how will Microsoft react to an Nvidia-boosted PS3?
- Thread starter xexex
- Start date
Forgotten Ancient
Banned
I can't claim to be a graphcis or tech guru, but why should Microsoft be so concerned over an Nvidia-boosted PS3?
soundwave05
Member
If Sony's been working with Nvidia for 2 years, I'm pretty sure Microsoft knew about it. I'm pretty sure there are still some employees at Nvidia that shoot the sh-t with some folkes at MS, and eventually this would have leaked out.
Legal Step
Member
The thing is Microsoft dissed Nvidia in the beginning and then Nividia had to abitrate with them for more money. All that has changed.
Hell hath no fury like a graphics chip company scorned.
Will Peter Moore be getting an ATI tattoo to show his love for them.
Hell hath no fury like a graphics chip company scorned.
Will Peter Moore be getting an ATI tattoo to show his love for them.
tahrikmili
Member
Trust ATI R300 team and get Halo 3 done in time for PS3 launch.
KeithFranklin
Banned
Yeah right...30 years of Software Development Framework and tools experience, 10 years building of DirectX and XNA caught up in one stroke by Sony and NVidia. I dont think so. Sure NVidia my be less a bitch to code for, but this will be at the lowest level machine code. DirectX and XNA goal is to abstract away the hardware and each version does more and more of that. Couple that with all the Longhorn Development that can be leveraged (Big part of Longhorn is moving all the graphics stuff in Windows from CPU to leveraging the GPU and this means big improvements on the next version of DirectX or whatever it is eventually called).
i have a feeling that X2 will indeed own ps3. 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. not to mention its gonna be harder to dev for vs x2. tsc tsc.
There's been a suspicious proliferation of junior members around these ps3 topics of late 
XNA, first of all, is not 10 years in the making. It was a proposal made at GDC last year, that's it. It's being blown way out of proportion, even if it does deliver.
What? :lol
First off, you're comparison would work, except Sony and Microsoft are not launching at the same time like Microsoft and Nintendo did. There'll be a reasonably large gap.
Second, Sony hasn't given up much in terms of cost control to NVidia re. the GPU, if that's what your last comment was referring to - unlike the Nvidia/Xbox deal, Sony will be manufacturing the chips, just as Microsoft will be manufacturing the ATi chip from their deal.
XNA, first of all, is not 10 years in the making. It was a proposal made at GDC last year, that's it. It's being blown way out of proportion, even if it does deliver.
What? :lol
First off, you're comparison would work, except Sony and Microsoft are not launching at the same time like Microsoft and Nintendo did. There'll be a reasonably large gap.
Second, Sony hasn't given up much in terms of cost control to NVidia re. the GPU, if that's what your last comment was referring to - unlike the Nvidia/Xbox deal, Sony will be manufacturing the chips, just as Microsoft will be manufacturing the ATi chip from their deal.
soundwave05
Member
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.)?
You guys are really reaching.
If Microsoft had launched XBox in March 2000 using whatever super-duper technology ATi had at that time, the PS2 would've raped them.
You guys are making a huge assumption that irregardless of the ATi or Nvidia or whoever, that Sony did not learn anything from the PS2 feedback they got from developers.
I don't care if Sony enlisted Captain Crunch to make the PS3, I think they'd still focus on making it easier to code for and have a better launch lineup, simply because they know those were two weak points with the PS2.
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.)?
You guys are really reaching.
If Microsoft had launched XBox in March 2000 using whatever super-duper technology ATi had at that time, the PS2 would've raped them.
You guys are making a huge assumption that irregardless of the ATi or Nvidia or whoever, that Sony did not learn anything from the PS2 feedback they got from developers.
I don't care if Sony enlisted Captain Crunch to make the PS3, I think they'd still focus on making it easier to code for and have a better launch lineup, simply because they know those were two weak points with the PS2.
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.
Hajaz:
> what team is doing xenons gpu again?
East Coast
> If its the Flipper/r300 team
It's not. The West Coast team is doing the Revolution GPU.
> 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.
Hajaz:
> what team is doing xenons gpu again?
East Coast
> If its the Flipper/r300 team
It's not. The West Coast team is doing the Revolution GPU.
strikeselect
You like me, you really really like me!
mumu said:
I'll trust the highly successful and intelligent Microsoft executives over some kid on the internet who just wants to bash MS.
soundwave05
Member
"Ease of development" is a crock anyway IMO.
You think any head of any big publisher gives a flying f-ck about that stuff? He's paying his programmers to program, so they better roll up their sleeves, put down their bag of Doritos, turn up their bifocals and do just that.
The average XBox or GCN game does not cost any less to make than a PS2 title, nor are there tons of more titles on the XBox or GCN or developers flocking their way.
Making a great game still takes time and a lot of effort. No way around that.
Nintendo's 1st party games aren't any better this generation because the GCN is easier to code for than the N64 was.
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.
You think any head of any big publisher gives a flying f-ck about that stuff? He's paying his programmers to program, so they better roll up their sleeves, put down their bag of Doritos, turn up their bifocals and do just that.
The average XBox or GCN game does not cost any less to make than a PS2 title, nor are there tons of more titles on the XBox or GCN or developers flocking their way.
Making a great game still takes time and a lot of effort. No way around that.
Nintendo's 1st party games aren't any better this generation because the GCN is easier to code for than the N64 was.
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.
strikeselect
You like me, you really really like me!
mumu 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.
soundwave05
Member
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.
strikeselect
You like me, you really really like me!
soundwave05 said:
What you fail to realize is that Nintendo was already an established brand. While Microsoft's Xbox was the new kid on the block and had 0 respect and 0 amount of credibility with gamers. The N64 was on a decline, while the Xbox has all the momentum this gen.
