Support NeoGAF

[gofreak]

I define better as how much processing time something takes.

So do I.

But not everything takes the same amount of time. Some things take small amounts. Some take large. And then some things are just more relevant to more people. So being better at some things is..better..than being better at others. That's my point.

 

[jimbo]

"Would there really be much advantage running physics and particle effects on SPE's. Vs. doing it the traditional way?"

No not if the traditional way could pull off the same thing but what they're saying is that if the SPEs ARE used to full effect than their productions will be quite a bit superior to what the 360 can achieve with its general purpose processors. Of course this is once again theoretical.

"I don't agree with the bolded part there. We aren't getting a better deal, we really are getting fluff in this case. A HDD would have been MUCH more welcomed and useful out of the box than extra USB, 3 basically redundant controller connections, and a bunch of storage ports for different devices.... Sure they can say they have a HDD, but with it not being standard most devs will treat it as niche unfortunately. Just like they did this get with PS2's HDD...... So in that assessment I don't think Sony made the right spending choices. We don't need extra USB, and all those extra storage slots... We needed 1 HDD built in. So I agree with MS's decision there, their priority was better thought out in that case."

Hey I mentioned the same thing:

"Although to be honest I'd trade those extra USB ports and other inputs for a standard hard drive in a heart beat."

But I believe the lack of a hard drive in the PS3 has more to do with the lack of a solid online plan, where the HD would be most usefull rather than them choosing to add those other things over a HD.

 

[Tenacious-V]

Hey I mentioned the same thing:

"Although to be honest I'd trade those extra USB ports and other inputs for a standard hard drive in a heart beat."

But I believe the lack of a hard drive in the PS3 has more to do with the lack of a solid online plan, where the HD would be most usefull rather than them choosing to add those other things over a HD.

Yeah, I know we're on the same level there, I just didn't agree with that part of what you said. But even with no real plan for online gaming... lacking a HDD built in decreases the chances even more of one ever becoming well implemented in the future. They've basically said, "Well boys, we don't really have a solid plan so fuck it..." that's what I see with a lack of inclusion. Having it optional doesn't make it better, it'll still be a niche concept for PS3....

Even without specific online plans, a built in HDD would have been much more usefull than all that extra fluff like more USB, storage slots, etc. they gave. It could have been used for game saves, custom soundtracks, downloadable content, etc. The way the Xbox 1 used it.

 

[seismologist]

The real need for a HD comes when you need to store gigs of data like HD movies.

So what does a HD have to do with online gaming? Any online gaming profiles could just as easily be stored to the memory stick.

 

[Tenacious-V]

The real need for a HD comes when you need to store gigs of data like HD movies.

No the use for a HDD is already being done. Downloadable content (extra maps, levels etc), game saves, custom sound tracks, faster loading times. Not JUST HD movies.....

So what does a HD have to do with online gaming? Any online gaming profiles could just as easily be stored to the memory stick.

There's a matter of economics. Buy buy buy is what Sony is forcing you to do. Memory sticks aren't exactly the cheapest things in the world. Sony could have just as easily NOT put in memory stick slots, extra USB, etc and just placed in a HDD standard. It would alleviate much of the extra spending they are forcing the consumers to buy with more proprietary Sony products.... A HDD as much as you wanna argue against it, would be WAY WAY more useful all around than a memory stick slot.

MS's approach is open up the box, plug it in and away you go. You've got everything you need. Sony's approach while similar is open it up, plug it in, Can't save yet...buy a memory card, and mass storage?....Well go buy something else we want you to... All to alleviate the problem which could be solved by just axing useless stuff and putting in fundamentals.

While I know both companies are out there to suck you dry of cash, MS's setup is at least more economically sound than Sony's is. And much more useful overall.

 

[DarienA]

No the use for a HDD is already being done. Downloadable content (extra maps, levels etc), game saves, custom sound tracks, faster loading times. Not JUST HD movies.....

I consider the above incredibly bland uses of a Hard Drive and I take fault and find it disappointing that developers didn't do more with the Xbox's Hard Drive this generation. A cache and a place to save game add-on related files...

thrilling.

If we'd see more active use of the damn thing it might have driven Sony to look and say... well damn those developers made uses like a mother out of MS' hard drive... let's make sure to put one in our next system....

 

[GhaleonEB]

The real need for a HD comes when you need to store gigs of data like HD movies.

So what does a HD have to do with online gaming? Any online gaming profiles could just as easily be stored to the memory stick.

Um, DLC? Each Halo 2 map for example is huge, not to mention there's gonna be nine of them. Plus gravy features like custom soundtracks.

Seems like MS sees the HD as as being primarily used for gaming, with extra features for media, while Sony sees it as a media device that might be useful for games as well.

 

[Deg]

Thing is memory cards are pretty big capacity wise nowadays. Its a good alternative to use and you can use it in many compact devices like digital camera or mobile phone sharing the same card. Sony allowing for both options is killer and brings some genuine use in the living room. Built in WiFi is also another important thing.

 

[seismologist]

Um, DLC? Each Halo 2 map for example is huge, not to mention there's gonna be nine of them. Plus gravy features like custom soundtracks.

