PS3, Holiday 2006 [Archive] - Page 2

Mintmaster

08-Nov-2005, 05:24

Gholbine, I'm going to assume that you have no coding experience and little real understanding of how the 3D pipeline works, because a lot of your statements made no sense.
Cell absolutely will help on the graphics front, just as the Emotion Engine did in the PS2. The system is built that way, with heavy CPU<=>GPU communication in mind. It was the entire philosophy behind the PS2, and it remains so with the PS3.
RSX is based heavily on the G70, and hence PS3 will follow the PC paradigm of 3D rendering much more closely. The main use of the CPU-GPU communication will be for fast texture loading and vertex transfer (as with AGP and PCIe on PC's), nothing more. There will be little point in doing any full-fledged vertex transformation on the CPU, because the VS on GPU's are very finely tuned to have fast, latency free vertex processing with quick rejection for backfacing and clipped triangles as soon as position data is complete.

Like I said, physics and maybe animation are the only places that Cell will indirectly impact graphics. Even then, Cell will be used to figure out bone transformations and transformation matrices, not move each vertex. As for actual rendering, general purpose CPU's, even Cell, are one or more orders of magnitude slower than graphics hardware. Furthermore, current graphics processors can do pretty much anything you'd want due to their programmability via shaders.

Even in current PCs, where CPU and GPU communication is nowhere near as important, the CPU can still help with detailed graphics. Take Doom 3 for example, the shadowing was done entirely within the CPU. The Cell could handle shadows, among other things, leaving cycles on the GPU for other activities.
Detailed graphics? Do you have any idea what the CPU did in Doom 3, and why ID did it that way?

The actual shadows, are all calculated and rendered entirely on the GPU.

The CPU is used to find silhouette edges on objects, and insert geometry there. This can only be done after transformation, though, so Carmack had to do all vertex transformation, including skinning, on the CPU because there's no way for the GPU to make its vertices accessible to the CPU after going through the vertex shader. This isn't a problem on these consoles. The other reason Carmack did it this way is that older hardware would need to multipass the lighting shader he uses, and the Z-only pass also needs to be done on all hardware. Using the CPU to transform everything only once meant no redundant work had to be done. Again, this is a non-issue for consoles.

Even so, you can do this all on the GPU if your vertex shaders are fast enough, and this is exactly what 3DMark2003 did. This is actually a better method, because GPUs always scale faster than CPUs. I'm sure that today, Doom3 would run faster if Carmack did everything via the GPU.

I think it's rather naive to say "Cell has nothing to do with graphics", because that's incorrect, plain and simple.
No it isn't, plain and simple. If you haven't done significant graphics coding for games, you really shouldn't be arguing this with me, because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Your lacking knowledge in graphics shows again when you talk about disk space. Resolution has very little to do with how much space you need. The only correlation is that with a higher resolution screen, you might want higher resolution textures. But even that is a very tenous relationship. For the past several years (I'd say starting with the GeForce2), many PC gamers have been playing at 1600x1200, which has twice the pixel count of 720p.

It has mostly been graphics memory that's been the cap on texture resolution, and the PS3 only has 256MB (using system memory would be a bad idea). It has framebuffer bandwidth comparable to 3 year old graphics cards (i.e. the 9700Pro), so I don't see it having the capacity for the huge texture detail jump you're implying.

Its very doubtful that XB360 (or PS3 for that matter) won't be able to handle compressed data like a PC does. The PS2 was probably asking for as much help as it could get because this game had demanding data requirements for a tiny amount of video ram.

Audio will never take up that much room, especially with the great compressors we have nowadays. 7.1 sound is put to use by the spacial location of sound sources in a game. Not every single sound sample will have 8 channels. The vast majority will have 1 or 2, and they'll come out of the correct speakers. Even 600MB will give you 20 hrs of unique sound, and games re-use sound a lot. Speech engines will get better and drastically reduce storage requirements.

Regarding my statement of impressive realtime video, you're taking it out of context. How much HD FMV will you be able to put on a BR disc, maybe 2-3 hours? If you have 20 hours of realtime FMV that would be much more impressive in my opinion, because it gives so much more variety, and enhances the replay factor of a game. I don't see load time being an issue because you'll probably use the same textures and model for cutscenes as the game itself.

Comparing to N64 is nonsense. First of all, it was a 20-1 ratio for a long time (32MB cartridges). Secondly, there are diminishing returns to more capacity. There was a drastic difference in texture detail between PS1 and N64. You'll never see anything near that in PS3 vs. XB360, unless someone does a really lazy port. The lack of urgency for disk space is readily apparent in the PC space, where DVD adoption for game distribution has been very slow despite the ubiquity of DVD drives.

Anyway, I don't think I'll ever convince you that this is a minor problem. PS3 developers that fill up Blu-Ray discs will do so because they can, not because they need to or because it'll make a much better game. They just won't worry about packing stuff together, and MS will probably provide lots of tools to make it easier anyway.

expletive

08-Nov-2005, 05:35

scooby_dooby

08-Nov-2005, 05:47

NEXT TIME READ WHAT I WRITE!
> "where did I say Sakaguchi is talentless?"

> " Just because Toriyama and Sakaguchi are working together doesn't mean squat!"

:???:

You say it's the team that matters, and when I point out that 1/3 of his actual coders at FeelPlus are ex-Square employees you compeltely underplay that fact. Well which is it?

> " it's good to know that as long as a team adds a few EX-Square employees they automatically win"

Do you really think this is a fair represention? A "few" ex square employees? Come on now...it's more like 30-40 Square employees as well as Sakaguchi, they're rollin on MS's bankroll.

With a producer like him and a TEAM like FeelPlus why would anyone be so pessimisstic?

Mefisutoferesu

08-Nov-2005, 09:23

> "where did I say Sakaguchi is talentless?"

> " Just because Toriyama and Sakaguchi are working together doesn't mean squat!"

:???:
"It doesn't mean squat" was aimed at the fact that you said the same guys who made Chrono Trigger are making Blue Dragon as if that's justification for saying Blue Dragon will be great, especially when you've only got TWO people on the same team.
Be excited, wonderful, but NOT because Blue Dragon == Chrono Trigger, that's insulting!
I even said so in my original post!

I was angry that you weren't giving any credit to the HUGE team that made Chrono Trigger what it was, you on the other hand IMAGINED I was knocking Blue Dragon. Just because it isn't Square-Enix doesn't mean it can't be a good RPG, but NOOO the fans build it up in their heads that ONLY Square employee's know how to make good RPGs, and that TWO guys on the Chrono Trigger TEAM suddenly equals the same guys who Chrono Trigger. As far as I'm aware it's Sakaguchi and Toriyama, that's it! They were important parts, but they weren't responsible for the battle system, enemy mechanics, field and level design, music, and so many other aspects that are magically attributed to them!

