how will Microsoft react to an Nvidia-boosted PS3?
- Thread starter xexex
- Start date
soundwave05
Member
LOL, that's not trolling. The guy simply has a different opinion from you. If you want to see a troll look up some snapty's posts.
Trolling Explained
Ok, so this is about Slashdot, but who the hell cares. It happens everywhere
Just to kinda derail this thread:
Anyway, I can't wait to see what the big guys can come up with for next-gen. I just hope that better graphics, which both Sony and MS seem to be pushing to the forefront for the next gen, don't get in conflict with gameplay and creativity. But, seeing Square Enix, Konami and all the other companies (Except EA, cause they rehash unlimitely) come up with new concepts every once in a while this gen, I guess it's safe to say that won't really be the issue.
Just continue with the drawn-out textures for certain games instead of going over completely to 'real-life' visuals. I do believe the next gen cel-shaded are going to be more beautfil then ever.
To get back on track:
MS will, as it has always done, aggresively fight the upcoming battle. Unfortunately for them, the games the Xbox2 is going to get are more important than they were (IMO) for their first gameconsole. They want to be the first, then they better come up with some really good games, and just Halo 3 won't do it. At least, not for me.
Ok, so this is about Slashdot, but who the hell cares. It happens everywhere
Just to kinda derail this thread:
Anyway, I can't wait to see what the big guys can come up with for next-gen. I just hope that better graphics, which both Sony and MS seem to be pushing to the forefront for the next gen, don't get in conflict with gameplay and creativity. But, seeing Square Enix, Konami and all the other companies (Except EA, cause they rehash unlimitely) come up with new concepts every once in a while this gen, I guess it's safe to say that won't really be the issue.
Just continue with the drawn-out textures for certain games instead of going over completely to 'real-life' visuals. I do believe the next gen cel-shaded are going to be more beautfil then ever.
To get back on track:
MS will, as it has always done, aggresively fight the upcoming battle. Unfortunately for them, the games the Xbox2 is going to get are more important than they were (IMO) for their first gameconsole. They want to be the first, then they better come up with some really good games, and just Halo 3 won't do it. At least, not for me.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
You people are crazy. We don't know the scoop of the collaboration neither the tech specs (the most important thing here) and we are already arguing about if PS3 is better or worse than the still unknow MS product and how they will react to the announcement.
This thread doesn't make any sense at all.
This thread doesn't make any sense at all.
Sense? on GAF? Surely you jest.Funky Papa said:
Ignorant fanboys love to take any tiny piece of information they don't understand and run away with it into hype-heaven. It's actually the more technically-rounded people that are hyping things up that are actually frustrating me. It's understandable that they're excited for new technology and all of that, but to flippantly proclaim this new approach as a total revolution is near-sighted and dangerous. Looking at the computer industry over the past 50 years how many big breakthroughs have their been?
The invention of the transistor is probably the biggest breakthrough, and with that VLSI chips. Then you have the Arpa/internet, and other than that, what else is there? RISC architectures were hyped to be the best new way for processors to go, and for a while they did have an advantage but now CISC designs have surpassed them. I read something interesting a while ago, and it was about how people hype of brand-new technologies because they feel since they're not tied to the past they can eclipse present designs. But that thinking never works out because the people using current designs continually refine and improve and the new designs never really catch up.
What Sony appears to be trying to do is very very ambitious, and if all goes as planned then it very well might be a new turning point in computing technology. But what you have to remember is that Sony/IBM/Toshiba isn't just competing with MS here, it's competing with Intel, AMD, Apple and Sun. And do you really think they're gonna blow these giants out of the water? Colour me skeptical.
Just continuing with the tech-talk there are major benefits to multiprocessor architectures, but there are inherent, fundamental issues that impede multiprocessor programming. This is why multiprocessors do not exhibit a linear relationship with the number of processors, there's actually a pretty large diminishing rate of return as the of processors increases. And right now I'll give you an example. I don't know the exact details of the PS3 architecture and whether or not each Cell has it's own memory, or if there's shared memory between all the processing units, but we'll go with individual memory as my example can be applied to shared memory as well.
