Support NeoGAF

[nitewulf]

It's not technology which ultimately limits a chip's maximum potential for performance; it's the balancing of the design for programmer usability as mentioned previously. Typical PC processors could've easily been designed to have higher theoretical performance by using their silicon budget for lots of parallel computing units and pipelines, but it was thought better to use those transistors for features and constructs which make programming more intuitive and therefore make the performance more effective.

and that way lies a dead end with too much eifficiency being lost to heat. with conventional PC structure, each iteration gets stronger by putting in more transistors and thereby upping the clockspeed. more transistors dissipate more heat, and waste more power, and even use greater and greater power just to operate. not to mention, the tunneling limit of Silicon looms near. thats why sony and MS, and intel are looking for alternative designs. sony and MS went the parallel processing route and intel has their M-platform.

i think perhaps you're talking about MMX and P4's hyper threading, but those are stop gap solutions rather than a next gen solution.

Sony's design philosophy has been focused on maximum potential more than that of typical PC processors, so their chips aren't balancing in progammer usability as much. As mentioned earlier, this should give them a paper tiger with a loud roar before resulting in a backlash over the smaller real-world difference.

hmm, both Xenon and PS3 architecture have been built with similar philosophy, multiple CPU cores, unified memory architecture (for xenon anyway, from what i recall from the schematics), huge pipelines. basically both are playgrounds for devs, and they are free to play there as they wish.

 

[Fafalada]

Typical PC processors could've easily been designed to have higher theoretical performance by using their silicon budget for lots of parallel computing units and pipelines, but it was thought better to use those transistors for features and constructs which make programming more intuitive and therefore make the performance more effective.

No, just no.
PC processors always evolved on grounds of having to run legacy code faster just as much as running future application faster. There is little or no room for alternative because the rules have been set by existing software for the new chips long before their design even started.
For example most SIMD additions on PC cpus to date were neither particularly performance effective and especially not programming intuitive - but the real reason why they failed to catch on quickly is because they had no effect on legacy code whatsoever.

That's of course the benefit of this evolution as well - advances are forced to be as automated as possible, in order to be able to accelerate legacy apps as well as new ones. Consoles don't have legacy of that kind to deal with, so we get a faster move into paralel computing from both companies.

As for high paper specs - as Intel demonstrated with their Mhz focus - high numbers tend to win over more people then more "balanced" designs, no matter how similar the actual performance.
Some people's reactions to leaked Xenon docs also served to reaffirm that...

 

[Fafalada]

against PS2 or overall? i thought xbox was doing pretty well against the gamecube in Europe. everything failed against the PS2.

Well I would say they are both failures in Europe, relatively speaking. They are barely managing 40% of their US sales in a market that's potentially larger.
Just because your competition sucks too it doesn't mean you're doing well Sony Korea is eons ahead of anyone else, but their console presence here is still considered something of a failure so far.

but there is no reason at all for EA to make Xenon their base platform.

Well some people have argued that if PS3 comes for christmas 2006, there might be. I am not saying one way or the other - just that who EA makes the base platform will make a lot of difference.
If PS3 hw is stronger, and EA also uses it as base, Xenon will be in a worse position then XBox is right now.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Just stoned a bit more than usual...but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Nintendo will try to have Revolution join MS at next-gen retail next holiday season. It just seems logical given the high likelihood of Sony going next-gen 3-6 months into '06.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

If PS3 hw is stronger, and EA also uses it as base, Xenon will be in a worse position then XBox is right now.

But if ease of development greatly favors Xenon, regardless of relative capability, EA might champion MS first.

 

[Blimblim]

I've heard a few things about Xenon from a usually reliable source, and I think you guys will be surprised by some of the features of the beast. And no I won't say anything more until I've got a confirmation from at least a second source, since what I've been told is really surprising for me.
For the moment the only thing I know for a fact and from multiple sources is that the alleged Xbox 2 controller photo from a few months ago was the true prototype sent with the latest Xenon DK. Of course it will look better when finalized.

