how will Microsoft react to an Nvidia-boosted PS3?
- Thread starter xexex
- Start date
Kanbee-san
Member
Master Z said:
Its not gonna hurt em one bit, did anyone buy the xbox cause its graphics where tougher than the PS2 ? Especially when a PC is essentially much better.
tahrikmili
Member
Phoenix said:
No but GPUs can have achilles heels when programmed through certain API paths, such as the whole NV3x line having a huge weakness in their pipeline configuration that made their DirectX performance really really awful when using the basic DX API for long shader codes. Eventually, developers had to add _pp hints to code in (what they admitted was a very laborious) partial precision instead of full precision to make their games run at reasonable framerates on these hardware.
So you see, GPUs, even though indirectly accessed, still can make developers' lives miserable
Kanbee-san
Member
Phoenix said:I did. Granted I already owned a PS2 already, but when I picked up an Xbox I was getting it primarily to play certain games with better graphics
Certain games or just better graphics ?
Phoenix
Member
tahrikmili said:No but GPUs can have achilles heels when programmed through certain API paths, such as the whole NV3x line having a huge weakness in their pipeline configuration that made their DirectX performance really really awful when using the basic DX API for long shader codes. Eventually, developers had to add _pp hints to code in (what they admitted was a very laborious) partial precision instead of full precision.
So you see, GPUs, even though indirectly accessed, still can make developers' lives miserable
The fact that partial precision was faster than full precision isn't a GPU flaw - that's just the way it works. Its like saying that having to break a shader into multiple pieces is a flaw because it supports Shader Model 2.0 instead of 3.0. That's not a flaw - its just the way it works
CrimsonSkies
Member
So this is how Sony fans were during the DreamCast days. I can understand why people don't like them.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Hey, the Revolution may be more powerful than the Xenon.
This thread is hilarious, Xbox and PS2 gamers going at it. I'm in heaven right now, even with the occasional jabs at Nintendo.
The catalyst will be memory, who has the most,fastest, efficient memory. Guess what games, who ever has the games will win the next generation.
This thread is hilarious, Xbox and PS2 gamers going at it. I'm in heaven right now, even with the occasional jabs at Nintendo.
The catalyst will be memory, who has the most,fastest, efficient memory. Guess what games, who ever has the games will win the next generation.
is this for real?xexex said:
well somebody was working with sony developing the GPU, somebody had to, right?
and you'd be a fool if you thought MS didnt know about this collaboration.
this probably does not change anything, everybody is all of a sudden assuming there will be a generational gap in graphics just because Nvidia is perhaps using cell tech for the ps2 GS.
now lets speculate a bit, how expensive is each cell device? if a cell is used in the GS, how much of a price hike will there be? enough to downgrade the multicore PS3 CPU to price the unit economically? perhaps.
will Nvidia be able to use cell in their next gen video cards and price it competitively against ATI? not likely.
lets see how it all this pans out though.
tahrikmili 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
So you asume that Nvidia can't improve? You seem to be an Xbox fan... and dissing Nvidia means you're dissing Xbox. Ha, if MS and Nvidia didn't have a falling out you'd still be praising them.
Kanbee-san said:
LOL! Dude, the first couple years of Xbox marketing was all about the graphics ("There's nothing greater than the power of X") until they shifted focus to XBL (It's good to play together"). Every gamer I know got the Xbox because of the "better graphics". All I hear is "Yo, you should've got the Xbox version of NFL2k5, the graphics are way better".
Kanbee-san
Member
Master Z said:
And the point is DUDE, no one buys games for graphics only. Otherwise PDO would have sold more than Halo 2. PDO has the prettiest most technically sound graphics for any platform.
tahrikmili
Member
Phoenix said:The fact that partial precision was faster than full precision isn't a GPU flaw - that's just the way it works. Its like saying that having to break a shader into multiple pieces is a flaw because it supports Shader Model 2.0 instead of 3.0. That's not a flaw - its just the way it works
I don't want to turn this into an nVidia bashing thread but the point is not that partial precision was faster - of course the lower the precision the faster the application, so what? Let's go ahead and play all our games in FX12 or something? The point is that full precision spec for DX9 was 24-bit and nVidia went out of their way to incorporate 32-bit - so in full precision their cards ran like ASS and developers had to go out of their ways to code pp.
