PS3, Holiday 2006

[coredump]

Well, it seems that Microsoft has a 1 year launch window after all.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051105-5530.html

In my opinion, it now doesn't really matter if one console is technically superior to the other. Microsoft has this generation in the bag. Sony must have known that they would have been late quite a while ago (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=571687#post571687).

I believe they run the risk of alienating their core audience by promising something they knew they could not deliver.

Thoughts?

[Titanio]

First of all, this article is old, and was posted already (The Hollywood Reporter article). See: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25163

In my opinion, it now doesn't really matter if one console is technically superior to the other. Microsoft has this generation in the bag.

Yeah, seems over.

:rolleyes


I believe they run the risk of alienating their core audience by promising something they knew they could not deliver.

Like what?

As for thoughts - duh. PS3 in Spring in Japan and late 06 in the US has always been the most likely option.

But we actually don't have any confirmation of a release period yet, for the US. The article contains the author's own statement that it'll release a year from now, which is likely derived from the "anonymous film exec" quote included in the article, not from Stringer or Sony.

[mckmas8808]

In my opinion, it now doesn't really matter if one console is technically superior to the other. Microsoft has this generation in the bag. Sony must have known that they would have been late quite a while ago

WOW! Some people really do hate Sony. Man just wow. Why? What did they do to you as a child?

[hadareud]

WOW! Some people really do hate Sony. Man just wow. Why? What did they do to you as a child?

Other children felt neglected because they gave all the love to you

[Inane_Dork]

WOW! Some people really do hate Sony. Man just wow. Why? What did they do to you as a child?Such Q&A will not help anyone or anything in the long run. Let it pass.


As for the (rumored) 1 year head start in North America, MS will need it. NA is the only territory MS has shown they can go toe-to-toe with Sony and win, even if only by a sliver. They will need that success to bolster support in other regions. Heck, they might even sell 1 million X360's in Japan.

[drpepper]

It has been well established among this forum that Sony would launch the PS3 in Japan for spring 06 then in late fall 06 for north america.

Not only has that article been posted before but the news bit comes off as a "meh" since most people had a feeling the PS3 would likely be released in North america next fall.

And to say microsoft has this console "in the bag" is as laughable as saying the Leafs will win the Cup this year...

Come summer 06, the North american anticipation of the PS3 will become unbearable!

[fallguy]

Being first doesnt mean you're going to be the best. Take a look at the Saturn.. or Dreamcast.

In fact, take a look at this comparison; http://360countdown.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3145154

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, it seems that Microsoft has a 1 year launch window after all.
Thoughts?I think you're maths is way out. From article...
In a demonstration of the swift collaborative response to consumer-driven marketplace changes that a revitalized Sony can deliver, the company soon will unveil a line of compact, portable video devices to fill the time gap before PlayStation 3 launches in Japan in March and in the U.S. a year from now.With the article dated May this year, a year from May 05 is May 06. XB360 launches end of November. End of November 05 to May 06 isn't a year's headstart.

[AlphaWolf]

I think you're maths is way out. From article...
With the article dated May this year, a year from May 05 is May 06. XB360 launches end of November. End of November 05 to May 06 isn't a year's headstart.

Um... The article is dated november.

[Shifty Geezer]

Sorry. Forgot it's a US site with stupidly backward dates :p

[drpepper]

There is still an element of truth to your statement Shifty, the PS3 is expected to be released Spring 06 in Japan. Therefore, the 360 is technically having a few months head start not a year.

[dukmahsik]

MS does not have this next gen in the bag, like always, it's anyone's game.

[Edge]

I don't see how an inferior console will win the next generation, against the dominate player, if they could not win the current generation with a much superior console. It makes no sense.

[dantruon]

I dont get how stubborn these people are. Last gen the ps2 was very disadvantage due to it lack of hardware supremacy and hard to developed for and the next gen, the ps3 will be the most powerful and relatively easier to develop for and Yet some people still think ps3 is the xbox of the current gen.

[expletive]

I dont get how stubborn these people are. Last gen the ps2 was very disadvantage due to it lack of hardware supremacy and hard to developed for and the next gen, the ps3 will be the most powerful and relatively easier to develop for and Yet some people still think ps3 is the xbox of the current gen.

Ah but it had an 8 million unit head start. Dont casually leave that out! :)

[Mythos]

Ah but it had an 8 million unit head start. Dont casually leave that out! :)

That was a factor among others. After all Sony's been a hardware player for a long time...

[expletive]

That was a factor among others. After all Sony's been a hardware player for a long time...

Yes, which is why i find it funny that the PS2 could possibly be chracterized as 'very disadvadvantaged' last generation.

[mckmas8808]

Yes, which is why i find it funny that the PS2 could possibly be chracterized as 'very disadvadvantaged' last generation.

Because it is harder to develop for than the Xbox. Some people tend to think that is a major disadvantage for the PS3 when compared to the 360 too.

[Mintmaster]

Because it is harder to develop for than the Xbox. Some people tend to think that is a major disadvantage for the PS3 when compared to the 360 too.
Yeah, but the PS2 headstart meant developers had no choice. They had to adapt or they'd lose out on a huge revenue stream. By the time XBox came out, the developers had already released major titles on PS2 and created game engines for it.

Its very different this time. MS made an excellent development platform and they're coming out first. The only disadvantage Microsoft has this time is fighting against the PlayStation brand.

[Sis]

Well, it seems that Microsoft has a 1 year launch window after all.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051105-5530.html

In my opinion, it now doesn't really matter if one console is technically superior to the other. Microsoft has this generation in the bag. Sony must have known that they would have been late quite a while ago (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=571687#post571687).

I believe they run the risk of alienating their core audience by promising something they knew they could not deliver.

Thoughts?
It's an interesting interview and lends a lot of credence to those who still believe in Sony's Spring '06 launch and a price of 300-400. I find it interesting, especially given Merril Lynch's report that says Sony won't sell PS3 at a loss based on the CEO's financial guidance, and yet we have here the CEO saying "We'll subsidize the thing."

.Sis

[expletive]

Yeah, but the PS2 headstart meant developers had no choice. They had to adapt or they'd lose out on a huge revenue stream. By the time XBox came out, the developers had already released major titles on PS2 and created game engines for it.

Its very different this time. MS made an excellent development platform and they're coming out first. The only disadvantage Microsoft has this time is fighting against the PlayStation brand.

Also, the main thing is that by the time the xbox came out, the installed base of PS2 was large and exploding. There were no such guarantees on the xbox, regardless how successful its launch was. The choice on what to develop on was much more clear cut with PS2: Sony had been around, had a console that was steamrolling, and the alternatives were either unproven or less-conventional.

[avaya]

It's an interesting interview and lends a lot of credence to those who still believe in Sony's Spring '06 launch and a price of 300-400. I find it interesting, especially given Merril Lynch's report that says Sony won't sell PS3 at a loss based on the CEO's financial guidance, and yet we have here the CEO saying "We'll subsidize the thing."

.Sis

The ML report is very vague about the no subsidy policy.

We know that more than 75% of Sony's revenues come from the CE division, and next year Sony Pictures should be receiving a windfall from the Da Vinci Code.

There's a strong possibility that if the CE division is able to turn itself around marginally and Sony Pictures generates some decent profits based on some of the titles lined up for it (Memoirs of a Geisha-DVD, Pink Panther) then a subsidised PS3 might not necessarily mean Sony will post a loss for FY2006.

[Edge]

Ah but it had an 8 million unit head start. Dont casually leave that out!

Sony had a 5 million head start in North America, and now MS is at 11 million, and Sony almost at 40 million in North America. Sony has lapped MS like four times, and month to month continue to outsell them 3:1. Sony's early lead was only 5 million, now they are 29 million ahead.

[AlphaWolf]

Sony had a 5 million head start in North America, and now MS is at 11 million, and Sony almost at 40 million in North America. Sony has lapped MS like four times, and month to month continue to outsell them 3:1. Sony's early lead was only 5 million, now they are 29 million ahead.

People always talk about the boxes sold, imo its more about the software than the hardware. How many titles did ps2 have when xbox released?

[dantruon]

Also, the main thing is that by the time the xbox came out, the installed base of PS2 was large and exploding. There were no such guarantees on the xbox, regardless how successful its launch was. The choice on what to develop on was much more clear cut with PS2: Sony had been around, had a console that was steamrolling, and the alternatives were either unproven or less-conventional.
wait a second, how about Dreamcast that was out before the ps2 ?

[randycat99]

Very true...people here seem to only cherry-pick examples that support the point-of-the-day. The reality is that no one can pinpoint ultimate success by simply correlating one similarity from the past (things are far more multi-faceted, complex, and to some degree, just plain random). If it were that easy, there would never be a "challenger" console brand because it would already be obvious which one will be the "dominator". Everybody would simply drop support for everything else and support the dominator.

[Powderkeg]

Picking a "winner" in the console wars is not difficult. The system with the most games sells the best. It's just that simple, and has been true since the Atari 2600.

Launch window, system power, extra features, none of that makes a difference. It's all about the games.

[Hardknock]

Yeah, but the PS2 headstart meant developers had no choice. They had to adapt or they'd lose out on a huge revenue stream. By the time XBox came out, the developers had already released major titles on PS2 and created game engines for it.

Its very different this time. MS made an excellent development platform and they're coming out first. The only disadvantage Microsoft has this time is fighting against the PlayStation brand.

QFT.

People that write off MS are in for a rude awakening.

[Sis]

wait a second, how about Dreamcast that was out before the ps2 ?Considering that the Dreamcast was canceled a scant handful of months after the PS2 launched in NA, I'm going to say it's completely irrelevant how many units they sold.

.Sis

[Gholbine]

Yeah, but the PS2 headstart meant developers had no choice. They had to adapt or they'd lose out on a huge revenue stream. By the time XBox came out, the developers had already released major titles on PS2 and created game engines for it.

Its very different this time. MS made an excellent development platform and they're coming out first. The only disadvantage Microsoft has this time is fighting against the PlayStation brand.

I'd say that most developers have the foresight to see that the PS3 will eventually out-sell the Xbox 360, so making games for the PS3 will eventually garner more profit than developing for the Xbox 360. You also have to remember that many Xbox 360 developers were rushed to get their games out on the system for launch, and many developers will appreciate the extra development time that the PS3 affords them before launch.

I'd also say that many developers still have big-budget projects riding on the PS2 and Xbox, and won't even bother trying to switch their operations to a next generation console until well into next year, when the PS3 may very well have been released.

It's all about the sales figures of the system when the developer actually wants to release their game. If the big developers (Rockstar, Konami, Squaresoft, Namco, Capcom) have projects due for completion at the end of next year or later, they will most certainly not be hurt by the later release of the PS3, since sales will most liekly have caught up by then.

I don't think the early release of the Xbox 360 will help it much at all. Most of the launch titles are either A) 1st party or B) PC ports. Many big 3rd party developers simply haven't had enough time to develope software on the system yet, and many of them won't be releasing their software until the PS3 has released. This means that most developers have the option of waiting for the PS3, and many of them will, especially when you consider that the PS2 is still an abundantly sufficient source of income.

[mckmas8808]

QFT.

People that write off MS are in for a rude awakening.

Show me one person that has written off MS. One freaking person. You people take what someone may say about MS and escalate it by 10 times. A person like me whats to see anybody other than Sony sell 70 million consoles thats all. I want to see someone get relatively close to Sony in consoles and console software sold thats all.

I want them to prove themselves before I give them the crown.

[seismologist]

I believe they run the risk of alienating their core audience by promising something they knew they could not deliver.

Thoughts?

Wait. I'm their core audience. How am I being alienated? Most people aren't ready for PS3 so soon. There's still plenty of life left in the PS2.

[mckmas8808]

I don't think the early release of the Xbox 360 will help it much at all. Most of the launch titles are either A) 1st party or B) PC ports. Many big 3rd party developers simply haven't had enough time to develope software on the system yet, and many of them won't be releasing their software until the PS3 has released. This means that most developers have the option of waiting for the PS3, and many of them will, especially when you consider that the PS2 is still an abundantly sufficient source of income.

Add to the fact Gholbine that the PS2 has plenty of HUGE franchise games coming out next year I'd say the developers will be happy with what the PS2 can put in their pockets too. I think some people need to worry what games Sony will reveal when they show their hand.

[Hardknock]

Show me one person that has written off MS. One freaking person. You people take what someone may say about MS and escalate it by 10 times. A person like me whats to see anybody other than Sony sell 70 million consoles thats all. I want to see someone get relatively close to Sony in consoles and console software sold thats all.

I want them to prove themselves before I give them the crown.

What the hell are you talking about?

I don't have to show you shit, take a look around. People automatically assume PS3 is going to be substantially more powerful without seeing actual gameplay footage, they think Developers are going to flock to PS3 and leave 360 with mediocre ports, they automatically think gamers will flock to PS3 just because it's a "playstation" regardless of the games and they automatically assume once PS3 is released it will immediately outsell Xbox 360(Japan maybe, everywhere else certainly not.)

Like I said, don't write MS off. I didn't name any names, but it's quite telling that you were the first one to respond :wink:

[mckmas8808]

What the hell are you talking about?

I don't have to show you shit, take a look around. People automatically assume PS3 is going to be substantially more powerful without seeing actual gameplay footage, they think Developers are going to flock to PS3 and leave 360 with mediocre ports, they automatically think gamers will flock to PS3 just because it's a "playstation" regardless of the games and they automatically assume once PS3 is released it will immediately outsell Xbox 360(Japan maybe, everywhere else certainly not.)

Like I said, don't write MS off. I didn't name any names, but it's quite telling that you were the first one to respond :wink:

Calm down playa. Whats up with you right now? I knew what kind of people you were talking about. People like me, xbd, Randy, l-b, etc. I have never written off MS. Do I think they will sell more than Sony next-gen? No, but I still don't think it's already over. Sony will have to work their asses off to do a three peat.

It will be even tuffer next time around because MS will probably have a price advantage and will have a time advantage. And Nintendo is coming out with this Revolution that may even compete with the X360. Again I think you are making up these people that have wrote off MS.

[Gholbine]

What the hell are you talking about?

I don't have to show you shit, take a look around. People automatically assume PS3 is going to be substantially more powerful without seeing actual gameplay footage, they think Developers are going to flock to PS3 and leave 360 with mediocre ports, they automatically think gamers will flock to PS3 just because it's a "playstation" regardless of the games and they automatically assume once PS3 is released it will immediately outsell Xbox 360(Japan maybe, everywhere else certainly not.)

Like I said, don't write MS off. I didn't name any names, but it's quite telling that you were the first one to respond :wink:

I think even you can concede that the PS3 will be more powerful in some fashion, whether that be "substantially" or just slightly (I don't remember anybody saying it would be substantially more powerful). I also don't remember anybody saying that the Xbox 360 would be left with ports of PS3 games, whether they be "mediocre" or nay (I don't remember anybody saying the 360 would get ports, let alone mediocre ones). Colourful use of language there. ;-)

It's also pretty reasonable to assume that the PS3 will outsell the Xbox 360 in all territories again, considering the Xbox was still outsold 2-1 in its strongest territory. It would be more unreasonable to assume that the Xbox would somehow overcome a 2-1 deficit in any territory to snatch the crown from Sony (let alone a 20-1 deficit in Japan and a 9-1 deficit in Europe), especially considering the next-gen cards that both companies have played.

I don't think anybody around here is making any unreasonable assumptions about the next generation. I think the problem here is you don't particularly like these assumptions as they go against your own desires.

[randycat99]

Excellent points! :D

In summary, I think we can conclude that we have exposed a rather epic strawman argument from HK.

[dantruon]

dude, i totally agreed with you on this one.

[Hardknock]

I don't think anybody around here is making any unreasonable assumptions about the next generation. I think the problem here is you don't particularly like these assumptions as they go against your own desires.

Well if you look at my posts you'll see that my point has always been everybody starts at zero each new generation and I stand by that. I don't make any assumptions of who is going to outsell who, because in the end I really don't care. I go where the games I want to play are. Nobody thought PS1 would outsell N64 and Saturn. Nobody thought Genesis would outsell SNES in the States. Nobody thought Xbox would outsell Gamecube this gen.

Assuming that PS3 is going to sell so well and be market leader just because of PS2 is being very niave if you ask me. There are too many unknown factors and I'll just leave it at that.

[Sis]

I knew what kind of people you were talking about. People like me, xbd, Randy, l-b, etc. I agree with your outrage, mckmas, and let me be the first to set the record straight! I don't believe for a second that xb, Randy, and l-b have written off the Xbox 360.

.Sis

:wink:

[randycat99]

Assuming that PS3 is going to sell so well and be market leader just because of PS2 is being very niave if you ask me. There are too many unknown factors and I'll just leave it at that.

Again, we have yet another dubious claim. Who here are you referring to??? Is it just perhaps possible that some people believe the PS3 will do well for many reasons, rather than simply because PS2 did well?

You have fairly demonstrated how off-track you are in describing what "other" people feel about something. Perhaps you should just concentrate on how "you" feel about things and keep it at that? Just a suggestion.

[Hardknock]

Again, we have yet another dubious claim. Who here are you referring to??? Is it just perhaps possible that some people believe the PS3 will do well for many reasons, rather than simply because PS2 did well.

You have fairly demonstrated how off-track you are in describing what "other" people feel about something. Perhaps you should just concentrate on how "you" feel about things and keep it at that? Just a suggestion.

Are you just blind or are you an idiot? Just a few posts above:

It's also pretty reasonable to assume that the PS3 will outsell the Xbox 360 in all territories again, considering the Xbox was still outsold 2-1 in its strongest territory. It would be more unreasonable to assume that the Xbox would somehow overcome a 2-1 deficit in any territory to snatch the crown from Sony (let alone a 20-1 deficit in Japan and a 9-1 deficit in Europe), especially considering the next-gen cards that both companies have played.

My point is it's not reasonable at all if you look at the history of this industry.

[Sis]

Well if you look at my posts you'll see that my point has always been everybody starts at zero each new generation and I stand by that.
It's a "tempting" point but one that I don't think is quite true. Playstation the brand has a hell of a lot of history and momentum and Sony has yet to show one single misstep to indicate that they are weak, which historically precipitate a decline in console sales.