 

[BeOnEdge]

pic?

 

[Blimblim]

 

[BeOnEdge]

black and white replaced by shoulders and triggers? YUM!!!

 

[Lazy8s]

nitewulf:

but there is no reason at all for EA to make Xenon their base platform.

One big reason: SEGA sports.

The EA Sports line is the company's lifeblood, so they've been defending it ferociously. They know SEGA will attempt to deliver the most polished next-generation football game possible at Xenon's launch to try to gain position as the leading sports brand for next-generation, so they won't hold back their true next-generation development effort for the PS3 launch considering SEGA will be throwing down on Xenon. EA is already scrambling for defense of their sports livelihood this generation against SEGA's growing marketshare after the success of the Take-Two-publishing/budget-ESPN line.

and that way lies a dead end with too much eifficiency being lost to heat.

Traditional designs are not choosing serialism over parallelism; they're moving towards parallelism too but choosing a more programmer-sensible scale of it over Sony-level (at least according to what's proposed in the Broadband Engine preferred embodiment doc) extremes.

hmm, both Xenon and PS3 architecture have been built with similar philosophy,

There's a substantive difference in the degree of parallelism between the two proposed designs.

Fafalada:

No, just no.
PC processors always evolved on grounds of having to run legacy code faster just as much as running future application faster. There is little or no room for alternative because the rules have been set by existing software for the new chips long before their design even started.

Tweaking a PC chip's design balance between programmer manageability and maximum potential does not necessitate abandoning compatibility with its PC platform. I didn't suggest that a PC chip's degree of parallelism should take it beyond that -- of course legacy support is mandatory.

Traditional designs have simply not been as extreme in philosophy as what has been proposed for PS3 (and what was done with PS2 to some extent), which goes beyond just being held back by legacy limitations and bottlenecks of the PC platform.

As for high paper specs - as Intel demonstrated with their Mhz focus - high numbers tend to win over more people then more "balanced" designs, no matter how similar the actual performance.

I'd say the critical factor in both Intel's and Sony's wins was the positions they were already commanding in their markets, not the direct result of some marketing spec victory.

 

[Mr_Furious]

All of this won't matter because no next-gen console will release next year

1. Much more hype would be generating about said machine by it's respective company if it's release date were truthfully no more than a year away.
-- No official specs (leaked or otherwise)
-- Any content shown so far is nothing more than prototype or presentation style material obviously running on high end PCs (no gameplay footage that I've seen. Not even emulated)
-- Too many uncertainties on MS's side regarding hardware feature details (or atleast they're unwilling to speak fully and openly)

2. Historically, console releases see delays due to manufactoring difficulties and more importantly, software not being ready.
-- There has always been that awkward transition year where companies begin to shift focus onto next-gen. I predict this to occur next year for games to be released in 2006

3. How can publishers have games ready for launch if what they've been bitching about is true:
-- Dev costs going up due to larger teams necessary to create content (haven't noticed a huge spike in jobs and there's too much talent still working on current gen products so who's making these launch titles?)
-- More complicated content requires more dev time

4. The continued momentum for the Xbox would be halted prematurely, just to be first out the door next-gen?

But nevermind all that since the market's not ready for next-gen and there's still enough life in the current gen consoles

[/butthisisjustmyopinion]

 

[ravingloon]

You answered the 1st part of 1 with 4. MS isn't going to kill this Christmas with hype for next year.

The specs were leaked long ago.

How many games does any sytem launch with? Perfect Dark, Moto GP3, and a BioWare RPG would be as good as any launch line-up has ever been. This ignores the relatively easy PC ports that would still impress at 1920*1080 at 60FPS (Half Life 2 (Though this a game most PC gamers should be able to easily run), F.E.A.R., Unreal 3, etc.) Throw in the fact MS skipped a year of their sports titles (Hmm) and they could have a more than acceptable and balanced line-up.