Ok so you cant download maps unless you buy the HD expansion. Pretty simple. It hardly excludes Sony from having a "well implemented" online plan.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

Yeah it's pretty much what we, the more level headed folks, have expected. But this part is really something new to me.

For what it is worth, porting game code between the PC and the Xbox 360 will be a lot like Mac developers porting code between Mac OS X for Intel platforms and PowerPC platforms: there’s an architecture switch, but the programming model doesn’t change much.

The same cannot however be said for Cell and the PlayStation 3. The easiest way to port code from the Xbox 360 to the PS3 would be to run the code exclusively on the Cell’s single PPE, which obviously wouldn’t offer very good performance for heavily multi-threaded titles. But with a some effort, the PlayStation 3 does have a lot of potential."

I always assumed, until now, that ports from the 360 to the PS3 should be pretty easy to do especially if we are to believe that the PS3 is slightly more powerfull. But this raises a serious problem. It's not going to be as easy porting games from the 360 to the PS3 as it was this generation porting games from the PS2 to GC/Xbox.

Could be a good or bad thing depending on which way you look at it. Could mean less multiplatform titles.

And this is HUGE:

"On the other hand, looking at all of the early demos we’ve seen of Xbox 360 and PS3 games, not a single one appears to offer better physics or AI than the best single threaded games on the PC today. At best, we’ve seen examples of ragdoll physics similar to that of Half Life 2, but nothing that is particularly amazing, earth shattering or shocking. Definitely nothing that appears to be leveraging the power of a multicore processor.

In fact, all of the demos we’ve seen look like nothing more than examples of what you can do on the latest generation of GPUs - not showcases of multi-core CPU power.

The majority of developers are doing things no differently than they have been on the PC. A single thread is used for all game code, physics and AI and in some cases, developers have split out physics into a separate thread, but for the most part you can expect all first generation and even some second generation titles to debut as basically single threaded games. The move to two hardware execution threads may in fact only be an attempt to bring performance up to par with what can be done on mid-range or high-end PCs today, since a single thread running on Xenon isn’t going to be very competitive performance wise, especially executing code that is particularly well suited to OoO desktop processors."

But for the most part, on day 1, you shouldn’t expect Xbox 360 games to be much more than the same type of single threaded titles we’ve had on the PC.

So it seems that 33% crap and that wait till second generation of games DOES INDEED hold a lot of truth to it. If the CPU in these systems are that weak when using single thread code, it explains quite a bit about some of the less impressive games we've seen so far, and also about the fact that this generation indeed will see some jumps in quality greater than what we've had over the past 4-5 years in graphics.

Did you not see any of the PS3 demos?

 

[TheDuce22]

I cant wait till these things release and people here can stop pretending to be hardware experts. Its getting kind of ridiculous, especially these sony backers going over to beyond 3d to load up on ammo then running back here and posting like they have any clue what was being said.

 

[Tenacious-V]

Ok so you cant download maps unless you buy the HD expansion. Pretty simple. It hardly excludes Sony from having a "well implemented" online plan.

You see it as not a big deal, only it is. You think having an optional HDD available is going to make devs create games with the HDD in mind? It won't. Just as the HDD for PS2 became useless, so will the HDD in PS3. Having Memory stick slots as well won't automatically give it widespread use in PS3 either. It'll be niche as well. It's a proven fact addons never take off to any substantial degree, because it's not economically feasible for developers to support it if it's not out of the box. Why develop with all addons in mind when the majority of the userbase will never even have it?

In MS's case it's all standard, so devs will create games with this in mind from day 1. In Sony's case, they'll develop for the standard hardware as it's always been. HDD, memory stick, etc are all distant priorities as they're not going to be on 100% of consoles sold. Therein lies the problem with Sony and their online plan... They basically killed the chances of creating a "well implemented" online plan by segregating the userbase of who will and will not have the support for it.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Um, DLC? Each Halo 2 map for example is huge, not to mention there's gonna be nine of them. Plus gravy features like custom soundtracks.

only 50MB per map...

 

[Tenacious-V]

I consider the above incredibly bland uses of a Hard Drive and I take fault and find it disappointing that developers didn't do more with the Xbox's Hard Drive this generation. A cache and a place to save game add-on related files...

thrilling.

I think Xbox's HDD had a great use. More maps, custom soundtracks, no need for a memory card, speeding up games, no load times. It was put to good use. I loved not having to listen to in game soundtracks and playing my own. Not having to go and buy multiple memory cards rocked, I'd hit save and it's done, no worries. Getting a bunch of maps for Halo 2 rocks no other way of getting this except buying another game.

 

[DarienA]

In MS's case it's all standard, so devs will create games with this in mind from day 1.

I'd like to point out that devs did not create games with the Xbox hard drive in mind from day 1.... what has happened that has changed this for the coming generation?

I think Xbox's HDD had a great use. More maps, custom soundtracks, no need for a memory card, speeding up games, no load times. It was put to good use. I loved not having to listen to in game soundtracks and playing my own. Not having to go and buy multiple memory cards rocked, I'd hit save and it's done, no worries. Getting a bunch of maps for Halo 2 rocks no other way of getting this except buying another game.

...yes you've again repeated the same reasons... and I say if this is the best usage devs can come up with... then it's no surprise Sony sees it as minor thing.. cause the devs sure as hell didn't make it a major thing....

