KarishBHR said:wait... why does it matter that Nvidia is working on the PS3?
KarishBHR said:wait... why does it matter that Nvidia is working on the PS3?
mostly the "ease of development" argument from MS has also gone away. devs surely are gonna be much more confortable with nV than some custom SONY job which is a bitch to code for.
Sure NVidia my be less a bitch to code for, but this will be at the lowest level machine code
if you look at the GC vs Xbox, nintendo had a cheaper system with ati and with work, the graphics are barely a notch below xbox. with more support the GC could have been on par. Scratch up next gen with MS not being as frugal as nintendo and they'll get graphics that will end up being cost effective in the long run and that has major power while sony will end up with an expensive box out the gates that only they can partially control the price of.
cybamerc said:mumu:
> mostly the "ease of development" argument from MS has also gone away.
The GPU is the least concern as far as ease of development is concerned.
mumu said:mostly the "ease of development" argument from MS has also gone away. devs surely are gonna be much more confortable with nV than some custom SONY job which is a bitch to code for.
A small one compared to the CPU.gofreak said:An in-house Sony GPU would have been a large concern to most developers, imo.
The same executives that made the XBOX outsell PS2? How old are you?Cerrius said:I'll trust the highly successful and intelligent Microsoft executives over some kid on the internet who just wants to bash MS.
mumu said:The same executives that made the XBOX outsell PS2? How old are you?
An in-house Sony GPU would have been a large concern to most developers, imo.
:lolCerrius said:The executives that have powered their way and have ate into Sony's monopoly on the home video game console industry.
soundwave05 said:The XBox isn't even on pace to outsell the N64, which also had its "oh my god it's the gaming event of a lifetime!" equivalent to circa 1998 in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
They certainly did, but they lost shitloads of money while doing so. That's not what i call a successful executive. And the building marketshare argument is looking more and more flakey because the next gen appears to be anything but smooth sailing, despite the marketshare they were able to build. And you better be old to call people kids.Cerrius said:The executives that have powered their way and have ate into Sony's monopoly on the home video game console industry. The executives that have made the XBOX gain respect from many gamers around the world, and the executives that approved of the beauty known as Halo 2.
The bigger issue next generation (since all the platforms should be easier to code for than the PS2) is going to be the cost of development. It's going to take a lot of money and time to create the level of CGI art work you need to really push the level of hardware that's coming out. And there's going to be no magic "button" on any dev kit (I don't care how good your middleware is) that just automatically does that for you.
Vark said:You mean easier developer environments don't save you time? (and thus money).
mumu said:They certainly did, but they lost shitloads of money while doing so. That's not what i call a successful executive. And the building marketshare argument is looking more and more flakey because the next gen appears to be anything but smooth sailing, despite the marketshare they were able to build. And you better be old to call people kids.
It was certainly expected. For the first two years. Losing money at this point is just pitiful. Xbox is a massive failure. M$ just happens to be able to absorb the losses.Cerrius said:Losing money to establish a brand as powerful as the Xbox was Microsoft's plan right from the beginning.
soundwave05 said:The XBox doesn't have any more momenteum right now than Nintendo did in 1998 with the N64.
Microsoft should be a decent competitior, but I think people are just expecting Sony to "pull a Nintendo/Sega" and start screwing up just because they have been successful in the past.
I think that's just a really narrow minded view.
The reason why a lot of XBots are tenative about the PS3 possibly being superior hardware-wise is because they know a big reason the XBox was able to find its niche this generation was because of its superior chipset/feature set which was afforded to it by virtue of it being 18 months late to market.
I've seen a couple of peeps say this but i'm looking for an Xbot to point and laugh at and I cant find any. Are there really people on this board that actually think Xenon will be superior tech wise to PS3 despite launching earlier?soundwave05 said:The reason why a lot of XBots are tenative about the PS3 possibly being superior hardware-wise is because they know a big reason the XBox was able to find its niche this generation was because of its superior chipset/feature set which was afforded to it by virtue of it being 18 months late to market.
soundwave05 said:The XBox doesn't have any more momenteum right now than Nintendo did in 1998 with the N64.
Microsoft knows next-gen won't be smooth sailing but they've got a hell of a lot more momentum than Sony does at this point, people are discovering the beauty of the Xbox day in and day out
You mean all things being equal? Like if Nintendo had also gone for a $299 pricepoint, losing around $100 per unit and scaled up chips and RAM accordingly? Nope.soundwave05 said:Cost efficent?
You seriously think the PS2 wouldn't have blown the XBox and GCN out of the water if Sony waited 18 months (which would have resulted in more RAM, a more powerful GPU/CPU etc.)?
soundwave05 said:At the end of the day developers are just gonna care about who has more userbase, period.