 

[Blimblim]

That's an interesting opinion, but what about the fact that absolutely no 1st/2nd party Xbox games have been announced after the 1st semester 2005 ? Except for BC all MS Xbox games have more or less a release date. Even if a few of them are late, it does not make a fall lineup.
Not even mentioning that some teams like Bizarre will have 2 full years to work on a game, let's call it PGR3 and be done with that, in order to be ready for a fall 2005 launch title. Compare this to the 10 month time they had for the first PGR. One can also wonder why Digital Anvil and some other devs did not mention anything about their future releases, even if released a game already 15 months ago.
I'm totally confident MS will be ready for fall 2005.

 

[Mr_Furious]

You answered the 1st part of 1 with 4. MS isn't going to kill this Christmas with hype for next year.

The specs were leaked long ago.

How many games does any sytem launch with? Perfect Dark, Moto GP3, and a BioWare RPG would be as good as any launch line-up has ever been. This ignores the relatively easy PC ports that would still impress at 1920*1080 at 60FPS (Half Life 2 (Though this a game most PC gamers should be able to easily run), F.E.A.R., Unreal 3, etc.) Throw in the fact MS skipped a year of their sports titles (Hmm) and they could have a more than acceptable and balanced line-up.

That's the thing though. Building up hype for Xbox2 won't hurt any sales of Halo2 and if MS is so worried about killing this Xmas's console sales, shouldn't they be more worried about pissing off all those sales by releasing it's successor so soon afterwards? I don't remember seeing any specs I'd call reliable so far. And your preferred line-up is certainly debatable although you do have a point about PC ports which might help. Oh and you might have an argument about MS's sports line if they didn't layoff just about everyone this year.

That's an interesting opinion, but what about the fact that absolutely no 1st/2nd party Xbox games have been announced after the 1st semester 2005 ? Except for BC all MS Xbox games have more or less a release date. Even if a few of them are late, it does not make a fall lineup.
Not even mentioning that some teams like Bizarre will have 2 full years to work on a game, let's call it PGR3 and be done with that, in order to be ready for a fall 2005 launch title. Compare this to the 10 month time they had for the first PGR. One can also wonder why Digital Anvil and some other devs did not mention anything about their future releases, even if released a game already 15 months ago.
I'm totally confident MS will be ready for fall 2005.

A system's launch needs more than it's own provider's content support. Where's 3rd party? MS may be prepared for their next-gen system's launch but if they're the only ones, would it really be a good idea to launch the system just yet? Sony and Nintendo aren't scrambling to be first to the market with their next consoles so why should MS make such a desperate move? Being too early to the market affords the competition the opportunity to one-up you and with the major brand loyalty that both Nintendo and Sony have, it would be easy enough for consumers to simply hold off for them to make their move. People didn't seem to have a problem waiting for the PS2 when the DC released. I can recall on many occasions overhearing someone saying such a thing while in more than one gamestore.

But if MS wants to ignore all that and release the Xbox2 next year with a handful of titles from only their camp with the rest of the industry playing 'catch-up' then that's their perogative. I just don't think it's a smart move and haven't witnessed any worthy industry shifts that lead me to believe next-gen is upon us soon. There's always that chance, I'll be putting my big fat foot in my mouth next E3 but we'll know for sure in roughly seven months (or sooner if MS uses GDC).

 

[Mama Smurf]

We're getting off topic here. It is your opinion that GAMECUBE was suppossed to be in 2ND place or whatever, but I'm not voicing my personal opinion. Before it came out yes I thought and wanted it to come out ahead of the X-BOX, but it didn't. Why? Because the casual's and the mainstream's voice is louder than the Nintendo fan in me. And this didn't just happen later on or recently...this was decided (mainly by the press) before either system launched. The buzz was X-BOX and the "old dog" or some even said "next Sega" was GAMECUBE. Yeah some industry people voiced that X-BOX wasn't going to get too far, but just as many either said the same about GAMECUBE ('cos Nintendo was smaller than Sony & MS) or they failed to even mention them at all. And no, I don't mean recently, I mean back when the systems were unveiled...GAMECUBE was deemed the third place kids system before it ever launched. While there may have not been alot of people saying X-BOX would do better back then, they certainly took it alot more seriously than GAMECUBE.