You say it's the team that matters, and when I point out that 1/3 of his actual coders at FeelPlus are ex-Square employees you compeltely underplay that fact. Well which is it?
And again, so if they're from square they're automatically God's gift to programming? Come on, you act as if everything that comes from Square is golden, even I know that's silly. Just because they were once Square employees doesn't mean they can push the Xbox360 or that they mesh well or compliment the talents of the others in the team. It's not just, "Let's put together the most talented or old Square people and everything will be hunky-dory." A team that works well together and whose knowledge and talent compliment eachother is FAR more valuable than just getting as many people a you can that worked from a big name developer. Forming a strong and talented team takes time.
> " it's good to know that as long as a team adds a few EX-Square employees they automatically win"

Do you really think this is a fair represention? A "few" ex square employees? Come on now...it's more like 30-40 Square employees as well as Sakaguchi, they're rollin on MS's bankroll.
Not to be too much of a jerk, but where did you hear 30-40 members are ex-square staffers? From the internet rumors I've heard Feel Plus is essentially made up of Scarab (Dinosaur Hunting for Xbox), which really doesn't give me any confidence. Heck, the fact that Artoon is doing Blue Dragon isn't thrilling either. Oh, and guess what, Artoon has EX-Square members, too, yet Blinx is hardly what I'd call brilliant.
With a producer like him and a TEAM like FeelPlus why would anyone be so pessimisstic?
And who says I'm pessimistic? Cautious? Heck Yeah, definately. We're talking about a completely untested team, what reason do I have to be optimistic let alone pessimistic? All I know is Mistwalker + MS Money bags + 2 seemingly generic development teams + FF clone + DQ clone. That's it, how am I supposed to form an opinion on that? How are you supposed to? What I've been whining about the whole time is your constant "it's the reinvention of Square, even though it's only a handful of people..." thinking. You're acting as if Sakaguchi == Square, which is UTTER BS AND COMPLETELY DIRESPECTFUL TO THE LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF TALENTED EMPLOYEES AT SQUARE!!! That was my point in the first place and the whole reason I was pissed. Granted I've generalized a bit, more like (Sakaguchi + Toriyama) == Chrono Trigger, but the way I did it works across both.

jvd

08-Nov-2005, 09:25

I believe

Earliest we see ps3 is summer in japan and holiday (october -nov ) in the states and perhaps a slip to early 2007 in europe .

Platon

08-Nov-2005, 09:41

I believe

Earliest we see ps3 is summer in japan and holiday (october -nov ) in the states and perhaps a slip to early 2007 in europe .

Seing how long t took PSP to launch in Europe anything can be expected. On the other hand one could always have a launch with a few thousands consoles just to say that you have a world wide launch...

london-boy

08-Nov-2005, 09:46

Seing how long t took PSP to launch in Europe anything can be expected. On the other hand one could always have a launch with a few thousands consoles just to say that you have a world wide launch...

I think that would be the best option for them. They need to get the bloody thing out there. So what if people can't actually buy them?!! Details details, what counts is that there are "some" units out there to make people "wait for a PS3".

People will wait for PS3 much more if they actually see it but "can't get their hands on it". If the thing is just not released, it feels it's even further away than it already is.

Having said that, I think a worldwide launch is unlikely. At least in Europe, if only because Bluray will just not be out here for a long time and they'll likely wait for things to get better in the HD front here before releasing it, which is crap if you ask me but it wouldn't surprise me.

Platon

08-Nov-2005, 10:01

Having said that, I think a worldwide launch is unlikely. At least in Europe, if only because Bluray will just not be out here for a long time and they'll likely wait for things to get better in the HD front here before releasing it, which is crap if you ask me but it wouldn't surprise me.

What do you mean that they will wait till the HD front catches up? Here in Europe they have just now started talking about HD tvs and HD ready TVs and what not. From talking to actually selling them in big quantitties it will take a long time. I do hope the PS3 is out before that...

london-boy

08-Nov-2005, 10:15

What do you mean that they will wait till the HD front catches up? Here in Europe they have just now started talking about HD tvs and HD ready TVs and what not. From talking to actually selling them in big quantitties it will take a long time. I do hope the PS3 is out before that...

Well, the most logical solution is to release the thing, so they both drive each other's sales. HDTVs will sell much more if there is HD material to see on them. And HD material will sell much more if there are lots of HDTVs and decent prices to buy.

But we all know that logic is the last thing to be used in Europe when it comes to electronics.

Just to put things into perspective, the US got HD broadcasts in 1998. We still don't have ANY. 7 years. Well, apart from 2 European satellite channels which no one cares about cause they just show commercials and other very lame things.
SkyHD will launch in 2006 with no more than 6 channels. The box is probably going to cost something in the region for £300-400 (that's UK pounds!), plus the premium monthly charge. And we still don't know what quality the channels will be, what shows will be in HD, we know nothing.

To say things are backwards here is a gross understatement. 8 years and that's what we get.

Platon

08-Nov-2005, 10:36

And we still don't know what quality the channels will be, what shows will be in HD, we know nothing.

Thats true, I know that within a couple of years all the broadcasting will be digital in the nordic countries, but whether it will be HD or not or if any shows will HD or not I have no idea.

On the other hand I can undestand it a bit. For the "common" people we have just now upgraded to a DVD, should we already upgrade to HD TVs, HD player and what not? I might be a pessimist but I really don't see the HD era talking of within the next 5 years. Although the was might be between HDDVD and BR I would say they both fight against the common DVD, which I don't see going anywhere soon. The only thing that gives a glimse of hope is that both next gen consoles will be pushing the HD era, especially PS3 with its BR player...

Shifty Geezer

08-Nov-2005, 10:48

How can you not give any respect to someone with a games portfolio like this?:
Long list of gamesThis'll answer the question. It's assumed because the guy that wrote these games is creting another game, that game will be triple-A, right? So how many of these past games are triple-A? I'm not sufficiently educated to know them all, but looking at that list I'm seeing some high-quality games well received, and some mediocre titles. How do we know whether his next title is going to be a 'Chrono Trigger' hit or a 'The Bouncer' miss? I'm not seeing a list that is nothing but the best indicating every title Sakaguchi works on can be trusted to be a triple A title. Hence my point that surely we shouldn't assume all the RPG's XB360 is getting are triple-A's but we should wait to see if they're any good or not (unless, my knowledge being too weak to know better, every RPG Sakaguchi has created has been a triple-AAA best quality game when it will be fair to assume the same of future RPG games.)

mckmas8808

08-Nov-2005, 13:16

Qroach

08-Nov-2005, 13:24

Mintmaster...

QFT

c0_re

08-Nov-2005, 13:47

london-boy

08-Nov-2005, 13:49

Sony's is crazy if this is really true, if they wait until next christmas they better up the clockspeed or add more memory or somthing, I'm not paying 400+$ for a PS3 with if were lucky a 4x Blue-Ray player especially when the system is barely more powerful than the 360.

Crazy? Oh no.

