Looks like we got another peedi here. You seem to forget the little fact that Sega couldn't afford to stay in the industry. It was killing them. That's why they dropped the hardware. You also seem to forget that Sega, while having great games, didn't have EA support (the only company that can kill a system by not giving support) and they didn't have the great games of this gen. Do you think that if Square had said "Final Fantasy (or Dragon Quest) is exclusive to Dreamcast" it would have died. Thats just plain stupid.Vince said:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
IGN: PS3 is much more powerful than Xenon
- Thread starter Izzy
- Start date
how do you know this, are you a hardware engineer?
how do you figure it is a ridiculous value at this supposed $300 launch price. do you work for sony?
has it been confirmed that xenon wont?
aren't you writing off halo, perfect dark, mistwalker and EA support for xenon? aren't you forgetting the MS marketing muscle and business savvy? aren't you neglecting their huge wealth?
look man, we've been around here a long time, circa 2000. i have noted your idosyncracies, and i wont point them out now because i dont want to embarass you. you seem to be a mature adult, and you know you're talking nonsense. keep saying it if it pleases you, but from my perspective, it's pointless.
sonycowboy
Member
mashoutposse said:
Well, I think it will make headway because Microsoft will MAKE it have headway.
1) They'll do pretty well with early adopters. Much better than they did this generation. They'll have a tremendous amount of hype & content that will carry them well for a good while
2) They'll spend what they have to to get exclusives or, at least, to break the exclusives away from Sony. Moreso than this generation.
3) Halo 3 will probably be the most anticipated game since Halo 2
4) For the first couple of years, I still expect people to bitch about programming for the PS3 vs the Xbox because of Microsoft's expertise here.
5) Xbox Live should probably maintain a pretty good feature set above and beyond the competition.
mashoutposse said:
Most of the optimism (hate?) I've seen comes from Xbox fans who cringe at the likelihood of another ass-whooping by Sony. These people are acting as if Sony hasn't had the most successful console outing ever; that they didn't secure unprecedented third party support; and that they're not going into the next generation on a wave that dwarfs whatever the Xbox is riding.
soundwave05
Member
As for the PS3 hardware, I'm just gonna say IGN and EGM are not bullshitting.
Why do you think EA support is neccessarily an advantage for Microsoft btw?
I also think its a misnomer to say the XBox brand and Microsoft's marketing is equal or better than what Sony has done with the Playstation brand. At last check, the XBox really hasn't even sold that much more than the GameCube, while the PS2 is roaring towards 100 million units sold.
I change my opinions based upon the information as I get it, that's why I don't have a "set" agenda.
Microsoft has Halo, yes, but I question whether that's enough given the disadvantages they'll have next generation. Mist Walker is unproven and if Sony still maintains Square-Enix, that's still a huge advantage for them. Perfect Dark could be a decent seller, but really I doubt its a dealbreaker type of title. It only sold a fraction of what GoldenEye did and really I don't know how players will take to the more cartoony looking Joanna, not that she was ever that popular of a character to begin with.
Why do you think EA support is neccessarily an advantage for Microsoft btw?
I also think its a misnomer to say the XBox brand and Microsoft's marketing is equal or better than what Sony has done with the Playstation brand. At last check, the XBox really hasn't even sold that much more than the GameCube, while the PS2 is roaring towards 100 million units sold.
I change my opinions based upon the information as I get it, that's why I don't have a "set" agenda.
Microsoft has Halo, yes, but I question whether that's enough given the disadvantages they'll have next generation. Mist Walker is unproven and if Sony still maintains Square-Enix, that's still a huge advantage for them. Perfect Dark could be a decent seller, but really I doubt its a dealbreaker type of title. It only sold a fraction of what GoldenEye did and really I don't know how players will take to the more cartoony looking Joanna, not that she was ever that popular of a character to begin with.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Even if being the weakest console is a hurt to Microsoft, they could still easily come out better due to the advantage of the early launch. I just took the NPD numbers and did a few simple spreadsheet operations to make a mock "next generation". If anyone would like to try different modifications, just say so.
