Xbox 2 coming in 2005!!

Docwiz said:
I am sure the PS3 is very powerful, but it's been designed by Sony
and I feel that they have not done a better job than an ATI or an Nvidia could do.

I feel that their architecture is based on brute force method of adding in more
and more processors instead of thinking smarter.

Actually, the parallel processing approach is 'thinking smarter'. A brute force approach would be higher Mhz/more memory.

I believe that overall, this will be harder for programmers to deal with.
This will be a lot harder to develop for than even PS2.

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.

I do not think that Microsoft's architecture will be any less powerful overall and thus
I do not think you will see graphics on the PS3, that can't be done on the xbox 2.

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.

I also feel that Sony will have a more complicated architecture that will be hard to get the maxium power out of, just like the PS2 is now (but even more so). Just because you have 100 cell processors inside and outside of the console (ie in TV's or DVD players) doesn't mean you can tap all of that power and doesn't mean that the Xbox 2 can't match that power. We saw how the PS2 got beat with an 80x86 celeron processor inside, pretty sad that that much power can be beat by ordinary PC parts.

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.

Microsoft has XNA and will allow developers to save money and this is going to be very attractive to developers as they will need to save more and more money. This time American developers know that Microsoft is now taken very seriously and they will have an easier time aligning with Microsoft.

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).
 
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?).
 
soundwave05 said:
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?).

I think that competition is always good. A market with only one console would be very boring.
 
I agree that Sony won't make a GPU that will shame Ati but it will be equal tech wise to the R500 (assuming sony isn't stupid)
Interesting question here is see WHO is actually designing that GPU in the first place. Is it really Sony, or someone else?
 
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.
 
pcostabel said:
I think that competition is always good. A market with only one console would be very boring.
No, it would be awesome.

Is the home video market boring because there's only one (main) format that movies come out on?
 
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).
 
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.
 
truncating? Xbox entered late this gen. They are just balancing out the lifecycles so it matches with the other 2. 4 years between Xbox -> Xbox 2. It was only about 4.5 years between PSX and PS2.
 
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.
 
soundwave05 said:
Actually it was over five years between PSX and PS2 (Sept. 1995 - October 2000).

If you're going be Japanese launches then its December 1994-March 2000, again over five years.
Yeah -- on average, console generations are about five years apart (i.e., SNES-N64, N64-GC, etc.). No matter how you slice it, Microsoft is ending this one earlier than is customary.
 
DopeyFish said:
truncating? Xbox entered late this gen. They are just balancing out the lifecycles so it matches with the other 2. 4 years between Xbox -> Xbox 2. It was only about 4.5 years between PSX and PS2.

Uhm the PSX and PS2 had at least a 6 year difference.
 
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.
 
DopeyFish said:
truncating? Xbox entered late this gen. They are just balancing out the lifecycles so it matches with the other 2. 4 years between Xbox -> Xbox 2. It was only about 4.5 years between PSX and PS2.


PS1 launched Dec 1994 in Japan

PS2 launched March 2000 in Japan.


I don't follow your math. It was 5.5 years.

In the US, it went from Sept 9 1995 to Oct 26 2000, which was still slightly over 5 years.
 
Fatghost28 said:
PS1 launched Dec 1994 in Japan

PS2 launched March 2000 in Japan.


I don't follow your math. It was 6.5 years.

In the US, it went from Sept 9 1995 to Oct 26 2000, which was still slightly over 5 years.

that would be 5.3~ years, not 6.5. Regardless, XBOX STILL CAME LATE! To launch after a full 5 year cycle would be stupid and would essentially put Xbox in almost the same position it was on November 15, 2001.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
soundwave05 said:
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.
Yes, but MS is going to do a better job at getting titles out.

If MS can hold 40% marketshare by 2010 after Sony's onslaught, and still be profitable, MS will be successful.
 
Subitai said:
Yes, but MS is going to do a better job at getting titles out.

If MS can hold 40% marketshare by 2010 after Sony's onslaught, and still be profitable, MS will be successful.

Steve Balmer is on the record saying they plan to be the leader Next-Gen. I agree that geting into a virtual tie with Sony Next-Gen would be a huge accomplishment but Steve will have some back peddling to do.
 
TheGreenGiant said:
like how they squeezed a half finished HALo2 out and allowed a butchered Fable out onto the gaming public.
Let's see what our friend, NPD Sales Chart, has to say about that. Oh look, profit!
 
TheGreenGiant said:
like how they squeezed a half finished HALo2 out and allowed a butchered Fable out onto the gaming public.

Halo 2 was finished but they cut the end for some reason. The evidence is on the LE disk.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Deku Tree said:
Halo 2 was finished but they cut the end for some reason. The evidence is on the LE disk.
It was finished in concept form, but saying that the ending was complete when they cut it is like saying the game itself was finished at that time. If I remember right, they ended up cutting it all out after E3 2K3 or so.
 
I'd like a 60fps version of Halo 2 on Xenon with all the poly detail bumped up, 720p / 1080i, all the weapons, vehicles and levels cut from the Xbox Halo2. yes please!
 
So basically. MS will be damned if they launch early and damned if they launch later.
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.
 
well yeah id like an entirely new sequel too but we prolly wont get one 'til 06 or 07... but we *could* have upgraded versions of Halo 1&2 at 60fps when Xenon launchs
 
BuddyChrist83 said:
It was finished in concept form, but saying that the ending was complete when they cut it is like saying the game itself was finished at that time. If I remember right, they ended up cutting it all out after E3 2K3 or so.

Maybe, but when I was watching the LE movies it sounded like they did have a full playable 9 level long game towards the end of 2003 which included the ending, but it "wasn't fun". So they spent another year reworking everything.
 
xexex said:
I'd like a 60fps version of Halo 2 on Xenon with all the poly detail bumped up, 720p / 1080i, all the weapons, vehicles and levels cut from the Xbox Halo2. yes please!

I would like a Halo 1 + 2, using all the high-res cutscene models and weapons from 2 (including the ability to pick up that plasma sword!), plus even more multiplayer maps + options. Now that would be nice.
 
For the record, I don't think the PS3 will be hitting the US a few months after the Xbox2, as many people seem to be assuming.
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.

Because PS3 will be backwards compatible and MS having fewer features will hurt it at retail.
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?

Of course they'd say that if they want to sell tools!
MS really doesn't sell many tools geared for Xbox outside of Visual Studio. Most tools are provided in the XDK.

I feel that their architecture is based on brute force method of adding in more and more processors instead of thinking smarter.
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 believe that overall, this will be harder for programmers to deal with.
This will be a lot harder to develop for than even PS2.
I've heard the direct opposite from developers. That most have made the transition without much pain.
 
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 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.
 
soundwave05 said:
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?).

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.
 
Top Bottom