It might be easier to think they all start at zero, but I don't believe that to be true. Instead, as has been noted, look to where the games are. This is where it gets into a gray area, as I believe the 360 looks to have a lot of developer support--but not necessarily more than PS3. Certainly on a more equal footing than the original Xbox, though, no?

.Sis

[Hardknock]

It's a "tempting" point but one that I don't think is quite true. Playstation the brand has a hell of a lot of history and momentum and Sony has yet to show one single misstep to indicate that they are weak, which historically precipitate a decline in console sales.

It might be easier to think they all start at zero, but I don't believe that to be true. Instead, as has been noted, look to where the games are. This is where it gets into a gray area, as I believe the 360 looks to have a lot of developer support--but not necessarily more than PS3. Certainly on a more equal footing than the original Xbox, though, no?

.Sis

I agree whole-heartedly. I just made a post not to long ago that people will go where the games are, all this die-hard f@nboyism we see on message boards means nothing. I'll own all console next-gen so no worries here :wink:

[Mintmaster]

I don't think the early release of the Xbox 360 will help it much at all. Most of the launch titles are either A) 1st party or B) PC ports. Many big 3rd party developers simply haven't had enough time to develope software on the system yet, and many of them won't be releasing their software until the PS3 has released. This means that most developers have the option of waiting for the PS3, and many of them will, especially when you consider that the PS2 is still an abundantly sufficient source of income.
I wholeheartedly disagree.

What you're saying is that PS3 can be late and still come out on top. However, imagine if XB360 and PS3 came out at the same time. The PS3 would undoubtedly destroy it in sales. A one year delay is a very compelling reason to buy the XB360, and will give MS a huge cost advantage down the road. Many of the 3rd party developers wouldn't even bother with a XB360 port if both systems launched together, but now, even if they're waiting until PS3, they'd be stupid not to take advantage of the millions of XB360's already in place at the PS3's launch.

XB360's early launch is absolutely critical to its success. It by no means implies victory, but it gives MS a fighting chance that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

[mckmas8808]

Well if you look at my posts you'll see that my point has always been everybody starts at zero each new generation and I stand by that. I don't make any assumptions of who is going to outsell who, because in the end I really don't care. I go where the games I want to play are. Nobody thought PS1 would outsell N64 and Saturn. Nobody thought Genesis would outsell SNES in the States. Nobody thought Xbox would outsell Gamecube this gen.


BC erases that old notion now. People appreciated it with the PS2 and people will most definetly like it with the PS3 being that devs have already said that they will support the PS2 more than they did the PSone after the newer console came out.

[mckmas8808]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

What you're saying is that PS3 can be late and still come out on top. However, imagine if XB360 and PS3 came out at the same time. The PS3 would undoubtedly destroy it in sales. A one year delay is a very compelling reason to buy the XB360, and will give MS a huge cost advantage down the road. Many of the 3rd party developers wouldn't even bother with a XB360 port if both systems launched together, but now, even if they're waiting until PS3, they'd be stupid not to take advantage of the millions of XB360's already in place at the PS3's launch.

XB360's early launch is absolutely critical to its success. It by no means implies victory, but it gives MS a fighting chance that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

See the fact that you even said that the 360 wouldn't have a fighting chance to compete if it came out at the sametime is my and some others point. The Xbox 360 shouldn't look that bad even if it came out at the sametime.

[Mintmaster]

Again, we have yet another dubious claim. Who here are you referring to??? Is it just perhaps possible that some people believe the PS3 will do well for many reasons, rather than simply because PS2 did well.

You have fairly demonstrated how off-track you are in describing what "other" people feel about something. Perhaps you should just concentrate on how "you" feel about things and keep it at that? Just a suggestion.
Well, have you read what others are saying? I think Hardknock is accurately representing the opinion of others with his statement:
It's also pretty reasonable to assume that the PS3 will outsell the Xbox 360 in all territories again, considering the Xbox was still outsold 2-1 in its strongest territory. It would be more unreasonable to assume that the Xbox would somehow overcome a 2-1 deficit in any territory to snatch the crown from Sony (let alone a 20-1 deficit in Japan and a 9-1 deficit in Europe), especially considering the next-gen cards that both companies have played.
Sony had a 5 million head start in North America, and now MS is at 11 million, and Sony almost at 40 million in North America. Sony has lapped MS like four times, and month to month continue to outsell them 3:1. Sony's early lead was only 5 million, now they are 29 million ahead.


The point I am making is that Microsoft just could not get nearly the same developer support for XBox as Sony did for PS2. It was late, it didn't give you much over the PS2, and it had a much smaller game library.

When XB360 launches in a few weeks it offers a lot over it's closest competitor, the PS2. It's in time for Christmas. It'll be top dog for a long time. It'll have quite a decent game library for a new system. By the time the PS3 launches, it'll have a large user base. HDTV sales have exploded in recent years, and many of those buyers are just itching for another way to use their bigscreen toy.

Comparing this battle to last gen is almost completely meaningless. I seriously doubt either console will dominate this battle like PS1 and PS2 have before. If you're the underdog, you need a big advantage over the leader, and last gen MS just didn't have it. This time they do: timing.

[Hardknock]

Oh yeah, let me address these points right quick:

Calm down playa. Whats up with you right now? I knew what kind of people you were talking about. People like me, xbd, Randy, l-b, etc. I have never written off MS.

I wasn't actually refering to anybody here in particular. I don't know enough about you or any of those people to say how they feel. Xbd I know for sure is pretty level-headed and I love reading his outlook on things because he is pretty spot-on the majority of the time. But do know there are plenty of people that have written MS off, just do some browsing to different message boards and you'll see first-hand.

I think even you can concede that the PS3 will be more powerful in some fashion, whether that be "substantially" or just slightly (I don't remember anybody saying it would be substantially more powerful).

Well you must be blind or living under a rock, because people all over the internet have been saying Xbox 1.5 and that PS3 would be leaps and bounds graphically superior. I don't know what point you were trying to make here.

I also don't remember anybody saying that the Xbox 360 would be left with ports of PS3 games, whether they be "mediocre" or nay (I don't remember anybody saying the 360 would get ports, let alone mediocre ones). Colourful use of language there.

All you have to do is read Gaming-age forums and plenty of other places. For example: Whenever new Madden, NBA live or other footage comes out that people don't particularly like. The first thing they say is "next-gen doesn't start til PS3!", or "PS3 will be EAs lead platform next-gen and Xbox 360 is going to get these downgraded ports. LOL!!" Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but do know all the things I mention have been said somewhere.

[Mintmaster]

See the fact that you even said that the 360 wouldn't have a fighting chance to compete if it came out at the sametime is my and some others point. The Xbox 360 shouldn't look that bad even if it came out at the sametime.
Why not?

The reasons it would "look that bad" have nothing to do with the system itself. For consumers, it has to do with the PlayStation empire and the Sony brand. For developers, it has to do with marketshare and the way consumers see the consoles.

[randycat99]

Are you just blind or are you an idiot? Just a few posts above:

Neither, but you are quickly building the case for yourself. Expecting continued heavy outselling is certainly a plausibility for numerous reasons. Your point was that people believe it "simply because" of PS2. With that qualification, your seemingly legitimate statement transforms to strawman. There is no one who believes in the imminent success of PS3 over one single reason. You need to tone down the rhetoric, tone down the agressiveness towards those you "perceive" to be your opposition. It only serves to make you appear irrational and unreasonable.

[Gholbine]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

What you're saying is that PS3 can be late and still come out on top. However, imagine if XB360 and PS3 came out at the same time. The PS3 would undoubtedly destroy it in sales. A one year delay is a very compelling reason to buy the XB360, and will give MS a huge cost advantage down the road. Many of the 3rd party developers wouldn't even bother with a XB360 port if both systems launched together, but now, even if they're waiting until PS3, they'd be stupid not to take advantage of the millions of XB360's already in place at the PS3's launch.

XB360's early launch is absolutely critical to its success. It by no means implies victory, but it gives MS a fighting chance that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

I see where you're coming from. I suppose I should rephrase my statement in that, the early Xbox 360 release will not win them the generation, but it will help them to some extent. What I'm saying though, is that in terms of developer support, which is by far the most important factor, the early release won't help them an awful lot. The only way it will help them is in that they're the only next-gen system on the market for at least 6 months, so they're able to achieve a sizable (or small) lead on the PS3. It's just my opinion that developers have neither the need nor desire to rush into Xbox 360 development.

You also have to consider that it's not just about which system sells the most. If this were the case, there would have been no games at all on the Xbox or Gamecube. Some of the other factors include target audience, system hardware and fanbase. All of the big franchises that made the Playstation brand so successful (Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Tekken, etc.) will all return to the Playstation brand next generation, simply because their fanbase is with the Playstation brand. This time, however, the hardware stance has changed. Now the Playstation is the more powerful, fully featured system, and developers will not ignore this, especially the disc format.

As Hardknock says, the past is often a good indication of what's possible and what's not, and the early release of the Saturn and the Dreamcast didn't help them one bit, apart from their initial hardware lead. Many developers, including EA, had absolutely no need or desire to start Dreamcast development, and were perfectly happy with their cash flows on the current systems, and I feel the same may be true for the Xbox 360, especially when you consider how popular the PS2 is.

Disclaimer: I am not trying to say that the Xbox 360 is going the way of the Dreamcast, not at all. I don't think this is the case, and I'm not trying to imply it.

[seismologist]

Seems that some of you guys are buying into the notion that Sony has nothing since they haven't shown their hand yet.

I mean it seems like MS is doing alot of things right but just wait. Once the PS3 marketing machine kicks in and we start to get a glimpse of the 100+ PS3 games in development from Japanese studios.
People's perspective is going to change and with the impending PS3 launch, MS is going to have a heck of a time moving those $400 Xbox 360s.

[mckmas8808]

Seems that some of you guys are buying into the notion that Sony has nothing since they haven't shown their hand yet.

I mean it seems like MS is doing alot of things right but just wait. Once the PS3 marketting machine kicks in and we start to get a glimpse of the 100+ PS3 games in development from Japanese studios.


This is something that I've been trying to get across for days now. Just because everthing is 360 know doesn't mean that MS has a great shot at taking out the PS3. At least wait until we start seeing more PS3 and Revolution games.

[Mythos]

I mean it seems like MS is doing alot of things right but just wait. Once the PS3 marketting machine kicks in and we start to get a glimpse of the 100+ PS3 games in development from Japanese studios.
People's perspective is going to change and with the impending PS3 launch, MS is going to have a heck of a time moving those $400 Xbox 360s.

If anything I think MS has been slipping lately.

First, the specs. for the X360 were leaked,the X360 name itself, then the MTV showing sucked, at E3 they got showed up and TGS and X05 wasn't particlutarly standing out.

MS has its worked cutout...let see what they do with the extra time?

[Mintmaster]

I see where you're coming from. I suppose I should rephrase my statement in that, the early Xbox 360 release will not win them the generation, but it will help them to some extent.
That I'll agree with.
What I'm saying though, is that in terms of developer support, which is by far the most important factor, the early release won't help them an awful lot. The only way it will help them is in that they're the only next-gen system on the market for at least 6 months, so they're able to achieve a sizable (or small) lead on the PS3. It's just my opinion that developers have neither the need nor desire to rush into Xbox 360 development.
OK, fine, they may not rush into XB360 development. But if the PS3 and XB360 launched simultaneously, they could ignore the XB360 without much financial consequence. That won't be the case now. Remember, just because developers aren't rushing to the XB360 doesn't mean it couldn't be worse for MS. If XB360 launched alongside PS3, it would be.

You also have to consider that it's not just about which system sells the most.
I never said it was. But it makes an enormous difference, especially when you're the underdog. If you make a game for only PS3 in Nov. 2006, then you'd likely earn a fraction as much as if you made it for both consoles, even if 50% of new PS3 owners buy it and only 20% of XB360 owners do. For the original XBox, this wasn't the case.

This time, however, the hardware stance has changed. Now the Playstation is the more powerful, fully featured system, and developers will not ignore this, especially the disc format.
That's your opinion, and hardly fact. Cell is likely more powerful than Xenon when coded for properly, but I'm sure Xenos will be more powerful than RSX in many circumstances, especially when developers go beyond simple texturing. RSX does not have 48 full pixel shaders. You can see on the PC that G70's pixel shader pipes are around 30% faster than those of R300 from 2002, not twice as fast. Then there's the eDRAM. Alpha blending will be about 2.8Gpix/s for RSX given its bandwidth and comparing with G70, and most likely under 2Gpix/s with 4xAA. Xenos will have a full 4 GPix/s. Unless RSX implements an 32-bit total RGB FP format like Xenos, the advantage will be even more with HDR rendering. Texture bandwidth will be very high for Xenos, since the memory is completely alleviated of framebuffer bandwidth. Finally there's the insane vertex shading speed of Xenos when needed to blast through hidden or backface triangles.

I definately think RSX will not be able to catch Xenos for truly next gen graphics with HDR and/or antialiasing, assuming it can even do both together.

Many developers, including EA, had absolutely no need or desire to start Dreamcast development, and were perfectly happy with their cash flows on the current systems, and I feel the same may be true for the Xbox 360, especially when you consider how popular the PS2 is.
Yes, but if we're going to make comparisons, note that despite the disadvantage of being a new player in the console market and being late, MS sold the XBox quite well. The will do much better, relatively speaking, this time around if we compare the circumstances.

My point is not that XBox will outsell PS3 over its lifetime. In fact, I doubt it. My point is, however, that XB360 will have a much higher marketshare than the original XBox.

[Gholbine]

OK, fine, they may not rush into XB360 development. But if the PS3 and XB360 launched simultaneously, they could ignore the XB360 without much financial consequence. That won't be the case now. Remember, just because developers aren't rushing to the XB360 doesn't mean it couldn't be worse for MS. If XB360 launched alongside PS3, it would be.

I don't quite follow you. Why is this any different now? Why won't developers ignore the Xbox 360? It will cost them more and return them less if they're releasing next-gen games on the Xbox 360 as opposed to the PS2/Xbox. What are you trying to say?

I never said it was. But it makes an enormous difference, especially when you're the underdog. If you make a game for only PS3 in Nov. 2006, then you'd likely earn a fraction as much as if you made it for both consoles, even if 50% of new PS3 owners buy it and only 20% of XB360 owners do. For the original XBox, this wasn't the case.

If they feel like they absolutely must enter next-generation development before the PS3 has come into its own, then sure, the Xbox 360 is probably the better choice at this point in time. However my point is, most developers are with the PS2 right now, and the PS2 is still going strong, so most of them gain nothing by moving to Xbox 360 development instead of sticking with the PS2 until the PS3 comes along.

That's your opinion, and hardly fact. Cell is likely more powerful than Xenon when coded for properly, but I'm sure Xenos will be more powerful than RSX in many circumstances, especially when developers go beyond simple texturing. RSX does not have 48 full pixel shaders. You can see on the PC that G70's pixel shader pipes are around 30% faster than those of R300 from 2002, not twice as fast. Then there's the eDRAM. Alpha blending will be about 2.8Gpix/s for RSX given its bandwidth and comparing with G70, and most likely under 2Gpix/s with 4xAA. Xenos will have a full 4 GPix/s. Unless RSX implements an 32-bit total RGB FP format like Xenos, the advantage will be even more with HDR rendering. Texture bandwidth will be very high for Xenos, since the memory is completely alleviated of framebuffer bandwidth. Finally there's the insane vertex shading speed of Xenos when needed to blast through hidden or backface triangles.

I definately think RSX will not be able to catch Xenos for truly next gen graphics with HDR and/or antialiasing, assuming it can even do both together.

I'm really not interested in getting into a Xenos vs. RSX debate, I'll leave that to the more technically minded people on this forum. However, what I've heard and read (particularly around here) is that both GPUs are essentially very close in terms of power, and the real difference in graphics will come from the Cell. I also mentioned Blu-Ray specifically (since it was really my main focus when I mentioned a "hardware advantage"). I'm strongly of the opinion that sticking with DVD-9 will be Microsoft's eventual deathbed in the coming generation.

Edit: Note: by "deathbed", I mean a defining factor that stops Microsoft from realizing the potential of the system. If the Xbox 360 had HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, I'd seriously consider the possibility of the Xbox 360 beating out the PS3 in the US. However as it stands, I don't think it's possible, simply because of DVD-9.

Yes, but if we're going to make comparisons, note that despite the disadvantage of being a new player in the console market and being late, MS sold the XBox quite well. The will do much better, relatively speaking, this time around if we compare the circumstances.

Again I ask, what circumstances are we talking about here? The early release? I think the Dreamcast proved that early releases do little for a console's success or failure. Not sure I follow your logic here.

My point is not that XBox will outsell PS3 over its lifetime. In fact, I doubt it. My point is, however, that XB360 will have a much higher marketshare than the original XBox.

I don't think anybody ever really doubted that.

[dantruon]

I find it quite funny when someone here said that every generation start at zero. I find it funny because if you played a great game like Halo, would you pick the sequel up when it come out ? or maybe final fantasy game? or maybe a MGS game. What i mean was that there must be a fire if there is a smoke, if people buy a sequel to a game doesnt that imply that the original was good , now why cant we apply this to the console scenario, consumer buy the ps3 simply because ps2 have deliver them good gaming experience and this can also be said to the xbox. So is a funny statement to say that every generation of console game start at zero and the past is not a factor in determinging choice. Remember you must look at history to predict the future.

[Edge]

The market will not care about HDR, as it's effect is subtle, and 2X AA will be good enough for most games.

But in the end it will come down to GAMES, GAMES, and GAMES, and Sony wins in spades there.

Every generation certainly does not start at zero, that's like saying no one has any loyalties, or each console does not have franchises specific to it, that sees sequels from generation to generation.

[Hardknock]

I find it quite funny when someone here said that every generation start at zero. I find it funny because if you played a great game like Halo, would you pick the sequel up when it come out ? or maybe final fantasy game? or maybe a MGS game. What i mean was that there must be a fire if there is a smoke, if people buy a sequel to a game doesnt that imply that the original was good , now why cant we apply this to the console scenario, consumer buy the ps3 simply because ps2 have deliver them good gaming experience and this can also be said to the xbox. So is a funny statement to say that every generation of console game start at zero and the past is not a factor in determinging choice. Remember you must look at history to predict the future.