From what we know there is only going to be one disc drive, meaning that the game data will ultimately be derived from a single (slow) source. Now, all the cells will be getting their data from that source, or from indiretly from that source from data derived from the disc. Either way, there will be wait times associated with that because there won't be simultaneous access to the data. And I don't believe that there will be a separate bus for each cell to communicate with another cell, so you're going to have buses that are shared in which case there can be only one master at a time. That introduces another bottleneck. Just because you have a larger number of cells they're still limited by having ONE source of data in the Blu-Ray drive. So obviously the amount of RAM inside the machine will have a HUGE impact on its parallel performance, if there's enough RAM such that disc access isn't common then there won't be too much of a performance hit.
But that's just one example. The fundamental issue with parallelism is the overhead associated with synchronization and that's just something that can never be done away with. From the limited info I've read on Cell, it does have some pretty novel ways of dealing with data transfer (super-high speed buses, etc) but how they'll work in practise remains to be seen.
Microsoft has no choice other then making Xbox 2 the most powerful. They seriously can't compete if Xbox 2 is lesser then PS3 from the tech standpoint.
Hardware, not games, is the reason Xbox has reserved its second place spot and garnered developer support. M$ knows this and I can't imagine them letting Sony one-up them in their key department.
Hardware, not games, is the reason Xbox has reserved its second place spot and garnered developer support. M$ knows this and I can't imagine them letting Sony one-up them in their key department.
MightyHedgehog
Member
I dunno 'bout all this techie-mumbo jumbo...or maybe I do...who cares. What matters is the games and how well devs will be able to actually put the new hardware to use that actually makes the hype around the hardware (somewhat) justified.
I'm just blown away that so many have seemingly already declared vitoly for Sony...even long before this announcement. PS2 wasn't the kind of environment that most devs would've preferred, but there wasn't much choice at the time of release (poor DC...) and so, with lots and lots of money, effort, and time...PS2 was made workable by most. Then comes two arguably more desired pieces of hardware to build games on...oops...too late. Sony already has the gen by the balls thanks to superior marketing, good games, and free hype (extrapolated from vague and confusing spec sheets and out-of-context sound bites) from the public. IMO, despite being largely considered by most to be superior tech, at the times of their release, the new Nintendo and MS systems came too late because Sony defined the next-gen standard for most.
My point is...MS doesn't have to over-react to anything. As long as they stick to the gameplan and deliver incredible games to sell their new system and market it the right way, they'll do as well as the public will pay for their systems and games. Sure, they may be able to decide upon increasing the RAM, the amount of EDRAM, the clockspeeds of their RAM and chips, but the games (and their sales) are still going to be the proof of concept for the next-gen...and the marketing will drive that. MS can keep to its 'software revolution,' as they've stated over a year ago...while Sony works toward their hardware revolution with the CELL architecture...and Nintendo, its dream of being the king of the industry again with revolutionary design of some sort.
IF they pull it off, the difference in technical-capability between the systems will not matter, for the most part. Obviously, that was true in the case of Sony with the PS2, the NES, the Genesis, just about anything.
I'm just blown away that so many have seemingly already declared vitoly for Sony...even long before this announcement. PS2 wasn't the kind of environment that most devs would've preferred, but there wasn't much choice at the time of release (poor DC...) and so, with lots and lots of money, effort, and time...PS2 was made workable by most. Then comes two arguably more desired pieces of hardware to build games on...oops...too late. Sony already has the gen by the balls thanks to superior marketing, good games, and free hype (extrapolated from vague and confusing spec sheets and out-of-context sound bites) from the public. IMO, despite being largely considered by most to be superior tech, at the times of their release, the new Nintendo and MS systems came too late because Sony defined the next-gen standard for most.
My point is...MS doesn't have to over-react to anything. As long as they stick to the gameplan and deliver incredible games to sell their new system and market it the right way, they'll do as well as the public will pay for their systems and games. Sure, they may be able to decide upon increasing the RAM, the amount of EDRAM, the clockspeeds of their RAM and chips, but the games (and their sales) are still going to be the proof of concept for the next-gen...and the marketing will drive that. MS can keep to its 'software revolution,' as they've stated over a year ago...while Sony works toward their hardware revolution with the CELL architecture...and Nintendo, its dream of being the king of the industry again with revolutionary design of some sort.
IF they pull it off, the difference in technical-capability between the systems will not matter, for the most part. Obviously, that was true in the case of Sony with the PS2, the NES, the Genesis, just about anything.