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:
soundwave05
Member
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.
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.
soundwave05
Member
Vark said:
I think its marginal really, especailly after the 1st generation of software because many programmers end up developing their own engines/routines within which they feel more comfortable working in anyway.
But an easier software development environment being some kind of "savior" or killer feature for one console over the other? I don't buy it. It was a crock when people were saying that about XBox/GCN and how those two platforms would beat the PS2 because of that huge stepping point.
There's just a lot of stuff thrown around, like the "hey on GCN/XBox you can make a great game in 1/2 the time!" and stuff like that which I think is total BS.
Games aren't any faster or really any cheaper to make on the GCN/XBox than they are on the PS2. There might be a few more headaches here and there for programmers on the PS2, but the publisher suits (who have all the power) don't give a crap about that.
If I'm a publisher I want my product on the biggest userbase, I don't want to hear any crap about how my programmer, a nerdy 40-year-old who drives a Ferrari and gets laid only because you're paying him $200,000/year, is having a hard time with a certain architecture.
strikeselect
You like me, you really really like me!
mumu said:
Losing money to establish a brand as powerful as the Xbox was Microsoft's plan right from the beginning. As far as marketshare argument, I think that the Xbox outselling an established brand with powerful and household franchises is pretty good for a start.
Dropping Nintendo to 3rd was only the beginning, and I'm sure that 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
strikeselect
You like me, you really really like me!
soundwave05 said:
How does Microsoft not have more momentum? The Xbox has consistenly outsold the PS2 the past couple of months and Microsoft are gaining more and more legions of fans with the behemoth known as Halo 2. I never stated that I was expecting Sony to pull a "Nintendo/Sega", it doesn't really matter, with Microsoft's $$$ and their determination to protect their PC market, nothing will stop them IMO. As for the hardware argument, it's pretty irrelevant at this point, the Xbox already has a huge userbase with a tremendous dedicated fanbase, the hardware superiority was needed this generation to get the Xbox brand kickstarted but next-gen will be a much different story.
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:
Guess this is another GA Urban Legend.
The Faceless Master
Member
there is no chance in hell that the xbox2 will be more powerful if it launches a year earlier... i still don't believe they will launch early...
soundwave05
Member
The XBox has outsold the PS2 simply because Sony has been clearing PS2 stock.
That's sort of like saying you beat the Lakers ... without Kobe Bryant playing.
Halo 2 is a sales juggernaut, but Sony's seen this scenario before, Zelda: OoT was just as big for 1998 as Halo 2 is today, infact Sony weathered three consecutive years of Nintendo arguably having the " oh my gawd! game of the year ... game of the decade!!!" (Mario 64 in '96, GoldenEye in '97, Zelda: OoT in '98).
Sony does not hang their hat only on one franchise, that's never been their philosophy.
Lets see how "loyal" that XBox audience is when/if the PS3 is superior tech wise. I admit honestly I probably would not have an XBox if it was the same tech wise as the PS2 or inferior. Halo's a good franchise, but it ain't that good.
That's sort of like saying you beat the Lakers ... without Kobe Bryant playing.
Halo 2 is a sales juggernaut, but Sony's seen this scenario before, Zelda: OoT was just as big for 1998 as Halo 2 is today, infact Sony weathered three consecutive years of Nintendo arguably having the " oh my gawd! game of the year ... game of the decade!!!" (Mario 64 in '96, GoldenEye in '97, Zelda: OoT in '98).
Sony does not hang their hat only on one franchise, that's never been their philosophy.
Lets see how "loyal" that XBox audience is when/if the PS3 is superior tech wise. I admit honestly I probably would not have an XBox if it was the same tech wise as the PS2 or inferior. Halo's a good franchise, but it ain't that good.
soundwave05 said:
Bullshit, just look at what MS have been able to do for Xbox perception in the media and market. Look at the huge increase of sales this year, its street cred and mainstrem appeal is seeing huge growth.
While the Nintendo and its N64 was coming into the market after SNES, a huge foundation on which to build on.
Xbox also won over more western support than PS2, and going off that developer poll a few months ago game developers rate MS working environment quite highly. Its easily going to help MS going into next gen.
Apart from the intial year, MS have done little wrong for its fans. I couldnt be more happier with the way they're handling Xbox
Apart from the intial year, MS have done little wrong for its fans. I couldnt be more happier with the way they're handling Xbox
soundwave05
Member
The XBox got a lot of PC centric ports because it's really a direct PC (all PC parts) in a box that hooks up to your PC.
There's no guesswork in porting.
Xenon is a more propietary design (IBM CPU for instance). Sony using Nvidia with PS3 should net them a lot of support now also in the same regard. I don't see either of them having an advantage in that area.
At the end of the day developers are just gonna care about who has more userbase, period.
There's no guesswork in porting.
Xenon is a more propietary design (IBM CPU for instance). Sony using Nvidia with PS3 should net them a lot of support now also in the same regard. I don't see either of them having an advantage in that area.
At the end of the day developers are just gonna care about who has more userbase, period.
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:
GameCube was an excellent design, efficiency kept it ahead of the curve. The fact that it holds up favorably to Xbox despite the chipset being a good 8 months older and almost half the initial price is a testament to that. PS2 was ahead of the curve too, but it's not exactly untouchable magic engineering either. DC's pretty impressive when you consider it released 16 months earlier than PS2 as well, for $100 less.
If you're going to equalize timeframes for consoles to deduct the best design, you should equalize costs as well. DC & GC are more than competitive considering that.