That's not true. Look, clearly we're not going to settle this argument, so I'll just voice my opinion on what you're saying one last time and let it go.

The very idea that Nintendo wasn't being mentioned (in some cases) at all, is just plain rididculous. Nor is it true that people took the Xbox more seriously than the GC, it was the other way round.

As for calling Nintendo the next Sega, I don't think that was true at the start of this gen. Maybe they said Nintendo better get it right OR they'll be the next Sega, but there was a lot of hope for Nintendo's system when it first launched and before. They'd abandoned carts, they had good third party support, it had the price advantage, it showed it could produce the sort of graphics to compete on a level with the Xbox, it's E3 showing had been far better, they were going to get on the internet (you have to remember this is what we thought, not what happened)...it was pretty optimistic.

When you say "people" thought Nintendo would do better than MS you're talking about purists and Nintendo fans on some websites somewhere. I'm not talking message boards. I'm not talking geeks in video game stores...I'm talking the mainstream and the press...they leaned in X-BOX's favor even when most "gamers" felt otherwise. We have to admit that the mainstream casuals are shaping the industry now...not gamers.

First of all, we were talking about the GC's unveiling and pre-launch stuff (and how you think it was already perceived as third place even then), so how exactly are we meant to keep track of anything other than those things you say we're not talking about. Do you have any figures on mainstream support back then? No, because those figures come from sales, and as neither system was out, you can't do that. How people reacted to the systems when they came out is not the point we're arguing, so don't go changing it to try and prove something we're not even talking about. For example, I've made a point about how bad MS's E3 showing was and Halo's poor framerate. However, I wouldn't be making that point if we were talking about launch, as by that time people knew Halo wasn't a buggy, slow down riddled piece of crap anymore.

 

[Blimblim]

A system's launch needs more than it's own provider's content support. Where's 3rd party? MS may be prepared for their next-gen system's launch but if they're the only ones, would it really be a good idea to launch the system just yet? Sony and Nintendo aren't scrambling to be first to the market with their next consoles so why should MS make such a desperate move? Being too early to the market affords the competition the opportunity to one-up you and with the major brand loyalty that both Nintendo and Sony have, it would be easy enough for consumers to simply hold off for them to make their move. People didn't seem to have a problem waiting for the PS2 when the DC released. I can recall on many occasions overhearing someone saying such a thing while in more than one gamestore.

But if MS wants to ignore all that and release the Xbox2 next year with a handful of titles from only their camp with the rest of the industry playing 'catch-up' then that's their perogative. I just don't think it's a smart move and haven't witnessed any worthy industry shifts that lead me to believe next-gen is upon us soon. There's always that chance, I'll be putting my big fat foot in my mouth next E3 but we'll know for sure in roughly seven months (or sooner if MS uses GDC).

Well I only mentioned MS 1st/2nd parties because that's where I can get the most informations usually. I can confirm that Ubisoft already has some Xenon DK and have a R&D team working on some next gen technologies so they can be ready to start working full time on some games starting the end of this year. I have no idea if they will have some launch titles or not, or even plan to though.
We already know almost for sure that DOA4 will be a Xbox 2 launch title, and I've heard that one game the ex-smilebit team was working on for the current Xbox may have shifted to Xbox 2.
MS has been sending early Xenon DK since quite some time, giving the developers a lot of time to prepare for a Xbox 2 launch title.

 

[Mr_Furious]

Well I only mentioned MS 1st/2nd parties because that's where I can get the most informations usually. I can confirm that Ubisoft already has some Xenon DK and have a R&D team working on some next gen technologies so they can be ready to start working full time on some games starting the end of this year. I have no idea if they will have some launch titles or not, or even plan to though.
We already know almost for sure that DOA4 will be a Xbox 2 launch title, and I've heard that one game the ex-smilebit team was working on for the current Xbox may have shifted to Xbox 2.
MS has been sending early Xenon DK since quite some time, giving the developers a lot of time to prepare for a Xbox 2 launch title.