Your example with SM2 and SM3 is totally unrelated. SM3 and SM2 are 'standards'. Coding SM3 shaders and breaking them up to run in SM2 is backwards compatibility. Partial precision is not a standard. Coding partial precision is *not* backwards compatibility, having a DX8.1 fallback path is backwards compatibility. Partial precision takes a lot of time because developers have to test all of their shader code to make sure lower precision does not incur IQ problems. Standards are there to make lives easier. When developers can not code for a standard but have to go out of their way to make their game run on a particular hardware that can not run the standards well because it was poorly designed, it becomes a pain in the ass.
tahrikmili
Member
Master Z said:
Actually, I'm an ATI fan and a console hater. I hated consoles all my life. I recently bought an XBOX because it was cheap and was interested in some xbox games. And yes, I know nVidia can improve, they improved vastly with NV40, I was just pointing out that launching later does not necesserily mean launching better..
Che said:
How quickly people forget, when xbox launched only the hardcore nuts believed it had a chance against nintendo and ps2, and I dont think those nuts in there heart really believed what they were saying. To overtake a company with games like zelda, mario, starfox, metroid, pokemon, etc etc versus MS which was basically nothing but hope and a prayer.
The only reason xbox is where its at is because of its launch title halo, I still remember casuals playing it with me going Wow, this is the next big thing in video games.
Now it got creamed by ps2, but everybody knew that, ps2 had already been out over a year, it was starting to hit its stride. It was coming off a tremendously successful product in the PS, had the most popular game in grand theft auto, gran turismo, final fantasy, metal gear solid 2. How was any brand new console going to compete with sony with odds stacked against them?
MS knew it was going to take a bath in the project, but I think there a forward looking company who can see that sony had the potential to start taking from there PC business with a little box that can do everything. I think they got late into the market, but knew they had to do something.
They got lucky with halo, there prayer was answered, they got there foot in the door. They were still being outdone by nintendo worldwide and getting creamated by sony. This year has been different in the US, if you cant see how well there doing now as compared to 2 years ago then your not paying attention. Look at the monthly npd's now as compared to 2 years ago, the xbox has been performing much better in both hardware and software in the US, the biggest market in the world this generation.
Maybe you really did think that xbox would do better when it was launched, I look at what its competition was and still is and see huge inroads in the increasingly competitive and lucrative video game business. MS didnt come into the same market that sony did with PS, sony was alot better suited to make huge inroads when the PS came out. I think your incredibly harsh and off in thinking what MS has done is pathetic when considering where they came from.
Now nintendo, they have to be scratching there heads.
Sony is the king, but it wont be as easy as last time.
Kanbee-san
Member
Bebpo said:
Thats not the point, the point is that great graphics dont sell consoles. Games do.
FWIW, I think most people who bought Xbox's did it because they prefer Western games.. and "PCish" games over Japanese ones.. that includes RPG's like KOTOR over FF and whatnot.. as long as MS continues to court Western support I think they will have their niche.
soundwave05
Member
CrimsonSkies said:
Yeah you're probably too young to remember there was a game industry before 1999 -- seems like that's the case for a lot of XBots on the internet.
Playstation 3 is gonna divide the XBox base big time, I'm calling it right now. When Xenon doesn't have the best chipset/feature set (say bye bye to having the best multiplatform titles) all that's left is Halo, and in 2-3 years some other franchise will be the new hot thing.
Sony doesn't bank on one title, that's what Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sega have never been able to figure out.
PhatSaqs said:
But MS can't get the third parties that matter most. Where is the exclusive GTA? FF? DMC? MGS3? They need more Japanese support. They need better exclusives from Western devs.
I have a feeling that Nintendo's gonna turn themselves around next gen. Iwata, Miyamoto, and Kaplan have talked about problems with what they did this gen. Acknowledgement of the problem is the first step to recovery. Give Iwata a chance to prove himself. He's coming in and taking over a failed vision from Yamauchi. Iwata was a developer, and I'm sure some of that development experience will play a major role in the development of the Revolution.