As I said I understand the argument for a standard HD, I just don't think it's compelling enough... yet.

 

[jimbo]

"I consider the above incredibly bland uses of a Hard Drive and I take fault and find it disappointing that developers didn't do more with the Xbox's Hard Drive this generation. A cache and a place to save game add-on related files..."

"As I said I understand the argument for a standard HD, I just don't think it's compelling enough... yet."

Here's the one thing you guys should concentrate on. On the OXM demo disc with Destroy All Humans there are a couple of Half Life 2 interviews. The developers talked about how they used the HD to get Half Life 2 to fit on the Xbox. And doing things such as using streaming both off the HD and DVD among a number of different features. A hard drive allows you to create games otherwise not possible. In other words Half Life 2 would not be possible on the Xbox without a hard-drive. That's a pretty compelling reason if you ask me. And the same thing could be true when a game like Half Life 3 comes out next generation where a hard drive would make the difference between us without a high end PC being able to experience it or not.

 

[Tenacious-V]

I'd like to point out that devs did not create games with the Xbox hard drive in mind from day 1.... what has happened that has changed this for the coming generation?


...yes you've again repeated the same reasons... and I say if this is the best usage devs can come up with... then it's no surprise Sony sees it as minor thing.. cause the devs sure as hell didn't make it a major thing....

I didn't mean every dev, every game. What I meant by that was, the userbase of HDD is 100% in MS's case, and Sony's 10%? 30%? Take a guess. If a dev wanted to create a game with a HDD in mind, MS assures 100% of the userbase will have one, so it's more economically feasible that a devoper WILL utilize it knowing that everyone will have it. This increases the probablility of it being used. In Sony's case, HDD/Memory stick, etc. are all OPTIONAL, so what is the probablility of a dev creating a game that fully utilizes it?? Much much lower, hell I'll go out and say that almost 95% of games will look past it. Why? because not having it standard means less % of the userbase can utilize it, meaning less sales, meaning less profit for the devs/publishers.

It's just like console sales itself. Devs want the most profit so they flock to the biggest userbase. Same concept with HDD, 100% sure seems a hell of a lot better than 10-30% or so. Having a HDD/memory stick and all that fluff on PS3 might as well have not been there in the first place because I can guarantee that they're utilization will be slim to nil.

Here is where we get to PS3 and online once again. Take my points above and relate it to this, and you'll see that PS3's "well established" online plan, will most likely never come to fruition.

 

[Vince]

But I believe the lack of a hard drive in the PS3 has more to do with the lack of a solid online plan, where the HD would be most usefull rather than them choosing to add those other things over a HD.

This is asinine. The lack of a HDD is due to cost scaling, to think differently is nothing but your bias speaking -- lack of online plan? Give me a break, how about you wait untill Sony details their online infastructure publically before commenting.

A hard drive allows you to create games otherwise not possible.

Yeah, right. In other words, your example sucks as it's a game designed for the open PC platform.

Lets use your same argument against Microsoft for not putting in a true NG optical format that would allow for not only more data and the more unique, intricate, and richer worlds that go along with it (maybe the NPCs will finally say more than the same 3 phrases over and over), but for not allowing the same level of data redundancy which speeds up loading times dramatically in many cases.

Take my points above and relate it to this, and you'll see that PS3's "well established" online plan, will most likely never come to fruition.

IMHO, Your points are weak and your comment should be saved for future comedic usage. It's really a shame, all that R&D dropped into networking between STI and SCEI -- all those patents for nothing... 'tis a shame. Not to mention Sony Group as a whole which since 2002 has 3 of their 9 major research divisions centered on: Contents & Applications Laboratory, Broadband Applications Laboratories, Networked CE Development Laboratories, and the Ubiquitous Technology Laboratories.

 

[jimbo]

This is asinine. The lack of a HDD is due to cost scaling, to think differently is nothing but your bias speaking -- lack of online plan? Give me a break, how about you wait untill Sony details their online infastructure publically before commenting.



Yeah, right. In other words, your example sucks as it's a game designed for the open PC platform.

Lets use your same argument against Microsoft for not putting in a true NG optical format that would allow for not only more data and the more unique, intricate, and richer worlds that go along with it (maybe the NPCs will finally say more than the same 3 phrases over and over), but for not allowing the same level of data redundancy which speeds up loading times dramatically in many cases.

Ok my bias is speaking even though it's a freaking no-argument and shouldn't even be one about the advantages that a hard drive offers you over a different cable or USB port. And NO it's not a cost issue the way its been put here by me and other forumers because we're not talking about them adding a HD on top of everything else....bur rather if you take the cost of all those extra cables and outputs....they CHOSE to spend that money on those things rather than a hard drive. If they would have left out those things it probably would have cost them the same or less to have a HD instead.

But let me spell out some benefits of a HD that have a direct impact on gaming:

- downloadable content, custom soundtracks, music, saves

- massive multiplayer online games expansions

- streaming faster off the hard drive, can reduce loading times

- storing information that is affected and changed by the user. for example, being able to always remember your snow tracks in a snowboarding game left behind for hundreds of races, burnout from cars in racing games

- imagine GTA built from the ground up utilizing the HD, and then imagine your cars not dissapearing when a mission is over(even if you saved them in your garaje if you take them out and use them in a mission they dissapear and have to steal that car all over again). imagine being able to cause a havock in the city and that havock remains there, cars wrecked, trashed throughout the course of your game- and believe me this is REALLY annoying in the game.

