how will Microsoft react to an Nvidia-boosted PS3?
- Thread starter xexex
- Start date
Prine is right... Initially MS had to rely on the specs to sell the console to the hardcore crowd but that certainly hasn't been the selling point the last 2 years.
MS can still come out and have a strong showing against Sony despite what Sony does with their hardware. Xbox has come a long way over the last year. MS still has a lot of leverage and momentum.
IMO, these are the things that will help Xenon have a successful launch...
1. Momentum - Xbox and PS2 have been on nearly equal selling grounds for most of the year.
2. Developers - MS was rated #1 by developers for support. MS has done a superb job of supporting developers and selling them on XNA.
3. XBL - The infrastructure is in place and developers know how to use it and what to expect.
4. Mindshare - It's cool to own an Xbox now. Not the case 2 years ago.
XNA is going to allow developers to code for Xbox and PC simultaneously.
MS can still come out and have a strong showing against Sony despite what Sony does with their hardware. Xbox has come a long way over the last year. MS still has a lot of leverage and momentum.
IMO, these are the things that will help Xenon have a successful launch...
1. Momentum - Xbox and PS2 have been on nearly equal selling grounds for most of the year.
2. Developers - MS was rated #1 by developers for support. MS has done a superb job of supporting developers and selling them on XNA.
3. XBL - The infrastructure is in place and developers know how to use it and what to expect.
4. Mindshare - It's cool to own an Xbox now. Not the case 2 years ago.
XNA is going to allow developers to code for Xbox and PC simultaneously.
Buggy Loop
Member
Microsoft saw nvidia's offering before deciding on ATI, it was between nvidia and ATI, and for microsoft i doubt it was only a question of pricing. If they picked ATI, makes you wonder what nvidia could offer sony that would cause a reaction at MS, of course, ps3 is farther down the line than xbox and will likely be more powerful overall but i dont think its going to be anywhere near the gap of this generation.
jedimike said:
Kinda OT, but XNA keeps coming up in these threads, so I'd like to ask:
Does anyone really see this happening from day one with Xbox2 development? I.e. seamless crossover from PC to Xbox2 development? XNA seemed more of a suggestion and a proposal when it was first announced last year, and I'm thinking it's going to take some time before it reaches the situation Microsoft are hoping for.
Buggy Loop said:
I doubt they say what NVidia was working on for Sony. Nvidia took a negative attitude toward Xbox2 a good bit before ATi was confirmed as Microsoft's partner. I think it all had less to do with what Nvidia was offering technically, and more to do with the bad blood over licensing etc. in the existing Xbox deal.
Buggy Loop said:
yeah the biggest difference this gen has been pixel shaders/normal/bump mapping on Xbox vs. other platforms, they make a quite big difference. Next gen I don't expect as big difference in hardware features in one GPU compared to the other, except for raw power probably..
I often think that MS should indeed delay launch until Q3 2006. try to rival PS3's real performance by adding resources to the Xenon VPU, more & faster memory, more CPU cache, etc. give developers time to build solid real next gen games, not just PC / pre-final Xenon based games. get Halo 3 ready. get more Japanese dev on board. etc.
Phoenix
Member
Microsoft isn't going to go cry in a corner because of these developments. Microsoft has a gameplan that spans a heck of a lot more than graphics and they will proceed with that, work with their XNA developers (huge plus - more important than any graphics chip update), push out more information and sample code, get their marquee developers ready to go and launch. Microsoft isn't going panic because of THIS. If Sony came out with PS3 at $99 THEN they might panic.
This is all just pomp and circumstance. None of this matters until the platforms are in front of the media at the E3 smackdown. That's when the game really gets started.
This is all just pomp and circumstance. None of this matters until the platforms are in front of the media at the E3 smackdown. That's when the game really gets started.
KeithFranklin
Banned
The thing is that PS2 generation developers had over a year from the time the PS2 launched until the XBOX and GCN launched to learn PS2 hardware. This time the developers wont have picked up as much about the PS3 hardware as last gen. In fact many of the 3rd parties will know a great deal more about the X2 hardware then they do the PS3 hardware.