For everyone saying how well MS did this gen, they really didn't. No matter how you want to spin it, the Xbox simply split the N64's userbase with the Cube. The PS2 continues to sell like hotcakes. Unfortunately, Sony messed up their distribution channels trying to clear out the older model PS2. If they didn't do this, and just put the slim version out there, the PS2 would have still dominated the charts this month.
Kanbee-san said:
So essentially you're saying that if the Xbox did not have superior graphics it would have still sold well? I don't buy it. Perhaps the harcore gamers would have still have gotten one, but the casuals (which is most of the consumer base) would have went straight to PS2 or GC if the Xbox didn't have superior hardware.
There have been countless times where I was in EB and some parent or casual gamer asked an employee about the Xbox, and what did the salesperson say everytime? "Xbox has the best graphics". They would always promote the hardware first, then the games.
soundwave05
Member
Spike said:
Nintendo's my favorite software company and no game console will ever be as dear to me as the original NES/Famicom ... but Nintendo acknowleding problems is like Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston admitting they have drug issues. I mean, no sh-t :lol
Nintendo just doesn't have any content that would appeal to anyone outside of kids or loyal Nintendo faithful (Metroid isn't enough, Resident Evil is gone and I wouldn't count on another third party taking such a risk after seeing how Capcom bailed out).
They're not outsourcing the GPU though - they're collaborating with nVidia on the implementation. The final product will be manufactured by Sony with royalties to nVidia for the IP they contributed.DopeyFish said:
As I said to Jedimike in the other thread, the Cell project has been underway since 2000-01. Sony has been motivated by their own internal ambition and vision for this project, long before anyone started talking about the Xbox having some form of momentum this year, finally. While MS and Nintendo were doing nothing more than cannibalizing N64 marketshare in previous years, Sony was already partnering with IBM and Toshiba engineers extensively and its now known that Sony has been talking with nVidia for at least the past two years. It's pretty clear that Sony is simply internally driven to attain their goal by whatever means necessary and there's little or nothing that MS or Nintendo have done to influence that.
Like they did what with Live? I don't see Sony in any rush to emulate Live, do you? They've made some vague announcements of creating a more cohesive online experience and creating a business model around microtransactions but they haven't shown anything resembling a roadmap or even a sense of urgency. And they just bumped online play from GT4, their flagship title! Does that strike you as a company being pressured to respond in the online arena?
kaching said:
What does that have to do with anything? Either the component was ready to ship with the product or it isn't.
soundwave05 said:
The Xenon will be out months ahead of the PS3, so how could the PS3 divide the Xbox userbase when it's not out on the market? It's going to take time. There will be less games developed next gen plus the PS3 will not have this avalanche of games that the PS2 has now. Games will still be developed for the PS2. It will take time for the PS3 to overcome the early launch of Xenon. That is MS strategy in launching early. More games by the time the PS3 rolls out, grab SONY market share by attracting those PS2 owners ready for next gen. It will not be as easy for SONY as it was this gen. The fanboys continue to ignore the obvious and claim that they know and can accurately forecast what is going to happen. Most of these posts are a joke. SONY won't have as greater of an advantage as when the Xbox was launched especially when early titles are few and console prices are high. The PS3 will not of been out on the market for a year when Xenon launches. The PS3 won't have 100 games out when Xenon launches. This notion that anyone knows exactly what is going to happen is ludicrous.
You can't claim that the Xbox is a one title system (in Halo) and then clain that the userbase will be divided by the PS3 if you've just claimed that everyone buys the system for Halo. If everyone buys the system for Halo, then following your logic then the same people that bought the Xbox for Halo will buy the Xenon for Halo. So how the PS3 prevents half of the Xbox userbase from buying Xenon for Halo is beyond me.
soundwave05
Member
I think if PS3 has the better chipset/featureset, which looks like a possibility, a lot of people, current XBox owners included will wait for a PS3 instead.
How many of you would have bought an XBox if the hardware was only on par or less powerful than the PS2 with no extra functionality? I think that was a big draw. You take that away and I think they will struggle.