Well starting back at zero is refering to install base. Outside of the hardcore, desire for your new console has to be earned all over again. I never said past is not a factor, the past is where I'm getting "everyone starts at zero" from. You still have to gain developer support, you still need to market your console correctly, you still need to get the pricing right, etc... Just because your system was dominant the previous gen does not automatically mean you'll dominate again next gen. Why are people so afraid of change? Why does it matter who 'wins' next-gen? If you're happy with your system of choice shouldn't that be all that matters? It's amazing how even the slightest hint that MS could overthrow Sony as market leader gets some people into a hissy fit.

[Edge]

> "Why are people so afraid of change?"

People are not afraid of change, as matter of fact, by buying a newer more powerful console, they are embracing change.

[mckmas8808]

Well starting back at zero is refering to install base. Outside of the hardcore, desire for your new console has to be earned all over again. I never said past is not a factor, the past is where I'm getting "everyone starts at zero" from. You still have to gain developer support, you still need to market your console correctly, you still need to get the pricing right, etc... Just because your system was dominant the previous gen does not automatically mean you'll dominate again next gen. Why are people so afraid of change? Why does it matter who 'wins' next-gen? If you're happy with your system of choice shouldn't that be all that matters? It's amazing how even the slightest hint that MS could overthrow Sony as market leader gets some people into a hissy fit.

Most people even 360 supports don't agree that MS can 'overthrow' Sony next-gen.

[Hardknock]

Most people even 360 supports don't agree that MS can 'overthrow' Sony next-gen.

And why not?

The majority presumed PSP would crush the inferior DS.

The majority predicted Xbox would flop and not sell.

Nobody thought Sony(with zero experience in videogames) would topple Sega and Nintendo.

You guys continue on with your "predictions". And I'll just sit back and enjoy the show :cool:

[randycat99]

Well starting back at zero is refering to install base.

Essentially, the point regresses to "stating the obvious". Very well it is certain to be true, but the additional implications you had attached to it earlier are similarly stripped away, if the metric was simply referencing "install base".

Outside of the hardcore, desire for your new console has to be earned all over again.

Actually, it is quite the opposite. The "hardcore" will buy whatever is most "impressive" of that generation, or they may very well buy all 3 brands (assuming there are 3 brands). The legions of "casuals" will likely buy the brand they bought before, if the experiences where satisfactory and pleasant. Additionally, their choice may simply be influenced by whatever everybody else is buying, in order to "stay with the herd".

I never said past is not a factor...

Actually, you are implying just that with your "everything starts at zero" theory. Can't have it both ways.

You still have to gain developer support,...

Developer support will naturally follow where greatest sales occurred in the current generation.

...you still need to market your console correctly,...

Successful marketing strategies from the current generation will naturally be reapplied in the coming generation.

...you still need to get the pricing right, etc...

The range of pricepoints where people "bite" are well delineated in past generations and will naturally follow in the coming generation.

None of these examples you've given really had anything to do with things "resetting" at the turn of a generation. It was a silly point to attempt to extend beyond the simple essence of "install base".

Just because your system was dominant the previous gen does not automatically mean you'll dominate again next gen.

Nothing is certain, but it certainly gives suggestion of a trend. Myraid other factors seems to accompany this facet, as well, to suggest the trend is plausible to continue.

Why are people so afraid of change?

You should not dismiss the views of others as "fear of change" simply because they do not match up with your own. It's just quite possible that people believe what they believe for reasons spanning far beyond the narrow marginalization of "fear of change".

Why does it matter who 'wins' next-gen?

You do seem far more concerned of this than you let on.

If you're happy with your system of choice shouldn't that be all that matters? It's amazing how even the slightest hint that MS could overthrow Sony as market leader gets some people into a hissy fit.

...as well the converse if MS seemingly doesn't make the headway you so desparately wish. You seem to only be able to acknowledge "hissy fits" from one side, while in reality, you are surrounded by it from all sides (including your own). If you could simply calm the rhetoric stance, people could certainly take your views with less suspicion.

[Gholbine]

You're more than welcome to have your own over-optimistic views of Microsoft's chances in the next generation, Hardknock, but it's really not reasonable to assume or expect anybody else to share that optimism.

Is it possible? Of course it is. Is it probable? Not a chance in hell. Microsoft, had they played their cards differently, may very well have taken the crown from Sony. However going on what they've given us (and what's in store for the future) I'd say it's more than reasonable to expect Sony to crush them again.

But as I said, you're welcome to view the situation however you like, against the grain or not. Just don't expect others to share your views, that's all.

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

In my opinion, it now doesn't really matter if one console is technically superior to the other. Microsoft has this generation in the bag.

Before you say they have it in the bag, can you have a read of this first

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=23901516

Real opinion's of people have have played the system ( and its GS system wars i know *cries* )

As the months go by Microsoft are sealing there own fate.

1. Launching on MTV was a bad idea, not many game's were shown and the one's that were hardly looked next gen
2. Being Raped by Sony @ E3, yes credit to Microsoft they had playable games but they had crappy frame rates. Now those to compared to the PS3 tech demo's Stole ALOT of 360's thunder
3. Dev's saying there is'nt enough disk space, Some games Laucnh are on 2 disk's so just think how many disk's second or third gerantion games will require.
4. And there BIGGEST mistake was having the machine playable in wallamrt, i have not seen 1 comment yet about how they were blown away by the machine or the graphics, it has been the oposite.....complete and utter dissapointment from EVERY1 who has played it.

Microsoft are treding thinly on there own ice, If Hideo were to release a different piece of MGS4 footage at this moment in time, or within the next month. 360's would be in serious trouble

*My view's so take how you like*

[dantruon]

Before you say they have it in the bag, can you have a read of this first

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=23901516

Real opinion's of people have have played the system ( and its GS system wars i know *cries* )

As the months go by Microsoft are sealing there own fate.

1. Launching on MTV was a bad idea, not many game's were shown and the one's that were hardly looked next gen
2. Being Raped by Sony @ E3, yes credit to Microsoft they had playable games but they had crappy frame rates. Now those to compared to the PS3 tech demo's Stole ALOT of 360's thunder
3. Dev's saying there is'nt enough disk space, Some games Laucnh are on 2 disk's so just think how many disk's second or third gerantion games will require.
4. And there BIGGEST mistake was having the machine playable in wallamrt, i have not seen 1 comment yet about how they were blown away by the machine or the graphics, it has been the oposite.....complete and utter dissapointment from EVERY1 who has played it.

Microsoft are treding thinly on there own ice, If Hideo were to release a different piece of MGS4 footage at this moment in time, or within the next month. 360's would be in serious trouble

*My view's so take how you like*


You has just summed up the whole situation for MS there but I just would like the add that the fact they are the one that start the talk about how HD is very significant next gen and yet they didnt include a HD palyer in their system. But i think the 360 will fair alot better compared to the xbox.

[Hardknock]

Essentially, the point regresses to "stating the obvious". Very well it is certain to be true, but the additional implications you had attached to it earlier are similarly stripped away, if the metric was simply referencing "install base".

You know you are really starting to become annoying. Please play the semantic game with someone else. Starting at zero references the install base, but is not all inclusive. I listed my reasons later in my message which you even addressed, so I don't understand how anything was "stripped away."

Actually, it is quite the opposite. The "hardcore" will buy whatever is most "impressive" of that generation, or they may very well buy all 3 brands (assuming there are 3 brands). The legions of "casuals" will likely buy the brand they bought before, if the experiences where satisfactory and pleasant. Additionally, their choice may simply be influenced by whatever everybody else is buying, in order to "stay with the herd".

The hardcore(meaning the most die-hard fans for that particular brand, be it Xbox or Playstation) will snatch up the console at launch regardless of games, price or anything. The F@nboys you see on message boards for example. Mainstream will go with whats most popular(which isn't necessarily going to be the PS3 buddy), and the most popular console always comes from the games available. Not because of any name-brand loyalty.



Actually, you are implying just that with your "everything starts at zero" theory. Can't have it both ways.

God, it's not rocket science. THE PAST HAS SHOWED THAT EVERYONE STARTS AT ZERO AND NOTHING IS GUARANTEED. It's becoming really tiresome to have to walk you through every single point made.

Developer support will naturally follow where greatest sales occurred in the current generation.

They also naturally follow the current install base aswell. Having a 5 to 10 million lead is nothing to snuff at. If devs only went by potential install base, sure Sony would have this in the bag, but they are trying to make the most money.


Successful marketing strategies from the current generation will naturally be reapplied in the coming generation.

What an idiotic comment. Who's to say the "successful marketing strategies" from this gen will be as successful next-gen? Who's to say MS doesn't market there's better? It's no where near as clear cut as you are making it seem.


The range of pricepoints where people "bite" are well delineated in past generations and will naturally follow in the coming generation.

What the fuck are you talking about here? The general consensus is PS3 will be more expensive, thus MS having the price advantage. No doubt PS3 will drop in price, but it's also important who can reach the more affordable price points first.

None of these examples you've given really had anything to do with things "resetting" at the turn of a generation. It was a silly point to attempt to extend beyond the simple essence of "install base".

Well I'm sorry it was too much for you to wrap your head around. I'll try taking baby steps with you next time :lol:


Nothing is certain, but it certainly gives suggestion of a trend. Myraid other factors seems to accompany this facet, as well, to suggest the trend is plausible to continue.

And you have practically no knowledge of PS3 in the first place to "suggest" anything. You are only making yourself look foolish. Your blind corporate allegiance is clouding your judgement that Sony can do no wrong. But you continue to think that, like I said before, I play games not consoles buddy so I don't care who comes out on top :wink:


...as well the converse if MS seemingly doesn't make the headway you so desparately wish. You seem to only be able to acknowledge "hissy fits" from one side, while in reality, you are surrounded by it from all sides (including your own). If you could simply calm the rhetoric stance, people could certainly take your views with less suspicion.

Ok now you're starting to piss me off. "Desparately wish" my ass. You don't fucking know what I want or anything about me. I have never stated I think Xbox 360 will dominate. I'm only pointing out flawed logic in other's arguement about PS3, they simply have nothing concrete to backup their claims and your counterpoints to mine are quite ridiculous to say the least. I think I'm on the right side of the fence when I say nothing is for certain, why you continue to want to argue back in forth with me that PS3 will dominate is beyond me. Because I don't really care, believe whatever you want to. I've never said that won't be the case, just pointing out that it's not impossible for it to be the complete opposite from what you so "desperately wish."

[Hardknock]

Is it possible? Of course it is. Is it probable? Not a chance in hell. Microsoft, had they played their cards differently, may very well have taken the crown from Sony. However going on what they've given us (and what's in store for the future) I'd say it's more than reasonable to expect Sony to crush them again.


See this is exactly what I'm talking about. We know pratically nothing about PS3 and you've already made up your mind. People have done this numerous times before about things in this industry only to wind up with egg on their face. Like I said originally, don't write MS off just yet.

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

RSX does not have 48 full pixel shaders.

That made me laugh, because R500 does'nt either.

1. You really belive that games dont use vertex shader's thus leaving R500 with all it's 48 ALU's just shading... LOL
2. I bet you £100 that 1 of the pixel shader's in RSX is more poweful than 1-2 shader's in R500
3. And also remeber that RSX has over DOULBLE the shader op's per second of R500.

[expletive]

What i think tends to derail these threads into a micro analysis of some aspect of console sales is that everyone on these threads assume that they are the representative consumer.

Believe me when i say that everyone does not think like the poeople that post in here. In North America my guess is that 70% of the potential customers are 'up for grabs'. They are going to look at the games, look at the price, then look at everything else.

The 360 had to launch first this gen to have a real fighting chance. If not it would ahve been a real uphill battle from the beginning and one that probably would have landed them in only a slightly better position than they are now. Launching first forces everyone to look hard at the 360 in the next gen and put aside brand loyalty for a moment.

I work with several people who are gamers and currently own PS2s. They saw some HD video of NBA2k6 and guess what, theyre not waiting a year to play that game, they want to play it NOW. Thats the whole idea of an early launch and thats what i think MOST of the consumers are like, they wont fight tooth and nail for a console, theyll go where the games are and where the price is.

So MS has the floor to themselves for a good 6-9 months before Sony starts ramping up to their launch. They are probably going to sell a LOT of consoles between now and then. As another poster estimated, the 360 could have from 10-14million sold by this time next year. Does that matter, YES it does. Will it have decided the console war, NO it wont. But now youre having developers look at the 360 as possibly leading the install base stat for awhile, and that could bring games from Sony to Microsoft. Its not definite but thats the whole strategy of an early launch.

The big fight is holiday 2006. What will Sony have at launch? What will the PS3 cost? What will the CORE system cost? Will halo 3 be coming out then? Will MGS4 be released then?

Thats the huge clash, the battle for holiday 2006. If the 360 can take Sonys best shot with a combination of price, numerous high quality 2nd gen games, and not lose a lot of ground they made by launching early, then we'll really have a 'war' on our hands.

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

All said and done its all about how many console's are available at launch, how many is microsoft turning out a month???? Sony have a good 6 month's+ of bashing PS3's together so they should have a huge amount of console's ready for launch.

[mckmas8808]

So MS has the floor to themselves for a good 6-9 months before Sony starts ramping up to their launch. They are probably going to sell a LOT of consoles between now and then. As another poster estimated, the 360 could have from 10-14million sold by this time next year. Does that matter, YES it does. Will it have decided the console war, NO it wont.

Didn't MS say that they expect to sell between 4.5 and 5.5 million consoles by June? So if the PS3 comes out in lets say September of 2006 (very reasonable) The Xbox 360 wouldn't have no more than a 8 to 9 million unit head start worldwide if you take out want Sony would have sold by then in Japan early that Spring.

I heard from plenty of people that Sony could drop 1 million PS3's in Japan on launch day and sell out of everyone. That's something that the X360 just can't do in Japan.

[PC-Engine]

I heard from plenty of people that Sony could drop 1 million PS3's in Japan on launch day and sell out of everyone. That's something that the X360 just can't do in Japan.

The PSP sold less than 200K units on launch day...in Japan...

[mckmas8808]

The PSP sold less than 200K units on launch day...in Japan...

Sony only released 200K units in Japan too so...

[expletive]

Didn't MS say that they expect to sell between 4.5 and 5.5 million consoles by June? So if the PS3 comes out in lets say September of 2006 (very reasonable) The Xbox 360 wouldn't have no more than a 8 to 9 million unit head start worldwide if you take out want Sony would have sold by then in Japan early that Spring.

I heard from plenty of people that Sony could drop 1 million PS3's in Japan on launch day and sell out of everyone. That's something that the X360 just can't do in Japan.

Instead of me paraphrasing from memory, heres the original quote, slightly different than what i remembered:

However, developers and publishers of the big 3rd party franchises may have to face a tough decision in the late 2006/ early 2007 timeframe. At this time, if all goes well for Microsoft, there may be 8 to 15 million Xbox360s sold; whereas Sony may still be under 5 million, maybe even 3 million, if they would indeed start in the US and Europe in late 2006. (Note the two "if"s before you start to reply ;) ). These figures are primarily based on manufacturing potential; MS indicated that they should be able to produce 4-5 million Xboxes in 6 months, so their advantage could be anywhere from 5 to 10 million units. Thus, any game released at this time would have as much as twice the market and the sales potential on the Xbox, compared to the PS3. This is very important if you consider nextgen development budgets.

There are of course many other factors that have to be considered here by the publishers. Their costumers may be loyal to the Playstation brand and releasing a FF game on the Xbox could turn into a financial disaster. Betraying Sony in such a way could also have consequences. It's also safe to assume that PS3 will sell very well from mid 2007 and reach a very large user base by 2008.
On the other hand, if the market actually turns out to be that way, then there would be a huge potential for the first (few) big franchises released on the Xbox. We do not yet know all the X360 games in development, but it's a safe bet that most of them are from the same devs and franchises that we know from the first Xbox - so there's certainly room for well-known names. For all we know, these studios might already be watching each others' moves... and who knows how many would follow, if one decides to go for it.
And for all the politics and fan expectations, next gen development is still heavily driven by money. 10-20-50 million dollar projects won't break even with sales under a million copies, and both studios and publishers are driven by businessmen, who probably care more about the math and the balance sheet.

So, in my opinion, software will be the most important factor with this gen as well; but a larger installed base in 2006/2007 may give MS an advantage in that field as well.

I dont think MS expects to or even has the capability to, sell 1 million 360s on launch in Japan though...

To be honest, theres no way MS is beating Sony in Japan this gen. They should shoot for NA and at least being a real 'player' in Japan this generation. Coming in 2nd in Japan this gen would be a tremendous achievement imo.

[mckmas8808]

I dont think MS expects to or even has the capability to, sell 1 million 360s on launch in Japan though...

To be honest, theres no way MS is beating Sony in Japan this gen. They should shoot for NA and at least being a real 'player' in Japan this generation. Coming in 2nd in Japan this gen would be a tremendous achievement imo.

There's no way the Xbox 360 could come in second place. Ok there is a chance but that chance is super small. Everybody keeps forgetting that the Revolution is also coming out in 2006. MS has to beat Nintendo in Japan first.

MS sold 114 Xboxes last week in Japan. Freaking 114. Come on.

http://www.m-create.com/jpn/s_ranking.html

[zRifle1z]

Hardknock is not the only one being "over-optimistic" here. How has Sony "crushed" the XBOX program by the way?? IMHO MS has been very successful in getting to where they are now, and continue to push Sony to do better.

I was surprised to see the PS2 failed to live up to the graphics displayed prior to the systems launch. I was disappointed when Sony continually pushed back the system's online play. IMHO moves such as this allowed MS to offer something better. It will be this choice of something better/equal to/or comparable with the PS3 at launch that will help MS gain market share.

One thing is for sure, in this next generation Sony will not be allowed to simply over hype the PS3. They will need to produce, and cannot rest on their name brand alone. Who do you have to thank for that? You got it, their "crushed" competition.

[mckmas8808]

One thing is for sure, in this next generation Sony will not be allowed to simply over hype the PS3. They will need to produce, and cannot rest on their name brand alone. Who do you have to thank for that? You got it, their "crushed" competition.

But Sony didn't just over hype the PS2 to sell the most consoles this time around either did they? http://community.allhiphop.com/images/smilies/fragend013.gif And I also don't think they rested on brand name alone to sell the PS2 either. Maybe I'm missing what you are trying to say.