XNA is DirectX and more, DirectX has been in development for 10 years now. Two versions of Visual Studio (MS development tool) will have been released between XBOX and XBOX 2. Each version of Visual Studio gets better and better and makes it easier for 3rd parties to add-in additional features/tools.
Developers one way or another are paid by the hour. If you cut the development time it cuts cost. In 2000 Microsoft introduced the .NET Framework and for Windows and Web Applications this cut the development time by roughly 50%. With XNA MS is attempting to do the same for game development. The next version of Visual Studio and .NET will again cut the time for development (Make salespeople jobs more difficult, because consultant gigs turn over quicker).
KeithFranklin
Banned
Interesting thing is that NVidia will build a DirectX driver for the next GeForce so XNA will be able to take advantage of the GPU.
Phoenix
Member
thorns said:see you in the npd thread on thursday
Hmm... perhaps a definition of the term is in order if you think the NPD thread means anything. If Microsoft spends so much that even after capturing marketshare they lose their ass, it is a pyrrhic victory.
Term source
Hopefully that help you understand why the NPD doesn't mean anything with respect to the terminology used
Not much reality to the argument that GPU processor affects ease of development.
Nvidia's current lineup for development tools includes FX Composer, NVPerfHUD, NVIDIA SDK, Melody, and Shader Model 3 which someone else pointed out is a Microsoft thing.
These tools are about as useful as MS Paint in the overall game creation model, it takes a lot more than that to make a game these days, especially with next gen stuff. XNA isn't even the other option. The reality is that Microsoft has sat down and virtually laid out to developers in how to write beautiful graphics, and that's something Sony never did, and are still wondering if they will lift a finger to help them next generation as small to medium sized studios continue to go out of business and be pushed around by juggernauts like EA.
The fact of the matter is that what Sony seems to have done is go ass-backwards on design - they have gone with CELL which is similar to PS2 in striving for fill rate performance, and then taken twenty steps in a different direction by using Nvidia for GPU, which is actually likely to level the playing field and make Xenon and PS3 nearly identical in terms of performance, and likely to promote another round of multiple platform gaming.
Nvidia's current lineup for development tools includes FX Composer, NVPerfHUD, NVIDIA SDK, Melody, and Shader Model 3 which someone else pointed out is a Microsoft thing.
These tools are about as useful as MS Paint in the overall game creation model, it takes a lot more than that to make a game these days, especially with next gen stuff. XNA isn't even the other option. The reality is that Microsoft has sat down and virtually laid out to developers in how to write beautiful graphics, and that's something Sony never did, and are still wondering if they will lift a finger to help them next generation as small to medium sized studios continue to go out of business and be pushed around by juggernauts like EA.
The fact of the matter is that what Sony seems to have done is go ass-backwards on design - they have gone with CELL which is similar to PS2 in striving for fill rate performance, and then taken twenty steps in a different direction by using Nvidia for GPU, which is actually likely to level the playing field and make Xenon and PS3 nearly identical in terms of performance, and likely to promote another round of multiple platform gaming.
soundwave05
Member
So XNA has a button/software routine for "pretty graphics".
Wow.
I guess Sony should just give up.
Kinda like how GameCube and XBox games were going to cost 1/2 the price of PS2 projects and take 1/2 the time to make.
Sony has already stated they intend to make stronger middleware for the PS3 than what was availible initially for the PS2.
Wow.
I guess Sony should just give up.
Kinda like how GameCube and XBox games were going to cost 1/2 the price of PS2 projects and take 1/2 the time to make.
Sony has already stated they intend to make stronger middleware for the PS3 than what was availible initially for the PS2.
The ball is in Microsofts court. If MS wasn't around, Sony wouldn't have outsourced their GPU.
A lot of you might not think it, but Microsoft is the one pressuring Sony into this, like they did with Live, as they keep doing in other regions including development tools.
Will the continued pressure from Microsoft translate into sales? That's a whole other question.
A lot of you might not think it, but Microsoft is the one pressuring Sony into this, like they did with Live, as they keep doing in other regions including development tools.
Will the continued pressure from Microsoft translate into sales? That's a whole other question.
