannot understand!

Sure, I'll take a stab at it:

The reason the PS3 has lost all these exclusive games is because Xbox 360 fans e-mail the game developers and insist the games are made for it.

But that is only a part of it - Microsoft knows they lost concerning graphics, so they are paying off developers to take away exlusives from PS3. They know if they do that they can keep Sony from showing off the true power of the PS3.

[tdvone]

Where are those numbers from? I find it impossible to believe that in a month in sales that the PS3 has 160000 more than the userbase of the Xbox 360. Is this Japanese or something? Then it would make sense.

Those have got to be Japanese numbers, and he should have cited his source. No one expects the 360 to beat the PS3 in Japan, it's the rest of the world that matters.

Still, considering that it is Japan, those are somewhat less than stellar numbers.

[Mac'Mo]

ive got a ps3 and still ahvent' opened it

[raggedjimmi]

Sure, I'll take a stab at it:

Thank you very much :)

Quick! Let us email HAL and get Smash Bros on the 360!

[MacRumorUser]

you wanna know the real true reason why the ps3 lost these games as exclusives because it has alot to do with 180 fans i know you all go over to the sites of these developers and insist that these games come to your poor weakling box now thats only part the other part is that microsoft knows they have already lost as far as graphics this time but if they could take away exclusives then that could keep sony from truely bringing out the true power of the ps3 and cause microsoft makes them offers that cant be refused (money):mad:

So an alternative translation.

I cant believe I bought a PS3, and now I feel so insecure that the only way I get some sort of mental relief is to bad mouth the 360.
I'm so dissapointed that some of the games I assumed would be PS3 exclusives (which were very important to me as they aid me in the great who can piss higher contest with my friends) are now not exclusive.
Whilst I realise that this is just commercial sense for developers I am going to muster all my Vitriol and blame microsoft and develop an elaborate conspiracy to back up my hypothesis, and in doing so I will sound like a complete nutcase. :mad:




Seriously whilst I realise your new to the forums, if you are happy with your ps3 purchase and confident that it was the right choice for you. Does it really matter what games come out on the 360 ?

Surely you realise most games are multiformat and as the costs to develop games increases expernentially that developers are going to be reluctant to develop any game as an 'exclusive'.

Microsoft are not paying developers to make games multiformat, that's ridiculous to think so. If they were paying developers they would be doing so to make them exclusive not vice versa.

PS3 rest assured will have some fantastic 'exclusive' first party titles.

[e²Studios]

So an alternative translation.

I cant believe I bought a PS3, and now I feel so insecure that the only way I get some sort of mental relief is to bad mouth the 360.
I'm so dissapointed that some of the games I assumed would be PS3 exclusives (which were very important to me as they aid me in the great who can piss higher contest with my friends) are now not exclusive.
Whilst I realise that this is just commercial sense for developers I am going to muster all my Vitriol and blame microsoft and develop an elaborate conspiracy to back up my hypothesis, and in doing so I will sound like a complete nutcase. :mad:




Seriously whilst I realise your new to the forums, if you are happy with your ps3 purchase and confident that it was the right choice for you. Does it really matter what games come out on the 360 ?

Surely you realise most games are multiformat and as the costs to develop games increases expernentially that developers are going to be reluctant to develop any game as an 'exclusive'.

Microsoft are not paying developers to make games multiformat, that's ridiculous to think so. If they were paying developers they would be doing so to make them exclusive not vice versa.

PS3 rest assured will have some fantastic 'exclusive' first party titles.

I'll agree thats quite the "Oliver Stone" conspiracy theory there. To be honest sharing games isnt a bad thing for any of us. We are all gamers with at least one thing we can all universally agree on, having fun while playing games on whatever console(s) that we choose to purchase/support.

Thanks for the translation, ps its "realize" hehe :p

Buy a system because the games you want to play are on it, who cares what the Jones's has on theirs.

Ed

[darkwing]

I'll agree thats quite the "Oliver Stone" conspiracy theory there. To be honest sharing games isnt a bad thing for any of us. We are all gamers with at least one thing we can all universally agree on, having fun while playing games on whatever console(s) that we choose to purchase/support.

Thanks for the translation, ps its "realize" hehe :p

Buy a system because the games you want to play are on it, who cares what the Jones's has on theirs.

Ed

It's also "you're new to the forums", MRU! :)

And you need an apostrophe in that "its", Ed. :P

[MacRumorUser]

Thanks for the translation, ps its "realize" hehe :p


Not outside of America it isn't :p :D

It's also "you're new to the forums", MRU! :)

And you need an apostrophe in that "its", Ed. :P


Stop. Grammar Time :D