Nintendo brought ... analog click triggers and nothing else new to the table, I think that's a big reason why the GCN seemed to have a lukewarm reception. Even though the Nintendo DS has a so-so launch lineup as well, it has a lot of fancy schmancy technology buzz words and interesting new types of functionality which makes it more attractive to the consumer.
How many of you would have bought an XBox if the hardware was only on par or less powerful than the PS2 with no extra functionality? I think that was a big draw. You take that away and I think they will struggle.
Nintendo brought ... analog click triggers and nothing else new to the table, I think that's a big reason why the GCN seemed to have a lukewarm reception. Even though the Nintendo DS has a so-so launch lineup as well, it has a lot of fancy schmancy technology buzz words and interesting new types of functionality which makes it more attractive to the consumer.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Sysgen said:
If PS3 proves to be the better hardware this time around, it will overcome the early launch of Xenon almost immediately. XBOX gained its foothold by being the most powerful hardware.
If PS3 = all beloved PS franchises + the best versions of 3rd party multiconsole titles, then it's going to be real, real tough for Xenon.
soundwave05
Member
The one thing if I were at Sony I would suggest they do is start developing a showpiece FPS title for the PS3.
Either work with a developer like say Crytek (Far Cry) or build your own team, but that's really the only area I think they lack in, and curiously they were burned by the N64 with GoldenEye as well (which Sony really had no answer for).
Either work with a developer like say Crytek (Far Cry) or build your own team, but that's really the only area I think they lack in, and curiously they were burned by the N64 with GoldenEye as well (which Sony really had no answer for).
I purchased an Xbox at launch because it was technically superior. The only games I purchased at launch were DOA 3 and Project Gotham. I purchased Halo later on, but only played through the co-op and sold it immediately after. Halo 2 on the other hand has me hooked like a crack addict because of Xbox Live play.
To say that XBox only has the Halo franchise is pure garbage. 3rd party sales in the last few NPD's have been somewhat comparable (user base in mind) to those of some PS2's games. Xbox owners are clearly buying 3rd party games and not just Halo or Halo 2.
For me the combination of graphics and online play have me heavily leaning towards purchasing X2 at launch instead of waiting for PS3. The graphics advantage that PS3 will have will be negligible in my opinion.
The titles listed below will have me coming back for more next gen.
Topspin
Moto GP
Splinter Cell
Halo ( I never liked FPS games before Halo 2)
Mech Assault
DOA
Ninja Gaiden
Fable
That pretty much covers all my gaming needs. My favorite genres are sports, action/adventure, fighters, and racing. I definitely prefer gaming online now, and I had never played an online game before gaming on Xbox Live. Now I have a tough time buying any games unless they offer online play. Of course you have exceptions like Fable and Ninja Gaiden, but I've certainly spent more time on all the other games on my list.
To say that XBox only has the Halo franchise is pure garbage. 3rd party sales in the last few NPD's have been somewhat comparable (user base in mind) to those of some PS2's games. Xbox owners are clearly buying 3rd party games and not just Halo or Halo 2.
For me the combination of graphics and online play have me heavily leaning towards purchasing X2 at launch instead of waiting for PS3. The graphics advantage that PS3 will have will be negligible in my opinion.
The titles listed below will have me coming back for more next gen.
Topspin
Moto GP
Splinter Cell
Halo ( I never liked FPS games before Halo 2)
Mech Assault
DOA
Ninja Gaiden
Fable
That pretty much covers all my gaming needs. My favorite genres are sports, action/adventure, fighters, and racing. I definitely prefer gaming online now, and I had never played an online game before gaming on Xbox Live. Now I have a tough time buying any games unless they offer online play. Of course you have exceptions like Fable and Ninja Gaiden, but I've certainly spent more time on all the other games on my list.
soundwave05
Member
And why buy third party titles on the XBox?
Because they're technically superior to the ones on the PS3.
If the PS3 is the one that has the advantage next time out or even if its even, IMO it's a big blow to Microsoft.
Lets see how they do without an 18 month technology advantage.