-dead bodies, bullet holes in walls remaining on the ground until you complete the game

- imagine storing AI information, and storing everything an AI enemy has learned based on your playing skill throughout the whole game

-allowing for games simply otherwise not possible without a HD.

-and finally....ANYONE with a 360 gets all of these things automatically when a developer uses it because the hard drive is standard.

Quit being so defensive, these are facts. I'm sorry but a HD offers you MANY important advantages that affect not only grafics, and even entire games otherwise not possible.

Now if you beleive I am just being biased....I gave you logical reasons why I believe makes it important. I want to see you tell me why you think an HDMI or USB port is more important and please list the features it's going to offer to everyone that buys a PS3.

 

[Tenacious-V]

IMHO, Your points are weak and your comment should be saved for future comedic usage. It's really a shame, all that R&D dropped into networking between STI and SCEI -- all those patents for nothing... 'tis a shame. Not to mention Sony Group as a whole which since 2002 has 3 of their 9 major research divisions centered on: Contents & Applications Laboratory, Broadband Applications Laboratories, Networked CE Development Laboratories, and the Ubiquitous Technology Laboratories.

You know I don't understand why you're such an asshole!! I mean okay, if you want to debate things or prove facts wrong fine. But your lack of any common decency in your posts is truly pathetic. All of your posts are extremely agressive, you have no manners in discussions, and it seems that all your posts somehow have to be derogatory to the person your speaking to. Can't you have a single post where you actually portray your point of view in a civil manner? Or do they all have to be "I know everything, you're wrong and stupid." Your lack of social skills is really saddening. The rest of us here can debate and discuss things even with different opinions in a proper manner, why do you have so much trouble?? For someone who is so mature and knowledgeable with so much technical knowledge, you sure act like a child.

And I can't believe that with all of that R&D and spending on networking etc that they'd exclude a fundamental asset to online gaming such as a HDD.....

 

[jimbo]

You know I don't understand why you're such an asshole!! I mean okay, if you want to debate things or prove facts wrong fine. But your lack of any common decency in your posts is truly pathetic. All of your posts are extremely agressive, you have no manners in discussions, and it seems that all your posts somehow have to be derogatory to the person your speaking to. Can't you have a single post where you actually portray your point of view in a civil manner? Or do they all have to be "I know everything, you're wrong and stupid." Your lack of social skills is really saddening. The rest of us here can debate and discuss things even with different opinions in a proper manner, why do you have so much trouble?? For someone who is so mature and knowledgeable with so much technical knowledge, you sure act like a child.

Yeah i got the same impression from him. It's like I'm trying to make some good points and he's like you're wrong cause I say so, you're biased, you're examples aren't good....but he offers nothing in return.

 

[Vince]

And NO it's not a cost issue the way its been put here by me and other forumers because we're not talking about them adding a HD on top of everything else....bur rather if you take the cost of all those extra cables and outputs....they CHOSE to spend that money on those things rather than a hard drive. If they would have left out those things it probably would have cost them the same or less to have a HD instead.

I'm going to be blunt because we've covered this may times before. You're being misinformed because the cost of an inclusionary HDD is likely around 5-10 TIMES more than ALL those connectors combined. A HDD is a fixed cost that scales down extrememly slowly as it's an electro-mechanical 'problem', all those ports are cheaply made in a Chinese or Taiwanese factory for pennies. And the controlling logic scales with Moore's law extremely aggressively.

But let me spell out some benefits of a HD that have a direct impact on gaming:

Please do because I honestly don't see it.

- downloadable content, custom soundtracks, music, saves

- massive multiplayer online games expansions

Both can be done off any of the PlayStation3's choice of SD, CF or MemoryStick formats. Hell, PSP can do the former if you wanted to off a MS Duo. The second is a weak option on philosophical grounds as this is a console, not a PC... lets leave expansions to the PC. If you want, release a sequal that's a superset of the initial game.

- streaming faster off the hard drive, can reduce loading times

Mostly Irrelevent. This would require caching on the HDD, increasing initial load times while a PS3 developer can make data access highly effecient off a BD-ROM due to ample space for redundancies, negating the need to waste space on an already small HDD by contemporary standards. Perhaps if MS would have used a next-generation optical format instead of the same DVD-9 as today...

- storing information that is affected and changed by the user. for example, being able to always remember your snow tracks in a snowboarding game left behind for hundreds of races, burnout from cars in racing games

Ok, as with your earlier examples, anytime you talk of something that's requires a static state over time (eg. snow tracks) it's not prohibatively large in data requirements by any means and you can use flash media. Besides being a somewhat odd idea (snowtracks for hundreds of races... I guess it never snows over that period of time), but you can do the same with a $10 CF, SD or MS.

