• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Xbox 360 impressions from showfloor

Chittagong

Chittagong

Gold Member
So, I finally got to see what Microsoft had to show. No, not the Xbox 360. Very brief impressions:

- All demos I saw on Microsoft booth had a Xbox 360 unit as a decoy, but inside the box there was an alpha kit running the games
- Full Auto, Call of Duty, Kameo, the Sega hack-n-slash, the tennis game all were very meh - 1.5 indeed
- No Perfect Dark to be seen
- Xbox and Xbox 360 games were just next to each other, without a clear, dedicated area for Xbox 360.
- Need for Seed looked awful - framerate 10 - 15 fps occasionally (understandable at this point) and controls almost unplayable
- Ghost Recon 3 was stunning, absolutely beautiful.
- The console looks a lot cooler in real life than in pictures. It was well hidden just next to the Gizmondo booth, outside the Xbox booth. Controller is smaller than I expected.
- On the ATI booth there was an Xbox 360 demo. Apparently there is only a few real Xbox 360 units, or beta kits, in the show. The ATI demo was overall impressive, but very soft - did they forget to use a DVI cable?

With all this said, I still believe that Microsoft will pull of an amazing launch this November, once they have real hardware. As they had only Alpha kits now, IMO they should have showed videos only, instead. Compared to PS3 presentation, the Xbox 360 realtime looked very dated.
 
Thanks for the impressions. I do have to say that from the depths that Microsoft has fallen to for E3, they're going to seriously shock the fuck out of people in November. The games will be spectacular and based on the specs, Sony is going to have some serious competition.

However, Microsoft needs to get those final dev kits out there pronto or else people won't be getting the best games possible. You can't just tweak what's there and expect to really take much advantage of the final system.
 
sonycowboy said:
Thanks for the impressions. I do have to say that from the depths that Microsoft has fallen to for E3, they're going to seriously shock the fuck out of people in November. The games will be spectacular and based on the specs, Sony is going to have some serious competition.

However, Microsoft needs to get those final dev kits out there pronto or else people won't be getting the best games possible. You can't just tweak what's there and expect to really take much advantage of the final system.
Click to expand...


But everyone knows (or should know) that the first generation next gen games aren't going to look like the renders. The next generation platforms are capable of it, but I doubt we'll see that with MOST launch titles. The effort required to retrain artists and developers to exploit shader oriented technology isn't the same as calling the "lookRealer()" function.
 
sonycowboy said:
T
However, Microsoft needs to get those final dev kits out there pronto or else people won't be getting the best games possible. You can't just tweak what's there and expect to really take much advantage of the final system.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying, but these dev teams all put together special E3 builds for these games, you know they have 5-10 FPS versions of these things that look closer to on target. The sooner the final kits are available the better, and Im sure the early games wont be nearly taking full advantage of the system, but they will by the time PS3 is out, which is big for MS I woudl think.
 
Phoenix said:
But everyone knows (or should know) that the first generation next gen games aren't going to look like the renders. The next generation platforms are capable of it, but I doubt we'll see that with MOST launch titles. The effort required to retrain artists and developers to exploit shader oriented technology isn't the same as calling the "lookRealer()" function.
Click to expand...

That's for sure, but my impression was that what they had in show wasn't anything close to the launch games, just considering the insane CPU and GPU performance and the fact that the Alpha kit doesn't provide that performance in any meaningful way.

Did the Beta kits slip or did they intend to have Alpha kits in E3 all along the way? Because if so, that's just silly.
 
I got to play Condemned and Segas car battler (forgot the name) and both were pretty impressive (and alot of fun). And Kameo was looking pretty damn good too.
 
sonycowboy said:
How are those Samsung kiosks looking? They're using them for all the 360 games, right?
Click to expand...