Sony is "cool" (they don't need to protray this as an image, they just are), Sony has great marketing, so they can't expect any type of Nintendo or Sega screw ups to take advantage of.
Because they're technically superior to the ones on the PS3.
If the PS3 is the one that has the advantage next time out or even if its even, IMO it's a big blow to Microsoft.
Lets see how they do without an 18 month technology advantage.
Sony is "cool" (they don't need to protray this as an image, they just are), Sony has great marketing, so they can't expect any type of Nintendo or Sega screw ups to take advantage of.
soundwave05 said:
It seems to me the *cool factor* is leaving Sony and going in a different direction. Sony has been popular and been the cool thing to get, but I think it's time is up and Xbox is starting to be viewed as the console to get. All of this is just opinion of course.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
If PS2 had XBOX-quality graphics, the XBOX would have been the failure most predicted as it wouldn't have had the "graphics whore" and "superior port" niche. If XBOX 2 is inferior hardware and the PS3 is easy to develop for, then there aren't many reasons to own it.
soundwave05
Member
Yeah because that worked great for the Dreamcast.
A lot of people are content with their current consoles and I think many XBox owners are gonna say "another console already?".
A lot of the "cool" factor for the XBox is precisely because it's seen as being Playstation-like (in terms of aiming for the same audience) just a newer model of it.
They won't have that catchet to play off, and quite frankly I don't think they stack up software wise. They have some PC devs, but Western devs aren't that loyal, with Sony also tapping Nvidia for the GPU and focusing on better middleware this time out (and also Xenon is more a propietary platform than the XBox itself), Western devs will go where ever they think the long term user base is gonna be at.
The Japanese dev community will be all PS3.
A lot of people are content with their current consoles and I think many XBox owners are gonna say "another console already?".
A lot of the "cool" factor for the XBox is precisely because it's seen as being Playstation-like (in terms of aiming for the same audience) just a newer model of it.
They won't have that catchet to play off, and quite frankly I don't think they stack up software wise. They have some PC devs, but Western devs aren't that loyal, with Sony also tapping Nvidia for the GPU and focusing on better middleware this time out (and also Xenon is more a propietary platform than the XBox itself), Western devs will go where ever they think the long term user base is gonna be at.
The Japanese dev community will be all PS3.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Sysgen said:
Dreamcast had a similar advantage. It got eclipsed by PS2 in a hurry, anyway. It was getting trounced saleswise way before Sega abandoned it.
soundwave05
Member
They got Halo, I'll give 'em that.
Sony does need to address that issue, that's two consecutive generations where they've been burned by FPS titles (GoldenEye with the N64, then Halo on the XBox).
They should look at creating their own show piece FPS franchise or get one of those PC devs to work under them for one.
Sony does need to address that issue, that's two consecutive generations where they've been burned by FPS titles (GoldenEye with the N64, then Halo on the XBox).
They should look at creating their own show piece FPS franchise or get one of those PC devs to work under them for one.
soundwave05 said:
I love it when Kotor II dips to 15 FPS. Can't wait for Kotot III whne that one dips to 2 FPS. I wouldn't dream of playing it at a great framerate on a brand new console. Nah, your right no one would want that. Nor would a console owner want to be able to run the latest PC game on his console in all it's glory. I'm sure everyone is happy to not be able to play the actual Farcry and Call of Duty games. Everyone just wants more stripped down versions of great PC titles.
soundwave05
Member
Yeah but when people upgrade they want the best console.
Some people will bite on Xenon earlier, but you can bet your ass Sony is gonna do the same exact thing they did to Sega and the Dreamcast -- have a stunning system unveiling that leaves the press and everyone else saying "well, just wait until you see the next Playstation ...".
Sony plays that game to a perfect tee. They're the only company in this business IMO who can generate so much of a frenzy about their hardware that people will buy it even with a so-so launch lineup.
They are definitely going to attack Microsoft on that point. I expect all the usual Sony tactics ... ie: "baiting" their competitiors to make an announcement and then making a bigger announcement soon afterwards.