For Xbox 2 I take the Xbox numbers from November 2001 on and put them in November 2006... but I drop 15% of their numbers due to the disadvantages discussed. For PS3 I take the PS2 numbers from October 2000 on and put them in October 2006, adding in 10% of the 15% which Xbox 2 has lost for that month. For Revolution I take the GCN numbers from November 2001 on and put them in November 2006, adding in 5% of the 15% which Xbox 2 has lost for that month. Of course Xbox 2 shouldn't have the big loss for much of the first year, PS3 probably won't launch with such a small supply again, etc. etc. but I'm keeping things simple.
Obviously this gives Xbox 2 lower numbers than Xbox at any given age, but the early launch gives them a huge headstart as far as market share goes. Obviously through the first year they'd have 100% of the next generation market share. At the end of 2006 they have 60.3% to PS3's 19.5% and Rev's 20.2% (obviously this simulation is not reality). At the end of 2007 they have 36.4% to PS3's 42.6% and Rev's 21.0%. At the end of 2008 they have 29.6% to PS3's 49.5% and Rev's 21.2%.
Still far from first place most of the time? Sure. However, even my gloomy prediction makes them a much closer second, and keeps Revolution a more distant third.
For Xbox 2 I take the Xbox numbers from November 2001 on and put them in November 2006... but I drop 15% of their numbers due to the disadvantages discussed. For PS3 I take the PS2 numbers from October 2000 on and put them in October 2006, adding in 10% of the 15% which Xbox 2 has lost for that month. For Revolution I take the GCN numbers from November 2001 on and put them in November 2006, adding in 5% of the 15% which Xbox 2 has lost for that month. Of course Xbox 2 shouldn't have the big loss for much of the first year, PS3 probably won't launch with such a small supply again, etc. etc. but I'm keeping things simple.
Obviously this gives Xbox 2 lower numbers than Xbox at any given age, but the early launch gives them a huge headstart as far as market share goes. Obviously through the first year they'd have 100% of the next generation market share. At the end of 2006 they have 60.3% to PS3's 19.5% and Rev's 20.2% (obviously this simulation is not reality). At the end of 2007 they have 36.4% to PS3's 42.6% and Rev's 21.0%. At the end of 2008 they have 29.6% to PS3's 49.5% and Rev's 21.2%.
Still far from first place most of the time? Sure. However, even my gloomy prediction makes them a much closer second, and keeps Revolution a more distant third.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
sonycowboy said:Well, I think it will make headway because Microsoft will MAKE it have headway.
1) They'll do pretty well with early adopters. Much better than they did this generation. They'll have a tremendous amount of hype & content that will carry them well for a good while
2) They'll spend what they have to to get exclusives or, at least, to break the exclusives away from Sony. Moreso than this generation.
3) Halo 3 will probably be the most anticipated game since Halo 2
4) For the first couple of years, I still expect people to bitch about programming for the PS3 vs the Xbox because of Microsoft's expertise here.
5) Xbox Live should probably maintain a pretty good feature set above and beyond the competition.
The only effective measure is #2. If they can gain exclusivity on a game like GTA or Final Fantasy, then that changes things quite a bit. Possibly to the point where it could be the favorite in at least one major market.
However, I would be surprised if talks between SCE and these developers haven't yet begun in earnest. Discussions probably are months (if not a couple of years) old already.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Hey...look...guys! We all know it takes Microsoft until the third version to get anything right!
Lock the thread!!
Lock the thread!!
Kung Fu Jedi said:Hey...look...guys! We all know it takes Microsoft until the third version to get anything right!
Lock the thread!!
That's third service pack :lol
And it took them how many OS versions to get it right? I consider "right" to be XP
DOS 1 - 6
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 2000/ME (came out around the same time)
Windows XP
That's a lot of versions.