[Gholbine]

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. We know pratically nothing about PS3 and you've already made up your mind. People have done this numerous times before about things in this industry only to wind up with egg on their face. Like I said originally, don't write MS off just yet.

I will happily accept an "egg on my face" if the PS3 doesn't take the next generation sales crown. As I said, I admit the possibility of victory for the 360, but realistically it just won't happen, and I think this assumption is far more reasonable than even pretending that the Xbox 360 will win.

Judging by many of the posts you've made around here, I think it's pretty safe to assume that you 'lean' towards the Xbox 360, and your desire to see it succeed is not surprising. Personally I hope the Xbox 360 does give the PS3 a big run for its money, because competition is only good for us gamers.

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

They will need to produce.

After all the reported dissapointment from playable 360's at wallmart it should be microsoft that need to produce. And dont you think the media has as much to do with PS3 hype as sony??I meen PS3 is still month's away and yet all the microsoft support's are getting so wound up over PS3 stealing 360's thunder it's gettin nigh on anoying now.Sony are market leader's and have been for the last 2 generation's and what microsoft and people dont understand is that aswel as taking on the "playstation " brand name they also have to take on the "Sony" brand name aswel. and the "Sony" name is somthing they will never defeat because there are to many casual people out there.

[expletive]

There's no way the Xbox 360 could come in second place. Ok there is a chance but that chance is super small. Everybody keeps forgetting that the Revolution is also coming out in 2006. MS has to beat Nintendo in Japan first.

MS sold 114 Xboxes last week in Japan. Freaking 114. Come on.

http://www.m-create.com/jpn/s_ranking.html

I said coming in second place would be a "tremendous achievement" so i'm not sure what youre trying to convince me of here exactly.

[mckmas8808]

I said coming in second place would be a "tremendous achievement" so i'm not sure what youre trying to convince me of here exactly.

Oh nothing. Just reading it on the screen gave me the shakes. Just bringing it up is crazy. It's all good though.:razz:

[Sis]

After all the reported dissapointment from playable 360's at wallmart it should be microsoft that need to produce. And dont you think the media has as much to do with PS3 hype as sony??I meen PS3 is still month's away and yet all the microsoft support's are getting so wound up over PS3 stealing 360's thunder it's gettin nigh on anoying now.Sony are market leader's and have been for the last 2 generation's and what microsoft and people dont understand is that aswel as taking on the "playstation " brand name they also have to take on the "Sony" brand name aswel. and the "Sony" name is somthing they will never defeat because there are to many casual people out there.
I find it quite humorous that:

a) you link to a System Wars thread as proof of something and
b) not only did you link to this thread, but it doesn't prove what you think it proves, as one of the first few quotes talks about how a demo both was surrounded by "casuals" who played COD2 and were "raving about how great the graphics and AI were" (and to add to the humor, this was quoted by someone disappointed in the system and explained away the 'casuals' impression by labeling them clueless).

.Sis

[expletive]

Oh nothing. Just reading it on the screen gave me the shakes. Just bringing it up is crazy. It's all good though.:razz:

MS aside, do you think in 2006 that Nintendo and SOny are fighting over the same customers? Asking customers to spend $400 is one thing, but asking them to spend $700 or so in consoles in a 4 month span (estimating) is a lot no? I wonder if theyll hurt each other by launching so close together.

[Sis]

Oh nothing. Just reading it on the screen gave me the shakes. Just bringing it up is crazy. It's all good though.:razz:
And you wonder why people think you may be completely biased and why you have the red square? The thought that the Xbox 360 would do well in Japan "gives you the shakes"?

I think there's enough fluidity in the console market to allow for the Xbox 360's success in Japan. Is it the likely possibility? Of course not. Is it a possibility? Sure. The thought of that possibility should not give you shakes nor is it crazy to suggest such a scenario.

.Sis

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

I find it quite humorous that:

a) you link to a System Wars thread as proof of something and
b) not only did you link to this thread, but it doesn't prove what you think it proves, as one of the first few quotes talks about how a demo both was surrounded by "casuals" who played COD2 and were "raving about how great the graphics and AI were" (and to add to the humor, this was quoted by someone disappointed in the system and explained away the 'casuals' impression by labeling them clueless).

.Sis

With all with-out that link, MANY MANY people are DISSAPOINTED with 360, MANY of them are SW fanboi's and there is NO bigger fanboi's than the one's present in GS SW. to simply ignore there view's about the 360 is silly after al.. name a bigger bunch of fanboi's than them??? And that does'nt prove what i think it proves??? WTF are you on. i stated that many people are DISSAPOINTED with 360 and if read all the pages on that thread you'll fiind that people are. So it proves what i was ona bout in the first place does'nt it????

[Sis]

With all with-out that link, MANY MANY people are DISSAPOINTED with 360, MANY of them are SW fanboi's and there is NO bigger fanboi's than the one's present in GS SW. to simply ignore there view's about the 360 is silly after al.. name a bigger bunch of fanboi's than them??? And that does'nt prove what i think it proves??? Yes, linking to opinions on the internet does not support any arguments, especially when it's to a Console Wars forum. And I was simply pointing out that even in that link is someone posting their disappiontment by way of describing some "casuals" who were obviously impressed. There is some big disconnect here that I'm missing, I suppose.

WTF are you on. Right now, just my first cup of coffee. Catch me after my second one, I might be more amiable.

.Sis

[mckmas8808]

And you wonder why people think you may be completely biased and why you have the red square? The thought that the Xbox 360 would do well in Japan "gives you the shakes"?

I think there's enough fluidity in the console market to allow for the Xbox 360's success in Japan. Is it the likely possibility? Of course not. Is it a possibility? Sure. The thought of that possibility should not give you shakes nor is it crazy to suggest such a scenario.

.Sis

What are you talking about. My red box is due to some people personally not liking me. I say the same stuff many others say on here too. Also the shakes were because I didn't actually expect somebody to bring up Xbox 360, second place, and Japan in the same sentence. I would need a huge explation on why the 360 would be second place. We must have two different shakes.

[Titanio]

Hardknock is not the only one being "over-optimistic" here. How has Sony "crushed" the XBOX program by the way?? IMHO MS has been very successful in getting to where they are now, and continue to push Sony to do better.

Sony has not "crushed" Xbox, if only because of who is behind it - MS, who has all the resources in the world to sustain less successful ventures if it is a strategic necessity. In other companies, in other circumstance, such a resource-sink would be culled or cut back significantly (and indeed, even MS has found penny-pinching a necessity going forward).

I think people do tend to over-estimate the impact and "success" of Xbox in discussions like these. Perhaps its an American-centric viewpoint which brings this about, which is understandable. But some things to remember:

Non-playstation marketshare for the last 10 years has remained pretty static, or indeed will likely shrink by the end of this generation, despite the presence of two live competitors this gen versus arguably one in the previous gen.

No system this gen has been as successful as the most successful non-Playstation system last gen (the N64) - and few would label it a convincing success! In fact, the combined userbases of Nintendo and MS this gen only exceed by a small amount the userbase of the N64.

Now, the argument often crops up that MS was going from zero to something, and Nintendo was going from high to low, hence "there's the difference". Fair enough. But, MS has yet to demonstrate that it can break the non-Playstation marketshare beyond the level at which it has existed for many years now. Many expected they'd easily do so with Xbox, that it was inevitable the competitive marketshare would grow with two strong live competitors - and I remember many analysts predicting that the market would even end up evenly split! - but MS and Nintendo simply ended up splitting the leftovers (and those leftovers may even end up being smaller than last gen). So we enter a second generation with the same two rivals to Playstation, and they still have to prove they can grow the non-Playstation market AT ALL.

Maybe Xbox's "success" should be benchmarked against expectations for it before its entry into the market. I think its performance in the market certainly fell short of the expectations of its supporters, and most analysts. Heck, if fell short of MY expectations, and versus many others, mine were what could have been called at the time "pessimistic".

It will be this choice of something better/equal to/or comparable with the PS3 at launch that will help MS gain market share.

In terms of horsepower the difference is small to significant depending on who you listen to (though universally in PS3's favour), but as a whole, the hardware is not comparable. There are far more hardware features packed into PS3.

[expletive]

What are you talking about. My red box is due to some people personally not liking me. I say the same stuff many others say on here too. Also the shakes were because I didn't actually expect somebody to bring up Xbox 360, second place, and Japan in the same sentence. I would need a huge explation on why the 360 would be second place. We must have two different shakes.

My full quote was this:


To be honest, theres no way MS is beating Sony in Japan this gen. They should shoot for NA and at least being a real 'player' in Japan this generation. Coming in 2nd in Japan this gen would be a tremendous achievement imo.

So i was clearly agreeing about the difficulty of such an achievement, but if you need a reason to at least cure you of the undesireable physical reactions you have to such statements, you can start with:

1. the huge amount of japanese developer support - from the beginning - this time around
2. superior online service at the moment and likely going forward
3. superior hardware
4. HD resolutions support
5. proven and, from all accounts, superior control device

Not the end-all list but hopefully that at least stops you from shaking! :)

[mckmas8808]

My full quote was this:




So i was clearly agreeing about the difficulty of such an achievement, but if you need a reason to at least cure you of the undesireable physical reactions you have to such statements, you can start with:

1. the huge amount of japanese developer support - from the beginning - this time around
2. superior online service at the moment and likely going forward
3. superior hardware
4. HD resolutions support
5. proven and, from all accounts, superior control device

Not the end-all list but hopefully that at least stops you from shaking! :)

Well I was talking to Hardknock with that quote that you had from me. And really expletive do you honestly think those 5 reasons will help sell 10 times the amount of consoles per week in Japan?

Did you know that MS hasn't even reached 1 million units in Japan yet?

[expletive]

Now, the argument often crops up that MS was going from zero to something, and Nintendo was going from high to low, hence "there's the difference". Fair enough. But, MS has yet to demonstrate that it can break the non-Playstation marketshare beyond the level at which it has existed for many years now. Many expected they'd easily do so with Xbox, that it was inevitable the competitive marketshare would grow with two strong live competitors - and I remember many analysts predicting that the market would even end up evenly split! - but MS and Nintendo simply ended up splitting the leftovers (and those leftovers may even end up being smaller than last gen). So we enter a second generation with the same two rivals to Playstation, and they still have to prove they can grow the non-Playstation market AT ALL.

Not really fair to brush off the argument you make here with 'zero to something.' IF they fail to expand on their position this gen then yes thats fine, but until they dont they deserve a chance. Short of giving them away, you cant 'force' people to buy 20 million or so consoles - they are doing something right. Plus they have what will probably be the biggest game franchise in NA and possibly the world with Halo. Dont discount capitalization on that as well. The 'non-playstation market' you reference has only been 2 generations long and even at the beginning of YOUR sampling we saw a giant (nintendo)fall from dominance. IMO, given all thats happened in this relatively short time it doesnt even support your argument.

In terms of horsepower the difference is small to significant depending on who you listen to, but as a whole, the hardware is not comparable. There are far more features packed into PS3.

If you are going to talk about sales you cant just make up a checklist and determine 'comparable.' You have to figure out (which only actual sales numbers will bear out) what the average consumer will care about and how they determine 'comparable'. HDMI, Bluray, bluetooth, many consumers may not figure this into their purchasing decision for some time, or EVER. To you or I there may be more packed into the PS3 because we are techhies but:

1. We dont know what it will cost
2. We dont know which ones are going to be deemed 'value add' by most consumers.

[Titanio]

Not really fair to brush off the argument you make here with 'zero to something.' IF they fail to expand on their position this gen then yes thats fine, but until they dont they deserve a chance.

Of course. But I'm not commenting on X360. Simply Xbox performance to date.

I edited to suggest that Xbox's "success" should perhaps be judged based on its actual performance versus pre-launch expectations. Like I say up there, I think its market performance fell short of most expectations, not least those of its supporters at the time.

Plus they have what will probably be the biggest game franchise in NA and possibly the world with Halo.

How are we quantifying this, particularly "in the world"? Sales? I don't think it is, although I'd have to check. Brand recognition? Again, very doubtful.

If you are going to talk about sales you cant just make up a checklist and determine 'comparable.'

If you're asking about customer perception, we simply can't know that, and I'm not addressing that. But as an objective judgement, comparing the hardware, I simply take much issue with the characterisation that X360 will offer something either better or comparable this year, which was the poster's contention. If his point is "well people will think they're comparable", well neither he nor I can know that, so I'd prefer to stick to measureables.

[mckmas8808]

Not really fair to brush off the argument you make here with 'zero to something.' IF they fail to expand on their position this gen then yes thats fine, but until they dont they deserve a chance. Short of giving them away, you cant 'force' people to buy 20 million or so consoles so they are doing something right. Plus they have what will probably be the biggest game franchise in NA and possibly the world with Halo. Dont discount capitalization on that as well.


They have had a chance. That was from 2001 till know. Just because it was their first time doesn't mean they couldn't sell 100 million consoles. Others have done it before on their first try. But of course they deserve another chance. Whatever keeps Sony working harder I'm all for it.http://community.allhiphop.com/images/smilies/tu.gif

[expletive]

Well I was talking to Hardknock with that quote that you had from me. And really expletive do you honestly think those 5 reasons will help sell 10 times the amount of consoles per week in Japan?

Did you know that MS hasn't even reached 1 million units in Japan yet?

Your talking about a failed product and a failed strategy. They make no secrets on how far off base they were last generation so theyre taking a different appraoch.

The support from japanese developers is enough to tell me that SEOMTHING is different this time around. Whether or not its enough, only time will tell but it seems they have a solid strategy and are in position to execute it. We'll have to wait and see its effectiveness, but it doesnt seem like any failure to improve will be from lack of planning or execution.

[expletive]

They have had a chance. That was from 2001 till know. Just because it was their first time doesn't mean they couldn't sell 100 million consoles. Others have done it before on their first try. But of course they deserve another chance. Whatever keeps Sony working harder I'm all for it.http://community.allhiphop.com/images/smilies/tu.gif


Others have done it because the dominating player in THEIR generation made some of the most boneheaed, arrogant, decisions in their time and kicked the door open for competitors. Sony has made no such mistakes (wisely learning from those that let them in in the first palce) so it will clearly be an uphill battle for anyone looking to increase their market share.

EDIT:agreed on forcing companies to work harder. I think we're all better off if this console gen ends up 40-40-20. :)

[blakjedi]

That made me laugh, because R500 does'nt either.

1. You really belive that games dont use vertex shader's thus leaving R500 with all it's 48 ALU's just shading... LOL
2. I bet you £100 that 1 of the pixel shader's in RSX is more poweful than 1-2 shader's in R500
3. And also remeber that RSX has over DOULBLE the shader op's per second of R500.

uh come again dude? most of what you wrote is is either false or wishful thinking. dont go making up specs please.

[NavNucST3]

While people keep mentioning games, I thought at the current moment the xbox 360 had more games in development than the PS3.

I also think some in here are using internet forum math (i.e. you and 6 of your forum buddies = EVERYONE, you and four of your forum buddies = MOST, you and two of your forum buddies= MANY MANY).

I also though that the PS2 had a 20 million console head-start not 5; maybe I am thinking worldwide vs the states, I'm unsure. (edit: I think I got that impression from the Money Programme xbox special recently posted)

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

uh come again dude? most of what you wrote is is either false or wishful thinking. dont go making up specs please.

How is it wish-ful thinking??? and how have a made up spec's..please explain.

[mckmas8808]

While people keep mentioning games, I thought at the current moment the xbox 360 had more games in development than the PS3.


Well the Xbox 360 is coming out first so chances are the companies have announce their support for it first even though they may release a PS3 project later of that same game. No reason in talking about the PS3 game when you have to sell the X360 game this year or early next year, while the PS3 still doesn't have a true launch date.

How many games do you think are in development anyway for the 360? Last I heard the number was 165. And the last I heard in July there were 100 games being made for the PS3 in Japan alone.:shock:

[expletive]

How is it wish-ful thinking??? and how have a made up spec's..please explain.

Well for starters, DOUBLE the shader ops? Regardless of the usefulness of that stat, its pretty much split down the middle on this forum as to which chip will have more shader power overall, much less one having DOUBLE.

[expletive]

Well the Xbox 360 is coming out first so chances are the companies have announce their support for it first even though they may release a PS3 project later of that same game. No reason in talking about the PS3 game when you have to sell the X360 game this year or early next year, while the PS3 still doesn't have a true launch date.

How many games do you think are in development anyway for the 360? Last I heard the number was 165. And the last I heard in July there were 100 games being made for the PS3 in Japan alone.:shock:

As of mid-September, from the MS TGS press-release:

"This holiday season, gamers in Japan, Europe and North America pining to experience jaw-dropping high-definition graphics, unmatched online play and compelling digital entertainment features of Xbox 360 will finally have the chance," said Robbie Bach, chief Xbox officer for Microsoft. "Renowned development studios around the world are busy putting the finishing touches on their Xbox 360 games. We expect a strong portfolio of titles on launch day and through the holidays that will appeal to fans of every genre and gamers in every region, and with more than 200 games currently in development, continuous new additions to the library are on the way."

Its all press-release smoke and mirrors anyway. Theyve both got all the devs on board at this point so its really splitting hairs...

[ImaginaryIndustryInsider]

After all the reported dissapointment from playable 360's at wallmart it should be microsoft that need to produce.

To be fair, every single Walmart 360 display I've seen is setup wrong, but the ones that are setup right do draw a crowd...at least at my semi-local Best Buy.

[Titanio]

While people keep mentioning games, I thought at the current moment the xbox 360 had more games in development than the PS3.

There are announced titles, and there are titles in development. The two are distinct. MS, I believe, gave a figure for the latter - I remember Peter Moore talking about how he had visibility of x number of titles through to 2007 or 2008, and so that's probably a figure covering all titles in development, announced or unannounced. For PS3, we can only count announced titles, and you can be sure there are many more in development. As far as announced titles go, though, the support thusfar has been significant, and it's probably actually a greater level of public support than even PS2 had at a similar point in its lifetime. And that's another variable to consider here too - X360 and PS3 are at two different points. PS3 is still somewhat undercover in terms of publicity, MS is out there totally, obviously, with launch just a couple of weeks away.

edit - for what it's worth, IGN has roughly 160-170 PS3 titles in its database. With a distinct Japanese slant given the TGS announcements. That's only titles made public, as mentioned above. Wanna bet that if you included titles we don't know about it, it wouldn't eclipse the given X360 figure?