There's always that chance, I'll be putting my big fat foot in my mouth next E3 but we'll know for sure in roughly seven months (or sooner if MS uses GDC).

We'll see

 

[Redbeard]

Didn't EA say they'd be ready for when Xenon launches?

And then you have the PC ports like ES4 or the game Epic is making. If Bethesda can actually get Oblivion out at the end of next year on Xenon that's an instant sale from me.

 

[jarrod]

yet the gc and xb are quite close imo. that also brings up a good point and hint at X2s price. nintendo was able to launch at 199 easily. ofcourse theres no dvd drive, hard drive or built in ethernet, the cost of those 3 components have dropped over the years. ms may not be doing bad by partially following nintendos model.

Yeah, though on paper Xbox slaughters GCN. GameCube is by far the efficency king this generation though, it's just so well balanced it gets the most out of it's chipset. Xbox is really just high powered components slopped together, expenseive and wasteful since those components can't hope to get near their theoretical targets. MS emulating Nintendo's GCN design philosophies is a smart move for Xenon.

 

[DopeyFish]

Yeah, though on paper Xbox slaughters GCN. GameCube is by far the efficency king this generation though, it's just so well balanced it gets the most out of it's chipset. Xbox is really just high powered components slopped together, expenseive and wasteful since those components can't hope to get near their theoretical targets. MS emulating Nintendo's GCN design philosophies is a smart move for Xenon.

Except instead of brute power, it's brute power and efficiency. From hardware to software.

mmmmmmmmm

 

[CrimsonSkies]

I'm just going to play some games. *Shrugs*

After seeing Elder Scrolls 4 on development kits for the Xbox 2 that aren't nearly as powerful as the final design will be. I'm not worried a bit about system power next gen. Microsoft needs to fill some holes in their lineup though. One of the developers behind Ratchet, Jak, or Sly needs to be stolen away from Sony.

 

[jarrod]

Except instead of brute power, it's brute power and efficiency. From hardware to software.

mmmmmmmmm

Well, GameCube was pretty high end technology for it's time too... remember the tech was done by the end of 2000 (Nintendo delayed release to late 2001 for software reasons). Xenon is really more like GameCube II than Xbox II at this point, funny enough.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I'm just going to play some games. *Shrugs*

After seeing Elder Scrolls 4 on development kits for the Xbox 2 that aren't nearly as powerful as the final design will be. I'm not worried a bit about system power next gen. Microsoft needs to fill some holes in their lineup though. One of the developers behind Ratchet, Jak, or Sly needs to be stolen away from Sony.

The best chance MS would have is Sucker Punch (Sly). Sony owns Naughty Dog (Jak) and Insomniac (Ratchet) is incredibly close to them.

 

[jarrod]

Shouldn't Rare be able to fill in Microsoft's platform holes though? Also there's Artoon... why bother trying to court Sucker Punch or Insomniac away?

Also, where did Rubin end up exactly?

 

[CrimsonSkies]

"why bother trying to court Sucker Punch or Insomniac away?"

Perhaps it's because they made the best platformers of this gen?

 

[jarrod]

'Best' is subjective though... I believe Blinx has outsold Sly, despite apparent quality. Anyway, Rare should be more than capable I'd think, they're a far bigger name than either Insomniac or Sucker Punch with far bigger hits under their belts...

 

[Doom_Bringer]

According to some rumors Jason Rubin (Jak/Crash guy) will join Microsoft after Jak 3 is finished and released.

 

[DopeyFish]

Well, GameCube was pretty high end technology for it's time too... remember the tech was done by the end of 2000 (Nintendo delayed release to late 2001 for software reasons). Xenon is really more like GameCube II than Xbox II at this point, funny enough.

If you compare to moore's law, Xbox 2 is higher than Xbox was in comparison of the timeframes.

GPU would be the same for the time frame, RAM would be equal for the time frame, but the CPU is way way beyond what it was for the time frame.