Barnimal said:
:lol
Nintendo is hurting themselves. No online, the connectivity gimmick, and the first party titles not pushing the system to its limits, and EAD's efforts not matching or surpassing previous efforts.
Funny how when Microsoft was coming into this industry, they downplayed the Cube saying they didn't consider it to be competition to them. Then, when they realized they had no chance against Sony, they started slamming the Cube.
As far as I'm concerned, the only reason Xbox is popular is because of Halo. Let me put it this way, my uncle, who's never played a game system in his lifetime, associates videogames as 'PlayStation' and 'Haloed, or something".
Phoenix said:Hmm... perhaps a definition of the term is in order if you think the NPD thread means anything. If Microsoft spends so much that even after capturing marketshare they lose their ass, it is a pyrrhic victory.
Hopefully that help you understand why the NPD doesn't mean anything with respect to the terminology used
I thought it meant a close victory, well in that case you are right. But a victory is a victory nevertheless
It's not like they're out of money or anything.Cerrius said:
Calm down man. What you call momentum, I call PS2 shortage and this "momentum" only applies in North America. Xbox sells good in USA that's true, but I wouldn't call that momentum. Let's not forget that Xbox is pacing with GC in worldwide sales (and to be exact, Xbox has sold around a million more consoles than GC iirc) which is nothing admirable for the console. Some people make it sound like Xbox is killing PS2 nowadays.
Phoenix
Member
Vortac said:
GPUs don't ease development, DSKs and tools do.
ATI has similar tools as well - http://www.atitech.com/developer/index.html
You don't think that maybe has more to do with those development houses making shit and coming out against products from the bigger studios that can out market them, out publish them (price protection is a wonderful thing), and out hype them at every turn? There are many small studios that have not only survived, but thrived in this environment.
Phoenix
Member
mrklaw said:
There is such a thing as 'low hanging fruit'. If you can develop for people willing to spend $5,6,700 on a video card - you'd be a fool to leave them out in the cold
Even if a PC game sold a paltry 10k units on one $50 SKU - that is half a million dollar you get for doing damn near nothing.Also for the tools from XNA and such... If these tools save you 20 minutes per task on several tasks in a day... it could make a huge difference on achieving milestones and targets and simply making it a lot less stressful. Sure there's more difficult things, but the idea behind tools is to help remove or limit the time of such drawed out menial tasks.
Phoenix
Member
Che said:
Beating the GC isn't a milestone IMO. I think we can all pretty much agree that the gamecube is last (if even present) on most people's gaming lists. While I think its a nice little platform for the rare good exclusive that arrives every 8 months (if that often), the Xbox beating the gamecube is like sinking ships in pearl harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.
soundwave05
Member
Not to mention kids these days get too excited over little leads.
Say the XBox ends up with 5-6 million more userbase worldwide than the GameCube ... that's still pretty friggin' close in the grand scheme of things.
People think the SNES and Genesis finished neck and neck, even though the SNES sold like 14 million more systems worldwide (49 mill vs. 35 mill).
Say the XBox ends up with 5-6 million more userbase worldwide than the GameCube ... that's still pretty friggin' close in the grand scheme of things.
People think the SNES and Genesis finished neck and neck, even though the SNES sold like 14 million more systems worldwide (49 mill vs. 35 mill).
Che said:
Well I think I speak for a lot of people in saying that it's just exciting as hell to have someone ANYONE keeping paces with Sony even if it's just for a little while. Nintendo hasn't really been able to do it(and have been losing more and more console market share unfortunately), but Microsoft although they had a rocky start, is really doing some great things. Setting software sales records(Halo 2), the best Online network, the best hardware. I'm the type that roots for the underdog. And you can be sure if Sony didn't have someone on their ass the PS3 would not be as good as it's going to be. And a similar thing for the PSP, it wouldn't be anywhere near as cheap as it is now IMO. Competition is a good thing. We haven't had a good Console war since the SNES and Genesis days... ever since the PS1, sony has just been dominating.