Crazyness would be releasing today with very faulty hardware.
Releasing next year is just safer for them.

compres

08-Nov-2005, 14:05

LOL, well maybe not crazy but certainly going to take a hit in market share this gen.

mckmas8808

08-Nov-2005, 14:36

LOL, well maybe not crazy but certainly going to take a hit in market share this gen.

How can you be so certain?

c0_re

08-Nov-2005, 15:01

Crazy? Oh no.

Crazyness would be releasing today with very faulty hardware.
Releasing next year is just safer for them.

Why would the hardware be faulty? (has anyone heard of dev having issues with the dev kits)

I mean I could see them maybe having issues with the blue-ray drives but besides that what would cause problems, the design seems pretty solid to me.

I think it would be much cheaper for them but 1 year is just to long for them to wait(I want WarHawk NOW!) unless they have more tricks up there sleave which IMO is very possible.

expletive

08-Nov-2005, 15:10

Why would the hardware be faulty? (has anyone heard of dev having issues with the dev kits)

I mean I could see them maybe having issues with the blue-ray drives but besides that what would cause problems, the design seems pretty solid to me.

I think it would be much cheaper for them but 1 year is just to long for them to wait(I want WarHawk NOW!) unless they have more tricks up there sleave which IMO is very possible.

AFAIK the deve kits are using 7800 chips, not RSX chips. So to say dev kits are working fine its not really representative of what theyre going to put in final boxes. We still havent heard any word of RSX being taped out or being in production so theyre either tweaking it or having problems getting down to 90nm.

Gholbine

08-Nov-2005, 15:30

Anyway, I don't think I'll ever convince you that this is a minor problem. PS3 developers that fill up Blu-Ray discs will do so because they can, not because they need to or because it'll make a much better game. They just won't worry about packing stuff together, and MS will probably provide lots of tools to make it easier anyway.

Yep, I'm sure Bethesda cut audio from Oblivion because they could, not because they had to. :rolleyes: I'm also positive that Enchant Arm is using 3 DVDs only because they could, not because they had to. The developers and their games have already spoken on this issue: it's a problem, and the generation has yet to begin. Nothing more need be said about it. Take up your arguments with the developers, not me.

As for your GPU comments: I stick by what I said. The CPU is not so separated from the graphics as you say. It certainly wasn't in the PS2, and logic dictates that it won't in the PS3 either, and using fabricated knowledge of the RSX to back up your point doesn't exactly work either. Will it help with actual vertex or pixel shading? I doubt it, I never claimed anything like that. You did mention animation, however, which is a massive factor in graphics, and the Cell will certainly help in that department.

Also, have you seen this demo:

http://www.ps3updates.com/the_2Dgetaway_2D3_2D20050516072440159.jpg

"rendered entirely with Cell", according to Phil Harrison. Now that doesn't look like something a graphically useless CPU could produce, do you agree?

Most of your CPU and GPU philosophies seem to be stuck on current PC ideas. Consoles are certainly not PCs, especially the Playstation consoles. The CPU was the main driving force behind the graphics in the PS2, and it worked out well for them. Why not the PS3? They're certainly touting the Cell as a very graphically capable CPU, afterall, wasn't one of their original ideas to use a Cell as a GPU?

Platon

08-Nov-2005, 15:31

AFAIK the deve kits are using 7800 chips, not RSX chips. So to say dev kits are working fine its not really representative of what theyre going to put in final boxes. We still havent heard any word of RSX being taped out or being in production so theyre either tweaking it or having problems getting down to 90nm.

I have to say that I am a bit surpized that the chip is not taped out yet. How much are they tweaking/redesining it?...

Platon

08-Nov-2005, 15:43

Yep, I'm sure Bethesda cut audio from Oblivion because they could, not because they had to. :rolleyes: I'm also positive that Enchant Arm is using 3 DVDs only because they could, not because they had to. The developers and their games have already spoken on this issue: it's a problem, and the generation has yet to begin. Nothing more need be said about it. Take up your arguments with the developers, not me.

Actually because it is the begining I am not so worried about the space. I doubt most of those early games are using the compression techniques around which the console was built or procedural synthesis and stuff. Sure some games will not fit on one DVD no matter what, like some long ass RPG or something, but does it really matter so much to swap DVDs one or twice within 40 hours of gameplay.

As for your GPU comments: I stick by what I said. The CPU is not so separated from the graphics as you say. It certainly wasn't in the PS2, and logic dictates that it won't in the PS3 either, and using fabricated knowledge of the RSX to back up your point doesn't exactly work either. Will it help with actual vertex or pixel shading? I doubt it, I never claimed anything like that. You did mention animation, however, which is a massive factor in graphics, and the Cell will certainly help in that department.

Also, have you seen this demo:

http://www.ps3updates.com/the_2Dgetaway_2D3_2D20050516072440159.jpg

"rendered entirely with Cell", according to Phil Harrison. Now that doesn't look like something a graphically useless CPU could produce, do you agree?

Most of your CPU and GPU philosophies seem to be stuck on current PC ideas. Consoles are certainly not PCs, especially the Playstation consoles. The CPU was the main driving force behind the graphics in the PS2, and it worked out well for them. Why not the PS3? They're certainly touting the Cell as a very graphically capable CPU, afterall, wasn't one of their original ideas to use a Cell as a GPU?

Just because in the PS2 the CPU was used to do the graphics stuff, that does not mean it will do it in PS3 as well, different arcihtectures and design philosophies. Even the CPU in the xbox360 can do graphics if you wanted to, a CPU does what you tell it to do...

mckmas8808

08-Nov-2005, 16:06

Just because in the PS2 the CPU was used to do the graphics stuff, that does not mean it will do it in PS3 as well, different arcihtectures and design philosophies. Even the CPU in the xbox360 can do graphics if you wanted to, a CPU does what you tell it to do...

But wasn't the PS3 design for the CELL to help with the graphics. EA has said that they are already using 3 SPE's worth of 'data pushing power' to help with the graphics in the new PS3 game. So it looks like you lost this one dude. Sorry.:sad:

scooby_dooby

08-Nov-2005, 16:12

This'll answer the question. It's assumed because the guy that wrote these games is creting another game, that game will be triple-A, right? So how many of these past games are triple-A? I'm not sufficiently educated to know them all, but looking at that list I'm seeing some high-quality games well received, and some mediocre titles. How do we know whether his next title is going to be a 'Chrono Trigger' hit or a 'The Bouncer' miss? I'm not seeing a list that is nothing but the best indicating every title Sakaguchi works on can be trusted to be a triple A title. Hence my point that surely we shouldn't assume all the RPG's XB360 is getting are triple-A's but we should wait to see if they're any good or not (unless, my knowledge being too weak to know better, every RPG Sakaguchi has created has been a triple-AAA best quality game when it will be fair to assume the same of future RPG games.)

With all due respect, comparing Lost Odyseey to Brute Force is bordering on ridiculous.