The kiosks were probably in the Retail area. The Xbox 360 demos in the open area couldn't have featured the Samsung kiosks since they wouldn't fit the Apple G5, and there was two in each cabinet :lol

All the Xbox 360 demos had a big box that housed two Apple G5 dev kits, one mockup Xbox 360 device, with two 42* plasmas on top of the box
 
It's clear the XB360 will be very close if not equel to the PS3 (someone at MS must of known this too).. Which makes me wonder...why launch so soon? The XB1 has plenty of life left in it. Take the current XB360 CPU and GPU and launch side by side with the PS3 in a 1 1/2 years...only with 1GB of ram instead of 512MB.... gives the XB a clear advantage to counter the mindshare Sony has... (it's too late now, but someone at MS must of suggested it)

Would anyone complain?
 
Hopefully the stuff behind closed doors was better?

I tried out everything on the floor (x360) and aside from Call of Duty 2 (which ran pretty smooth 60fps with dips, and had nice animation/lighting), the games were all so bad I would use the word 'shit' to describe them. Nothing was fun, all the games looked pretty damn close to Xbox1 to the point where I had to check carefully on certain games to see if I was playing an Xbox1 or Xbox360 version. Choppy framerates, ulgy textures, people/cars that look no better than good Xbox1 games...wtf

I really was looking forward to getting a 360 this year as I've been very excited about the 'next-generation' of games. But I dunno, I'll still probably get the system if they get a better lineup and show VERY VERY FUCKING IMPROVED GAMES; but I'm almost thinking of skipping the launch after playing it at E3.

Everyone I talked to on the show floor was saying the same thing: MS seems rushed, is this really much better than the current gen?, hopefully Sony will get it right.

While I have no problem with MS launching earlier than the rest, if they were going to get out early they should've done it in full-force. MS's output at E3 feels totally half-assed and it's just going to get negative reactions from the press especially with Sony looming over the show. This is one of the cases where if you're hands are bad YOU BLUFF AND SHOW NOTHING.

Fuck, worst E3 I've been too in 5 years. So many disappointments.
 
MetalAlien said:
It's clear the XB360 will be very close if not equel to the PS3 (someone at MS must of known this too).. Which makes me wonder...why launch so soon? The XB1 has plenty of life left in it. Take the current XB360 CPU and GPU and launch side by side with the PS3 in a 1 1/2 years...only with 1GB of ram instead of 512MB.... gives the XB a clear advantage to counter the mindshare Sony has... (it's too late now, but someone at MS must of suggested it)

Would anyone complain?
Click to expand...

HUH? Clear as mud. And if they are equal, come out as soon as possible and get the installed base. PS3 > Xbox360 and I think everybody knows it, the question is with Next-Gen is how long will it take to notice the difference and will people without 720p or 1080p TV's care.
 
I obviously don't have first hand impressions since I'm not at E3, but I was watching G4techtv's E3 live thing and they were showing a lot of X360 games, but the problem with many of them was that the framerate was really jumpy, especially Tony Hawk and COD2. That Sega car combat game looked cool though.
 
Chittagong, I'm still a little confused about the X360 controller. Are the PS2-like L1 and R1 buttons the new black and white buttons and the triggers are still located in the same place beneath them? Explain.

How does it feel compared to the S-version?
 
siamesedreamer said:
Chittagong, I'm still a little confused about the X360 controller. Are the PS2-like L1 and R1 buttons the new black and white buttons and the triggers are still located in the same place beneath them? Explain.

How does it feel compared to the S-version?
Click to expand...

Feels lighter than the S-version by quite a lot. The back triggers seem higher up than on the xbox pads but the feel for the controller is nice. Felt like a mix of the Xbox pad and the DS2, which is a good thing.
 
sonycowboy said:
HUH? Clear as mud. And if they are equal, come out as soon as possible and get the installed base. PS3 > Xbox360 and I think everybody knows it, the question is with Next-Gen is how long will it take to notice the difference and will people without 720p or 1080p TV's care.
Click to expand...


