Support NeoGAF

[Pimpwerx]

The original presentation didn't actually say fluids couldn't be done on the 360, more that it was prohibitive b/c it would use up too much of Xenon. This email does state outright that the 360 SDK does include fluid dynamics in a much more explicit manner. But it doesn't qualify it by throwing numbers/benchmark/reference data the way the presentation did. It can be read one way or another, but it doesn't much matter really. I think in fairness to both console manufacturers, an independant 3rd party dev tool provider should avoid *public* comparisons are often as possible. But as I've said before, this was also a presentation intended for the industry, not really the gaming public. It's the gaming media that has inevitably turned this molehill into a mountain, and thus thrown the egg on MS's face. And I fully agree with Ageia taking these steps to keep their partners satisfied.

Cell will be better than Xenon at physics. Was this a point of contention at all? How much better we'll never know, we'll have to see if any multiplatform games actually go te extra mile to exploit the additional power. But it's not the place of Ageia to make this comparison, even if they are in the best position to actually make it.

Now how was that for a carefully worded response? PEACE.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

God just release the benchmarks and get this shit over with.

 

[gofreak]

Obviously, but like I said in the other thread, we can't extrapolate their results to make a general comment on relative performance, and that's exactly what they're saying here.

We don't know their results of course, but I'm saying if those results (thusfar on unfinished hardware) flatly contradicted the rather explicit comparative points they made, don't you think they'd have avoided making those points?

It'd be like someone saying they didn't expect it to rain today, having just come in from a downpour. Pointless, and ultimately confusing (and I doubt they want to confuse potential customers and dev partners).

 

[rastex]

We don't know their results of course, but I'm saying if those results (thusfar on unfinished hardware) flatly contradicted the rather explicit comparative points they made, don't you think they'd have avoided making those points?

It'd be like someone saying they didn't expect it to rain today, having just come in from a downpour. Pointless, and ultimately confusing (and I doubt they want to confuse potential customers and dev partners).

There's a million and one reasons why they said what they said. The presenter could have had old information from the devs that's no longer true, the information didn't come out as they intended etc etc. The fact of the matter is that they clarified their statement to show that right now they don't want to say there is a difference in performance. Remember, as I mentioned in the other thread they're the only developers who have mentioned any significant performance differences between the 2 systems. And now they're hedging their statements very heavily. Do you think they're the ONLY developers with both dev kits? Now they're just falling in line with the rest of the dev community.

 

[Pimpwerx]

There's a million and one reasons why they said what they said. The presenter could have had old information from the devs that's no longer true, the information didn't come out as they intended etc etc. The fact of the matter is that they clarified their statement to show that right now they don't want to say there is a difference in performance. Remember, as I mentioned in the other thread they're the only developers who have mentioned any significant performance differences between the 2 systems. And now they're hedging their statements very heavily. Do you think they're the ONLY developers with both dev kits? Now they're just falling in line with the rest of the dev community.

No offense, but they backed away from performance comparisons b/c they are reliant on both platforms, and promoting one over another is a conflict of interest. Not b/c there's any parity per se. PEACE.

 

[gofreak]

There's a million and one reasons why they said what they said. The presenter could have had old information from the devs that's no longer true, the information didn't come out as they intended etc etc.

Tom Lassanske is very senior at AGEIA, he's a techie, I'm pretty sure he knows what he's doing and saying. And this presentation was made to multiple different audiences at multiple different conferences - kind of unlikely they'd keep making the same mistakes over and over.

The fact of the matter is that they clarified their statement to show that right now they don't want to say there is a difference in performance.

Yeah, they don't now, but they did at these conferences. Just look back at what was said, look back at AGEIA's own slides from CEDEC. And this statement doesn't even try to retract that (the strongest thing it says is that these statements/suggestions shouldn't have been made), it simple provides more context for the comparative points that were made i.e. this is their expectation/prediction based on analysis of publically available architectural detail. That's seperate from a benchmark comparison, the comparison they're quite insistent now will not ever be made public (the same VP of marketing told me it's simply not their position to provide such information because PS3 and X360 are not their products. Which to me simply is an excuse to avoid that in order to keep either MS or Sony or both happy, because they happily provide such data on other platforms that aren't their products either - e.g. Intel). The questions I raise about how that relates to their actual experience with hardware are seperate, but valid.

Remember, as I mentioned in the other thread they're the only developers who have mentioned any significant performance differences between the 2 systems.

And you wonder why when you see the fallout? As said earlier, AGEIA is learning the value of diplomacy.

That said, they're not the only devs, at least there have been rumours and "person x told me this" type reports for quite a while now.

Very few people are in a position to safely make statements about the consoles that would favour one over the other.

 

[Izzy]

Remember, as I mentioned in the other thread they're the only developers who have mentioned any significant performance differences between the 2 systems. And now they're hedging their statements very heavily. Do you think they're the ONLY developers with both dev kits? Now they're just falling in line with the rest of the dev community.

Talk to any developer and you'll get a range of comments, from "the system eclipses Xenon" to "it's three and a half times more powerful." Publishers are on board in a big way. Everyone is making Xenon and PS3 games. And Sony's brand name has never been better.

There's no point in releasing it now. Not when PlayStation 2 is doing just fine.

An added six months to a year ensures that PlayStation 3 will not only be significantly more powerful than Xenon -- which it clearly is -- but also able to play high-definition Blu-ray movies out of the box, all with a cheaper price tag than would have been possible this year.

IGN

Change of plans. After seeing PS3's power several big-time gamemakers have moved projects from XBOX 360 to PS3

 

[PhatSaqs]

Sony FUD bots are in full force :lol

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

You shouldn't even start on that PhaqSaqs.

 

[Excelion]

Change of plans. After seeing PS3's power several big-time gamemakers have moved projects from XBOX 360 to PS3

wasn't that supposed to be Bioware/Id/Valve/Team Ninja ? and we all know how that turned out. btw, so what about the big betrayal from Microsoft to Sony's camp that was supposed to happen ?

 

[Izzy]

FUD

The Halloween documents (leaked internal Microsoft documents whose authenticity was verified by the company) use the term FUD to describe a potential tactic, as in "OSS is long-term credible ... [therefore] FUD tactics can not be used to combat it." [2] More recently, Microsoft has issued statements about the "viral nature" of the GNU General Public License (GPL), which Open Source proponents purport to be FUD. Microsoft's statements are often directed at the GNU/Linux community in particular, to discourage widespread Linux adoption, which could hurt Microsoft's marketshare. In a 2004 interview on the growing prominence of Linux, Steve Ballmer's FUD-based ideas had chauvinistic undertones, when he commented, "are you going to trust some guy in China?"

^ an example of FUD campaign

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

^^^^
Well there goes my brain.

I don't even now what we're arguing anymore.

 

[rastex]

You guys win. This conversation isn't nearly as interesting as the other one.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Damage Control?

:lol

 

[Kleegamefan]

Damage Control?

:lol

By who?

A)Ageia

B)Sony

C)Microsoft

 

[Dr_Cogent]

By who?

A)Ageia

B)Sony

C)Microsoft

It's like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. The world may never know. :lol

I just think it's funny that they felt the need to say something about it. That in of itself, says something most likely. Get Inspector Gadget on the case.

 

[Hitler Stole My Potato]

By who?

A)Ageia

B)Sony

C)Microsoft

D) This entire thread.