soundwave05
Member
LOL, if the PS2 came out 18 months later, like the XBox and GCN did, it would blow both of those chipsets out of the water.
Xbox 2 coming in 2005!!
- Thread starter Spike
- Start date
pcostabel
Gold Member
Docwiz said:
Actually, the parallel processing approach is 'thinking smarter'. A brute force approach would be higher Mhz/more memory.
Probably, but MS is using a parallel processor approach as well, and I doubt XNA will make it transparent to the programmer. The hardest part of PS2 programming is distributing the processing work among all different units, something that no API short of a full game engine can do for you.
Even if this is the case, this is a steb back compared to the current situation, with Xbox allegedly more powerful than PS2. Personally, I think PS3 will smoke Xenon processing power wise. Graphically, the difference won't be dramatic, but simulation wise the PS3 will have a clear advantage.
Xenon will be a parallel architecture as well, so I see little difference in programming the two. Actually, the fine granularity of the Cell architecture makes it easier to code for than
Xenon's 3 dual processors.
And the PS2 is not beat by the Xbox CPU. The EE can do 6.2 GFlops, vs. 2.93 GFlops for the Xbox CPU. The difference is in the GPU, where the NVidia chip is far superior to the GS.
XNA is irrelevant as far as development costs. Most of the development budget for next gen gamse will be spent on assets, not coding (especially engine level coding, scripting will still require lots of money but that is platform independent).
Luscious LeftFoot
Member
soundwave05 said:
I agree with this point.
Even though it's not the popular opinion, I like the idea of having a clear cut market leader, whomever that may be.
soundwave05
Member
I like the idea of having a market leader -- as long as its Sony.
Microsoft and Nintendo get too crazy whenever they get that much power.
I'm not even a Sony whore at all, but even I understand if Nintendo or Microsoft had the market leader position, I'm not so sure the game industry would be in the best hands (remember the days of $80 NES games? Or how about Microsoft's various monopoly styled practises in the computer OS field?).
Sony has kept hardware and software pricing reasonable, in fact software prices have gone done even though they could have raised prices to pad profits (who was gonna stop them? The N64 or Sega Dreamcast?).
Microsoft and Nintendo get too crazy whenever they get that much power.
I'm not even a Sony whore at all, but even I understand if Nintendo or Microsoft had the market leader position, I'm not so sure the game industry would be in the best hands (remember the days of $80 NES games? Or how about Microsoft's various monopoly styled practises in the computer OS field?).
Sony has kept hardware and software pricing reasonable, in fact software prices have gone done even though they could have raised prices to pad profits (who was gonna stop them? The N64 or Sega Dreamcast?).
soundwave05
Member
I'm just saying if one of them is going to lead it should be (and most likely will be) Sony again.
Sony drives this industry by taking a leadership position.
Why is Nintendo at least trying to court third parties these days? Because they got whupped by Sony. If this never happened, they'd still have the same archaic business practises.
Why is Microsoft willing to lose millions on XBox? Because they're desperate to catch Sony.
Sony drives this industry by taking a leadership position.
Why is Nintendo at least trying to court third parties these days? Because they got whupped by Sony. If this never happened, they'd still have the same archaic business practises.
Why is Microsoft willing to lose millions on XBox? Because they're desperate to catch Sony.
soundwave05
Member
Yeah, I agree a one console market would probably be best, with say Sony/Nintendo/MS acting like the DVD Consortium does.
At the end of the day, even if its cheaper to buy a second console or third console ($100-$150), that's still money you could have spent on games, not to mention the money spent on accessories (you're not going to buy just one controller).
At the end of the day, even if its cheaper to buy a second console or third console ($100-$150), that's still money you could have spent on games, not to mention the money spent on accessories (you're not going to buy just one controller).
Fuck MS if they are truncating lifecycles like this. Actually, screw all of them if they are doing this. I am not paying big bucks every few years for some graphical upgrades. I buy systems for the refined, high-quality games you normally get in the later end of system cycles. I'll likely be happy with Wanda and DQ8 for my PS2 next year and Zelda on the Gamecube, but a lot of neat new ideas have come out later in a systems lifespan that we aren't getting now. We won't ever see a refined GTA at this pace.
soundwave05
Member
Actually it was over five years between PSX and PS2 (Sept. 1995 - October 2000).
If you're going by Japanese launches then its December 1994-March 2000, again over five years.
If you're going by Japanese launches then its December 1994-March 2000, again over five years.
soundwave05
Member
Assuming the PS3 comes out in Japan in March 2006, that'll be a whopping six year life cycle for the PS2, even longer than the original Playstation.
soundwave05
Member
Actually if Microsoft gave the XBox a full 5-year lifecycle, and XB2 launched in fall 2006, that would be more or less equal to where PS3 should be launching at.
I mean :lol it's not like they're touching Sony in Japan no matter when they launch anyway.