The odds this game is a flop are miniscule. It's either going to be good, great, or amazing. The game has a huge budget, they've hired extremely talented artists like the guy who did concept art from Day After Tomorrow, the story looks AMAZING, the setting looks awesome (VERY FF3-ish), and it's being headed up by Sakaguchi a man with ALOT of talent. In addition to that, he's stated roughly a 1/3 of his team are ex Square employees, some of those are probably team leads, so ALL signs point to HIT!

Your comments might be somewhat more accurate if we lived in a vacuum and had no knowledge of this game, but we know what it's about, we've seen the trailer, we've heard the story, we know the talent on his current team, we know the money being pumped into it, put all that together and apply a little common sense reasoning. You'll see that comparing it to Brute Force is laughable, NOT going to happen.

BTW - AAA to me simply means extremely high quality game that does not have to be defended, it's widely accepted as very good game, that's what I meant by AAA, you can substiute that with "extremely high quality"

Shifty Geezer

08-Nov-2005, 16:16

I repeat, I'm not suggesting the game will be bad, but how do we know it'll be triple-A? You answer this yourself...
The odds this game is a flop are miniscule. It's either going to be good, great, or amazing.If it's good, or great, which it might be, it's not triple-A. Hence the idea that 'XB360 is already getting 8 triple-A RPG's' is premature, because we don't yet know if these titles are going to be that good, or just good, or maybe even mediocre, or maybe have a fundemental floor that makes them pretty pants as sometimes happens. Like Black and White which never fulfilled it's potential.

mckmas8808

08-Nov-2005, 16:18

BTW - AAA to me simply means extremely high quality game that does not have to be defended, it's widely accepted as very good game, that's what I meant by AAA, you can substiute that with "extremely high quality"

I always thought people saw AAA as extremely high quality. Games like Nintendogs, GTA:SA, Halo, Half-Life 2, God of War, Metal Gear Solid 3, etc.http://community.allhiphop.com/images/smilies/fragend013.gif

Powderkeg

08-Nov-2005, 16:19

So a future format is going to target the state of existing tech?

If it wants to sell it will. otherwise it will become failed tech, like many other Sony "standards" that never amde it.

1% market? Is the install base going to freeze in its tracks today?

At an average price of $3,000+ for a 1080p set, do you think it's going to radically change any time seen?

A 1080p format will ensure optimal quality for all lower hd standards. This is getting ridiculous.

It also costs more, uses more disk space which increases the odds of defects, and offers absolutely no advantage to the studio.

Hollywood has never been known for supporting "the best." They do "just enough" to get the sales, anything beyond that is a waste to them. If it doesn't translate into increased income for them why would they bother?

Hardknock

08-Nov-2005, 16:20

But wasn't the PS3 design for the CELL to help with the graphics. EA has said that they are already using 3 SPE's worth of 'data pushing power' to help with the graphics in the new PS3 game. So it looks like you lost this one dude. Sorry.:sad:

They could be refering to physics. I'm curious of the context, do you have a link to their statement?

Platon

08-Nov-2005, 16:20

But wasn't the PS3 design for the CELL to help with the graphics. EA has said that they are already using 3 SPE's worth of 'data pushing power' to help with the graphics in the new PS3 game. So it looks like you lost this one dude. Sorry.:sad:

Never said that the CPU will not do, even on xbox360 they will do it, but this is not a PS2 where most the graphical job was done on the CPU. It was mostly the comparison to the PS2 that I objected to. CPUs have awlays helped out the GPU. As for EA pushing the graphical limit so hard that the RSX is not enough for them and need to use the Cell as well, well that I REALLY need to see, although that "data pushing power" could mean whatever, where do they come up with all those "terms"...

scooby_dooby

08-Nov-2005, 16:21

Ya those are the possibilities, I had to show why your comparison to Brute Force was way off the mark. Obviously I can't say it's a gauranteed smash. But the likelihood is very high IMO, due to the production value of this game, the trailers i've seen, and talent in charge, this will be an extremely good game.

london-boy

08-Nov-2005, 16:25

I'm amazed people are still discussing this.

There is a massive 35GB/s bus just between the RSX and Cell. How else could that be used if not to tightly integrate graphics, animation and physics routines between the two chips!

The VU1 processed most of the geometry on PS2, and it all went through a tiny 1.2GB/s bus to the GS. That's almost a 30X difference.

Thinking that there will not be an amazing interaction between Cell and RSX, comprising graphics and physics, is very naive.

mckmas8808

08-Nov-2005, 16:26

Never said that the CPU will not do, even on xbox360 they will do it, but this is not a PS2 where most the graphical job was done on the CPU. It was mostly the comparison to the PS2 that I objected to. CPUs have awlays helped out the GPU. As for EA pushing the graphical limit so hard that the RSX is not enough for them and need to use the Cell as well, well that I REALLY need to see, although that "data pushing power" could mean whatever, where do they come up with all those "terms"...

Well I made up the data pushing power name.:grin: But I understand what your post meant now. sorry:oops:

SedentaryJourney

08-Nov-2005, 22:31

Yes you added the "if" and that was what my response was based on. I'm not one for talking in absolutes (i actually hate when others do it) but to think that the 360s software situation doesnt improve from their LAUNCH lineup is really 'out there'.To clarify: I was conceding the point that software quality will most likely improve. However, I didn't actually intend to imply that it wouldn't, not even in my original post. I was merely illustrating the point that launch software seemed shoddy to me.

Ok so youre saying a 3 minute UE3 engine tech demo of 2 characters fighting SEVERELY mitigated your anticipation for GoW? Did you ever have ANY anticipation for GoW to begin with?

100 UE3 engine games could come out on the PC but thats mostly a seperate sandbox from the console gamers in the big picture. Now if you have a PC and would rather play games on your PC thats fine, but its not representative of the market.

I would guess the UT2007 'RSX' demo (i.e. the 7800 GTX demo) will have been seen by .0001% of the console market.I was floored by the original UE3 demo, and by GOW pre-E3, but yes, the UT2007 demo did "severely" mitigate my anticipation for GOW because aside from it being a graphical showcase, I think I'd rather play Ratchet and Clank.

Hyperbole aside, in trying to segment the "market" vs. the people who post on this board, I think you underestimate how many people have seen these demos on ign or gamespot. Not to mention how GOW does not compare all that favourably to the UT2007 demo, despite it being scripted and involving only two characters.

What if they are worse and their online component sucks? Speculation is fun! :)You're right, speculation is fun. Especially the part where people chime in and discuss the validity of it all.:p Either way, my basic point is where x-platform titles are concerned, I doubt there are marketable differences between the differing versions. If you take issue with that, then by all means say so.