MightyHedgehog
Member
m0dus said:
Yes, Halo 2 is direct proof of MS' ability to market something well. One can hope that they will take that as training for Xenon.
Shogmaster
Member
Insertia said:
The fact that you are typing MS as "M$", and that the simpleton theory you put forward doesn't take into account things like ease of development of XBox over PS2 and number of great games that has been delivered to XBox over the years that now have enough fanbase to warrant notice, I think you've earned a well deserved a troll hat along with some others here.
Well, MS is launching first this time so they are trading the performance advantage for the time (and hopefully momentum) advantage. They can't prevent a console that launches after theirs from being more powerful.
As for Nintendo, there hasn't been a single generation that found them outclassed in the technology department. I expect revolution to be on par with the other consoles and have its own specific advantages.
As for Nintendo, there hasn't been a single generation that found them outclassed in the technology department. I expect revolution to be on par with the other consoles and have its own specific advantages.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Diffense said:
True, I suppose. Though, it seems strange to me that no one's putting any faith in MS' ability to churn out hardware that goes well beyond the norm; something that belies its target spec sheet picture of capability through innovative software and tools. Oh well. E3's gonna be interesting. I hope that MS Beijing and the XTG get their props as ATI will by default.
gollumsluvslave
Member
I love reading the posts on next-gen stuff. It's so... refreshingly GAF :lol
Xbots say Xenon will do well don't believe the PS3 hype. :lol
Sonyboys say PS3 will destoy all. :lol
I couldn't really care less, but i'd love for Revolution to steamroller both Sony and MS just to see the fallout here.
As far as I can see the following are true
1) No announced PS3 specs
2) No announced Xenon specs
3) No announced Revolutions specs
until ALL 3 are announced no one knows jack shit really, and there is the possibility however unlikely that more surprises and announcements may send the fanboys from all factions into collective apoplexy :lol
My hoped for announements :lol :lol :lol
1) Nintendo partners with MS/Sony
2) PS3 announces no BC
3) Xenon announces BC :lol
4) MS announces Xenon Live not BC
5) EA announce new console
:lol :lol :lol
Xbots say Xenon will do well don't believe the PS3 hype. :lol
Sonyboys say PS3 will destoy all. :lol
I couldn't really care less, but i'd love for Revolution to steamroller both Sony and MS just to see the fallout here.
As far as I can see the following are true
1) No announced PS3 specs
2) No announced Xenon specs
3) No announced Revolutions specs
until ALL 3 are announced no one knows jack shit really, and there is the possibility however unlikely that more surprises and announcements may send the fanboys from all factions into collective apoplexy :lol
My hoped for announements :lol :lol :lol
1) Nintendo partners with MS/Sony
2) PS3 announces no BC
3) Xenon announces BC :lol
4) MS announces Xenon Live not BC
5) EA announce new console
:lol :lol :lol
m0dus said:
I agree, but aside from Halo (and that's a big aside), Xbox's software isn't *that* great (from a consumer-sales standpoint.)
It's all about the hardware I'd say. Xbox was touted as being 3x more powerful then PS2, it's multiplatform titles generally sport superior visuals, unlike PS2, Xbox is a system that's suited for the HDTV gamer, and as the elite nerd above me who dislikes the term 'M$' put it, Xbox was a lot easier to develop for while PS2 was a bitch (which garnered it a lot of western support). Also graphically, while top tier PS2 games can match Xbox's best, the average PS2 game looks like shit compared to the average Xbox title.
Consumers notice this, the gaming media knows it.
If this is reversed or leveled, Xbox 2 will have lost the advantages that put it in its spot and I dont think Halo did it single handedly.
I do believe better graphics is the key. When the race is this tight and each system library is 80% multiplatform games, hardware/visuals will be the differential. Also 'better graphics' attracts developers.
Im sure most developers would much rather like to develop for the much more powerful and easier to develop for Xbox, unfortunately PS2, with its 1999 tech, is the market leader.