Just going by specs they appear to be almost equal. Sony showed mostly renders of what the games WILL look like, which is just fine.... but MS made the mistake of showing games in progress which do not look as good as the finals.... gives the wrong impression the PS3 is vastly more powerful. The PS3 remains to be seen as the clear leader in the graphics department.... Thank god it won't matter since they will both be uber gorgeous.

I was just suggesting, MS didn't have to jump the gun, they could have taken another route and actually had the hardware advantage again while launching side by side. Of course maybe 1GB of ram would still cost too much even in 1 1/2 years making the entire agruement moot.

Sony is commited to launching in Japan early 2006 so 1GB of ram would be out of the question.... I guess my idea would rely on MS pretty much giving up on Japan. :)
 
sonycowboy said:
HUH? Clear as mud. And if they are equal, come out as soon as possible and get the installed base. PS3 > Xbox360 and I think everybody knows it, the question is with Next-Gen is how long will it take to notice the difference and will people without 720p or 1080p TV's care.
Click to expand...

Huh? Why does everyone know it?? Its all smoke and mirrors until retail.
 
I found their placement of the X360 demo stations a little bit odd...they werent towards the front of the MS floorspace but were almost hidden behind that big ramp thing they had and the other Xbox stations. You'd think they want to give it lots of open floorspace instead of keeping it enclosed like that.
 
Slow framerates are clearly understandable for alpha hardware unless of course, the graphics are themselves weak.


I am truly hoping for some stellar stuff at launch.

If not, its creates a image problem for Sony that maybe there hardware won't live up to its hype also.

So lets get on the stick MS!
 
quadriplegicjon said:
i dont get why people keep stressing this. EA has always backed every major console.
Click to expand...


Dreamcast got no love from EA and MS couldn't get an online title from them for quite some time. But what he really means is that EA at launch with next-gen titles will help IMMENSELY at selling the 360...hell those Madden commercials for the PS2 in 2000 did more than what Sony could.
 
XMonkey said:
I found their placement of the X360 demo stations a little bit odd...they werent towards the front of the MS floorspace but were almost hidden behind that big ramp thing they had and the other Xbox stations. You'd think they want to give it lots of open floorspace instead of keeping it enclosed like that.
Click to expand...

This is what surprised me most, too - the whole booth was 360 themed. But instead of the booth being filled with 360 (as I had figured), they had only around ten of those round stations on the back of the booth, and they didn't have a distinct 360 branding to set them apart. And with the way things were looking, it was hard enough to tell Xbox and Xbox 360 games apart. I was truly puzzled.

These guys have had their time to figure everything out and by my post history you can see that I trusted that they will. Still they loose to Sony in such a simple hype issue as showing realtime vs. video in public.
 
PhatSaqs said:
EAs significant backing is gonna be HUGE for X360 launch.
Click to expand...

I was gonna make a thread on this but maybe no need. I think A LOT of people are underestimating EA's effect on the market. I mean people say "GTA Next at launch equals instant PS3 success" well EA's marketshare CRUSHES everybody else's, let alone a single game. I wouldn't say that EA is on par with Sony in terms of marketing, but they're definitely A LOT better than MS, and considering they seem to be putting quite a bit of resources into X360 development, they're definitely gonna be heavily marketing those SKUs.

To be honest, it makes far more sense for EA to have two successful hardware makers, since EA will sell a crapload amount either way. But having two successful makers means that EA can play them off of one another and get better liscensing deals, etc.
 
Just saw a game floor video of GR3 at the other forum and that looks absolutely godly. Why release late when you can release early at approximately the same power level and get good mindshare. When people see GR3 and Madden then they will put down their cash especially if Microsoft can come in at $300.
 