[expletive]

And that's another variable to consider here too - X360 and PS3 are at two different points. PS3 is still somewhat undercover in terms of publicity, MS is out there totally, obviously, with launch just a couple of weeks away.

In terms of hardware, pricing, and the initial online service offering, yes. In terms of announced titles or those in development, there's no way to know who is holding what back and until when.

[expletive]

To be fair, every single Walmart 360 display I've seen is setup wrong, but the ones that are setup right do draw a crowd...at least at my semi-local Best Buy.

I believe the consoles were arriving at Wal-Mart set to 480i, 4:3, to be displayed on a widescreen HD monitor... *GASP*

[Titanio]

In terms of hardware, pricing, and the initial online service offering, yes. In terms of announced titles or those in development, there's no way to know who is holding what back and until when.

Like I added in my edit above, it'd only take 30 or 40 PS3 titles that we don't know about for the PS3 total to eclipse the figure given by MS for X360. And I think given that so many western publishers PS3 plans remain undisclosed, it's very likely there's comfortably many more than that, that we don't know about.

And undoubtedly many publishers are keeping quiet on PS3 plans, particularly western, right now. I've little doubt Sony have asked them to hold back until 06 to keep some sort of lid on PS3 hype till then. Even in the list for the Japanese market, so many of them remain unnamed, probably in an effort to indicate that the support IS rock solid, without completely distracting from their current market focus.

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

Well for starters, DOUBLE the shader ops? Regardless of the usefulness of that stat, its pretty much split down the middle on this forum as to which chip will have more shader power overall, much less one having DOUBLE.

100 billion vs 48 billion as quoted by each chip creater's, OVER double. thats a pretty big diference just there.

[Titanio]

100 billion vs 48 billion as quoted by each chip creater's, OVER double. thats a pretty big diference just there.

The official NVidia figure would be 136 * 550Mhz (74.8bn, I think?). The 100bn figure was for the system as a whole, including Cell.

HOWEVER, these figures are not comparable. As discussed countless times before, the methods used to derive shader op figures aren't directly equivalent.

[Tap In]

....

And undoubtedly many publishers are keeping quiet on PS3 plans, particularly western, right now. I've little doubt Sony have asked them to hold back until 06 to keep some sort of lid on PS3 hype till then.



ah yes .... the PS3 is better than X360 in every way and for those things that we don't have facts for we can just speculate that they are "secret". :razz:

[Titanio]

ah yes .... the PS3's is better than X360 in every way and for those things that we don't have facts for we can just speculate that they are "secret". :razz:

If you think the extent, for example, of EA's PS3 support is Fight Night 3, Def Jam and Medal of Honor, be my guest :D There are obviously more titles planned or in development for PS3 than has been announced, probably a fairly significant number more - I think that's a very reasonable and safe expectation.

[Tap In]

If you think the extent, for example, of EA's PS3 support is Fight Night 3, Def Jam and Medal of Honor, be my guest :D There are obviously more titles in development for PS3 than has been announced, I think that's a very reasonable and safe expectation.

indeed that is true, but you must agree that extrapolating that to imply (without facts) that the number will quickly exceed X360 titles is still a bit of a stretch. ;)

[Titanio]

indeed that is true, but you must agree that extrapolating that to imply (without facts) that the number will quickly exceed X360 titles is still a bit of a stretch. ;)

I'm saying it's very probable there are >30/40 titles for PS3 we don't know about :) I do not mean to present this as a fact, but a high probability.

[Tap In]

I'm saying it's very probable there are >30/40 titles for PS3 we don't know about :) I'm not presenting this as a fact, but a high probability.

agree it is a high probability but you are not factoring in the fact that the X360 list of titles will also continue to grow at the same time.

My point: I do not think that number of titles can/will be used as a selling point this Gen.

For clarification T, I am now referring to this:

Like I added in my edit above, it'd only take 30 or 40 PS3 titles that we don't know about for the PS3 total to eclipse the figure given by MS for X360.

[expletive]

Like I added in my edit above, it'd only take 30 or 40 PS3 titles that we don't know about for the PS3 total to eclipse the figure given by MS for X360. And I think given that so many western publishers PS3 plans remain undisclosed, it's very likely there's comfortably many more than that, that we don't know about.

And undoubtedly many publishers are keeping quiet on PS3 plans, particularly western, right now. I've little doubt Sony have asked them to hold back until 06 to keep some sort of lid on PS3 hype till then. Even in the list for the Japanese market, so many of them remain unnamed, probably in an effort to indicate that the support IS rock solid, without completely distracting from their current market focus.

This is extremely speculative. Why Sony would hold back numbers on titles in development is beyond me.

Given that practically every developer has stated support for the 360 as well as PS3 at this point, i'm not sure how we can surmise that EITHER console has the won, or will win, the 'quantity' war.

[blakjedi]

As of today, the PS3 wins the spec wars, the game wars, and the overall console wars, based on *speculation.*

How people defend speculation (sometimes pure speculation like ants "1 Rsx shader = 2 xenos shaders" tripe) I dont know.

Save the speculating for Merrill Lynch and/or February when a Real PS3 appears/is announced.

[Titanio]

agree it is a high probability but you are not factoring in the fact that the X360 list of titles will also continue to grow at the same time.

Yes, but it's fair to say that MS has exposed more of their lineup, which wraps back to the point of them being at different stages. Compare EA's announced X360 support to PS3 announced support. PS3 should be on the receiving end of more "revelations" going forward, than X360 (even if it's a once-off flurry pre-launch). Remember we also have an "in development" figure for X360, which already includes "secret" games that we'll see announcements for in the future.

My point: I do not think that number of titles can/will be used as a selling point this Gen.

Agreed, it's a silly point to be honest. But it comes up a fair bit :p

This is extremely speculative. Why Sony would hold back numbers on titles in development is beyond me.

Why would they hold back on anything re. PS3..? Same argument, we've been here before. Again, ask yourself, for example, if the extent of EA's plans on PS3 are as they have announced up to now. Of course they're not, of course there is more. They've announced fewer titles than for X360, which solely comes down to the "being at different points" issue. Ditto for most other publishers.

To ask a question - would it really be surprising if PS3 did have more titles? I don't think it would. It's going to get all those titles that are specifically for the japanese market that publishers just wouldn't bother with on X360. Western support is "at worst" going to be as strong as X360. Without the same strength in all markets that Sony, the odds have got to be stacked against MS on this one.

[Shifty Geezer]

This is extremely speculative. Why Sony would hold back numbers on titles in development is beyond me.The reason would be to minimize interest in PS3 to not impact PS2/PSP sales. eg. If they announce FFXII for PS3 with updated visuals, if that were in development, would that not detract from sales of FFXII for PS2? Assuming a lot of games for PS3 will be franchise derivatives, it's in Sony's and the software developers best interests to have existing customer buy existing games instead of wait for the improved PS3 experience in 6 months time. That's the logic as I see it.

Now can someone please explain to me why I'm posting in another merry-go-round who'll beat who thread? Why aren't we getting technical discussions? When in the blazes will we get to hear about RSX and actually cover something new? :razz:

[mckmas8808]

When in the blazes will we get to hear about RSX and actually cover something new? :razz:

yeah seriously. I'm about to find Ken and make him spell the beans on the RSX.:twisted:

[Tap In]

yeah seriously. I'm about to find Ken and make him spell the beans on the RSX.:twisted:

do it

we need that shoe to drop soon. :D

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

How people defend speculation (sometimes pure speculation like ants "1 Rsx shader = 2 xenos shaders" tripe) I dont know.

Call it what you want but how a can COMPRMISED shader be more powerful or equal to a specialised one???

[Tap In]

....
Now can someone please explain to me why I'm posting in another merry-go-round who'll beat who thread? ...:razz:

ummm... you're a glutton for punishment? ;)

[valioso]

I dont think EA is a good comparisson, since is likely their titles are multiplatform anyway

[Shifty Geezer]

Call it what you want but how a can COMPRMISED shader be more powerful or equal to a specialised one???The theory behind unified shaders is that they're very similar in operation. Though US running as PS likely won't be as efficient as pure PS, the difference probably isn't that great.

ummm... you're a glutton for punishment? ;)Must be. I'm still here!

[expletive]

The reason would be to minimize interest in PS3 to not impact PS2/PSP sales. eg. If they announce FFXII for PS3 with updated visuals, if that were in development, would that not detract from sales of FFXII for PS2? Assuming a lot of games for PS3 will be franchise derivatives, it's in Sony's and the software developers best interests to have existing customer buy existing games instead of wait for the improved PS3 experience in 6 months time. That's the logic as I see it.

I was referring to numbers only, not actual title names.

Now can someone please explain to me why I'm posting in another merry-go-round who'll beat who thread? Why aren't we getting technical discussions? When in the blazes will we get to hear about RSX and actually cover something new? :razz:

When you figure this out please PM me with the answer. :)

[ImaginaryIndustryInsider]

I believe the consoles were arriving at Wal-Mart set to 480i, 4:3, to be displayed on a widescreen HD monitor... *GASP*

It's no wonder people are complaining, the quality increase was enough for me to do a double-take at "King-Kong".

[randycat99]

I have to say that even with a properly setup kiosk, that demo does not look that impressive when you look for the shortness on polygons, areas with unflattering textures, and the "hacked" ocean effect at the game options screen. This is not to say the demo is missing polys, textures, and effects altogether. They just seem in targetted places of the game, instead of just a pervasive level of quality throughout.

The kiosk in my area seems to have a bug on the Kameo demo, as well. I've attempted to access it several times now, and it always results in a persistent dark screen (though, I seem to have learned more about the dashboard, as a result, where I can cancel out of the demo and get the box functional again, w/o actually hardware resetting the box).

[Tap In]

.....I've attempted to access it several times now, .....

It seems like you just *might* be intrigued by this new system despite its less than auspicious start and your occasional criticism of it. ;)

[randycat99]

Make no mistake that I remain in the PS3 camp. I do care enough to give the X360 a fair lookover. There is no shame in that. It is objectivity and open mindedness at its finest- something that the "other camp" would do well to take example from. :roll:

[Mythos]

Make no mistake that I remain in the PS3 camp. I do care enough to give the X360 a fair lookover. There is no shame in that. It is objectivity and open mindedness at its finest- something that the "other camp" would do well to take example from. :roll:

One can appreciate that MS has done a suck job on opportunities to impress. Specailly with the Demo display at Walmart. If the demo pods across the US are looking not up to spec. that only adds to a disfavorable opionon and the PS3 looks better than X360 just adds to the hype.

[expletive]

One can appreciate that MS has done a suck job on opportunities to impress. Specailly with the Demo display at Walmart. If the demo pods across the US are looking not up to spec. that only adds to a disfavorable opionon and the PS3 looks better than X360 just adds to the hype.

It sounds like YOU can appreciate it but by the time the PS3 launches, which looks like 1 year from now, dodgy walmart kiosks from 12 months back will likely have zero impact on sales either way.

[blakjedi]

One can appreciate that MS has done a suck job on opportunities to impress. Specailly with the Demo display at Walmart. If the demo pods across the US are looking not up to spec. that only adds to a disfavorable opionon and the PS3 looks better than X360 just adds to the hype.

True. The biggest problem with 360 is not the hardware, or the software or the services... its the marketing of the damn system. Now how intelligent people on this board routinely extrapolate that into "superiority" of PS3 I dont get... but I guess I dont have to get it either.

I have never based my purchases on what message boards or polls say or even the "momentum" of a system... otherwise I would have been a playstation supporter for the last ten years.

I bought my playstation 1 the day it came out... amid the hype and expectation and with the exception of colony wars, warhawk, and MGS1 was not really taken in by the system. Even having bought Playstation first i ended playing Saturn more once i got it in 1996...

All that is to say buy and play what y'all want... but really the whole "buy ps3 cause we all know that its gonna be better" argument really is very hollow.

[mckmas8808]

I bought my playstation 1 the day it came out... amid the hype and expectation and with the exception of colony wars, warhawk, and MGS1 was not really taken in by the system. Even having bought Playstation first i ended playing Saturn more once i got it in 1996...


I brought a Saturn first and then a PSone. How in the hell did you play the Saturn more? I could never find games for it. I'll go to Toys 'R Us and see 8 Saturn games then see 50 PSone games on the other selves. That was the only reason why I brought a PSone.

[Tap In]

Make no mistake that I remain in the PS3 camp. I do care enough to give the X360 a fair lookover. There is no shame in that. It is objectivity and open mindedness at its finest- something that the "other camp" would do well to take example from. :roll:

not shameful at all, admirable in fact.

I don't know how many times I read posts from anti-MS people where it's fairly obvious that they have not even bothered to read or understand what the X360 is/will be (to the point that it's obvious that they didn't even read Dave's Xenos article). They just come on here and post their FUD and regurgitate the "party line".

At least you can speak first hand about your impressions.

edited to add: oh yea, I'm sure that works both ways. :D

[Mythos]

True. The biggest problem with 360 is not the hardware, or the software or the services... its the marketing of the damn system. Now how intelligent people on this board routinely extrapolate that into "superiority" of PS3 I dont get... but I guess I dont have to get it either.

I have never based my purchases on what message boards or polls say or even the "momentum" of a system... otherwise I would have been a playstation supporter for the last ten years.

I bought my playstation 1 the day it came out... amid the hype and expectation and with the exception of colony wars, warhawk, and MGS1 was not really taken in by the system. Even having bought Playstation first i ended playing Saturn more once i got it in 1996...

All that is to say buy and play what y'all want... but really the whole "buy ps3 cause we all know that its gonna be better" argument really is very hollow.

Right on.

And though the the PS3 is more powerfully arguement over the X360 is more seen balance some of our views. It's not up to us to spread the word. Ultimately these big business need to get their message out.

[SedentaryJourney]

A year won't make a stink of difference if the Xbox360's software situation doesn't improve. Touting computer ports, games that use UE3 but look like DC games (frame-city killer, I'm looking in your direction), and generally unimpressive first gen games that are really last minute re-toolings of last gen games, isn't going to cut the mustard against prospective Sony offerings, be they tech demos and concept designs currently.

Sony marketing works, it just does. It worked against a dreamcast that offered online play and quality gaming long before anyone had the chance to wait ten hours in line for a PS2 that offered neither. Given that frame of reference, it seems to me that MS is doing a terrible job with the Xbox360. Or maybe I'm wrong and perhaps there's a "Halo" waiting in the wings for the 360, and if there is, MS needs to do a better job shoving said killer app in people's faces.

EDIT: I forgot about PGR3. Though it still isn't Halo-like-proportions killer app to me.

[expletive]

A year won't make a stink of difference if the Xbox360's software situation doesn't improve.

Do you think that the 360s software situation wont improve from a launch titles (some of which actually do look fantastic)? I thought we'd already seen future games (GoW) in action that, quite honestly, embarrass most of the launch offerings.

Sony isnt going to be competing against PDZ, Amped 3, RR6, theyre going to be competing against games like GoW, mass effect, too human, Halo 3(?), etc.

I agree, it would be a disaster if things remained status quo but given this is the launch lineup, even some of those are great, and we've already seen games coming that show great promise, i don't think it's something to worry about.

Also remember we ahvent really seen MS' marketing team do anything as of yet. A bunch of (disappointing) viral campaigns for the hardcore some initial kiosks with beta demos, is all we've really seen. MS has proven they can screw up advertising as well as hit a home run though so we'll ahve to see what they come up with.

[Inane_Dork]

Make no mistake that I remain in the PS3 camp. I do care enough to give the X360 a fair lookover. There is no shame in that. It is objectivity and open mindedness at its finest- something that the "other camp" would do well to take example from. :roll:People in many "camps" would do well to learn from you.
Please don't make this even more partisan, even by accident.

[expletive]

EDIT: I forgot about PGR3. Though it still isn't Halo-like-proportions killer app to me.

To be fair, no one thought Halo was a killer app before they actually played the final version...

[Tap In]

.... Or maybe I'm wrong and perhaps there's a "Halo" waiting in the wings for the 360, and if there is, MS needs to do a better job shoving said killer app in people's faces.....

ummm there is .... Halo 3. ;)

It may be out in time to compete head to head with PS3.
I doubt that there will be any problem getting that in people's faces. ;)

[dukmahsik]

gosh both systems are going to own so bad get over it

[expletive]

gosh both systems are going to own so bad get over it

This would be a good place for a few of those 'headbanger' smilies, but i dont know how to do them. :)

[Sis]

To be fair, no one thought Halo was a killer app before they actually played the final version...
But to be realistic, the PGR series, in all incarnations across a couple different systems, was arguable a very good game but hardly ever a killer app. I was burned by them on Dreamcast, then on Xbox. The hype for PGR usually is far ahead of its gameplay.

Though I have friends who say it's the best racing game out there, so maybe it's just me.

.Sis

[expletive]

But to be realistic, the PGR series, in all incarnations across a couple different systems, was arguable a very good game but hardly ever a killer app. I was burned by them on Dreamcast, then on Xbox. The hype for PGR usually is far ahead of its gameplay.

Though I have friends who say it's the best racing game out there, so maybe it's just me.

.Sis

I agree. Sorry if i gave the impression that i was selling PGR3 as a 'killer app'. I dont think it is and certainly didnt mean to come across as vaunting it as one. Personally, I think Kameo has a much wider appeal and has a much better chance at selling systems.

Sure is purty tho. :) And I wonder if the Gotham TV thing will take off at all...

EDIT: Now i see where you got that, it was based on my quoted response to the PGR 3 quote. I meant it as responding for the overall "no killer app evident" rather than just PGR3.

[NavNucST3]

But to be realistic, the PGR series, in all incarnations across a couple different systems, was arguable a very good game but hardly ever a killer app. I was burned by them on Dreamcast, then on Xbox. The hype for PGR usually is far ahead of its gameplay.

Though I have friends who say it's the best racing game out there, so maybe it's just me.

.Sis

Not at all sir, its just the types of racers. For me, playing with my four-year old son, Burnout is our favorite racing game, merely because it does not require much more skill than his four-year old hands can handle, it is also a game my wife doesn't mind playing with us.
Playing by myself, I find more enjoyment from the PGR3(semi-simulation)/Forza games.