- imagine GTA built from the ground up utilizing the HD, and then imagine your cars not dissapearing when a mission is over(even if you saved them in your garaje if you take them out and use them in a mission they dissapear and have to steal that car all over again). imagine being able to cause a havock in the city and that havock remains there, cars wrecked, trashed throughout the course of your game- and believe me this is REALLY annoying in the game.

The car issue is due to current generation memory constraints for storing models not the lack of a HDD, the only problem would be when you turn off the console. But most people save their game, logically, so again this situation is negated by the CF, SD and MS slots.

-dead bodies, bullet holes in walls remaining on the ground until you complete the game

- imagine storing AI information, and storing everything an AI enemy has learned based on your playing skill throughout the whole game

-allowing for games simply otherwise not possible without a HD.

Again, nothing revolutionary. We already save games on Memory cards for the last 2 generations, this is the same thing.

And the "games otherwise not possible without a HD" is cute but utter bullshit.

Your only seminal point is that Microsoft is throwing in a HDD, while Sony will likely only throw in a small flash card as with PSP, so you'll need to purchase one seperatly -- like you did for PS1 and PS2... and we all know how unsucessfull that was...

 

[Vince]

I want to see you tell me why you think an HDMI or USB port is more important and please list the features it's going to offer to everyone that buys a PS3.

HDMI is more important for a Sony console as Sony is a Consumer Electronics company and as such are forward looking in their choice for display options and chose the industry-supported interface that's all-digital, is secure and uncompressed which they will be happy to sell you. Microsoft was wrong in not supporting the standard as it's a superset of DVI and is thus backwards compatable.

USB is important as it gives me options for a negaligable cost, as a consumer I like that. It's more of a "why not" type choice, and it opens up possibilities for Sony to expand the PlayStation3's usage, to a Linux PC, to a homeserver-esque device, etc. It's added value and added value is good.

 

[jimbo]

:lol Wow you really showed me.


Everything you just said is flawed because of this simple part.

"""Your only seminal point is that Microsoft is throwing in a HDD, while Sony will likely only throw in a small flash card as with PSP, so you'll need to purchase one seperatly -- like you did for PS1 and PS2... and we all know how unsucessfull that was..."
"

Because that is the main point now isn't it VINCE? yes you can achieve SOME of those things through other methods, but how many developers and gamers are going to be able to take advantage of those, or be willing to spend the money on those, if they KNOW not EVERYONE will have an expensive flash card.

"The car issue is due to current generation memory constraints for storing models not the lack of a HDD, the only problem would be when you turn off the console. But most people save their game, logically, so again this situation is negated by the CF, SD and MS slots."

If that was true and as easily doable as you're claiming why are we NOT seeing it done on the PS2 currently but we are seeing it on the Xbox? Why ARE Xbox games supporting custom sound tracks but the PS2 isn't? Why is Half Life 2 even possible on the Xbox?

Hmm....I wonder...could be because it HAS a hard drive and it comes standard? While your methods of getting these things to work are so far out there that NO one is doing them, and hardly NO one will do them yet again this generation?

"Again, nothing revolutionary. We already save games on Memory cards for the last 2 generations, this is the same thing. "


Ok show me a game that does those on a memory card today.

And the "games otherwise not possible without a HD" is cute but utter bullshit."

So then Valve is lying? And you're telling the truth? You know better right?

I'm sorry but I'm going to be blunt with you. Not only are you an asshole but an idiot. I'd rather argue with Oli than you. I'm done. Congratulations you're the first person that I will use my ignore feature on.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I'm going to be blunt because we've covered this may times before. You're being misinformed because the cost of an inclusionary HDD is likely around 5-10 TIMES more than ALL those connectors combined. A HDD is a fixed cost that scales down extrememly slowly as it's an electro-mechanical 'problem', all those ports are cheaply made in a Chinese or Taiwanese factory for pennies. And the controlling logic scales with Moore's law extremely aggressively.



Please do because I honestly don't see it.



Both can be done off any of the PlayStation3's choice of SD, CF or MemoryStick formats. Hell, PSP can do the former if you wanted to off a MS Duo. The second is a weak option on philosophical grounds as this is a console, not a PC... lets leave expansions to the PC. If you want, release a sequal that's a superset of the initial game.



Mostly Irrelevent. This would require caching on the HDD, increasing initial load times while a PS3 developer can make data access highly effecient off a BD-ROM due to ample space for redundancies, negating the need to waste space on an already small HDD by contemporary standards. Perhaps if MS would have used a next-generation optical format instead of the same DVD-9 as today...



Ok, as with your earlier examples, anytime you talk of something that's requires a static state over time (eg. snow tracks) it's not prohibatively large in data requirements by any means and you can use flash media. Besides being a somewhat odd idea (snowtracks for hundreds of races... I guess it never snows over that period of time), but you can do the same with a $10 CF, SD or MS.



The car issue is due to current generation memory constraints for storing models not the lack of a HDD, the only problem would be when you turn off the console. But most people save their game, logically, so again this situation is negated by the CF, SD and MS slots.



Again, nothing revolutionary. We already save games on Memory cards for the last 2 generations, this is the same thing.

And the "games otherwise not possible without a HD" is cute but utter bullshit.

Your only seminal point is that Microsoft is throwing in a HDD, while Sony will likely only throw in a small flash card as with PSP, so you'll need to purchase one seperatly -- like you did for PS1 and PS2... and we all know how unsucessfull that was...