Izzy said:
No, they don't.
Click to expand...
Here are the facts: Nvidia uses separate Vertex and Pixel Shaders, ATI uses a Unified Shader which does both Vertex and Pixel Shading using the same Shader. When Nvidia calculates performance, it totals both Vertex and Pixel Shaders running at peak efficiency. When ATI calculates performance, it totals the performance of the single unified shader (composed of both Pixel and Vertex shaders) at peak efficiency. So this means that in order to compare ATI's performance to Nvidia's, you would double the rated performance.

PS3:

CPU=0.25 TFlops

GPU=1.80 TFlops for both Pixel and Vertex Shaders

XBOX360:

CPU=0.18 TFlops

GPU=0.88 TFlops for Unified Shaders=1.75 TFlops for combined Pixel and Vertex Shaders

So the PS3 has a total theoretical of about 2 TFlops and XBox 360 has about 1.9 TFlops (counting Pixel and Vertex shaders separately, as the PS3 does).

check the www.beyond3d.com forums for details
 
I hate Sony!! They have brainwashed the game players again, but I am not one of those.

These shows are all made with real time in-game engine. Sure Sony.
Don't believe the hype from Sony.

Toy story GFX in your own home :lol

On topic:
MS have 6 six months to go. So I hope that they will get final development kits ready in time (2 months at most) and send them to the game makers...(move it move it!!!)

Sega must redo the good things again (I was once big fan of you) and begins with VF5 on Xbox360 and not PS3.

Have to put 50 Euro every month away for the Xbox360. Here I come ...
 
MetalAlien said:
Just going by specs they appear to be almost equal. Sony showed mostly renders of what the games WILL look like, which is just fine.... but MS made the mistake of showing games in progress which do not look as good as the finals.... gives the wrong impression the PS3 is vastly more powerful. The PS3 remains to be seen as the clear leader in the graphics department.... Thank god it won't matter since they will both be uber gorgeous.
Click to expand...

I am failing to see why Sony has the superior system. Their core is roughly similiar to the core MS is using, and it only has one of them. The SPE's are nice, but they are 'helper' cores, not full general purpose CPU's. They can only be utilized for specific functions, not for everything.

By comparison the 360 has three general purpose cores each with 1MB onboard cache with its own SPE-like Vector unit capable of 2 threads 6 Full Cores x 2 Threads = 6 threads to Sonys 1x 512 cache 7 threads . The versatility here should allow far more of the 360's power be easily tapped than the Cell. A dev could easily run a physics engine on one, AI on another, and the core game on the third. That option dosen't really exist on Cell...

XBOX 360 CPU = 3 X 3.2GHZ 1MB CACHE ( EACH CORE 2 X THREADS = 6 THREADS )

PS3 CPU = 1 3.2GHZ 512 CACHE ( 7 SPE THREADS )

I just keep hearing people going on about the Cell outclassing the 360. I have yet to hear a single technical reason as to why that is.
 
There will probably be some things that PS3 will do better than X360 and vice versa. Otherwise, unless you're comparing some of the top tier, coded as close to the metal exclusive stuff...it's gonna look all the same. To me, they don't even look directly comparable in most ways due to differences in design, anyway. But I'm not a tech guy, though...so I don't really, really know.
 
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
Here are the facts: Nvidia uses separate Vertex and Pixel Shaders, ATI uses a Unified Shader which does both Vertex and Pixel Shading using the same Shader. When Nvidia calculates performance, it totals both Vertex and Pixel Shaders running at peak efficiency. When ATI calculates performance, it totals the performance of the single unified shader (composed of both Pixel and Vertex shaders) at peak efficiency. So this means that in order to compare ATI's performance to Nvidia's, you would double the rated performance.

PS3:

CPU=0.25 TFlops

GPU=1.80 TFlops for both Pixel and Vertex Shaders

XBOX360:

CPU=0.18 TFlops

GPU=0.88 TFlops for Unified Shaders=1.75 TFlops for combined Pixel and Vertex Shaders

So the PS3 has a total theoretical of about 2 TFlops and XBox 360 has about 1.9 TFlops (counting Pixel and Vertex shaders separately, as the PS3 does).

check the www.beyond3d.com forums for details
Click to expand...