But that's their OS's and apps. They take time. MS did pretty well on the Xbox IMO, and their online model completely bitch smacks Sony's bullshit model.
soundwave05
Member
I also have to wonder why people think Sony and Microsoft are on the same level in terms of brand power/awareness.
Last time I checked ...
80 million and 20 million were not the same thing. Not even close actually.
Last time I checked ...
80 million and 20 million were not the same thing. Not even close actually.
but that's third hand information. they are going by what some developers are telling them. most coders don't have engineering backgrounds. they might understand power from a purely programming perspective, but i doubt they realize what they are talking about this early on.
truthfully speaking, EA probably has the power to make or break a cosole in todays western market, ie, the most important one. i dont like it, and i dont like EA. but their blind followers and rabid football fans that have to get their latest iterations of Madden will make any new versions of it a success. and MS already has their online backbone up and running.
i did not compare it (MS marketing muscle) to anything but itself. to ignore it would be foolish. you really really think MS would hand out the power advantage to Sony in advertisements that easily? they'll turn the "teraflop" into a "petaflop" and brand it on your forehead if they have to.
and you will like it.
enough? i dont know. every console needs a varied library along with key franchises to succeed. whether they will have that remains to be seen.
nitewulf said:
From my experience this is true. 10 years ago in college many people dropped out of the computer engineering program and simply went to computer scientists. I would agree based on my observations that most coders usually don't have an engineering background.
It's nice to have both though. Understanding the hardware that runs the software is beneficial.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
soundwave05 said:
I don't think anyone disputes the power of the Playstation Brand. Sony is clearly the big fish in the video game pond. The Xbox brand isn't as strong as Sony's by any means. But for a first attempt at the market, MS did a pretty good job. They have certainly created a brand and given it it's own identity. This brand didn't even exist a few years ago and now it's well known even with non game players. MS knew they'd be hemmoraging cash this generation to build a beach head for the future, and you have to give them credit for doing so.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
JoshuaJSlone said:Even if being the weakest console is a hurt to Microsoft, they could still easily come out better due to the advantage of the early launch. I just took the NPD numbers and did a few simple spreadsheet operations to make a mock "next generation". If anyone would like to try different modifications, just say so.
For Xbox 2 I take the Xbox numbers from November 2001 on and put them in November 2006... but I drop 15% of their numbers due to the disadvantages discussed. For PS3 I take the PS2 numbers from October 2000 on and put them in October 2006, adding in 10% of the 15% which Xbox 2 has lost for that month. For Revolution I take the GCN numbers from November 2001 on and put them in November 2006, adding in 5% of the 15% which Xbox 2 has lost for that month. Of course Xbox 2 shouldn't have the big loss for much of the first year, PS3 probably won't launch with such a small supply again, etc. etc. but I'm keeping things simple.
Obviously this gives Xbox 2 lower numbers than Xbox at any given age, but the early launch gives them a huge headstart as far as market share goes. Obviously through the first year they'd have 100% of the next generation market share. At the end of 2006 they have 60.3% to PS3's 19.5% and Rev's 20.2% (obviously this simulation is not reality). At the end of 2007 they have 36.4% to PS3's 42.6% and Rev's 21.0%. At the end of 2008 they have 29.6% to PS3's 49.5% and Rev's 21.2%.
Still far from first place most of the time? Sure. However, even my gloomy prediction makes them a much closer second, and keeps Revolution a more distant third.
That extrapolation stands a very good chance of being on the mark. The system will definitely be in a better position during those first 24 months than XBOX 1 has ever been at any time.
soundwave05
Member
I think EA will be an advantage for Sony, not Microsoft.
If the PS3 is the stronger machine, it will get likely get the best versions of third party software.
XBox benefitted from this factor this past generation. Now people want to sweep that under the rug. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I believe this will be a real problem for Microsoft.
If you don't want to believe the PS3 could be considerably more powerful than the XBox 2, I mean I'm not going to try to change your mind, but I'd ask you to consider if that is the case, what the implications for that would be.