So, there is absolutely zero benefit to games for having a harddrive. None. Wow. I think most gamers and all developers would disgree from this slanted view of reality.

Fucking troll. *adds to ignore list*

 

[3rdman]

Every time I read one of Vince's posts I'm immediatly reminded of the Comic-Book Guy from the Simpsons.

...and as I and many others have said in the past...

HDD present > No HDD present. Period. It's as evident as saying that HDMI present > No HDMI present. I don't see the point of arguing either point except to win "internet points."

 

[midnightguy]

I cannot wait for BOTH consoles. I'll probably end up getting two of each.

 

[HokieJoe]

Both can be done off any of the PlayStation3's choice of SD, CF or MemoryStick formats. Hell, PSP can do the former if you wanted to off a MS Duo. The second is a weak option on philosophical grounds as this is a console, not a PC... lets leave expansions to the PC. If you want, release a sequal that's a superset of the initial game.

I only see two potential problems with this line of reasoning. 1) Memory cards are much slower than HD's no? 2) How persistant can your content be if you're relying on vastly smaller portable memory devices? For instance, playing Forza right now, you have all of this content that you, in the general sense, can create via custom paint jobs.

I'm not speaking to the cost, because even if Sony left out what I call the overkill stuff, I don't think it would add up to the cost of a HD. OTOH, we aren't just talking about ports, we're talking about Layer 3 switch per what Panajev said in another thread I believe.

Personally, I could do without a Layer 3 switch or even a full blown router. However, I can see why Sony may have included it.

 

[Vince]

Everything you just said is flawed because of this simple part.

"""Your only seminal point is that Microsoft is throwing in a HDD, while Sony will likely only throw in a small flash card as with PSP, so you'll need to purchase one seperatly -- like you did for PS1 and PS2... and we all know how unsucessfull that was..."
"

Because that is the main point now isn't it VINCE? yes you can achieve SOME of those things through other methods, but how many developers and gamers are going to be able to take advantage of those, or be willing to spend the money on those, if they KNOW not EVERYONE will have an expensive flash card.

Try reading what I stated, my underlying point was was everything you stated as 'revolutionary' is merely an extention of the current memorycard paradigm and as I stated, "[just] like you did for PS1 and PS2... and we all know how unsucessful that was..."

I think you didn't absorb a single thing I stated...

If that was true and as easily doable as you're claiming why are we NOT seeing it done on the PS2 currently but we are seeing it on the Xbox? Why ARE Xbox games supporting custom sound tracks but the PS2 isn't? Why is Half Life 2 even possible on the Xbox?

Read what a wrote. It's a RAM bound that necessitates model reuse, when you design a game for the PS2 with 32MB of main memory and then port it to the XBox with double that, guess what is one of the first (no-brainer.. like even you should pick up on it) thing you improve? And as for Half-Life 2, I already told you to drop it as an example as it's a game developed for the PC and ported to a console enviroment. Where are all the console native games that necessitate a HDD?

Ok show me a game that does those on a memory card today.

What size is a PS2 memorycard? Lets think about what I'm saying (relatively slowly increasing data set sizes, current limits on RAM and storage) and process the information before commenting.

"So then Valve is lying? And you're telling the truth? You know better right?"

What part of PC Game still hasn't worked it's way in?

 

[Vince]

So, there is absolutely zero benefit to games for having a harddrive. None. Wow. I think most gamers and all developers would disgree from this slanted view of reality.

When did I state this? Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I stated I see no reason with a direct impact on gaming, not that there was no benefit.

And I love the irony of a guy with a green banana guy f-ing a purple one calling me a troll....

 

[Forsete]

-dead bodies, bullet holes in walls remaining on the ground until you complete the game.

Just a small note.

Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance for PS2 did this. You could walk from one level to the other and the bodies of the enemies you had killed would still be found in the same location where you had killed them.

 

[Vince]

I only see two potential problems with this line of reasoning. 1) Memory cards are much slower than HD's no? 2) How persistant can your content be if you're relying on vastly smaller portable memory devices? For instance, playing Forza right now, you have all of this content that you, in the general sense, can create via custom paint jobs.

Yeah, the access is definitly slower but outside of actual data caching, like on a PC, I don't see the massive data sets which need random real-time access -- which is why I bring this up. The things you mentioned are examples of this.

A console is philosophically different than a PC, IMHO, and a HDD is somewhat redundant, would it make porting easier? Yes. Would it make all these misc. things easier for a consumer? Likely. Is it going to impact a game designed for the PlayStation3? More than likely not.

And people, like those I'm replying to, have absolutly no clue as to the actual component costs. A HDD is a horrible addition to a product that needs to scale down in price and it's fixed cost is already likely 10X that of the ports they're bitching about. It's like the post I made where I layed out the cost per die for CELL on a 90nm, 300mm SOI wafer at various yeilds. Everyone's talking about a $100 IC... which it's nowhere near, the cost is lost on them.

 

[TheDuce22]

And I love the irony of a guy with a green banana guy f-ing a purple one calling me a troll....

Please dont try to pretend your not. Just accept it and move on. Most everyone is bias, in your case its just a bit more extreme. Thats the reason you have little to no credibility.