Might I point out that the reason some of the tech-savvy members are in full hype mode right now is because they have been pining over Cell since the first patents, and have debated and discussed most aspects of the processor to death. Your reservations about parallelism have been discussed ad nauseum. What's cool about Cell is it seems to be designed to circumvent lots of those problems. In any case, if the PS3 indeed launches after the Xenon, then it's a no-brainer that it will be more powerful. Cell already looks to be a considerable step up just based on the speculation. It's no hard fact, but based on what's known so far, how can you not be at least a bit interested in the PS3? It was always going to be a floating point beast, as that was it's whole intention, but now the NVidia news means the one concern some people had (graphics effects) will most certainly be taken care of by NVidia. Now it seems like the only thing that could derail the system is the development tools. And those seem to be shaping up well according to rumors too.rastex said:
After ISSCC, we'll know a great deal about the performance of the PS3. The chip that will be unveiled should be the baseline of what will be in the PS3. We'll know what kind of T&L power Cell has, and that should be in the ballpark of what the GPU can do. I don't think it's premature. The PS2 hype train started after the EE was first unveiled, and we had a good picture of what it could do from then. PEACE.
Phoenix
Member
tahrikmili said:
What?!?
What again?!?
Okay, I'll give you some tonight. You take it and run it on your ATI part.
That's funny given that I AM a PC dev. No my fanboy friend, PC gaming is dieing because for the cost of a high end part you can buy an entire generation of consoles. Its going away because the return on investment on console tends to be higher than that on PCs. Its going away because the hardware upgrade business is not strong in the casual gamer markets whereas consoles are prevalent. When I talk to people like you *I* go WTF!
I am neither. I could care less about ATI or nVidia. I write code and enjoy creating things with code.
Yes indeed I have no idea what I'm talking about. Let me explain to you exactly how much I know about DirectX and OpenGL my friend. During the days of DirectX 3 I was approached by a publisher for my work in Direct3D specifically and co-authored Direct3D Professional Reference (ISBN 1562057251). After this I worked in government vis-sim departments for several years in OpenGL on a variety of platforms ranging from PCs to SGI rendering monsters. After this I worked for a game developer (which I won't name for various reason) for some time as a developer and later running a R&D group where I was exposed to lots of PS2 and NVx development. So please spare me, I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I may have more years of graphics programming than you actually have of playing games. So unless you want to start writing shaders here on the forum, I suggest you MOVE ON.
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
Ouch, now that's what I call a smackdown! :lol
tahrikmili
Member
Phoenix said:
I take you up on that, go ahead and supply me with a shader code in SM2 that my ATI part can't run. This should be amusing.
What you are missing is that high end parts account for about 1% of annual graphics hardware sales for the PCs and games are developed with mainstream cards in mind. Every home out there with a PS2/XBOX in it is more than likely to also have a PC with a DX8+ level discrete graphics hardware in it these days, and it does not cost a limb to actually buy a graphics card beyond the capabilities of this generation's consoles. It also shows in the number of discrete graphics solutions being sold by both competitors in the market increasing every fiscal year - the market for PC gaming is not shrinking, it's expanding. I am not saying that PCs are even as cost effective in gaming as consoles are - but rather, I'd like to point out that they NEVER WERE that way, yet PC gaming thrived during the previous generations. It was only after it started to get bloody annoying to develop for the PC that companies started to desert.
DirectX 3? Cheers man, you live far behind even the last decade and still boast about it. Hillarious. You sound like a WW1 veteran who still polishes his decorations and talks like he knows about modern warfare.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
So the question I have is this, since the release of the Cube and the Xbox, one of the main points about the differences between the consoles compared to the PS2, is the technical aspects. This was always backed up by the fact that Nintendo and MS console came out later(1yr), graphics technology eperiences advancements very fast, 6 months past and GPU's are faster, have more embedded memory, and increased technical features, some new shader tech.
The GC and Xbox, has benefited from having this gap. With the next gen around corner, this is a hot issue.
So does it really factor in for Microsoft, even though the Xbox2 is suppose to be their cost effective console?
You would have to assume that Xbox2 specs haven't been finalized and Microsoft is prepared to take a bigger loss on each console early on, in order to match Sony technically if it shown own paper and benchmark test that they have a advantage . If tech specs for each console, is easily access through inside leaks from those who have hands on connection to hardware in development, I would assume this is would be wide spread. Why the secrecy in spite of this, if Sony know what MS and Nintendo tech specs or a vague description of them and vice versa?