 

[Insertia]

'Best' is subjective though... I believe Blinx has outsold Sly, despite apparent quality. Anyway, Rare should be more than capable I'd think, they're a far bigger name than either Insomniac or Sucker Punch with far bigger hits under their belts...

No, Sly has performed better with nearly 600k sold.

 

[jarrod]

If you compare to moore's law, Xbox 2 is higher than Xbox was in comparison of the timeframes.

Well, using the same standard, GameCube was higher end than Xbox also (in terms of hardware completion not hardware release.

No, Sly has performed better with nearly 600k sold.

Really? That's a pleasant surprise... though I wonder which one sold more before becoming GH/Platnum?

 

[element]

A system's launch needs more than it's own provider's content support. Where's 3rd party?

They are quietly making them. I know lots of 3rd parties with xenon development in full swing.

 

[doncale]

Jarrod:

Yeah, though on paper Xbox slaughters GCN. GameCube is by far the efficency king this generation though, it's just so well balanced it gets the most out of it's chipset. Xbox is really just high powered components slopped together, expenseive and wasteful since those components can't hope to get near their theoretical targets. MS emulating Nintendo's GCN design philosophies is a smart move for Xenon.

DopeyFish

Except instead of brute power, it's brute power and efficiency. From hardware to software.

mmmmmmmmm

I pretty much agree with these posts

 

[BeOnEdge]

the nintendo method of efficiency blended with the hardware knowhow of MS is going to own and suprise us all. i can sense it. i've always thought of the XBOX as nothing more than experiment for MS. everything that they have learned this gen will be used to help forge a victory or ATLEAST a noble battle next gen. THEY WILL have the games. no doubt. They may even make things work for japan.

I see next gens battle more similar to the SNES/genesis battle. at the end of the day it was damn close and sega, before going beserk with add ons and such, was profitable as hell. they had stolen a shitload of mindshare from nintendo. Anyone who doesnt think MS can do it is delusional.

 

[snapty00]

Next generation, I really don't see a real disadvantage in launching early.

Realistically, are PlayStation 3 games really going to look better than Xbox 2 games in the eyes of consumers? I really doubt it, especially considering that even this generation, we have consumers swearing up and down that PlayStation 2 is more powerful than Xbox. And next generation, the difference will be even smaller because of the diminishing returns of graphics.

Also, let's say that Sony made the PlayStation 3 significantly more powerful than Xbox 2. Well, because Xbox 2 is launching a year earlier (at least), developers would have more time on Xbox 2 to make the games much closer to (or even exceed) PlayStation 3 games. What really matters is what consumers see and think, not what reality is.

Here's where I think Microsoft needs to be careful, though: I think the Xbox needs a good, long-term innovation and catch. Sony has hinted that it might put some advanced EyeToy technology (one that can track a person in 3D) or some other weirdness into the PlayStation 3, and if that turns out well, it could be a big catch for PlayStation 3, regardless of when it launches. I think Microsoft needs something like that, too, rather than a mere graphics upgrade.

 

[doncale]

the nintendo method of efficiency blended with the hardware knowhow of MS is going to own and suprise us all. i can sense it. i've always thought of the XBOX as nothing more than experiment for MS. everything that they have learned this gen will be used to help forge a victory or ATLEAST a noble battle next gen. THEY WILL have the games. no doubt. They may even make things work for japan.

I see next gens battle more similar to the SNES/genesis battle. at the end of the day it was damn close and sega, before going beserk with add ons and such, was profitable as hell. they had stolen a shitload of mindshare from nintendo. Anyone who doesnt think MS can do it is delusional.

I'm with BeOnEdge on this. nice post.


btw, although it's been VERY popular to say in recent times that there are diminishing returns on graphics, I don't buy that school of thought. Lets wait to see what this next generation of consoles bring before we jump to such conclusions. when in-game graphics reach LotR: RotK level, then we might say graphics have reached the point of diminishing returns.