Back OT: As gamers, it would be great if we could all enjoy whatever gaming system we choose, for whatever reason, without the "need" to defend that choice. The last time I checked neither of the BILLION dollar corporations have actually GIVEN us anything.

Also, does it really matter when the PS3 debuts in your given countries, its not like the gameplay experiences will decrease because it came out n months later.
As I have pointed out on numerous occasions there is no love lost with me and Sony, having said that-it has absolutely no bearing on whether I could have fun on their game system. There are only two companies I refuse to do business with, Wal-Mart and Haliburton.

[Edge]

n/m

[Junkstyle]

Well, it seems that Microsoft has a 1 year launch window after all.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051105-5530.html

In my opinion, it now doesn't really matter if one console is technically superior to the other. Microsoft has this generation in the bag. Sony must have known that they would have been late quite a while ago (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=571687#post571687).

I believe they run the risk of alienating their core audience by promising something they knew they could not deliver.

Thoughts?

I cant imagine this surprising anyone.

[ImaginaryIndustryInsider]

But to be realistic, the PGR series, in all incarnations across a couple different systems, was arguable a very good game but hardly ever a killer app. I was burned by them on Dreamcast, then on Xbox. The hype for PGR usually is far ahead of its gameplay.

Though I have friends who say it's the best racing game out there, so maybe it's just me.

.Sis

Sadly, I have to agree with that statement...PGR is just one of those games, that while being good, seems to be in-between Racing's sub-genres just enough to put off some gamers.

[Powderkeg]

To be fair, no one thought Halo was a killer app before they actually played the final version...


Do you remember E3 2001? Halo was a mess. People complained about bad graphics, horrible frame rate, nothing new in gameplay. People were saying that if Halo was the best MS could offer they wouldn't last 2 years in the console biz.

[expletive]

Do you remember E3 2001? Halo was a mess. People complained about bad graphics, horrible frame rate, nothing new in gameplay. People were saying that if Halo was the best MS could offer they wouldn't last 2 years in the console biz.

Yeah, given that Halo went on to be one of the biggest 'killer apps' ever, doesnt that support my statement?

(Sounds a lot like PDZ now that i think of it...)

[Powderkeg]

(Sounds a lot like PDZ now that i think of it...)

Now you know why I mentioned it.

[Mintmaster]

My point is not that XBox will outsell PS3 over its lifetime. In fact, I doubt it. My point is, however, that XB360 will have a much higher marketshare than the original XBox.
I don't think anybody ever really doubted that.
Well I guess thas settles it, but I'll address your other points anyway.

I don't quite follow you. Why is this any different now? Why won't developers ignore the Xbox 360? It will cost them more and return them less if they're releasing next-gen games on the Xbox 360 as opposed to the PS2/Xbox. What are you trying to say?
You not thinking about development from the same point of view as I am. If all that matters was the install base, then developers wouldn't make games for PS3 either. However, new PS3 and XB360 owners are definately going to buy games at a higher rate than old system owners, so developers are making next gen games.

Once you make a game for a next gen system, you won't be able to port it to PS2. You're mixing up markets. PS2 development is irrelevant to next gen competition. Let me be more clear. Consider the following two scenarios, with one premise:

Premise: As a developer, you've decided to make a game for the PS3.
Situation A: XB360 launches at the same time as PS3. PS3 will likely outsell XB360 by a large margin, so why bother making an XB360 port?
Situation B: XB360 launches well ahead of PS3. Well, there are already so many XB360's out there, and PS3 numbers won't catch up for a while, so may lose over half our sales if we don't make an XB360 port. Heck, the systems have similar enough characteristics that we won't have to modify the game that much.

However my point is, most developers are with the PS2 right now, and the PS2 is still going strong, so most of them gain nothing by moving to Xbox 360 development instead of sticking with the PS2 until the PS3 comes along.I don't know why you keep bringing up PS2. You're the one who said that many developers are going to skip next gen development until the PS3 arrives -- the aforementioned premise is your creation. I am discussing what happens at that point. Forget about developers that make XB360 games next year. I'm talking about the slew of developers getting games out within a year or two of the PS3's launch.

Now do you get it? Does my example make sense now that I've shown how all along I've been talking about the context that you introduced? Even considering the many developers waiting until the PS3 is launched before doing anything on XB360, the latter's early launch makes a huge difference in its success.



However, what I've heard and read (particularly around here) is that both GPUs are essentially very close in terms of power, and the real difference in graphics will come from the Cell.Umm, difference in graphics from cell? That makes no sense at all. Cell may do some better physics or animation, but it has nothing to do with graphics. And with physics, it's a lot harder to see a difference with a faster processor. You can simply reduce the accuracy, iterations, mesh density, etc. for a weaker processor. Furthermore, you have to figure out a way to use all that CPU power without being constrained by its limitations or by bandwidth.

I also mentioned Blu-Ray specifically (since it was really my main focus when I mentioned a "hardware advantage"). I'm strongly of the opinion that sticking with DVD-9 will be Microsoft's eventual deathbed in the coming generation.
Sorry, I meant to discuss this in my previous post but forgot. I really think you're going overboard with the significance of Blu-Ray for console games. Yes, for PS1 vs. N64 there was a big difference, but the CD had what, 20 times the capacity of a cartridge? Even today there aren't many PC games taking advantage of DVD capacities. PS3 has around 210MB for textures -- comparable to today's video cards (even sub-$100), and a quarter to a half the typical system RAM of a PC, so I don't see art assets jumping so drastically.

The only big advantage will be FMV, which really isn't needed with these consoles. 60fps realtime rendered cutscenes will be just as impressive, if not more so. Furthermore, a few GB of that will be orders of magnitude longer than 50GB of HD video on a dual layer blu-ray disk.

Blu-ray will help PS3 because Blu-ray drives will likely cost a lot at the PS3's launch, but beyond that its impact will be nowhere near what you're suggesting. You can fit plenty of data on a 8.4 GB DVD to take full advantage of hardware twice as powerful as either of these consoles. It's a minor artistic limitation. Worst comes to worst, an epic adventure of a game will use multiple discs.

[expletive]

Now you know why I mentioned it.

Sorry its late over here. Could you explain the point youre trying to get across? I'm not following...

[Powderkeg]

Sorry, I guess I'm being too obscure.

The point is you can't make judgements about how pre-launch impressions of a small group of people will affect the overall impression of a game or system.

So, making claims about how a kiosk didn't look good, or how some people think game "X" isn't looking as good as it should are irrelevent. The number of people influenced by the content of a kiosk a month before the system launches is tiny at best, and any game can be a hit or even a system seller before it is released. You simply can't know the quality until you've played the final game.

Besides, if we judged a systems success on it's launch lineup then the PS2 would be one of the worst systems in history.

[ImaginaryIndustryInsider]

You can fit plenty of data on a 8.4 GB DVD .... Worst comes to worst, an epic adventure of a game will use multiple discs.



A game like Halo 3 could be broken into two discs (one for single-player, one for multiplayer) if need be, but when it comes to a GTA-style-huge-world game, things get a bit sticky...how do you break up something like that without killing the immersion with disc changes?

For the first year or two, I would think that DVD 9 will be fine, but after that, blu-ray could really offer a significant advantage over the 360 past movie playback...it's hard to say for sure though, because I have my doubts that MS would shoot-itself-in-the-foot in such an important area like storage.

[expletive]

Sorry, I guess I'm being too obscure.

The point is you can't make judgements about how pre-launch impressions of a small group of people will affect the overall impression of a game or system.

So, making claims about how a kiosk didn't look good, or how some people think game "X" isn't looking as good as it should are irrelevent. The number of people influenced by the content of a kiosk a month before the system launches is tiny at best, and any game can be a hit or even a system seller before it is released. You simply can't know the quality until you've played the final game.

Besides, if we judged a systems success on it's launch lineup then the PS2 would be one of the worst systems in history.

Ok its confirmed then, we're saying the same thing. :)

[Gholbine]

Umm, difference in graphics from cell? That makes no sense at all. Cell may do some better physics or animation, but it has nothing to do with graphics. And with physics, it's a lot harder to see a difference with a faster processor. You can simply reduce the accuracy, iterations, mesh density, etc. for a weaker processor. Furthermore, you have to figure out a way to use all that CPU power without being constrained by its limitations or by bandwidth.

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.

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.

I think it's rather naive to say "Cell has nothing to do with graphics", because that's incorrect, plain and simple.

Sorry, I meant to discuss this in my previous post but forgot. I really think you're going overboard with the significance of Blu-Ray for console games. Yes, for PS1 vs. N64 there was a big difference, but the CD had what, 20 times the capacity of a cartridge? Even today there aren't many PC games taking advantage of DVD capacities. PS3 has around 210MB for textures -- comparable to today's video cards (even sub-$100), and a quarter to a half the typical system RAM of a PC, so I don't see art assets jumping so drastically.

The only big advantage will be FMV, which really isn't needed with these consoles. 60fps realtime rendered cutscenes will be just as impressive, if not more so. Furthermore, a few GB of that will be orders of magnitude longer than 50GB of HD video on a dual layer blu-ray disk.

Blu-ray will help PS3 because Blu-ray drives will likely cost a lot at the PS3's launch, but beyond that its impact will be nowhere near what you're suggesting. You can fit plenty of data on a 8.4 GB DVD to take full advantage of hardware twice as powerful as either of these consoles. It's a minor artistic limitation. Worst comes to worst, an epic adventure of a game will use multiple discs.

I'm not quite sure if you follow many of the developers comments, but at least 5 of them now have either A) complained about the lack of disc space or B) stated that their game fills up the entire DVD-9 disc. Just recently, the developer of Frame City Killer stated that his game (which isn't even graphically impressive) is taking up the entire DVD-9. Now you could retreat to the argument that "it's probably just because of CGI", but in all truth, what does it matter how they're using the space? The fact of the matter is, they're filling up the discs, and the generation hasn't even begun. This news is bad. It's terrible news, in fact, because the games are only going to get larger, and in many cases, using multiple discs just isn't an option (or is a very inconvenient option).

The situation is bad. Much worse than some of the Xbox supporters are willing to admit. There's rumours of Microsoft developing a 15gb DVD disc that works with current drives, but even if these rumours end up coming to fruition, and the 15gb discs are released at some point before the end of the Xbox 360 life-cycle, it still puts them at a solid 35gb behind the PS3. While this would certainly help, it doesn't eliminate the problem, not even close.

Note: Developers only have 7gb of space per disc for their games on the Xbox 360. 1.5gb of the space is taken up with "security features", or something of the sort. This puts both the Revolution and the original Xbox at an advantage to the Xbox 360 in disc space terms. While the difference between DVD-9 and Blu-Ray (7-1) is not as large as the difference between CD and cartridge (10-1), it's still a significant difference, and this issue was enough to almost single-handedly destroy the N64, when Nintendo was the previous market leader by a large margin. With that in mind, what's it going to do to a company that's not even the market leader? Time will tell, but the facts are overwhelmingly against the Xbox 360 in this instance.

Even if you just want to ignore all of the developer comments about this issue, it's still plainly obvious that disc space requirements jump significantly in consoles every generation, and this is even more true in the coming generation, because of the leap to HD resolution, as well as 7.1 surround sound and higher audio quality. History is an excellent example of what to expect when it comes to disc space requirements, and when in videogaming history has a newer console ever had less disc space than its older counterpart? None that I can remember. While it is unfortunately for Microsoft, the developers and the people buying the system (including myself), it's not entirely surprising that those who wish the system success (including myself) are talking down the issue. However there's also some of us that refuse to blind ourselves to reality by pretending the issue doesn't exist, because quite clearly, it does. I, as with anybody else buying the system, can hope that these 15gb discs are released to alleviate some of this problem.

I'd also like to point out that the days of CGI sequences are not gone, not by a long shot. While real-time rendering quality has certainly improved dramatically in the next-gen consoles, it's still far below what's possible in pre-rendered sequences. Even if the developer chooses not to use pre-rendered sequences, some of the real-time cut-scenes must still be recorded and played back during the game, to avoid flow-stopping loading times. Xenosaga is a perfect example of this. Pre-recorded (but real-time) cut-scenes were in heavy use, because the cut-scenes took place in many different locations throughout the game, and loading times would have killed the directorial flow of these scenes. The game ended up being 2 DVDs. As for “real-time is just as impressive as pre-rendered, if not more so”, don’t be ridiculous. If you think they’d have been better off showing Advent Children in real time, maybe you should have taken your idea to Square before they blew millions on their pre-rendered work.

Your comparison to PC games was interesting, but it doesn't exactly prove what you wanted it to. The fact of the matter is, console games take more space than PC games... significantly more space, because of compression and streaming issues. Take GTA3 for example. The PC version is about 500mb installed, but the PS2 version is nearly 6 times that, and at half the resolution! Now with console games rivalling PC games for resolution, what's that going to do to the disc space requirments? Suddenly 6x becomes 10 or 12x the space. In other words, comparing PC games to console games for disc space just doesn't work, unless you're trying to prove that console games will always require more disc space than PC games, even if they're exactly the same game.

[expletive]

A game like Halo 3 could be broken into two discs (one for single-player, one for multiplayer) if need be, but when it comes to a GTA-style-huge-world game, things get a bit sticky...how do you break up something like that without killing the immersion with disc changes?

For the first year or two, I would think that DVD 9 will be fine, but after that, blu-ray could really offer a significant advantage over the 360 past movie playback...it's hard to say for sure though, because I have my doubts that MS would shoot-itself-in-the-foot in such an important area like storage.

Only thing i can think of is "Hard Drive Required" for those games. I wonder how far off we are from that actually happening.

Does anyone know the details of the 'speed' of BR drives? Ive heard they are very slow but i dont know the details or HOW slow or if theyre really slow in the first place.

That said, i would rather change discs once during a game and have ALL The laod times be faster then to never switch at all yet have load times be more distracting.

[Gholbine]

Only thing i can think of is "Hard Drive Required" for those games. I wonder how far off we are from that actually happening.

Does anyone know the details of the 'speed' of BR drives? Ive heard they are very slow but i dont know the details or HOW slow or if theyre really slow in the first place.

That said, i would rather change discs once during a game and have ALL The laod times be faster then to never switch at all yet have load times be more distracting.

If the BD-ROM in the PS3 is 2x, then the data transfer speed will be 9MB/s, as opposed to 16MB/s offered by 12x DVD-ROM drives. While the figure does look bad for Blu-Ray, it doesn't tell the whole story, because there's many more factors than raw transfer speeds. After everything else is factored in, the drives would probably be within 10% of each other in terms of raw speed, but then there's the issue of data-duplication on Blu-Ray to improve streaming, which may even push it ahead of DVD for loading times and streaming.

All speculation of course, so we'll only really know when they release the BD-ROM drive speed details, and then when we actually play some of the games. It won't be a major issue, though.

[ImaginaryIndustryInsider]

Only thing i can think of is "Hard Drive Required" for those games. I wonder how far off we are from that actually happening.

When ever it does happen, hopefully most of the 360's out there will be the hdd-equipped model...which I expect to sorta be the case anyway. When MS introduces a bigger harddrive, I imagine the original hdd will be available for a reduced price and/or used, which should push most of the final holdouts into joining the rest of us.

[Mythos]

Sorry, I guess I'm being too obscure.

The point is you can't make judgements about how pre-launch impressions of a small group of people will affect the overall impression of a game or system.

So, making claims about how a kiosk didn't look good, or how some people think game "X" isn't looking as good as it should are irrelevent. The number of people influenced by the content of a kiosk a month before the system launches is tiny at best, and any game can be a hit or even a system seller before it is released. You simply can't know the quality until you've played the final game.

And again....its not that the final X game will come out well. Its sypmtomatic of a larger issue. How presentation and marketing goes a long way towards what games people buy, or a general impression of said system, building momentum or hype, etc.... Case in point (PDZ) had the game been presented better then all the bad press and MS hideing it away would be less of a problem (possibly a delay in release)!

[Powderkeg]

And again....its not that the final X game will come out well. Its sypmtomatic of a larger issue. How presentation and marketing goes a long way towards what games people buy, or a general impression of said system, building momentum or hype, etc.... Case in point (PDZ) had the game been presented better then all the bad press and MS hideing it away would be less of a problem (possibly a delay in release)!

And again, all of that is irrelevent.

3 months after the Xbox launch no one will remember or care what PDZ looked like at E3 or what filtering CoD was using at the kiosk in Walmart. It simply won't matter.

I guarantee you word of mouth from a friend sells better than any demo, screenshot, commercial, first impression article, preview or review, ever will. Halo basically carried the Xbox for it's first 2 years, and it wasn't because of commercials, screenshots, E3 or how well the Walmart kiosks worked. It was because people found Halo to be a damned fun game and told their friends.

[blakjedi]

eh... lots of the "evidence" for superiority is mumbo jumbo fan speak theory bullshit...

A developer looking at PS3 and X360 launching the same time is not just saying "oh PS3 will have better market share" for sure... or else no one would be making x360 games at all or for any other system other than PS3 for that matter.

They are looking at:

1 - ease/cost of development!
2 - can the power of the system showcase their developmental vision?
3 - what kind of support does the manufacturer provide for the system once it gets to the marketplace?
4 - Are there any other incentives the system/manufacturer provide the developer that they wouldnt otherwise get on the other system? (Think Ninja Theory here)

Thus MS' increased support even in Japan this go round.

As far as cell helping RSX... xenon and xenos were literally made for each other... maybe moreso than cell RSX.... so xenon also "helps" with grpahics for whatever thats worth...

Some theories in this thread are ... priceless.:grin:

[one]

So Warner switched the side for Blu-ray to wait for Holiday 2006 when HD-DVD titles are supposed to have been released already?

[AlphaWolf]

So Warner switched the side for Blu-ray to wait for Holiday 2006 when HD-DVD titles are supposed to have been released already?

I don't believe Warner ever said they would release titles exclusivily on blu-ray.

[Mythos]

And again, all of that is irrelevent.

3 months after the Xbox launch no one will remember or care what PDZ looked like at E3 or what filtering CoD was using at the kiosk in Walmart. It simply won't matter.