Cerrius said:
Microsoft hasn't eaten into Sony's "monopoly on the home video console industry." Sony's share of the market is larger than it was last year; 3rd party support for the PS2 is superior to what the PS1 saw; and the PS2 continues to outsell its competitors, outpacing the PS1 within a similar duration. It's ok, man. Maybe Halo 3 will launch with the Xbox2.
inpHilltr8r
Member
Oh yes they do. You spend time working around the flaws in a shitty GPU. Time you could spend on cool shit, if the GPU actually did its job.Phoenix said:
Phoenix said:
I agree with you and that's why I compared it to GC. Some people here are celebrating for xbox's momentum when the console has sold 1 million more than GC (the worst this gen according to many) which I find pathetic for the console of the 5 billion dollars. I mean if xbox is selling like that now that they're losing all that money on marketing and hardware, how much are they gonna sell if they wanna make a profit?
soundwave05
Member
Sony should just make their own big time FPS franchise. It's really the only thing they don't have right now in their arsenal. Even Nintendo has Retro which could probably make a kick ass FPS outside of Metroid.
MrparisSM said:
IIRC (and if I'm wrong please someone correct me cause my memory sucks) GC managed to keep pace with PS2 for a couple of months in some regions a couple of years ago -it's nothing special. And trust me I'm not happy that Sony is trying to create a monopoly -I despise monopolies and the companies that create them- but the way things are going I think they might make one.
Izzy said:
Not only that -- the PS2 has saturated the market, selling an unprecedented number that the Xbox will NEVER approach. It's a disingenuous claim, neglecting to factor in the total sales of the PS2. That the Xbox sells "on par" with the PS2, now, is neither a shock nor a feat to crow over. Also, it's a lie that the Xbox sells "on par" with the PS2. I mention that only for argument's sake.
soundwave05
Member
Multi-console gaming is the best.
Yeah but it's not the best on your wallet. I'm hoping to only have to buy two consoles next gen (probably Playstation 3 and Revolution for Nintendo' stuff).
It's just annoying to have that many wires, and then you always have to buy an extra controller, probably some memory cards, extra component cables, extra stuff to get Dolby Digital, etc. etc. etc.
This past gen I bought Dreamcast, PS2, GameCube, and XBox and its just getting a bit annoying.
Even the N64 occassionally outsold the PSOne, even as late as 1999/2000. When the "Funtastic" N64s came out they outsold the Playstation that month for instance.
Yeah but it's not the best on your wallet. I'm hoping to only have to buy two consoles next gen (probably Playstation 3 and Revolution for Nintendo' stuff).
It's just annoying to have that many wires, and then you always have to buy an extra controller, probably some memory cards, extra component cables, extra stuff to get Dolby Digital, etc. etc. etc.
This past gen I bought Dreamcast, PS2, GameCube, and XBox and its just getting a bit annoying.
Even the N64 occassionally outsold the PSOne, even as late as 1999/2000. When the "Funtastic" N64s came out they outsold the Playstation that month for instance.
RobotChant
Member
Barnimal said:
Too bad beating Nintendo wasn't the goal when they got into the business.
DopeyFish said:
Actually, if it weren’t for Sony and their all-in-one box talk, we wouldn’t be talking about a MS system, and Live wouldn't even be around. Nor would we be talking about a MS system possibly being released in 05 to beat out the competition. Looks like Sony is doing a lot of the pressuring to me. Contrary to what some believe, Sony would’ve been fine without Nvidia. On the other hand, if Sony had followed through with it's lofty goal of an all-in-one box, MS would've been in deep shit. The fact that MS reacted to it, proves that.
Sony, for the most part, still seems to be doing whatever the hell they want to do.
Here is my two cents on these issues.
The differences in this up and coming generation are going to be smaller than ever. The PS3 will be more powerful in different areas than Microsoft's console, but it really doesn't matter.
Here is why:
This is the real last generation that graphics will be a big deal. Beyond next generation graphics will get better of course (this will never stops until a virtual world is perfect and reality based), however this will happen at a much smaller steps.
Graphics for both Xbox 2 and PS2 will be basically the same next generation. You can't go by power alone as that is really fading fast.
The reason why the PS2 was a disaster when it came to graphics compared to xbox was because of Sony developing the GPU and not handing it over to either ATI or Nvidia. They still won the market though.
This time things are going to be more even in the graphics department which means a bigger fight for both parties. It means Sony isn't giving in easily and is not underestimating Microsoft.