 

[mrklaw]

I think the diminishing returns doesn't work between generations (just look at Unreal 3 engine), but may be relevant between consoles of the same generation. Already developers using middleware are likely maxing out their lead SKU (PS2) and not taking advantage of some features of port SKUs (xbox), so the differences in a lot of non-first party games aren't immediately obvious.

It'll likely be the same again next gen, even maybe moreso, with more need to use common tools across all two/three platforms.

The only advantage I can see for Microsoft is to launch early, and have fantastic tools to get the most out of the machine as soon as possible. If they can get great 2nd gen software out to counter Sony's first wave of software, then any tech advantage can be minimised.

Of course, this relies a lot on Sony's machine being a nightmare to program for like PS2, with limited tools. PSP shows they've learned alot about developer support since PS2, so don't discount great tools for PS3. Also, Sony will be playing every card they have to delay initial Xbox2 purchasers, and getting them to wait for PS3 (the dreamcast maneouvre)

So Microsoft shouldn't expect to run away with the game before sony launches. Best option is to use the launch period to sell to us tech-nuts, and get up and running. Then when Sony launches will be the real test of MS's mettle.

And vice-versa - Sony will by no means have it their own way, as they did for a lot of this generation. It'll be interesting to see how they react to a good fight.

 

[Fatghost]

The market was very different when Sega launched the Genesis.


Back then, almost no one was informed about what was going on in the industry. You had a few mags but that was it, and the vast majority of game consumers didn't read them. You didn't have the internet and the level of consumer knowledge of today.

Launching early in this market does not help at all. Look at the Dreamcast. Great hardware, great price, great launch line up, great support, even great launch sales, but it was destroyed by PS2 hype.

Xenon comes out too early, PS3 hype will eat it for breakfast.

Even if Xenon ends up close to PS3 in power, the perception that PS3 will be more powerful is all Sony needs.

And if PS3 has an expanded featureset over Xenon (If Xenon only uses DVDs and isn't backwards compatible with Xbox), then the problem would be magnified further.

 

[mrklaw]

One obvious question though. Why have sony gone for the BIG investments, when they could have surely continued down the mips route, maybe multiprocessor, and sign up a graphics chip big boy?

I know they went strange with PS2, and it is an interesting architecture choice.

I wonder if PS3 will be strange again. Like a tangent to the current PC graphics path? Course they'll put in shaders etc blah blah. But maybe they want to change things, shake things up a little?

The result could either be 'meh', and a difficult to program lump of shit that end up performing much like xbox2, or it could be such a different kettle of fish that the technology *is* obvious and different enough to be noticed.

BTW, I have no idea how or what this would entail, but it'd be good to see. In some ways the PC graphics chips are fantastically powerful, but they do seem to be following the standard Intel model of bigger, better, faster, more. Little emphasis on cleaner, cheaper, more efficient.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I see next gens battle more similar to the SNES/genesis battle. at the end of the day it was damn close and sega, before going beserk with add ons and such, was profitable as hell. they had stolen a shitload of mindshare from nintendo. Anyone who doesnt think MS can do it is delusional.

It's possible. But what has MS done that hints that will be the case? They've performed well against Nintendo this gen, but against Sony there's really no comparison as they've done worse against Sony than Nintendo did last gen.

 

[rastex]

They are quietly making them. I know lots of 3rd parties with xenon development in full swing.

Not anymore! Thanks a lot spoil sport!

 

[BeOnEdge]

people are basing the thought of MS losing to ps3 on early launch because of what happend with the dreamcast and thats where everyone is mistaken. Sega had already burned people like what, 3 times? by then the world had become the playstation generation. Dreamcast had good wares for arcade fans and sega fans but what of the casual gamer? THEY HAD NO EA. wtf? you cannot compare dreamcasts early launch. there were just too many factors going against sega.