How many people, of the tens of millions that will buy consoles, are going to base their decision on an MGS trailer from may of 2005? There are a lot more marketing salvos that will have a MUCH bigger impact on both sides between now and late 2006.I'm simply going to disagree here. Just as how MGS2 went a long way to sell the PS2's graphical superiority over DC and prospective 3rd party library, MGS4 accomplishes the same goal. Like I said in my last post, MGS4 remaining on the Playstation platform is a way of signalling that other franchises will likely remain. Of course I don't know this to be true, and the next FF might be for the 360, although I'll believe that when I see it on a press release. So it's not just about one game, it's about market perception.

I dont think MS is counting on PGR to carry the xbox 360 at all. Youre throwing the premiere franchise of Sony in the ring against a racing game on the 360, and not even the best one! Whats next Voodoo Vince 2 against Devil May cry? :)Err...that's not what I'm doing. My point is that "the premiere franchise of Sony" may actually have a competitor in PGR3, SO LONG AS MS MARKETS IT IN SUCH A FASHION as to be considered a competitor. You say PGR3 isn't the best racing game on 360, well what is? Forza? In which case, sure, MS could back a next-gen Forza against GT5.

scooby_dooby

09-Nov-2005, 00:05

nAo

09-Nov-2005, 00:37

MGS4 will look much less impressive when it comes out at the end of 2006 or beginning of 2007 than it did at TGS2005. If PS3 is going to show it's graphical superiority, it won't be with MGS4 judging by the trailer.
You're assuming MGS4 is not going to improve in the mean time..

Mythos

09-Nov-2005, 00:47

"I'm simply going to disagree here. Just as how MGS2 went a long way to sell the PS2's graphical superiority over DC and prospective 3rd party library, MGS4 accomplishes the same goal. "

The problem is, GOW is coming out in March, there's also Splinter Cell 4 coming in Q2. Mass Effect and Too Human are also coming down the pipes. All these games will more or less equal or surpass MGS4 from a graphical standpoint.

MGS4 will look much less impressive when it comes out at the end of 2006 or beginning of 2007 than it did at TGS2005. If PS3 is going to show it's graphical superiority, it won't be with MGS4 judging by the trailer.

You're also assuming lots of things here...

1st. That GOW will come out in March, that it will be some AAA title, and also its not a proven franchise.

2nd. Mass effect and too human - that they will be AAA titles, and there not proven franchises.

3rd. That they will surpased MGS4.

4th. These are projections from buying into hype.

5th. That even if those games do well that there won't still be anticipation for MGS4. It's been a proven franchise.

blakjedi

09-Nov-2005, 00:50

I was floored by the original UE3 demo, and by GOW pre-E3, but yes, the UT2007 demo did "severely" mitigate my anticipation for GOW ...Not to mention how GOW does not compare all that favourably to the UT2007 demo, despite it being scripted and involving only two characters.

Very strange perspective. UT2k7 will be on both systems you know... GoW is a GAME... not demo... coming out exclusively for 360 and looks better than any GAME we know about coming out between now and its release...

Most people were comparing GoW to the achievement that is MGS4 ... You have your opinions though... *shrug*

scooby_dooby

09-Nov-2005, 01:37

You're also assuming lots of things here...

1st. That GOW will come out in March, that it will be some AAA title, and also its not a proven franchise.

2nd. Mass effect and too human - that they will be AAA titles, and there not proven franchises.

3rd. That they will surpased MGS4.

4th. These are projections from buying into hype.

5th. That even if those games do well that there won't still be anticipation for MGS4. It's been a proven franchise.

This is a discussion about graphial superiority, not whether these games are AAA or not. I've seen in game clips from GOW, Mass Effect and Too Human, they are all easily as impressive as MGS4.

And the point stands regardless of whether GOW comes out in MArch, as long as it's before the PS3 hits the US, it will server to raise the bar and increase people's expectations.

In other words, by the time gamers actually see MGS4 on store shelves, there will be quite a few games already out that look better or at least equal, so I fail to see how MGS4 is going to establish PS3's "graphical superiority" in the minds of casual gamers.

Gholbine

09-Nov-2005, 01:46

This is a discussion about graphial superiority, not whether these games are AAA or not. I've seen in game clips from GOW, Mass Effect and Too Human, they are all easily as impressive as MGS4.

And the point stands regardless of whether GOW comes out in MArch, as long as it's before the PS3 hits the US, it will server to raise the bar and increase people's expectations.

In other words, by the time gamers actually see MGS4 on store shelves, there will be quite a few games already out that look better or at least equal, so I fail to see how MGS4 is going to establish PS3's "graphical superiority" in the minds of casual gamers.

Already has, for most people buddy. Not too sure why you don't see things the same way the media or other people do. I've yet to see anything that even comes close to MGS4 graphically. Perhaps this is something to do with a 'leniency' towards the Xbox?

Hardknock

09-Nov-2005, 01:50

Already has, for most people buddy. Not too sure why you don't see things the same way the media or other people do. I've yet to see anything that even comes close to MGS4 graphically. Perhaps this is something to do with a 'leniency' towards the Xbox?

Have you not seen the latest 720p GOW trailer? Seriously, it's on par if not better than MGS4(which looks amazing).

There were serious debates on whether the GOW trailer was pre-rendered or not. Check it out.

Edit: Here's some links:

http://xboxmovies.teamxbox.com/xbox-360-hires/2628/Gears-of-War-X05-Trailer-High-Resolution/

http://xboxyde.com/news_2183_en.html

scooby_dooby

09-Nov-2005, 01:50

Whatever, more like your blindness at recognizing the MANY flaws in the MGS4 trailer.

If you want to take screenshots of GOW, Mass Effect and MGS4 be my guest. MGS4 does NOT stand out as superior in any way.

The latest in-game trailer shot for GOW with the close-up of Marxis already is much better than anything in the MGS4 trailer.

I not saying the MGS trailer isn't great, it's simply not the greatest thing since sliced bread the PS fans have convinced themselves it is. The GFX in Mass Effect and GOW are arguably superior, and at the very least on par.

Mythos

09-Nov-2005, 02:03

This is a discussion about graphial superiority, not whether these games are AAA or not. I've seen in game clips from GOW, Mass Effect and Too Human, they are all easily as impressive as MGS4.

And the point stands regardless of whether GOW comes out in MArch, as long as it's before the PS3 hits the US, it will server to raise the bar and increase people's expectations.

In other words, by the time gamers actually see MGS4 on store shelves, there will be quite a few games already out that look better or at least equal, so I fail to see how MGS4 is going to establish PS3's "graphical superiority" in the minds of casual gamers.

Oh Boy!>>>clips. Does'nt even tell the whole story!

Even if GOW is great graphically if everthing else is broken then it won't go to raise the bar. The same for Mass effect and too human.

MS with the Xbox has hyped lots a games to be great graphically and then went on to suck.

And the point still stands....that those games stated will be better graphical (AAA) in the end as MGS4.

Gholbine

09-Nov-2005, 02:12

Have you not seen the latest 720p GOW trailer? Seriously, it's on par if not better than MGS4(which looks amazing).