Some people will bite on Xenon earlier, but you can bet your ass Sony is gonna do the same exact thing they did to Sega and the Dreamcast -- have a stunning system unveiling that leaves the press and everyone else saying "well, just wait until you see the next Playstation ...".
Sony plays that game to a perfect tee. They're the only company in this business IMO who can generate so much of a frenzy about their hardware that people will buy it even with a so-so launch lineup.
They are definitely going to attack Microsoft on that point. I expect all the usual Sony tactics ... ie: "baiting" their competitiors to make an announcement and then making a bigger announcement soon afterwards.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Sysgen said:
Take away the hardware advantage, and you're left with software. After all of these years, the only *software* that has sold XBOXes in any significant way is the Halo franchise. That isn't going to be enough to combat the stong word of mouth that will start once it is known that PS3, with its guaranteed extension of the hugely popular Playstation software library, is the better hardware this time around.
In this situation, the best case scenario is that XBOX 2 will repeat the performance of the first XBOX; worst case, Nintendo reclaims their #2 spot with authority and XBOX is relegated to "Turbo Grafx" status. Both cases would be considered failures given the huge financial investment.
soundwave05 said:
Sega had also just come off the bomb of a console called the Saturn. MS and Sega are in two completely different positions for the next round. PS2 also had a DVD player out of the box which was the hot new item in 2000/2001, Dreamcast didn't have a DVD player so it was viewed as obsolete. Not to mention the fact that EA didn't support Dreamcast with any software, and you better believe that a lack of EA support as well as lack of DVD helped to do in the Dreamcast.
There are so many points to why this situation isn't even close to similar that I'll just stop typing now
Phoenix
Member
Fafalada said:Tons of console developers did, and still do.
Outside of the PS2 where you had no choice I have yet to see anyone have access to the GPU from the XDK or try to gain direct hardware access to the hardware. DirectX provides XDK developers a clean (mostly) abstraction from the hardware and doesn't really expose the hardware in any meaningful way. Have no idea about the gamecube. Never had a chance to be exposed to its development environment.
soundwave05
Member
Well Sony just did the same thing with the PSP.
They waited for Nintendo to make their move. Once Nintendo commited, then upped the stakes and floored everyone with their PSP announcement.
You will see this same thing next year.
Microsoft will announce Xenon in January.
Sony will then have the PS3 unveiling in March and top them with it.
That's just how they do things. They let the competition feel good about themselves for a while and then they drop the hammer. It's almost cruel :lol
They waited for Nintendo to make their move. Once Nintendo commited, then upped the stakes and floored everyone with their PSP announcement.
You will see this same thing next year.
Microsoft will announce Xenon in January.
Sony will then have the PS3 unveiling in March and top them with it.
That's just how they do things. They let the competition feel good about themselves for a while and then they drop the hammer. It's almost cruel :lol
The Abominable Snowman
Member
KillZone >>> MS' whole cataloguesoundwave05 said:
First, whereas Sony is implementing brute force of power, Microsoft could compensate with higher amounts of RAM. A lot of the graphical differences next generation will come down to how much RAM and information the console can store at any given time. It will also be determined by the texture processing capabilities of the system. Stuff like Normal Mapping and Bump Mapping won't be as integral next generation, as all consoles will hopefully support and implement them, and will be able to do the effects in realtime. Per-Pixel effects will definitely come into play. It would not take much effort to trump dual Nvidia next generation processors, or equal it, IMO. Double the amount of Pixel and Texture pipelines, stick in more RAM, and perhaps up the clockspeed if needed and you'd have something about as attractive, and perhaps more cost-effective.
soundwave05
Member
I don't think Sony's approach is pure brute power. PS2 maybe, PS3 I think will be a much more refined than its older brother with all the horsepower "wow" to go with it.
Nvidia and IBM will bring a certain amount of finesse. IBM has commented the PS3 will be easier to work with than the PS2 and again Nvidia I think will ease Western devs and also help out in regards to image quality output.
It's a great marriage of technology, really.
Nvidia and IBM will bring a certain amount of finesse. IBM has commented the PS3 will be easier to work with than the PS2 and again Nvidia I think will ease Western devs and also help out in regards to image quality output.
It's a great marriage of technology, really.