I believe there will be advantages, but these advantages will not be based on texture mapping techniques like normal mapping, bump mapping,etc. It will be polygon numbers, which console can have all the fancy new shading techniques and still keep a high polygon count and stable framerate. Physics will play a big part of it to, large portion of enviroment being destructible.
If the Xbox2 is released Fall of next year, when will the tech specs have to be finalized?
The GC and Xbox, has benefited from having this gap. With the next gen around corner, this is a hot issue.
So does it really factor in for Microsoft, even though the Xbox2 is suppose to be their cost effective console?
You would have to assume that Xbox2 specs haven't been finalized and Microsoft is prepared to take a bigger loss on each console early on, in order to match Sony technically if it shown own paper and benchmark test that they have a advantage . If tech specs for each console, is easily access through inside leaks from those who have hands on connection to hardware in development, I would assume this is would be wide spread. Why the secrecy in spite of this, if Sony know what MS and Nintendo tech specs or a vague description of them and vice versa?
I believe there will be advantages, but these advantages will not be based on texture mapping techniques like normal mapping, bump mapping,etc. It will be polygon numbers, which console can have all the fancy new shading techniques and still keep a high polygon count and stable framerate. Physics will play a big part of it to, large portion of enviroment being destructible.
If the Xbox2 is released Fall of next year, when will the tech specs have to be finalized?
OG_Original Gamer said:
Spring next year at the very latest, I would have thought. I'd say most of it's already finalised.
Two issues are at play - 1) they've got to start manufacturing and 2) developers need to know what the final target is.
Architecturally, I'd say it's all there right now. They can tweak clockspeeds and memory settings etc. for a while more yet, but they'll have to draw a line pretty soon into the new year if they want to release in the fall.
All imo - someone with greater knowledge may be able to give you a more accurate idea.
sonycowboy
Member
Can someone answer a question regarding Xenon's CPU?
It's supposed to be a triple 3.5Ghz Power cores, correct?
This with the Cell at 4.6GHz for a single PU.
1) What should the effective overall speed of Xenon be just based off of the CPU?
2) Given that Apple is currently stuck at 2.5GHz G5 processors from IBM, are these Xenon CPU's much different than the G5. Simpler?
3) What about the cost for such a processor. Currently, Apple is reported to be paying over $200 for each G5 processor (2.5GHz versions).
4) How many Cells is the PS2 supposed to have?
It's supposed to be a triple 3.5Ghz Power cores, correct?
This with the Cell at 4.6GHz for a single PU.
1) What should the effective overall speed of Xenon be just based off of the CPU?
2) Given that Apple is currently stuck at 2.5GHz G5 processors from IBM, are these Xenon CPU's much different than the G5. Simpler?
3) What about the cost for such a processor. Currently, Apple is reported to be paying over $200 for each G5 processor (2.5GHz versions).
4) How many Cells is the PS2 supposed to have?
OG_Original Gamer
Member
gofreak said:
E3 is during Spring, whatever info is released by Sony and Nintendo during the show, MS wouldn't have time to make adjustments to reduce a technical gap. I don't this is as much of an issue for MS as much people would like to believe. Their main focus seem to be on getting to the market first.
sonycowboy said:
Not sure what you mean?
sonycowboy said:
I'm not sure what IBM/Apple's timeline is in getting the G5 processor clockspeeds up. But remember, the 3.5Ghz number isn't confirmed..Also, I was under the impression that the Xenon CPU would be a "souped-up" version of the G5 processors, at least in terms of their vector units.
sonycowboy said:
Microsoft may be getting different terms.
sonycowboy said:
Unknown. I think the CPU will have two PEs (each with one Power core + ? APUs).
2005 is premature for a next gen console IMO, especially from microsoft who only launched the xbox in 2001.
I think there is plenty of life left in the current systems.
I think the majority of gamers will play wait and see, they should be happy enough with games like RE4, Zelda 2005, Wanda, Conker, GT4 as well as the PSP and DS to keep them amused.
I think there is plenty of life left in the current systems.
I think the majority of gamers will play wait and see, they should be happy enough with games like RE4, Zelda 2005, Wanda, Conker, GT4 as well as the PSP and DS to keep them amused.
sonycowboy
Member
gofreak said:
Thanks for the response
1) I was just wondering how the processing unit of such a processor core compares to other processors including the Cell. I mean, they're going from an off the shelf (almost) P3 that was already past it's prime when they released the Xbox to a custom CPU that probably won't be in standard consumer systems when it's released.