I guarantee you word of mouth from a friend sells better than any demo, screenshot, commercial, first impression article, preview or review, ever will. Halo basically carried the Xbox for it's first 2 years, and it wasn't because of commercials, screenshots, E3 or how well the Walmart kiosks worked. It was because people found Halo to be a damned fun game and told their friends.

That my friend is not being in touch with the realities of the market....

It may be so that no one remebers or cares about PDZ. I'm sure MS will reminder you or others. Aside from that when people ask what games should I get for the X360 launch others come to mind before PDZ ever comes up. Guess which games are selling more?...that's right Kameo, COD2, and others. Why?...presentation marketing!

Most of your impressions or others are controlled (for the most part) by these companies. How else do you make your impressions...

Don't guarantee me anything..there's been plenty of good games gone under the radar!

[NavNucST3]

Note: Developers only have 7gb of space per disc for their games on the Xbox 360. 1.5gb of the space is taken up with "security features", or something of the sort. This puts both the Revolution and the original Xbox at an advantage to the Xbox 360 in disc space terms. While the difference between DVD-9 and Blu-Ray (7-1) is not as large as the difference between CD and cartridge (10-1), it's still a significant difference, and this issue was enough to almost single-handedly destroy the N64, when Nintendo was the previous market leader by a large margin. With that in mind, what's it going to do to a company that's not even the market leader? Time will tell, but the facts are overwhelmingly against the Xbox 360 in this instance.

Even if you just want to ignore all of the developer comments about this issue, it's still plainly obvious that disc space requirements jump significantly in consoles every generation, and this is even more true in the coming generation, because of the leap to HD resolution, as well as 7.1 surround sound and higher audio quality. History is an excellent example of what to expect when it comes to disc space requirements, and when in videogaming history has a newer console ever had less disc space than its older counterpart? None that I can remember. While it is unfortunately for Microsoft, the developers and the people buying the system (including myself), it's not entirely surprising that those who wish the system success (including myself) are talking down the issue. However there's also some of us that refuse to blind ourselves to reality by pretending the issue doesn't exist, because quite clearly, it does. I, as with anybody else buying the system, can hope that these 15gb discs are released to alleviate some of this problem.

I'd also like to point out that the days of CGI sequences are not gone, not by a long shot. While real-time rendering quality has certainly improved dramatically in the next-gen consoles, it's still far below what's possible in pre-rendered sequences. Even if the developer chooses not to use pre-rendered sequences, some of the real-time cut-scenes must still be recorded and played back during the game, to avoid flow-stopping loading times. Xenosaga is a perfect example of this. Pre-recorded (but real-time) cut-scenes were in heavy use, because the cut-scenes took place in many different locations throughout the game, and loading times would have killed the directorial flow of these scenes. The game ended up being 2 DVDs. As for “real-time is just as impressive as pre-rendered, if not more so”, don’t be ridiculous. If you think they’d have been better off showing Advent Children in real time, maybe you should have taken your idea to Square before they blew millions on their pre-rendered work.

Your comparison to PC games was interesting, but it doesn't exactly prove what you wanted it to. The fact of the matter is, console games take more space than PC games... significantly more space, because of compression and streaming issues. Take GTA3 for example. The PC version is about 500mb installed, but the PS2 version is nearly 6 times that, and at half the resolution! Now with console games rivalling PC games for resolution, what's that going to do to the disc space requirments? Suddenly 6x becomes 10 or 12x the space. In other words, comparing PC games to console games for disc space just doesn't work, unless you're trying to prove that console games will always require more disc space than PC games, even if they're exactly the same game.

Just for point of clarification, you should probably revise your numbers, only because I envision the 25GB disc as the primary BD-ROM. However, even with that there is still a significant space difference, just not as large as 7-1, at least initially. If we go by your "DVD-7" then we are left to conclude a 3.6x increase in capacity with regards to a 25GB BD-ROM. Personally, I do wish MSFT had chosen any higher capacity OD, changing discs is not something I truly want to do, but I also envision "HDD Required" games.

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

If the BD-ROM in the PS3 is 2x.

I predict a 4x dirve my-self, given the amount of time left until PS3 come's out and the liky price cut's of the drives by then i would more than liky expect sony to shove in a 4x drive.

[Platon]

Your comparison to PC games was interesting, but it doesn't exactly prove what you wanted it to. The fact of the matter is, console games take more space than PC games... significantly more space, because of compression and streaming issues. Take GTA3 for example. The PC version is about 500mb installed, but the PS2 version is nearly 6 times that, and at half the resolution! Now with console games rivalling PC games for resolution, what's that going to do to the disc space requirments? Suddenly 6x becomes 10 or 12x the space. In other words, comparing PC games to console games for disc space just doesn't work, unless you're trying to prove that console games will always require more disc space than PC games, even if they're exactly the same game.

Actually I think that point might more support xbox360 than it discredits it. As far as I know, most of the launch titles are really not using all the compresion techniques around which the xbox360 was built. It was a long long time ago that I think Allard said that they are aiming to make thing smaller and smaller with xbox360 refering to the data on the disc, and he was reacently making his comments about how some developers were "sloppy".

So I woudln't go by the notion that launch games hardly fit on one disc so how will games later on fit? Usually launch games are bad indicators of what a system can do when it comes to graphics and everything else. The other good having smaller file sizes is that it makes the loading times much shorter and streamming as well since it is faster to read a small compressed file on the disc and uncompress it real time on the fly rather than read the whole uncomressed file directly from the DVD.

As for games on multiple discs, if the game is a linear kind of adventure or something a disc switch during 30-40 hours of gameplay I don't think is a problem. As for free roaming games I see two solution, either the "hdd only" label on them or what I believe, that they will work on all the systems, but those that have the hdd will be able to install the game and have the oher dvd to play with, I mean there must some adavntage to have the hdd after all. Actually I would like to see all the games being ble to do instalation, talk about fast game loadings and stuff then...

[Josh378]

I predict a 4x dirve my-self, given the amount of time left until PS3 come's out and the liky price cut's of the drives by then i would more than liky expect sony to shove in a 4x drive.


IF Sony was making the big $$$ like MS was, they could sell a $700 system with all the max-out specs(2x CELL + 2x RSX IN SLI+ 1 Gig of XDR-RAM at 6.4 GHZ and a 4x Blu-ray) for only $399......

Seriously, 4x BR-ROM? Sony will def be losing ALOT of Money....2x is fine as it is.....

-Josh378

[Hardknock]

I predict a 4x dirve my-self, given the amount of time left until PS3 come's out and the liky price cut's of the drives by then i would more than liky expect sony to shove in a 4x drive.

There are no blu-ray players on the market, how are they going to have "likely price cuts" before the PS3 hits?

[Platon]

I predict a 4x dirve my-self, given the amount of time left until PS3 come's out and the liky price cut's of the drives by then i would more than liky expect sony to shove in a 4x drive.

Well that depends on if the can manufacture the amount that is recuired and the cost. If the cost between a 2x and 4x drive is minimal then maybe yes otherwise I find it more hard to believe, I really don't see Sony wanting to increase the cost of the PS3 furter which seems to be extremely expensive already...

[Gholbine]

The Blu-Ray drive speed is a mystery at this point. I see three options: 1.5x, 2x or 4x.

1.5x would be the lowest Sony could possibly go, being that Blu-Ray movies require 1.5x to play. 2x I see as the most likely option as it's probably the best balance between cost and performance, as I see 2x being sufficient for a games console. 4x is a possibility, since 2x (write) drives have been around for 18 months now (in labs of course), and read speeds are always well ahead of write speeds.

Interesting to see how it turns out?

[london-boy]

I agree with your outrage, mckmas, and let me be the first to set the record straight! I don't believe for a second that xb, Randy, and l-b have written off the Xbox 360.

.Sis

:wink:

Exactly. Can i be left out of this. I don't participate in these pathetic threads for a reason afterall (reason being i just tend to read these thread, laugh, and give bad rep when it's needed).
I haven't written off a bloody thing, in fact i can't wait to plug a X360 to my new SAmmy HDTV when i finally get it.

[Hardknock]

Exactly. Can i be left out of this. I don't participate in these pathetic threads for a reason afterall (reason being i just tend to read these thread, laugh, and give bad rep when it's needed).
I haven't written off a bloody thing, in fact i can't wait to plug a X360 to my new SAmmy HDTV when i finally get it.

And you gave me bad reputation for this post:

QFT.

People that write off MS are in for a rude awakening.


Go to fucking hell. Did I say you wrote anything off? I stated "people that write off MS". If you didn't fall into that category why the fuck did you respond? :roll: You shouldn't have any authority around here giving people negative points over shit like that.

[london-boy]

Go to fucking hell. You shouldn't have any authority around here giving people negative points over shit like that.

Yeah that's gonna help your case.

Well actually i wanted to give u bad rep for the one after that one, i just clicked on the wrong one.
You also have one after that one calling someone idiot.
So, i'm very sorry, i should have clicked on the right one. Still, doesn't change the fact that you need to chill out. You get bad rep anyway, whether it was for that post or whatever else. Your behaviour in these boards is appalling most of the time so don't cry when people give you bad rep.

[hey69]

Since the usa and europe models of ps3 coming end of 2006 /begin 2007, a 4x bleuray drive wouldnt be abnormal :twisted:

[Hardknock]

Yeah that's gonna help your case.

Help my case? I'm a grown ass man. I can say whatever I want. It pisses me off because me and you have a history and that's the only reason you gave me negative feedback.

For those that would like to see for themselves: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=614830#post614830

You also have one after that one calling someone idiot.
So, i'm very sorry, i should have clicked on the right one. Still, doesn't change the fact that you need to chill out. You get bad rep anyway, whether it was for that post or whatever else. Your behaviour in these boards is appalling most of the time so don't cry when people give you bad rep.

For your information that post has been a couple days ago and yours was the first negative feedback I've recieved. I said you're either blind or an idiot, which other people agreed with. My point was fully backed up with the proof I provided. I speak my mind, some people don't like it, oh well. Still doesn't give you any kind of right to give me negative feedback over that, but whateva.

[Platon]

Since the usa and europe models of ps3 coming end of 2006 /begin 2007, a 4x bleuray drive wouldnt be abnormal :twisted:

I doubt they would launch with a 2x driver and then upgrade t a 4x driver. I think thet would rather see to it that the system either goes down in cost as fast as possible and earn money rather than spending more money...

[london-boy]

For your information that post has been a couple days ago and yours was the first negative feedback I've recieved. I said you're either blind or an idiot, which other people agreed with. My point was fully backed up with the proof I provided. I speak my mind, some people don't like it, oh well. Still doesn't give you any kind of right to give me negative feedback over that, but whateva.

I give bad rep when people are unfriendly (like you), aggressive (like you), don't usually listen to people (like you) and many other reasons.

I do not give bad rep because "i disagree with you". Or do you need to know i gave bad rep to Mckmas in the past, lots of times? Going by people's opinion of me, i should give him lots of good rep cause he has a preference for Sony and i have one too, mostly. That's not the case however, and it shouldn't be.

So, no, i do not abuse the rep system according to the "sides" of these pathetic threads.

Your point about "speaking your mind" is largely irrelevant. You should be able to express your points in a much more civil way, that's the real problem with you and many other people around here.

You know, the old "it's not what you say, it's how you say it"...

[Shifty Geezer]

LB's joined the ranks of the evil oppressive six-star mods who persecute anyone with a different POV to them. You're a Sony six-star LB, and death to all the MS and Nintendo underlings! Bad-Rep 'em out of existence for daring to disagree with the Playstation-livin' elite that rule this board! :razz:

In fairness I think the rep thing works. I'm seeing red and green squares where I think they ought to be. One person was red when I couldn't see why, save maybe one bad post, but they're back in the ranks of the greens now so they were able to recover and behave. I'll also say that turning rep off is annoying. If someone's got a history of being a prat but they hide it under a cowardly blue square (red squares and green-squares alike put aside their animosity towards each other and find common ground in our bitter hatred of the cowardly blue-squares *spit*) it makes them harder to ignore, until you learn who they are. If public rep isn't going to be shown across the board it may as well be deactivated.

Though the system isn't infallible I have to admit. How on EARTH can LB be leadng the race to glorious mega-stardom with 5 stars?!!!! :shock:

And this isn't the forum for discussing rep either. This thread is one of those regurgitated debates on console sales. They've been regurgitated so many times now I can't swallow 'em down any more.

[Hardknock]

I give bad rep when people are unfriendly (like you), aggressive (like you), don't usually listen to people (like you) and many other reasons.

Your point of "speaking your mind" is largely irrelevant. You should be able to express your points in a much more civil way, that's the real problem with you and many other people around here.

Aggressive I can agree with but I don't think I've been unfriendly to anybody here. if you respect me, I will respect you. Bottom line. I'm very open-minded, hell my entire argument this thread was for everyone to be more open-minded. Civility is no problem, but there's nothing in the terms of service that says one cannot use adult language. I wonder if you gave the person I responded to negative feedback for being aggressive and rude? Hmmmmm... Anyway stop cherry picking things out of my posts to give negative feedback on because you don't like me and look at my entire message.

[london-boy]

Though the system isn't infallible I have to admit. How on EARTH can LB be leadng the race to glorious mega-stardom with 5 stars?!!!! :shock:


I'm a Good Guy... i give boys sweets, i invite them to my place, i give them more sweets, already-opened-coca-cola's that happen to taste like wine...... i am very good to them.......


:lol:

[london-boy]

Aggressive I can agree with but I don't think I've been unfriendly to anybody here. if you respect me, I will respect you. Bottom line. I'm very open-minded, hell my entire argument this thread was for everyone to be more open-minded. Civility is no problem, but there's nothing in the terms of service that says one cannot use adult language. I wonder if you gave the person I responded to negative feedback for being aggressive and rude? Hmmmmm... Anyway stop cherry picking things out of my posts to give negative feedback on because you don't like me and look at my entire message.

Or what? You'll bore me to death?!

Look, if you don't like it, you can do one of two things, get over it, or keep bitching about it. One of those will only get you more bad rep and more people against you.

Yes i never liked you, reason being you're just too aggressive.
Stop being so aggressive, and what does "but there's nothing in the terms of service that says one cannot use adult language" mean anyway? Is that your excuse for calling people names, say "fucking" every other word, and generally being an ass, thinking you're covered under the "Speaking My Mind" Agreement for Internet Forums? Is that what you consider "adulthood"? Nice... :roll:

As i said, there are many ways you can express your mind with.

Shifty's right, this is not the place to discuss this, if it's such a problem for you that people comment on your posting methods, take it to PM's.

[Hardknock]

Yes i never liked you, reason being you're just too aggressive.

This was already obvious. If you don't like me you have no business giving me negative feedback. Period. Like I stated you are the only person that gave me negative feedback.

Stop being so aggressive,

Don't tell me how to post. If you don't like my posting style, put me on ignore. You need to stop abusing your powers and giving people negative feedback for frivolous reasons.

[london-boy]

Don't tell me how to post. If you don't like my posting style, put me on ignore. You need to stop abusing your powers and giving people negative feedback for frivolous reasons.

Don't tell me how to post or how to use the rep system. And don't you dare telling me i'm abusing my "powers". If i were, all MS boys in here would get bad rep and all Sony boys would get good rep. Obviously that's not the case so drop this already.
They're frivolous reasons in your opinion. The reasons i gave are the only reasons people should have for giving bad rep.

[expletive]

I'm a Good Guy... i give boys sweets, i invite them to my place, i give them more sweets, already-opened-coca-cola's that happen to taste like wine...... i am very good to them.......


:lol:

I feel like i need a shower after reading this...

:D

[expletive]

Does anyone feel that the GC was held back by its optical media capacity? If so, how? If not, why not?

[london-boy]

Does anyone feel that the GC was held back by its optical media capacity? If so, how? If not, why not?

GC was held back by lack of 3rd party support.
I don't think anyone could possibly complain about GC's hardware, considering the price and the time of release.

[Hardknock]

Does anyone feel that the GC was held back by its optical media capacity? If so, how? If not, why not?

Heldback marketshare wise? No.

Game quality wise? Probably. For one I know CG cutscenes were of lower quality because they had to be compressed to fit on the discs.

[expletive]

GC was held back by lack of 3rd party support.
I don't think anyone could possibly complain about GC's hardware, considering the price and the time of release.

Do you think 3rd party support was hurt by its optical media capacity? I don't recall any published complaints, not like developers are required to voice such complaints publicly of course. :)

[mckmas8808]

In fairness I think the rep thing works. I'm seeing red and green squares where I think they ought to be. One person was red when I couldn't see why, save maybe one bad post, but they're back in the ranks of the greens now so they were able to recover and behave. I'll also say that turning rep off is annoying. If someone's got a history of being a prat but they hide it under a cowardly blue square (red squares and green-squares alike put aside their animosity towards each other and find common ground in our bitter hatred of the cowardly blue-squares *spit*) it makes them harder to ignore, until you learn who they are. If public rep isn't going to be shown across the board it may as well be deactivated.


Seriously I hope I was that person that received a bad rep and didn't deserve it. I've given a lot to this board in a last couple of weeks and in return I get a bad rep. I know people may not like my style, but most of the time certain people do agree with me. I never say anything completely stupid and an out of the way remark.

That's why I'm starting to use disclaimers. Most people just skim through people's post anyway. I think that's the true problem with some posters not understanding other posters. They see a certain vibe in the first sentence or two and they just skim the rest, resulting in quoting back a mean spirted reponse.

I personally am starting to have some great discussions with some more Xbox leaning people like expletive and Sis. At first things might have been a little rocky but the fact that I respect their opinion and read there whole post gives me a feeling not to hate them.

Thanks for reading now you can get back on topic.

[mckmas8808]

Do you think 3rd party support was hurt by its optical media capacity? I don't recall any published complaints, not like developers are required to voice such complaints publicly of course. :)

Actually I've seen plenty of devs say things about the disc space in a negative way. Of course I've read those quotes everywhere for the last 2 years and some in magazines so giving you a link right now is impossible. You are just going to have to trust me.

[Powderkeg]

That my friend is not being in touch with the realities of the market....

It may be so that no one remebers or cares about PDZ. I'm sure MS will reminder you or others. Aside from that when people ask what games should I get for the X360 launch others come to mind before PDZ ever comes up. Guess which games are selling more?...that's right Kameo, COD2, and others. Why?...presentation marketing!