 

[midnightguy]

this is interesting:

There are 3 parallel groups of 16 shader units each. Each of the three groups can either operate on vertex or pixel data. Each shader unit is able to perform one 4 wide vector operation and 1 scalar operation per clock cycle. Current ATI hardware is able to perform two 3 wide vector and two scalar operations per cycle in the pixel pipe alone. The vertex pipeline of R420 is 6 wide and can do one vector 4 and one scalar op per cycle. If we look at straight up processing power, this gives R420 the ability to crunch 158 components (30 of which are 32bit and 128 are limited to 24bit precision). The Xbox GPU is able to crunch 240 32bit components in its shader units per clock cycle. Where this is a 51% increase in the number of ops that can be done per cycle (as well as a general increase in precision), we can't expect these 48 piplines to act like 3 sets of R420 pipelines. All things being equal, this increase (when only looking at ops/cycle) would be only as powerful as a 24 piped R420.

What will make or break the difference between something like a 24 piped R420 and the unified shaders of the Xbox GPU is how well applications will lend themselves to the adaptive nature of the hardware. Current configurations don't have nearly the same vertex processing power as they do pixel processing power. This is quite logical when we consider the fact that games have many more pixels displayed than vertices. For each geometry primitive, there are likely a good number of pixels involved. Of course, not all titles will need the same ratio of geometry to pixel power. This means that all the ops per clock could either be dedicated to geometry processing in truly polygon intense scenes. On the flip side (and more likely), any given clock cycle could see all 240 ops being used for pixel processing. If game designers realize this and code their shaders accordingly, we could see much more focused processing power dedicated to a single type of problem than on current hardware.

I can accept that Xenos is equivalent to a 24 pixel pipe R420 in pixel shader performance. an increase of ~50% instead of 3 times)

The ~50% increase does not mean pure fillrate though, just pixel shader power, unless I'm mistaken.

 

[HokieJoe]

Just a small note.

Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance for PS2 did this. You could walk from one level to the other and the bodies of the enemies you had killed would still be found in the same location where you had killed them.

Hehe, I thought Doom 3 had a rather elegant solution to persistant environment issues. Basically, a lot of the stuff you killed just vaporized. The benefit was two-fold because you get to see the neat effect of them vaporizing as well.

 

[Xenon]

I can't believe people are still trying to say that the harddisk is non factor. Shit, some of the best maps for R6:3 were the ones released later. If a game does well the programmers can reward the customers with a couple free levels. Having a hard disk standard is a major plus for the 360. Releasing it as an upgrade it worthless(see PS2 hard disk).


Xbox360 360 dollars

2nd controller 39 dollars

Elderscrolls Oblivion 59 dollars

never having to delete a save to make room "priceless"

 

[kaching]

Pot...

Please dont try to pretend your not. Just accept it and move on. Most everyone is bias, in your case its just a bit more extreme. Thats the reason you have little to no credibility.

Kettle...

I cant wait till these things release and people here can stop pretending to be hardware experts. Its getting kind of ridiculous, especially these sony backers going over to beyond 3d to load up on ammo then running back here and posting like they have any clue what was being said.

Black.

Vince doesn't do himself any favors in terms of the tone he takes with people - he's much more acerbic than is generally warranted. But the content of his argument is sound on most points. To say it isn't is to react to his tone more than his actual argument and/or to take his points out of context of the larger argument (e.g. claiming he's implying an HDD has zero benefit, which he clearly is not). Pretty common problems 'round these parts and most places on the web.

 

[Tenacious-V]

Vince doesn't do himself any favors in terms of the tone he takes with people - he's much more acerbic than is generally warranted. But the content of his argument is sound on most points. To say it isn't is to react to his tone more than his actual argument and/or to take his points out of context of the larger argument (e.g. claiming he's implying an HDD has zero benefit, which he clearly is not). Pretty common problems 'round these parts and most places on the web.

That may be true, but he also has no reason to go about his posts the way he does. That along with his inability to take into account other people's opinions, or to even consider their opinions is what's keeping him on my ignore list. Every aspect of his posts are "I'm right, you're wrong... If you don't agree with me you're an idiot" and that's exceptionally childish. He lacks any proper demeanor. So until he grows up and learns how to discuss/debate like an adult, he's on my ignore.

 

[midnightguy]

In the latter half of the Xbox 360 and PS3 life cycle, 1080p displays will be far more common place but it may be one more console generation before we get hardware that is capable of running all games at 1080p at a constant 60 fps.

naturally. PS4 and Xbox-1080

 

[CrimsonSkies]

Just like I thought. Marginal difference in the platforms with the extras of your choice pushing the purchase. You want BlueRay get a PS3 and if you want an HDD & Xbox Live then get a Xbox 360.

That vince guy cracks me up. Thanks. :lol

 

[Pimpwerx]

Just like I thought. Marginal difference in the platforms with the extras of your choice pushing the purchase. You want BlueRay get a PS3 and if you want an HDD & Xbox Live then get a Xbox 360.