3) Apple has sold millions upon millions of G5's over the past couple of years, why in the world would Microsoft get such incredibly better costs for similar processors. (This is assuming they are in any way similar and costs for the G5 don't drop precipitously next year, given that they haven't for the past 2 years for Apple)
mashoutposse
Ante Up
OG_Original Gamer said:
The problem for MS is that, once Xenon is released, further development of the system ceases. Once it's out, Sony, NVidia, and friends will have a few months to take a look at it and do what they need to do to one-up it, just as MS did once the PS2 was released.
Assuming the speculated launch schedules hold, PS3 WILL be more capable than XBOX 2, there is no doubt about that. If that is the case, I don't see the main constituents of the XBOX 1 fanbase sticking around for long.
sonycowboy
Member
Bacon said:
That's only 1/3 of the story. The number one factor Xbox had in its favor was technical superiority and we've been hearing about it since day 1. You can't just throw it away now that it no longer works for you.
They will lose ALOT of their users to the system that is the most powerful.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Bacon said:
XBOX's main fans are those who value the fact that it is more powerful and more capable. These are the casuals who bought it primarily for the superior mainstream multiplatform ports that they've heard about through word of mouth and retail employees. You don't have to be a hardcore gamer to be an elitist.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
jarrod said:
There will be enough information to act on months before XBOX 2's actual release on the market. The clock will start ticking from the moment when launch Xenon games development begins.
mashoutposse said:
and to an extent that is exactly why they are launching early. Again, it's all about the games. Blow your userbase away with great playing gorgeous looking games before the PS3 hits. It also works the other way. How long will people wait. When the PS2 hit there was nothing better. PS3 games better be all that becuase if they aren't you may have the reverse of what you are arguing. As most rational people on this board keep saying, lets see what happenes becuase it's sure to be a good show and in the end we as gamers will benefit most. It's going to be a console war between the three major players the likes of which we may have never seen.
mashoutposse said:
The clock has started ticking, imo. The Xbox GPU apparently taped out recently, and you can be sure Nvidia have a decent idea of what ATi have been up to. Their information on it will only increase over the next couple of months, and they don't plan on finishing the PS3 GPU till possibly Sept 05..
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Bacon said:
Unless MS is willing to make Xenon another hugely money-losing affair, it won't be. It would require them to heavily overestimate the competition to mitigate the damage of any response made by Sony.
sonycowboy said:
To answer 1) it's impossible to tell until MS release more details. However it is my own expectation that the PS3 CPU will be more powerful than it, on paper at least. Cell is looking to be a floating point monster...but we shall have to wait and see what MS have done with the standard PowerPC core before jumping to conclusions.
To answer 3) well, Microsoft will be ordering 3 of these bad boys for each xbox2, compared to at most 2 in each apple (and 1 in most), so there may be economies of scale involved. Plus, it'll undoubtedly be cheaper for IBM to manufacture in 2005, so I'm sure both Apple and MS will benefit in terms of reduced cost. But yeah, it likely will be pretty expensive, if they do go with 3..
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
Microsoft will team up with Nintendo next generation.
Sony's dominance will have come to an end.
Sony's dominance will have come to an end.
Hey y'all
I have a wonderful idea.
[warning idea]
How about we wait until both systems come out to the public before we state which is better than which console in hardware specs.
Some of you are forum drama queens and really need to take a step back
and realize that really none of this makes any difference. It's like arguing just to argue.
I have a wonderful idea.
[warning idea]
How about we wait until both systems come out to the public before we state which is better than which console in hardware specs.
Some of you are forum drama queens and really need to take a step back
and realize that really none of this makes any difference. It's like arguing just to argue.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Sysgen said:
During those first few months, all MS will get as far as userbase is concerned are the early adopters that would have hopped on board, anyway. This will be at the expense of having to stick it out for the remaining 48 months or so with inferior hardware. Their strategy as it is right now is shortsighted, IMO.
PS3 doesn't have to have the games on Day One since it is assumed that all of the Playstation favorites will be making appearances eventually. If the hardware is superior, then Sony will get lots of former XBOX users as well as their core fanbase.