There were serious debates on whether the GOW trailer was pre-rendered or not. Check it out.

Edit: Here's some links:

http://xboxmovies.teamxbox.com/xbox-360-hires/2628/Gears-of-War-X05-Trailer-High-Resolution/

http://xboxyde.com/news_2183_en.html

I've seen the trailer, and honestly, the only scene that even comes close to MGS4 is the scene where the camera backs away from the main guy, and then they stand up and fight. The same scene that's clearly a cut (or two.. or three) above any of the other graphics ever seen in the game, and the very same scene that's under so much scrutiny. Ignoring that scene, none of the graphics in Gears of War put even so much as a dent in MGS4.

Hardknock

09-Nov-2005, 02:18

I've seen the trailer, and honestly, the only scene that even comes close to MGS4 is the scene where the camera backs away from the main guy, and then they stand up and fight. The same scene that's clearly a cut (or two.. or three) above any of the other graphics ever seen in the game, and the very same scene that's under so much scrutiny. Ignoring that scene, none of the graphics in Gears of War put even so much as a dent in MGS4.

See that's the thing, that particular scene you're talking about is a cut-scene from GOW. The entire MGS4 trailer is a cut-scene. And the two are very much comparable. Now the other sections of the GOW trailer are gameplay. You can't compare the rest of the trailer which is gameplay to the cutscenes from another game, that's not fair.

Gholbine

09-Nov-2005, 02:27

See that's the thing, that particular scene you're talking about is a cut-scene from GOW. The entire MGS4 trailer is a cut-scene. And the two are very much comparable. Now the other sections of the GOW trailer are gameplay. You can't compare the rest of the trailer which is gameplay to the cutscenes from another game, that's not fair.

No buddy, I'm not comparing that scene to the gameplay scenes. I'm comparing it to other cutscenes, and we've seen plenty, and they're all so far below that new scene that it might as well be a different game on a different system.

Epic have released "promotional" pictures of Gears of War at higher resolutions with insane amounts of AA, why not "promotional" video? It's not so hard to believe.

expletive

09-Nov-2005, 02:31

Gholbine, if we want to compare just cutscenes, we can download the ATI "Toy Story" tech demo from their website. I believe its already been confirmed on another thread the xenos could run that at 720p with ease.

There's no alien technology at work here guys. J. Allard or KK didnt travel to mars and come back with teh Xenos or teh cell... All the games will look great AND similar.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread "PS3, Holiday 2006"...

Gholbine

09-Nov-2005, 02:55

Gholbine, if we want to compare just cutscenes, we can download the ATI "Toy Story" tech demo from their website. I believe its already been confirmed on another thread the xenos could run that at 720p with ease.

I'm not talking about comparing "just cutscenes", I'm talking about comparing cutscenes within Gears of War, and the cutscene under scrutiny is unquestionably miles above the rest of them.

Don't get me wrong here. I know the Xenos is graphically very capable, an extremely powerful GPU. I just have my doubts about that particular cutscene, because it's so far above the other cutscenes, and running at a flawless 60 FPS (where the others struggle to reach or hold 30 FPS). It just smells of pure PR bullshit, and Epic does have a history of it, especially with Gears of War and their promotional screenshots.

Anyway you're right. This is pretty off-topic.

expletive

09-Nov-2005, 03:28

To clarify: I was conceding the point that software quality will most likely improve. However, I didn't actually intend to imply that it wouldn't, not even in my original post. I was merely illustrating the point that launch software seemed shoddy to me.

OK no probs, we agree, my misinterpretation.

I was floored by the original UE3 demo, and by GOW pre-E3, but yes, the UT2007 demo did "severely" mitigate my anticipation for GOW because aside from it being a graphical showcase, I think I'd rather play Ratchet and Clank.

I'm not connecting the dots here, the UE3 demo was not in-game or gameplay of any type yet it mitigated your anticipation of GoW because of GoW's gameplay? Not following this one...

Hyperbole aside, in trying to segment the "market" vs. the people who post on this board, I think you underestimate how many people have seen these demos on ign or gamespot. Not to mention how GOW does not compare all that favourably to the UT2007 demo, despite it being scripted and involving only two characters.

The E3 demos will have practically zero bearing come holiday 2006 when the PS3 launches. We will ahve been bombarded with SO much marketing and media, in all forms, by then that we wont even remember what was shown at E3 2005. And thats for the poeple that ahve actually taken the time to download the videos off the internet which imo is a very small smapling of the 120 or so (just a stab based on sales) million console owners.

You're right, speculation is fun. Especially the part where people chime in and discuss the validity of it all.:p Either way, my basic point is where x-platform titles are concerned, I doubt there are marketable differences between the differing versions. If you take issue with that, then by all means say so.

No problem, i think it was more of the speculative nature of the past being presented to back up the statement that i was originally responding to.

I'm simply going to disagree here. Just as how MGS2 went a long way to sell the PS2's graphical superiority over DC and prospective 3rd party library, MGS4 accomplishes the same goal. Like I said in my last post, MGS4 remaining on the Playstation platform is a way of signalling that other franchises will likely remain. Of course I don't know this to be true, and the next FF might be for the 360, although I'll believe that when I see it on a press release. So it's not just about one game, it's about market perception.

Yes MGS2 the game, with all its marketing on TV, and magazines, etc was a huge system seller for the PS2. You werent referring to MGS3 the game or the marketing campaign though, just the trailer from E3.

Err...that's not what I'm doing. My point is that "the premiere franchise of Sony" may actually have a competitor in PGR3, SO LONG AS MS MARKETS IT IN SUCH A FASHION as to be considered a competitor. You say PGR3 isn't the best racing game on 360, well what is? Forza? In which case, sure, MS could back a next-gen Forza against GT5.

I thought you were comparing PGR3 to MGS3 because of the way the paragraph ended up getting formatted so i missed that. BUt yeah most say Forza is the best on xbox so they will likely duke it out... :)

expletive

09-Nov-2005, 03:29

I'm not talking about comparing "just cutscenes", I'm talking about comparing cutscenes within Gears of War, and the cutscene under scrutiny is unquestionably miles above the rest of them.

Don't get me wrong here. I know the Xenos is graphically very capable, an extremely powerful GPU. I just have my doubts about that particular cutscene, because it's so far above the other cutscenes, and running at a flawless 60 FPS (where the others struggle to reach or hold 30 FPS). It just smells of pure PR bullshit, and Epic does have a history of it, especially with Gears of War and their promotional screenshots.

Anyway you're right. This is pretty off-topic.

Maybe that scene jsut happens to be deceptively low poly count and when youre only using 1/6th of the CPU power on the console, those scenes smooth out right quick?

Jov

09-Nov-2005, 12:23

Most new televisions sold are under $300 in price and 27" or larger in screensize. HDTV won't take 50% of the market until you can get an HDTV the same size for the same price.

Disagree! A lot of consumers don't just look at prices, but things like feature sets, quality and style. For those that can afford some form of entertainment, the majority will unlikely have such mindset.