It's possible. But what has MS done that hints that will be the case? They've performed well against Nintendo this gen, but against Sony there's really no comparison as they've done worse against Sony than Nintendo did last gen.

once again, NO ONE, not nintendo, not sega could match the cool factor of sony. sega nor nintendo could reach out to casuals like sony had. MS doesnt seem to have that problem. Sony was already steamrolling ahead with the PS2 before xbox was even out the gates. How were they supposed to catch up? They were the laughing stock in japan where the XBOX could barely make it through ones doorway. How were they supposed to fight that? Again. xbox was merely the testing ground. x2 will be even a bigger battle. You think MS is pulling out all the stops this fall, this is only the beginning IMO.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

"Xenon comes out too early, PS3 hype will eat it for breakfast."

This argument is laughable because you assume that PS3 hype wouldn't do more damage if they launched the same day. I don't see any disadvantage to launching early if you are ready and not rushing. It appears they are ready given how long developers have had dev kits.

 

[BeOnEdge]

"Xenon comes out too early, PS3 hype will eat it for breakfast."

This argument is laughable because you assume that PS3 hype wouldn't do more damage if they launched the same day. I don't see any disadvantage to launching early if you are ready and not rushing. It appears they are ready given how long developers have had dev kits.

like i said, they are expecting a dreamcast repeat which makes absolutely no sense. some moron even said 3do. 3DO??? :lol

 

[DCharlie]

"One obvious question though. Why have sony gone for the BIG investments, when they could have surely continued down the mips route, maybe multiprocessor, and sign up a graphics chip big boy?"

well, aren't Toshiba providing the non-Cell base GPU?

 

[DrGAKMAN]

I'll admit I have been really hard on Xenon's chances. But if they can make the right decisions in regards to BC, next generation disc format and features then I think they have better chances than what I once thought. It's arguably still a premature launch, but not as much as once thought 'cos PS3 may be launching 4 months later in Japan (not a big technolocial advantage like once thought). They lose the power edge, but again, not as much as once thought. Then launching early gives them the benifit of being alone on the "next generation" market, plus a holiday advantage at that *and* I think that they can solidify their audience with the undoubtable appearance of PC ports, FPS's, something from RARE, a Tom Clansey game (you know Ubisoft is in MS's corner here) and then I think a big hit on a new next generation system would definatly be an Episode III game...and you know that will be there with plenty of hype! So yeah, I think MS has a better chance next generation if they can make the right decisions on the concerns I've talked about before.

 

[jarrod]

Xenon will no doubt be a better venture than Xbox... it'll actually start turning a profit within it's lifecycle and it'll eat probably twice the marketshare Xbox managed.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

Xenon will no doubt be a better venture than Xbox... it'll actually start turning a profit within it's lifecycle and it'll eat probably twice the marketshare Xbox managed.

Woah...usually I agree with you jarrod, but really, I don't think we know enough about Xenon to say that. MS had the power edge, a built-in HD and LOT'S of advertising dollars to push the X-BOX. I'm sure the advertising will be as big with Xenon, if not bigger, but they lose the power edge and they lose features that they're expected to have...and we still don't know about BC or the HD-DVD situations either. I can see them increasing marketshare if they do the right things, but if they're missing some things then they lose mindshare which will eventually effect their marketshare (see: Nintendo).

 

[BeOnEdge]

if theres no built in hd to keep price down, there will be an option for it. they arent just gonna take away all the options XB had. just add different ways of doing them. they'll also make it so pirates wont have a field day.

 

[Insertia]

if theres no built in hd to keep price down, there will be an option for it. they arent just gonna take away all the options XB had. just add different ways of doing them. they'll also make it so pirates wont have a field day.

If the hdd isn't bultl-in then that's a major strike against Xbox 2. No mp3 playback in games, no downloadble content, no instant saves.

No HDD kicks Xbox down a notch. If XBox2 doesn't have the little things that make it superior to the market leader it's going nowhere but backwards.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

If the hdd isn't bultl-in then that's a major strike against Xbox 2. No mp3 playback in games, no downloadble content, no instant saves.

No HDD kicks Xbox down a notch. If XBox2 doesn't have the little things that make it superior to the market leader it's going nowhere but backwards.

I'd be totally surprised if the system didn't have a way to do everything that the XBOX did.