Since when fanboy babble on an Internet forum counts as a fact? Empirical evidence, please. With detailed spec comparison.
 
swordsman said:
I hate Sony!! They have brainwashed the game players again, but I am not one of those.

These shows are all made with real time in-game engine. Sure Sony.
Don't believe the hype from Sony.
Click to expand...

Sony Ps3's over all performance = 2 Teraflops
Xbox 360's over all performance = 1.9 Teraflops

In real time both consoles will be able to use up a little less than 1 Teraflop. The reason Microsoft stated that they can reach 1 Teraflop is because they didnt base their over all performance by calculating all the processes. You ask why? Well, because they wanted to be honest with the gamers and give them realistic numbers of what can be realisticly achieved. Sony on the other hand lied; and put fort the total raw power of all processes; the power which in term will be untappable even at the end of the consoles life-span.

Which means that both the consoles are virtually the same in raw processing power; but Xbox might win in the end due to its unified RAM, EDRAM, and developer friendly architecture..EDRAM being the reason that takes a heavy load off of the GPU's back. Ps3 doesnt have that luxury since they dont have EDRAM.
 
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
Sony Ps3's over all performance = 2 Teraflops
Xbox 360's over all performance = 1.9 Teraflops

In real time both consoles will be able to use up a little less than 1 Teraflop. The reason Microsoft stated that they can reach 1 Teraflop is because they didnt base their over all performance by calculating all the processes. You ask why? Well, because they wanted to be honest with the gamers and give them realistic numbers of what can be realisticly achieved. Sony on the other hand lied; and put fort the total raw power of all processes; the power which in term will be untappable even at the end of the consoles life-span.

Which means that both the consoles are virtually the same in raw processing power; but Xbox might win in the end due to its unified RAM, EDRAM, and developer friendly architecture..EDRAM being the reason that takes a heavy load off of the GPU's back. Ps3 doesnt have that luxury since they dont have EDRAM.
Click to expand...
Both Sony and Microsoft used phony numbers. MS stated 1 Teraflop specifically to rile Sony, and Sony struck back hilariously. MS had as much intention to be 'honest with the gamers' as Sony.

Btw, you also can't split the unified architecture of the R500 into both Pixel and Vertex. Thats fuzzy math at its best.
 
Madden xbox2

1.jpg


2.jpg


3.jpg
 
Izzy said:
Since when fanboy babble on an Internet forum counts as a fact? Empirical evidence, please. With detailed spec comparison.
Click to expand...

It's Dreamcast all over again. Fanboys desperately clinging on other fanboys lies doubling specs as they see fit.
 
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
In this case it's Sony.
Click to expand...

Yeah, man. Dreamcast is more powerful than PS2, don't you know? It's all going according to schedule. Keep up the good work and spread the truth :)
 
I love how people say FACT: then give theoretical performance numbers.

:lol


360 does seem to be impressing more and more, the gamespot guys were gushing over Full Auto yesturday "Burnout with guns, im there".

Apparently there are a few live demos on the show floor over the show, so maybe they'll show more stuff.
 
border said:
More plagiarized content from GameDreamz, please :lol
Click to expand...

:lol :lol

Reporter: "Is it true that PS3 is more powerful than Xbox360?"

030519_AriFleischer.jpg


"Well, we have been extensively combing through the intelligence reports. And let me be the first to say - we have damn good evidence which suggests, at least at this point in time, that Xbox360 is undoubtedly on par, if not surpassing the PS3. Our sources, many who gave us the great information on weapons of mass destruction, have shown us many things which have definitively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the incredible power of Xbox360 in comparrison to its competitor."
 