That vince guy cracks me up. Thanks. :lol

Marginal differences is wishful thinking. ASsuming these comparisons are right, even if the GPU side was a wash, Cell creams XeCPU at anything graphics-related. AI and other GP needs aren't gonna pretty the picture any. I take issue with that claim, b/c it goes against common sense. PS3 is 6-months later. It may or may not rock 360's world, but it has to be more powerful, and noticeably so. If not, I think something is wrong. But then, we had the same discussions when the Xbox came out, with some people thinking the PS2 and XB would have marginal differences between them despite the 18-month gap.

The G70 (running slower 120MHz slower than RSX) looks nice compared to Xenos, no? I don't think it's more powerful on paper or in practice. But I think it looks nice in its current configuration. I don't see how a 25% bump in clock rate will leave the comparison as a wash. And I don't see how 90% efficiency is gonna make it a wash either. Xenos has free 4xMSAA @ 720p, good bandwidth balancing, and a potential for much greater VS power. That's just the GPU. But RSX should have fillrate, setup and pixel shading power advantages. And we're still waiting to see if it does 128bit blend, or somehow handles 128bit HDR efficiently. How is it a wash exactly? It's not right to call the winner before the cards are shown. But by the same token, is it right to call it a draw? Dragging CPUs into this, the advantage tilts even more in PS3's favor IMO. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Anyway, a flaw with this article and others like it is that they take a very PC-centric approach to the analysis. Devs won't go single-thread for either console. I think that's a mistake to assume. PC devs are lazy, but in the console world, they mean nothing. The Squares and Namcos and even the Capbombs are the ones who push this industry and push the hardware. Why would they want to make a game single-threaded and waste all the hw resources at their disposal? So their sales can suck when an average Japanese dev comes out with a much better product from the start? We see what a smaller dev like Ninja Theory can pull off in a single-threaded environment (well, almost) with plenty of time to spare. And we've heard everyone from DeanoC to Tim Sweeny already mentioning that they will be working on making their titles multithreaded. I don't think lazy PC ports are the way to judge this coming gen. Games will be purpose-built for these consoles and while they won't even scratch the power of the machines, should go much further than what that Anandtech article suggests.

The last thing is the development discussion. Games engines are gonna be built for the market leader, then ported. It's the way it's been for years now. I think the article missed out on this obvious fact when discussing the PS3 and Cell. Devs will use those SPEs b/c the only way to survive in a crowded Playstation 3rd party market is to tap the hardware and make a good product. If they're just gonna try lazy ports, then they're not gonna sell many units, and they're gonna get blown off the map by the many talented devs out there. Like a Naughty Dog or Insomniac or Namco is gonna half-ass a PS3 game. With production costs so high, why even bother if that's the attitude? PEACE.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

You don't know anymore than the man down the street.

Why do some of you copy and paste what you read at Beyond3D here? :lol

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

You don't know anymore than the man down the street.

Why do some of you copy and paste what you read at Beyond3D here? :lol

Either from there or their asses. Sony people can't let this rest. First, everybody has a secret, super duper source of info by dropping bullshit hints. Now everybody's name is John Carmack. This is funny shit

 

[Pimpwerx]

You don't know anymore than the man down the street.

Why do some of you copy and paste what you read at Beyond3D here? :lol

I don't copy and paste anything. But it's where the main discussion of this consolet hardware is taking place. Places like Anandtech and Ars Technica and stuff don't really have huge discussions on these chips. This is all low-level discussion. It's all easy to follow, and the math is simple.

Anyway, I know more than god himself. And I'm totally unbiased to boot. My word is law. :lol PEACE.

 

[kaching]

Just like I thought. Marginal difference in the platforms with the extras of your choice pushing the purchase.

You don't know anymore than the man down the street.

It's like you're having an argument with yourself! :lol

 

[DCharlie]

[edit] promised myself i would do that.

 

[MrSingh]

That may be true, but he also has no reason to go about his posts the way he does. That along with his inability to take into account other people's opinions, or to even consider their opinions is what's keeping him on my ignore list. Every aspect of his posts are "I'm right, you're wrong... If you don't agree with me you're an idiot" and that's exceptionally childish. He lacks any proper demeanor. So until he grows up and learns how to discuss/debate like an adult, he's on my ignore.

I disagree with you. I'd post like an asshole on message forums too if I had to write medical software for a living.

(then again my job sucks too, hence my posting habits :lol :lol :lol )

 

[Any1]

I remember when it was thought that the PS3 would have a hard drive and the 360 wouldn't. I kept hearing how hdd should be the standard for next gen. I appears that a hdd's usefullness is directy proportionate to their favorite consoles decision to include it.

It's the same way with high definition and the Rev. No matter how you try and spin it, a hard drive and high definition should be standards this gen. There's really no excuse for all 3 not having them.

 

[Raven.]

I can't believe people are still trying to say that the harddisk is non factor. Shit, some of the best maps for R6:3 were the ones released later. If a game does well the programmers can reward the customers with a couple free levels. Having a hard disk standard is a major plus for the 360. Releasing it as an upgrade it worthless(see PS2 hard disk).

wipeout gamma packs ...

 

[Vince]

I disagree with you. I'd post like an asshole on message forums too if I had to write medical software for a living.

(then again my job sucks too, hence my posting habits :lol :lol :lol )

I don't write medical software, I don't work with computers outside of simulations, where the hell did that come from?