If the PS3 is the stronger machine, it will get likely get the best versions of third party software.
XBox benefitted from this factor this past generation. Now people want to sweep that under the rug. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I believe this will be a real problem for Microsoft.
If you don't want to believe the PS3 could be considerably more powerful than the XBox 2, I mean I'm not going to try to change your mind, but I'd ask you to consider if that is the case, what the implications for that would be.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Dr_Cogent said:
A programmer chiefly bases his/her opinion on how their code runs, a factor that is arguably more relevant and "real-world."
soundwave05 said:
They want to beleeeev. Frankly, the delusions behind most of these off-base predictions for next-gen aren't much different than the fanaticism we've observed from their camp this gen. For all the talk of how the Xbox reshaped gaming, it's proven to be rather inconsequential, never really catching on, while the PS2 lapped it in every region. So, basically, you're arguing with people who have already demonstrated an aversion to reality. In their world, the Xbox is a great success, with a catalog of titles that towers above the PS2's library. Of course, that doesn't comport with reality, but that's immaterial to a contingent so fanatically devoted to their system.
After all, that 80 million is mostly replacements, right?
soundwave05
Member
Dr_Cogent said:
Well how about this.
We know Western devs are multi-platform-centric. If the PS3 is considerably more powerful, many Western developed games could end up looking better on the PS3.
Japanese developers tend to be more platform specific. And take a wild guess who they'll be supporting moreso next generation.
You don't think this plays to Sony's advantage? MS and Sony will have to share most Western developed titles, only Sony should end up with the better looking ones. And they get the bulk of Japanese support.
I'd say yes, that is going to be a problem eventually for Microsoft or any company. Just because Microsoft is Microsoft doesn't magically mean they can wave a Windows-wand everywhere and get what they want.
AOL kicked MSN's ass all over the place despite MS having deeper pockets.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
soundwave05 said:
I don't think any one here doesn't want to believe that it's a possibility that the PS3 could be more powerful then Xbox 2. Obviously that is a very real possibility. However, there is nothing to indicate that in hard evidence just yet, and it is yet to be seen if the difference in power is significant enough to impact which machine is "better".
It's not a case of both having EA, it's a case of one not having EA. Sega died because they didn't have EA (among other things) Therefore anyone who says Xenon will be the next dreamcast is forgeting that giant difference between the two systems support. If on the other hand, say Revolution doesn't get EA support, they could be really hurting.soundwave05 said:
human5892 said:
Yes, and another thing that's easily forgotten is how many people buy whatever their friends have, for easy game trading and compatability for online games.
MSFT isn't Sega, releasing early may end up getting them much more competitive numbers by the end of next gen even is Sony still ends up with a larger fanbase.
Granted it's a bold move which may pay off for MSFT, but Sony is sure to catch them with their hype train and RPG developers fanbase.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
soundwave05 said:
While I believe EA will be a benefit to MS in the early going, in the long term, your assessment will be on point.
Create a table called, "What are the reasons for buying this instead of the Playstation alternative?" Make a column for XBOX and write the reasons in. Now, do the same for XBOX 2. It will become very clear that XBOX 2 is in an arguably worse position than its predecessor.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Dr_Cogent said:
Woo hoo!
*Picks up his prize and quietly exits the thread*
soundwave05
Member
What basis do you guys for assuming the XBox 2 and PS3 will roughly be the same power wise?
That assumption is based on absolutely nothing. I mean what exactly is that based on? That Sony feels sorry for Microsoft and will play "nice"?
At least IGN and EGM have spoken to developers that are working with dev kits for both machines. What they're saying paints a different story.
I'd say that would be a little more credible.
That assumption is based on absolutely nothing. I mean what exactly is that based on? That Sony feels sorry for Microsoft and will play "nice"?
At least IGN and EGM have spoken to developers that are working with dev kits for both machines. What they're saying paints a different story.