So according to your theory, LCD/TFT monitors will also fail to take off until they are the same price and resolution of traditional CRT monitors.

But that's won't make a format take off. That's not nearly enough sales.

The reason DVD took off like it did was because everyone wanted to replace their entire VHS collection with DVD movies instead. The picture quality was far far better, it worked on every TV set, and the movies never wear out. There was a large demand for the older movies as well as new ones, and that's what pushed the format.

If you rely on current movie sales only for HD movie formats then it's going to take a lot longer because most people tend to only buy a couple of new release DVD movies per year, rather than replace a collection of 20+ movies in a year or two. Now split those sales between 2 formats and it will take even longer.

Especially considering most people won't invest in one until one format becomes a clear leader in the stores.

So you're saying old movies drives the DVD sales? I am not a movie collector, but if there are new features of a classic movie in HD, I might consider getting it, but according to your assumptions there should be no new format to improve on the existing movies as most people already got what they want.

Thegameman

09-Nov-2005, 14:22

This is a discussion about graphial superiority, not whether these games are AAA or not. I've seen in game clips from GOW, Mass Effect and Too Human, they are all easily as impressive as MGS4.

And the point stands regardless of whether GOW comes out in MArch, as long as it's before the PS3 hits the US, it will server to raise the bar and increase people's expectations.

In other words, by the time gamers actually see MGS4 on store shelves, there will be quite a few games already out that look better or at least equal, so I fail to see how MGS4 is going to establish PS3's "graphical superiority" in the minds of casual gamers.

You are not been fair here,GOW also started as a demo and we all know how good it has come from that point on,what make you think MGS4 will stand still and never had the same level of progression GOW had,after all that demo was make in a short time,with a kit which is not even final.

Come on you had to be fair and give MGS4 a chance to prove if it can improve past what it show,which was already impressive and better looking than GOW.

Only time will tell if the real game will be equal or better.

Powderkeg

09-Nov-2005, 14:52

Disagree! A lot of consumers don't just look at prices, but things like feature sets, quality and style. For those that can afford some form of entertainment, the majority will unlikely have such mindset.

So according to your theory, LCD/TFT monitors will also fail to take off until they are the same price and resolution of traditional CRT monitors.

Disagree all you want, but look up the facts.

Most televisions sold are under $300. That's not a theory, and that hasn't changed in decades. TV size has gradually increased over the years but the price people are willing to pay has remained relatively stable.

So you're saying old movies drives the DVD sales? I am not a movie collector, but if there are new features of a classic movie in HD, I might consider getting it, but according to your assumptions there should be no new format to improve on the existing movies as most people already got what they want.

Well, let me put it this way...

The industry is facing several uncomfortable longer-term trends. First, there are worries that DVD retail sales - compared to DVD rentals - may be peaking, said Forrester's Bernoff.

Many people who want to buy DVDs may have largely built up their primary collection of classics and personal favorites, he said. Those movie buffs are more likely then to rent films that they know they'll only watch once or twice.

From the article Slowdown in DVD sales causing more headaches for Hollywood

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/movies/articles/0714dvdslowdown0714.html

I can show you several others including comments from studio execs that say the same thing. Current DVD sales are slowing down, and a large part of the reason is people have built up their collection and now only buy a couple of movies a year instead of dozens. same thing works for HD Video.

If you want to push the format quickly you have to convince people to convert their collection to the new format. Otherwise you are only going to sell a couple of movies a year to owners of players and that isn't nearly enough sales to generate widespread support or single-format adoption within a couple of years.

One of the two formats will have to show it can compete with DVD before a single standard will be accepted, and a single standard will have to be accepted before it can go mainstream. Most people will wait until that happens before buying into either format heavily. Noone wants to be the proud owner of the next Betamax.

eDoshin

09-Nov-2005, 14:57

eDoshin

09-Nov-2005, 15:13

The movie industry believed that the dawn of VCRs was the deathknell for their industry because people will no longer have to go to movie theaters to watch movies and they could not market their movies on networks the same way anymore. But the opposite occurred .. they opened up a whole new revenue source, and people became more interested in movies than ever before. I walk into places like Best Buys, and Frys, or even Costco, and all you see are the flatscreen plasma/lcd televisions prominently displayed. It doesn't seem that long ago that flatscreen plasma televisions were selling for 10,000.00 - 20,000.00 dollars. Today, we see prices dropping into the low thousands. CRTs are relegated to the forgotten back corners and people just walk right past them. In addition, HD content is such a dramatic difference from the current standards that people cannot help but stop and take notice. If dvds are indeed reaching some kind of "saturation" point, then what better ways for movie studios to reinvigorate sales than to re-offer their library in HD format?

Powderkeg

09-Nov-2005, 15:18

I agree. I have a small collection of VHS which I should prob discard, but I also have a collection of laserdiscs and a hugh collection of dvds. There are some movies that I have gradually replaced over time onto dvd, but I don't see myself replacing others such as the Lethal Weapon and Back to the Future series which I have on laserdisc.

2 questions in regards to your "large" DVD collection:

Was every single DVD movie in your collection released after you bought a DVD player?

Or were many of them "old" movies, released before you owned a DVD player?

I'm just wondering if your DVD collection agrees as well.

london-boy

09-Nov-2005, 15:25

mckmas8808

09-Nov-2005, 15:48

Well i think software and hardware should drive each other's sales.

It doesn't really matter if he had DVDs before he bought a DVD player (i did). In the end, he bought DVD and he bought the DVD player, like he will buy Bluray movies and PS3.

Obviously the more software there is, the more people will want to buy the hardware to watch that content, so the two will push each other's sales, much like everything else before.

Yes logical posting is back!!:smile: You're right they both will supplement each other. That's exactly why those movie companies talk about the PS3 alot. I remember people here were actually debating that the PS3 wouldn't change the adoption rate of Blu-ray movies.:lol:

And with companies like Sony, Toshiba, etc phasing out SDTVs and replacing them with HDTVs how can anybody actually argue that one of the formats will not catch on?

london-boy

09-Nov-2005, 15:54

Yes logical posting is back!!:smile: You're right they both will supplement each other. That's exactly why those movie companies talk about the PS3 alot. I remember people here were actually debating that the PS3 wouldn't change the adoption rate of Blu-ray movies.:lol:

And with companies like Sony, Toshiba, etc fasing out SDTVs and replacing them with HDTVs how can anybody actually argue that one of the formats will not catch on?

I think many people are just afraid of change. They just can't let go of some things for some reason.

Just today there was a huge first-page article on the Metro about how Ofcom have complained to MP's because "the switch to digital will be prohibitely expensive for many families in the UK". Then the go on about how it will cost them some £200 between here and 2012 for the "full switch".
Now that's just complaining for the sake of complaining. 200 quid in 7 years is £28.57 a year. If a family can't afford that, then they should have a bloody TV cause they don't even have money for food or to pay for the electricity!!