You can easily see that Xbox is superior over the PS2, it is a no brainer and you don't need anything more than common sense to see this.
However, you won't see this easily next generation. Both platforms will pretty much be hardcore and offer tons of features.
The games with the best graphics and best gameplay together will win out over the small differences (yes I call them small).
Besides who likes Nvidia anymore, everyone knows that they cheat all the time and they deliver numbers that they possibly can't deliver and we all know that ATI >>>> Nvidia when it comes to graphics power. It's funny as this shocking news comes out everyone some how forgets about how Nvidia got their way with the NV30/NV35 and the rest of the cheating and this is with all the technology that they have with full on 3DFX and all kinds of other technology.
Counting Microsoft out already is a bad idea. Remember last time some of you said that the Xbox was a joke and it wouldn't last and that Microsoft would drop out of the market and Nintendo would blow them away. Well you said that last time and you thought they were a joke and the xbox was a joke and would be about as popular as the Atari Jaguar is now. That's right you are eating crow now. I am not saying xbox2 will kill Sony, I am saying that you need to really think about what you say before you say it.
Software, Software, Software and not hardware counts much anymore. I don't care if the CELL processor can launch missles or if it can make me a ham sandwhich, if the software is innovative with great gameplay and great graphics it's going to sell. PS3 and Xbox are powerfull enough, we need to focus on innovative games with great gameplay and not focus on the hardware.
After all this shock, at the end of the day guys its about the games and if the games suck it doesn't matter what hardware you have. You don't get remembered for having the best hardware, you get remembered for having the best games with the best gameplay and graphics.
The differences in this up and coming generation are going to be smaller than ever. The PS3 will be more powerful in different areas than Microsoft's console, but it really doesn't matter.
Here is why:
This is the real last generation that graphics will be a big deal. Beyond next generation graphics will get better of course (this will never stops until a virtual world is perfect and reality based), however this will happen at a much smaller steps.
Graphics for both Xbox 2 and PS2 will be basically the same next generation. You can't go by power alone as that is really fading fast.
The reason why the PS2 was a disaster when it came to graphics compared to xbox was because of Sony developing the GPU and not handing it over to either ATI or Nvidia. They still won the market though.
This time things are going to be more even in the graphics department which means a bigger fight for both parties. It means Sony isn't giving in easily and is not underestimating Microsoft.
You can easily see that Xbox is superior over the PS2, it is a no brainer and you don't need anything more than common sense to see this.
However, you won't see this easily next generation.
Both platforms will pretty much be hardcore and offer tons of features.The games with the best graphics and best gameplay together will win out over the small differences (yes I call them small).
Besides who likes Nvidia anymore, everyone knows that they cheat all the time and they deliver numbers that they possibly can't deliver and we all know that ATI >>>> Nvidia when it comes to graphics power. It's funny as this shocking news comes out everyone some how forgets about how Nvidia got their way with the NV30/NV35 and the rest of the cheating and this is with all the technology that they have with full on 3DFX and all kinds of other technology.
Counting Microsoft out already is a bad idea. Remember last time some of you said that the Xbox was a joke and it wouldn't last and that Microsoft would drop out of the market and Nintendo would blow them away. Well you said that last time and you thought they were a joke and the xbox was a joke and would be about as popular as the Atari Jaguar is now. That's right you are eating crow now. I am not saying xbox2 will kill Sony, I am saying that you need to really think about what you say before you say it.
Software, Software, Software and not hardware counts much anymore. I don't care if the CELL processor can launch missles or if it can make me a ham sandwhich, if the software is innovative with great gameplay and great graphics it's going to sell. PS3 and Xbox are powerfull enough, we need to focus on innovative games with great gameplay and not focus on the hardware.
After all this shock, at the end of the day guys its about the games and if the games suck it doesn't matter what hardware you have. You don't get remembered for having the best hardware, you get remembered for having the best games with the best gameplay and graphics.
tahrikmili
Member
StoOgE said:
Brilliant!
tahrikmili
Member
Master Z said:
Considering as nVidia's whole NV3x line got the shit beaten out of them by a year old R300 in the last generation, you shouldn't bet on this