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
Here are the facts: Nvidia uses separate Vertex and Pixel Shaders, ATI uses a Unified Shader which does both Vertex and Pixel Shading using the same Shader. When Nvidia calculates performance, it totals both Vertex and Pixel Shaders running at peak efficiency. When ATI calculates performance, it totals the performance of the single unified shader (composed of both Pixel and Vertex shaders) at peak efficiency. So this means that in order to compare ATI's performance to Nvidia's, you would double the rated performance.

PS3:

CPU=0.25 TFlops

GPU=1.80 TFlops for both Pixel and Vertex Shaders

XBOX360:

CPU=0.18 TFlops

GPU=0.88 TFlops for Unified Shaders=1.75 TFlops for combined Pixel and Vertex Shaders

So the PS3 has a total theoretical of about 2 TFlops and XBox 360 has about 1.9 TFlops (counting Pixel and Vertex shaders separately, as the PS3 does).

check the www.beyond3d.com forums for details
Click to expand...

Ghost of Bill Gates said:
Sony Ps3's over all performance = 2 Teraflops
Xbox 360's over all performance = 1.9 Teraflops.
Click to expand...

I really don't see how this makes any sense. You can't count the ALUs twice just because they can do either vertex or pixel shading - it's only one or the other at any given time! And stop quoting beyond3d, as far as I can see these figures were debunked there.

And dont' kid yourself, if MS could claim 1.9Tflops, they would.
 
At the 360 booths, there were alot of people next to me that didn't think it was 360 material until they saw the 360 controller or logo. Everyone I talked to came away extremely underwhelmed

No doubt, the 360 stuff would not be possible on current consoles. But a lot of games just looked like clearer and sharper versions of current gen. On part of the Kameo demo they showed apparently 1000 enemies on screen at once which was kinda cool, but the way it was shown didn't seem to be blowing anyone away. Take away the HD displays they were using and the games probably would look even more ordinary

EA's Fight Night and FIFA videos looked impressive, but they were just shown as "Next Gen," not exactly 360 or PS3 or what not so who knows what's up. All I know is other stuff on the floor like Conker, FEAR and Burnout 3 had some sweet ass visuals and the stuff I was seeing on the 36o wasn't making me forget any of that. Need For Speed was pretty choppy too
 
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
I am failing to see why Sony has the superior system. Their core is roughly similiar to the core MS is using, and it only has one of them. The SPE's are nice, but they are 'helper' cores, not full general purpose CPU's. They can only be utilized for specific functions, not for everything.

By comparison the 360 has three general purpose cores each with 1MB onboard cache with its own SPE-like Vector unit capable of 2 threads 6 Full Cores x 2 Threads = 6 threads to Sonys 1x 512 cache 7 threads . The versatility here should allow far more of the 360's power be easily tapped than the Cell. A dev could easily run a physics engine on one, AI on another, and the core game on the third. That option dosen't really exist on Cell...

XBOX 360 CPU = 3 X 3.2GHZ 1MB CACHE ( EACH CORE 2 X THREADS = 6 THREADS )

PS3 CPU = 1 3.2GHZ 512 CACHE ( 7 SPE THREADS )

I just keep hearing people going on about the Cell outclassing the 360. I have yet to hear a single technical reason as to why that is.
Click to expand...

You talking to me? If you read my quote, I'm saying they are about equal, and I explain why there only appeared to be a power difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PS5 Outsells Xbox 360 Lifetime Sales
News Business Sales-Age  2 3
131
485
Artistic replied
The 20 best-selling Xbox 360 games in the US
37
883
PlayStaytion replied
[NateDrake] “There exists a hope to make legacy Xbox (OG and Xbox 360) games BC on ROG and Windows.”
2
75
327
RedC replied
Modern Vintage Gamer - 20 Years of Xbox 360 - Most Memorable Games
18
360
xenosys replied
Digital Foundry Retro: Xbox 360 Revisited - Every Launch Game Tested - Part 1
2
72
340
adamsapple replied
Top Bottom