It's obvious SDTV will be phased out and HDTV will just take over. It's all to be seen how long the old traditionalists want to drag the switch for.

expletive

09-Nov-2005, 18:55

I think one point i havent read yet is that just becuase consumer has 1. HDTV, 2. PS3 or HD-DVD 360, that they care to buy BR or HD-DVD movies.

Early on, when there isnt the rental or movie selection of HD optical movies, are consumers going to go out of their way to buy a HD-DVD or BR disc?

There are lots of products that consumers have the means to buy utilize use to their fullest extent, yet dont because they dont find them enough of an upgrade or useful enough to buy.

I have a shower, i wash daily, yet i dont have a powered shower nozzle with all the different settings and massages, etc. What ive got is good enough and im not inclined to go out of my way to get something different. Maybe not the perfect example but hopefully it clarified my point somewhat.

As has been argued before, i think digital distribution emergence is just as likely an outcome as either of these HD disc formats taking off but we'll have to wait and see.

Shifty Geezer

09-Nov-2005, 19:19

expletive

09-Nov-2005, 19:29

I can't honestly believe someone with HDTV and HD player won't go buy HD movies, unless that person doesn't buy movies anyway. I rarely buy movies. Very rarely. So if I had HDTV and PS3 I likely wouldn't be filling up my collection (though admittedly I've been waiting for a better quality format. Knowing HD would arrive sooner or later I think it better to wait a few years 'til it's out then buy DVDs now only to replace them in a few years and have ditching them). But most people buy movies and if they've got the resources to play HD movies, they'll surely buy the HD versions, just to see their kit in action. Like people buying UMDs. There's quite a few. Is this sustainable or will interest drop? The fact that such a question exists shows we accept given a new toy to play with people will buy content to try it out.

Agreed, thats my point. Just becuase someone has a PS3 and an HDTV doesnt automatically make them a consumer of HD optical movies. So if 3 million PS3s get sold and those 3 million people all have HDTVs, doesnt mean you now have 3 million blu-ray customers. You definitely have a % of those people (based on your kit in action comment), but its not a straight up userbase the same way it would be if those people went out and bought stand alone BR players. There is a difference between the console owner and the stand alone box between those 2 people.

In terms of 'attach rate' i wonder what the estimate would be relative to console owner vs the stand alone player? Does the stand alone player owner buy 2x the amount of the multipurpose device? 4x?

Farid

09-Nov-2005, 19:44

Topic: PS3, Holiday 2006.

Actual Discussion: Something about Someone's dad being stronger than some other kid's dad.
HDTVs market. VCR and DVDs. Etc...

The thread either goes back to the original topic, or else, it get a one way ticket to locked-ville.

BTW, enough with the off-topic pissing contest, X360 VS PS3, occuring in way too many threads. We got the idea by now, let's pass to something else, like relevant technical discussions, for instance. :wink:

ROG27

09-Nov-2005, 22:05

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) "

So true...to everything including this quote.

Qroach

09-Nov-2005, 22:37

...actually debating that the PS3 wouldn't change the adoption rate of Blu-ray movies

It won't, HDTV's will force that effect.

Anyway, I really find it odd that so many people are now fine with a fall 2006 launch in NA. I've been saying they won't achieve a worl wide launch at teh same time due to not having enough software ready for each region. Fall 2006 is the only date that makes sense IMO. I wouldn't be suprised to see PS3 launch later than expected in Japan as well.

Powderkeg

09-Nov-2005, 22:41

Anyway, I really find it odd that so many people are now fine with a fall 2006 launch in NA.

I'm surprised it wasn't expected all along. I've been saying it would be a fall 06 launch for over a year now.

Mintmaster

11-Nov-2005, 01:28

The developers and their games have already spoken on this issue: it's a problem, and the generation has yet to begin. Nothing more need be said about it. Take up your arguments with the developers, not me.
OK, fine. You win. This problem is just as bad as N64 vs. PS1 :roll:

You have a real problem with understanding the context of my messages. There is no definative line between "can" and "need". It's all a grey area. My point is that this is much more grey than N64 vs. PS1. The two scenarios aren't even comparable. You will be very hard pressed to actually see the difference like you could with N64. It's a matter of how many frills the developer wants to and can economically afford to put in, and how much time they want to spend on compacting everything. If you've ever seen the 64KB demos, you'll know there's a plethora of methods for shrinking stuff down.

As for your GPU comments: I stick by what I said. The CPU is not so separated from the graphics as you say. It certainly wasn't in the PS2, and logic dictates that it won't in the PS3 either, and using fabricated knowledge of the RSX to back up your point doesn't exactly work either. Will it help with actual vertex or pixel shading? I doubt it, I never claimed anything like that. You did mention animation, however, which is a massive factor in graphics, and the Cell will certainly help in that department.
Like I said, physics. Animation itself does not need much CPU power at all. It's figuring out what to animate, i.e. physics. And again, the CPU load from physics can be toned down by changing convergence and iteration parameters. I have programmed a physics engine in a 3D game engine, so I have full knowledge in this matter. Even a factor of two CPU power doesn't buy you much, and I doubt that general physics will be nearly that much faster on Cell. From your silence I assume you have zero game programming experience, so your meaningless anecdotes are worthless.

Also, have you seen this demo:

http://www.ps3updates.com/the_2Dgetaway_2D3_2D20050516072440159.jpg

"rendered entirely with Cell", according to Phil Harrison. Now that doesn't look like something a graphically useless CPU could produce, do you agree?
I need a quote to believe that. In every interview I've seen, like http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=59243, he says nothing of the sort, but I can see how people could be mislead into thinking that. He specifically mentioned how a STI terrain demo was done entirely on Cell, but that's it. Even the PR talk about skin shading is pointless, because in 2002 it was found you could precompute a lot of this using the PRT work from P.P. Sloan et al.

Most of your CPU and GPU philosophies seem to be stuck on current PC ideas. Consoles are certainly not PCs, especially the Playstation consoles. The CPU was the main driving force behind the graphics in the PS2, and it worked out well for them. Why not the PS3? They're certainly touting the Cell as a very graphically capable CPU, afterall, wasn't one of their original ideas to use a Cell as a GPU?
Yes, it was one of their ideas. Guess what? PS3 HAS A NVIDIA GPU IN IT. Why? Cell will never be in the same league as RSX for rendering. Things change, especially in this industry. If you go back to the mid nineties, graphics accelerators were often slower than CPU rendering. Now they're orders of magnitude slower. When Cell was started, NV20 wasn't even released, let alone the revolutionary FP pixel processing of R300. From R300 to G70, rendering speeds have increased 5-fold, but CPU speeds went up by less than 2 times.

You know what? It's worthless to keep arguing with you. Obviously your tangible knowledge of digital hardware and their architecture, the 3D graphics pipeline, and 3D software along with its math is next to zero.