I'd say that would be a little more credible.
soundwave05 said:
Conversely, I can say the same thing. What basis do you have for assuming the Xbox 2 and PS3 will differ so much power wise?
The machines are being developed in tandem at the same time. Both are probably going to be released within a year of each other. There can't be THAT huge of a difference between the two. One may have the edge over the other, but you aren't going to see a world of difference between the two. It's just not gonna happen IMO.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Dr_Cogent said:
You have a point. If the declarations claimed by EGM and IGN are accurate, then even that may not be as much of a factor. In addition, one would expect the PS3 performance to suffer from lack of optimization, since devs have had more time with XBOX 2 hardware and its design appears to be much more conventional.
soundwave05
Member
Dr_Cogent said:
Because IGN and EGM have been told by developers that the PS3 is considerably more powerful than the XBox 2.
That's a stronger basis for an position than just assuming that PS3/XBox 2 will the same for whatever reason.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
soundwave05 said:
Nothing. But then again, you won't find a place where I actually said they would be roughly the same power. I've been saying that we need to wait to see uh..you know... actual specs before we can decide on anything. Hell, the PS3 may blow the Xbox out of the water as far as power goes. And you know what, I could care less! I just want the best game machine possible. But the point is, there is now way for any of us to know that yet since we don't have any real specs to compare the two.
As I said earlier, what developers did they ask? If they were from Sony, they're going to say that the PS3 is light years ahead of Xbox 2. If they're from MS, they're going to tell you the opposite.
Why don't we all wait until E3 to find out? Lord, this place is going to be a warzone come May.
(Oh, and I couldn't stay away!
soundwave05 said:
So, based off of hearsay, your going to run with it? Also, what devs did they talk to? Also, do you know the bias of the devs? Everyone is biased, that's human nature, so why do you put so much faith in complete hearsay?
I'm just guessing they will be roughly the same. I'm not saying anything is for sure.
soundwave05
Member
Kung Fu Jedi said:
Well it kinda helps to read the articles in question, but they've gotten information from third party publishers who have access to both development kits and are developing software for both systems.
The same factor that gave us two controller ports and four megs of video ram. Price. If they are going to lose huge amounts of money, they may choose to go the Gamecube route and cut back on extras. Especially with the shakeup at the top of Sony.soundwave05 said:
Kutaragi "I'd like to fill up the PS3 with ram and include two Cells"
Stringer " How much will we lose per console"
Kutaragi "xx amount of dollars"
Stringer "Forget it"
Kutaragi "But...."
Stringer "I said no"
soundwave05
Member
android said:
The thing is Sony's game division will likely get this lee way. Why? Because they've done the same thing the past 10 years and made Sony a shitload of money using that business philosophy (unless MS' game division which forgot about the profit part).
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
soundwave05 said:
Fair enough. But as I said earlier, we don't have specs to compare yet so the argument is mostly moot. There have been devs saying these types of things for months in both directions. We need to be patient and wait for REAL SPECS. As I said, I could care less which one is more powerful. It's just way to early to make a statment one way or the other at this point, although you have said a number of times that the PS3 is "signficantly" more powerful, but without any specs to compare it to the Xbox 2. Where does that come from other then quotes similar to the one in this story?
soundwave05
Member
Dr_Cogent said:
Well seeing as how XBox 2 is slated to launch in what? 8 months? I would hope developers have at least a decent dev kit for the damn thing.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
I have yet to read an account from a developer with actual PS3 experience who hasn't suggested that the PS3 is going to be noticeably more powerful. On the other hand, all of the speculation about XBOX 2/PS3 parity comes from people with zero experience with real life PS3 hardware.
That's all we have to go on for the time being.
That's all we have to go on for the time being.
soundwave05
Member
android said:
Unless Stringer is moron, he'll let the game division operate as usual, since I dunno ... they've done pretty freaking well and have Sony's flagship product for moving content.
If anything its the electronics division that needs his attention.
Its not like Nintendo went software only because Iwata comes from a software design background.