I mean :lol it's not like they're touching Sony in Japan no matter when they launch anyway.
as I'vd said before, I would rather see MS wait until 2006. get a fully DirectX Next / DX10 with Shader Model 4 part from ATI. get a more powerful CPU (4-6 cores, 8-12 threads instead of the 3-6 config reported) more memory, HDD + flash memory in every Xenon. plus a better method of control not just a re-arranged Xbox controller. above all, more and better games. including Halo 3.
still, I'll definitally be getting a Xenon on launch day , whether its 2005 or 2006.
still, I'll definitally be getting a Xenon on launch day , whether its 2005 or 2006.
soundwave05
Member
I actually like seeing MS getting bullied around. I mean honestly, what, do they really need to monopolize another business? Is Windows not paying the bills anymore? Do we really need Windows on our friggin' televisions?
In the long run that's not good for anyone IMO.
I guess they might keep Sony a little sharper, but honestly its not like Sony makes a huge amount of mistakes anyway.
In the long run that's not good for anyone IMO.
I guess they might keep Sony a little sharper, but honestly its not like Sony makes a huge amount of mistakes anyway.
CrimsonSkies
Member
"MS is damned no matter what they do!"
Ahaha yep. I remember the same statements about them prior to the first Xbox releasing. History will repeat itself and the Xbox 2 will be a very succesful console imho.
Ahaha yep. I remember the same statements about them prior to the first Xbox releasing. History will repeat itself and the Xbox 2 will be a very succesful console imho.
soundwave05
Member
They're trying to get a headstart on Sony, we'll see if that strategy helps or if it backfires.
If the PS3 has a considerably better chipset (or even just slightly better), I think it could very well back fire. A big reason why the XBox has carved out a rep for being the "hardcore" player's console of choice is because of the tech advantage it had over the PS2.
I could see a lot of people jumping off the bandwagon pretty quick if PS3 is the better hardware. Halo is big, but it's only one franchise at the end of the day. Super Mario 64 did not beat Sony, despite selling 12 million copies.
If the PS3 has a considerably better chipset (or even just slightly better), I think it could very well back fire. A big reason why the XBox has carved out a rep for being the "hardcore" player's console of choice is because of the tech advantage it had over the PS2.
I could see a lot of people jumping off the bandwagon pretty quick if PS3 is the better hardware. Halo is big, but it's only one franchise at the end of the day. Super Mario 64 did not beat Sony, despite selling 12 million copies.
TheGreenGiant
Banned
Subitai said:
like how they squeezed a half finished HALo2 out and allowed a butchered Fable out onto the gaming public.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
MS is going to win the next gen wars IMO.
TheGreenGiant
Banned
BuddyChrist83 said:
what's sales got to do with gay sex?
The thing I'm going to enjoy is the WAR next gen.
MS are used to getting in there, cutting prices, holding tight, and eventually starving the competition. They have lots of money - its an easy game to play.
Sony stand to lose a lot next gen. Even if they are still #1, losing much market share will hurt their earnings. And PlayStation is their main earner. So they are going to fight like hell to stop MS taking too much share. Whatever it takes. Sony *cannot afford* to lose. MS can, but would prefer not to.
PS3 for $199 at launch anyone?
MS are used to getting in there, cutting prices, holding tight, and eventually starving the competition. They have lots of money - its an easy game to play.
Sony stand to lose a lot next gen. Even if they are still #1, losing much market share will hurt their earnings. And PlayStation is their main earner. So they are going to fight like hell to stop MS taking too much share. Whatever it takes. Sony *cannot afford* to lose. MS can, but would prefer not to.
PS3 for $199 at launch anyone?
This sucks for the people who've had there Xbox for only about a year. I didn't get it at launch because I knew Halo was the only good game for it at that time. So I bought a PS2 instead. Just last year, I've converted to the Xbox, simply because I thought the games/graphics/online was the best.
They're in an awkward position for sure, one they're so not familiar with being predominantly a software company not typically confined to such rigid revision cycles. I think Xbox2 is largely a "do over" from their perspective and all signs keep pointing to a late 2005 release, so we should begin to see soon enough how well they've adapted.
element
Member
If rumors hold true, the window will be less then 5 months between the launch dates. Give that some developers have had development kits for Xenon for almost a year now, it gives them a HUGE advantage, not to mention a fimilar toolset and great documentation.
What features would people really need that PS3 has that Xbox 2 wouldn't? What are these features that make it a better game system?
MS really doesn't sell many tools geared for Xbox outside of Visual Studio. Most tools are provided in the XDK.
If your talking about Xenon, you are totally wrong. If anything, Xenon is a extremely well thought out system in the same way that Gamecube was. Very clean and well thought out. Unlike Xbox, which was pretty much slapping off the shelf PC parts.
I've heard the direct opposite from developers. That most have made the transition without much pain.
I believe you are most correct, good sir.
*multi-core PowerPC
*on-die VPU memory
*VPU access to CPU cache
*unified shaders
*XNA
Xenon looks like a tight architecture. I'm more confident about it than PS3, at this point. PS3 GPU is an unknown factor right now, whereas Xenon VPU is in good hands.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
In america? It might be close.
Worldwide? No.
Worldwide? No.
soundwave05 said:
Hahahah.
"Sony has kept hardware pricing reasonable."
How much was the original Playstation, again?
Sony only dropped their price when they had to, for fear of competition. Sony isn't a magical friend who will "keep prices reasonable" unless they have a reason to.