Do you see that bolded part? That's why it's all irrelevent.

Launch is a drop in the bucket. It's the first million or so users, virtually all of which would ahve bought the system and games regardless of what was shown or offered.

For MS, it represents about 2% of what they hope to sell next-gen.

The other 98% don't care. What they will care about is what games are good from 2006 to the end of the systems life cycle, and by that time the Walmart kiosk issue and pre-launch hype will all be forgotten.

[scooby_dooby]

The situation is bad. Much worse than some of the Xbox supporters are willing to admit. There's rumours of Microsoft developing a 15gb DVD disc that works with current drives, but even if these rumours end up coming to fruition, and the 15gb discs are released at some point before the end of the Xbox 360 life-cycle, it still puts them at a solid 35gb behind the PS3. While this would certainly help, it doesn't eliminate the problem, not even close..

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hille.

Has there ever been a format before where 95% of the games took up less that 30% of the disc space?

The vast majority of this gen's games are AUDIO and VIDEO. Actual game files and tesctures tend to take up around 05-1GB. So even if we allow for things like textures and the game engine to increase 5x or 10x over, you're still way under 7GB. If they stop doing video, they have even more room...learn to use compression better and be more conscious of storage space and they have even more room.

The majority of games will have no problem fitting on one disc, 7GB is a ton of space to make an excellent game and it will remain adequate throughout this generation, there will be times where 7GB doesn't cut it, but it's far from a huge problem like you seem to think.

On this very tiny fraction of games, the majority of those wil just be spread across 2 discs, or features will be cut until it fits on 7GB. 7GB is still ALOT of space any way you look at it.

I'll remind you we didn't see a growth in the size of XBOX1 launch games to XBOX1 games that are being released today. Why do you expect there to be huge differences in disc size 5 years from now? Last Gen Morrowind set the bar for an above average disc size(3.1GB IIRC) and that remained an above average disc size for 5 years. This Gen Elder Scroll is <7GB.

[expletive]

Actually I've seen plenty of devs say things about the disc space in a negative way. Of course I've read those quotes everywhere for the last 2 years and some in magazines so giving you a link right now is impossible. You are just going to have to trust me.

Ok, i dont read much on the GC so i personally am not prone to coming across comments like that.

[expletive]

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hille.

Has there ever been a format before where 95% of the games took up less that 30% of the disc space?

The vast majority of this gen's games are AUDIO and VIDEO. Actual game files and tesctures tend to take up around 05-1GB. So even if we allow for things like textures and the game engine to increase 5x or 10x over, you're still way under 7GB. If they stop doing video, they have even more room...learn to use compression better and be more conscious of storage space and they have even more room.

The majority of games will have no problem fitting on one disc, 7GB is a ton of space to make an excellent game and it will remain adequate throughout this generation, there will be times where 7GB doesn't cut it, but it's far from a huge problem like you seem to think.

On this very tiny fraction of games, the majority of those wil just be spread across 2 discs, or features will be cut until it fits on 7GB. 7GB is still ALOT of space any way you look at it.

I'll remind you we didn't see a growth in the size of XBOX1 launch games to XBOX1 games that are being released today. Why do you expect there to be huge differences in disc size 5 years from now? Last Gen Morrowind set the bar for an above average disc size(3.1GB IIRC) and that remained an above average disc size for 5 years. This Gen Elder Scroll is <7GB.

Also, to add on here, i dont think that saying "at 15G it will be 35G less than blu-ray" is a particularly useful comparison. Do you really htink developers can fill more than even a 25G disc with quality content? At some point you have to say "how much is enough for this gen?". Obviously i have NO idea but I think its fair to say that a single Layer BR disc will be more than enough. Is 15G enough? Tough to say but essentially doubling DVD-9 capacity with a 15G FVD ought to help quite a bit.

[mckmas8808]

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hille.

Has there ever been a format before where 95% of the games took up less that 30% of the disc space?

The vast majority of this gen's games are AUDIO and VIDEO. Actual game files and tesctures tend to take up around 05-1GB. So even if we allow for things like textures and the game engine to increase 5x or 10x over, you're still way under 7GB. If they stop doing video, they have even more room...learn to use compression better and be more conscious of storage space and they have even more room.

The majority of games will have no problem fitting on one disc, 7GB is a ton of space to make an excellent game and it will remain adequate throughout this generation, there will be times where 7GB doesn't cut it, but it's far from a huge problem like you seem to think.

On this very tiny fraction of games, the majority of those wil just be spread across 2 discs, or features will be cut until it fits on 7GB. 7GB is still ALOT of space any way you look at it.

I'll remind you we didn't see a growth in the size of XBOX1 launch games to XBOX1 games that are being released today. Why do you expect there to be huge differences in disc size 5 years from now? Last Gen Morrowind set the bar for an above average disc size(3.1GB IIRC) and that remained an above average disc size for 5 years. This Gen Elder Scroll is <7GB.

I had to bold all of the important things that I completly disagree with you on. First why do you keep bringing up games sizes of this gen? We are talking about next-gen games here, so shouldn't we be talking about next-gen textures? And how is a 1 GB times 10 still small enough for 360 games? In my school 1 X 10 = 10.

Point being I don't think the argument should be, "next gen games be bigger than 7.4 GBs?" I think the arguement should be, "is two or three disc a bad thing for MS?" Because we all know that games will go past that 7.4 GBs.

[expletive]

I had to bold all of the important things that I completly disagree with you on. First why do you keep bringing up games sizes of this gen? We are talking about next-gen games here, so shouldn't we be talking about next-gen textures? And how is a 1 GB times 10 still small enough for 360 games? In my school 1 X 10 = 10.

Point being I don't think the argument should be, "next gen games be bigger than 7.4 GBs?" I think the arguement should be, "is two or three disc a bad thing for MS?" Because we all know that games will go past that 7.4 GBs.

I agree but i think there's a bunch of questions that go along with this:

what % of games will go over 1 disc
will those games primarily be RPGs or all types games?
will gamers care about multiple discs for RPGs? the other games?
If MS can provide a disc with 13G of usable storage, how many games will now be more than 1 disc? Does that change 'everything' in the eyes of developers?
How willt he fact that both Revolution AND 360 be using DVD-9 impact the use of storage beyond the capacity these media?

How can you say that a majority of games WONT fit on DVD-9? What can we base this on?

[mckmas8808]

I agree but i think there's a bunch of questions that go along with this:

what % of games will go over 1 disc
will those games primarily be RPGs or all types games?
will gamers care about multiple discs for RPGs? the other games?
If MS can provide a disc with 13G of usable storage, how many games will now be more than 1 disc? Does that change 'everything' in the eyes of developers?
How willt he fact that both Revolution AND 360 be using DVD-9 impact the use of storage beyond the capacity these media?

How can you say that a majority of games WONT fit on DVD-9? What can we base this on?

Perfect questions. I couldn't have done better myself. I think most games within the next year will most defenitely by less than 7.4 GBs. But what if devs decide to use that extra space on the PS3? Will the 360 lose features due to space limitation?

[Mefisutoferesu]

I'd have more faith in games fitting on one DVD if Xbox360 used CAV instead of CLV (wait... constant angular... so that's r... yeah, I think that's right). The games may fit on one DVD for the most time, but the loading screens will be "get up and make a sandwhich" level long. It's not so much a question of will it fit, but is it worth it? I mean XBox360 games will be MADE to fit, there's no question about that, but how worthwhile will that be? Will the sacrifice content, load time, CG, detail, resolution, processor cycles? It's a situtation where you can't "have your cake and eat it too", and it's a shame.

[mckmas8808]

I mean XBox360 games will be MADE to fit, there's no question about that, but how worthwhile will that be? Will the sacrifice content, load time, CG, detail, resolution, processor cycles? It's a situtation where you can't "have your cake and eat it too", and it's a shame.

This is my only true point when concerning Xbox 360's disc space. I too realize that 360 games will be 360 games. Great question Mefisutofereseu I wish I could give you rep points up.

[Mmmkay]

I'd have more faith in games fitting on one DVD if Xbox360 used CAV instead of CLV (wait... constant angular... so that's r... yeah, I think that's right). The games may fit on one DVD for the most time, but the loading screens will be "get up and make a sandwhich" level long. It's not so much a question of will it fit, but is it worth it? I mean XBox360 games will be MADE to fit, there's no question about that, but how worthwhile will that be? Will the sacrifice content, load time, CG, detail, resolution, processor cycles? It's a situtation where you can't "have your cake and eat it too", and it's a shame.

Err, the Xbox 360 drive is CAV. You don't really see CLV drives beyond 3-4x speeds. Also, load times are often more the fault of game development than the technology underpinning it.

[Shifty Geezer]

I can't imagine most games going over a 7 GB limit. Expansive genres manage it but that's basically RPGs. The content is just too expensive. PGR3 is a good example I think. You've got detailed cars, lots of them, detailed cities with high-res textures. It's a costly game paid for by MS as a flagship title, and it still hasn't gone beyond the disc limit. Most other games won't have the money to afford as many detailed models and sceneries, let alone afford to have even more cars and cities to choose from. GT5 might well exceed PGR3's content in storage capacity because I can imagine Sony shovelling more money at that game to get 2000 different cars and 50 circuits, just so they can say 'XB360 can't fit this much on a disk'. But the costs otherwise are prohibitive. 7 GBs of uncompressed content is still a hell of a lot and with compression you're looking at plenty more than that.

[scooby_dooby]

I had to bold all of the important things that I completly disagree with you on. First why do you keep bringing up games sizes of this gen? We are talking about next-gen games here, so shouldn't we be talking about next-gen textures? And how is a 1 GB times 10 still small enough for 360 games? In my school 1 X 10 = 10.

Point being I don't think the argument should be, "next gen games be bigger than 7.4 GBs?" I think the arguement should be, "is two or three disc a bad thing for MS?" Because we all know that games will go past that 7.4 GBs.

In case you didn't notice those were just random numbers, what if textures only increase 3-4x's? Who knows? I'm not a dev. The point was, todays games are small ~2.5GB, and of that 2.5GB ~2/3 is usually audio and video files. Which mean game files are on average < 1GB. Somehow I'm supposed to believe that these game files will suddenly become 6-20GB??

As far as I'm concerned, if Oblivion which looks amazing, has over 250hours of gameplay, and where 50% of the disc is dedicated to audio can fit on one disc(only using 3.5GB for actual game files), then the sports, action, fighting, racing, platformer, adventure games should have no problem at all.

RPG's nobody cares if they have to swap discs. So the only potential genre that could be affected is GTA-style games. And still GTA on xbox was only 2.8GB, with alot of that dedicated to audio!

I dunno, the way I see it, by the time this does become a problem it'll be about time for PS4 and XBOX3 so it's a non-issue. In the meantime, it'll be the odd game, but no biggie.

[Mefisutoferesu]

Err, the Xbox 360 drive is CAV. You don't really see CLV drives beyond 3-4x speeds. Also, load times are often more the fault of game development than the technology underpinning it.


Darn it... I did get them backwards! Sorry. (Must remember, CLV has the same transfer rate throughout.) And yes, granted the way game data on a disc is laid out is currently the most important issue with load times, but as games get larger and they really need to make use of the full disc the difference in data rate will be of more importance, or so I think. Also, I know you don't typically see high speed CLV, but I was just saying it from a theoretical sort way. It'd be nice if I was rich. It'd be nice if there was no disease. It'd be nice if it was CLV.

EDIT:: By the way, excellent point shifty! Cost plays a factor in this as well. I have to keep that in mind.

[Edge]

> "RPG's nobody cares if they have to swap discs."

The 360 will hardly get any also, so it should not be a concern. :)

[expletive]

In case you didn't notice those were just random numbers, what if textures only increase 3-4x's? Who knows? I'm not a dev. The point was, todays games are small ~2.5GB, and of that 2.5GB ~2/3 is usually audio and video files. Which mean game files are on average < 1GB. Somehow I'm supposed to believe that these game files will suddenly become 6-20GB??

As far as I'm concerned, if Oblivion which looks amazing, has over 250hours of gameplay, and where 50% of the disc is dedicated to audio can fit on one disc(only using 3.5GB for actual game files), then the sports, action, fighting, racing, platformer, adventure games should have no problem at all.

RPG's nobody cares if they have to swap discs. So the only potential genre that could be affected is GTA-style games. And still GTA on xbox was only 2.8GB, with alot of that dedicated to audio!

I dunno, the way I see it, by the time this does become a problem it'll be about time for PS4 and XBOX3 so it's a non-issue. In the meantime, it'll be the odd game, but no biggie.

Is the reason why oblivion fits on the disc becuase of the use of procedural synthesis? I rememebr reading they were using it but have no idea how much or what the impact would be on disc space...

[expletive]

I'd have more faith in games fitting on one DVD if Xbox360 used CAV instead of CLV (wait... constant angular... so that's r... yeah, I think that's right). The games may fit on one DVD for the most time, but the loading screens will be "get up and make a sandwhich" level long. It's not so much a question of will it fit, but is it worth it? I mean XBox360 games will be MADE to fit, there's no question about that, but how worthwhile will that be? Will the sacrifice content, load time, CG, detail, resolution, processor cycles? It's a situtation where you can't "have your cake and eat it too", and it's a shame.

I think the processor cycles will mainly be used during the load screens since thats when a majority of the decompression will be used no? As for streaming textures isnt that compression directly supported in the grfx hardware?

[mckmas8808]

RPG's nobody cares if they have to swap discs. So the only potential genre that could be affected is GTA-style games. And still GTA on xbox was only 2.8GB, with alot of that dedicated to audio!

I dunno, the way I see it, by the time this does become a problem it'll be about time for PS4 and XBOX3 so it's a non-issue. In the meantime, it'll be the odd game, but no biggie.

So what is Frame City Killers considered? Does this game automatically not count anymore? Are we acting as if we don't have the dev's comments right on this board?

[expletive]

So what is Frame City Killers considered? Does this game automatically not count anymore? Are we acting as if we don't have the dev's comments right on this board?

To be fair, aren't oblivion and PGR3 a much better example of what CAN be done on 7.5g than FCK is of what CAN'T be done? At this moment, i'll give the guys at bizarre and bethesda the benefit of the doubt as being beacons of what can be accomplished on a DVD-9.

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, FCK has been resoundlingly underwhelming until just recently. They'd have to prove, to me at least, that they can get more out of a shrink-wrapped game engine (UE3) on the 360 until they become the "standard to what can be accomplished on the 360"

[blakjedi]

> "RPG's nobody cares if they have to swap discs."

The 360 will hardly get any also, so it should not be a concern. :)

Edge.... sometimes I wonder why you even bother. Stop trolling.

[scooby_dooby]

Not to mention we didn't see a linear proression in game size last generation, to the contrary most of the "best" games tended to be quite small, and filesize did not really increase as the generation went on. The bigger games were usually sloppy pieces of crap.

Developers will be able to make 7.4GB work just fine, there are many workarounds they could use. I found it funny some of the same people who think HDD's are unnescescary cause Dev's will just find workarounds and use RAM, think these same Dev's are somehow incapable of fitting their game in 7.4GB.

As for X360 having no RPG's, I can think of 7 or 8 coming out in the next 2 years, that's pretty sweet IMO, but to each their own I guess :grin: I'll be RPG'ing up a storm

[_phil_]

unnescescary

:) i love that word.

[mckmas8808]

Not to mention we didn't see a linear proression in game size last generation, to the contrary most of the "best" games tended to be quite small, and filesize did not really increase as the generation went on. The bigger games were usually sloppy pieces of crap.

Developers will be able to make 7.4GB work just fine, there are many workarounds they could use. I found it funny some of the same people who think HDD's are unnescescary cause Dev's will just find workarounds and use RAM, think these same Dev's are somehow incapable of fitting their game in 7.4GB.

As for X360 having no RPG's, I can think of 7 or 8 coming out in the next 2 years, that's pretty sweet IMO, but to each their own I guess :grin: I'll be RPG'ing up a storm

First 7 or 8 RPGs in two years is absolutely horrible. Secondly your opinion on 7.4 GBs being enough is a good well thought out opinion. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if devs do what you think will happen (i.e. become smarter in using the space that they have) or do what I think (i.e. eventually cut out some extras, not have many CGI cutscences, and have 2 or maybe even 3 discs).

[scooby_dooby]

Not when the RPG's are AAA caliber like Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Oblivion, Fable 2, Jade Empire 2, KOTOR 3 and Mass Effect. And I'm sure there's many more to come...

I'm more than happy with that selection of RPG's, all looking to be excellent games.

[mckmas8808]

Not when the RPG's are AAA caliber like Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Oblivion, Fable 2, Jade Empire 2, KOTOR 3 and Mass Effect. And I'm sure there's many more to come...

I'm more than happy with that selection of RPG's, all looking to excellent games.

Hate to break it to you but some of those games you listed could be busts.:sad: They may come out and be very underwhelming games. Mass Effect may be a 9.5 game, while Blue Dragon may be a 6.5 type game. I think a consoles needs about 15+ RPGs a year so...

[Shifty Geezer]

Not when the RPG's are AAA caliber like Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Oblivion, Fable 2, Jade Empire 2, KOTOR 3 and Mass Effect. And I'm sure there's many more to come...

I'm more than happy with that selection of RPG's, all looking to be excellent games.On an unrelated-to-this-thread sidenote, how do you rate AAA? For all we know Lost Odyssey or Blue Dragon will be diabolical tosh; same as any game that's not yet released to play for real. So does AAA not need any guarentees of game quality to class as triple-A?

[scooby_dooby]

Hmm, Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey crap? Well when the original team behind ChronoTrigger reunites I tend to have high expectations. And for lost odyssey it's the guy who created FF3 combined with a team over 30% comprised of ex Square employees, bankrolled by MS, I have no doubt this will be a AAA game.

And I'd extend that same common sense approach to any dev, regardless of the system. I think you're really reaching if you think either of these will be flops, I'm not sayinf they're gaurenteed hits or anything, but if you had to bet your paycheque, what would you guess?

[scooby_dooby]

Hate to break it to you but some of those games you listed could be busts.:sad: They may come out and be very underwhelming games. Mass Effect may be a 9.5 game, while Blue Dragon may be a 6.5 type game. I think a consoles needs about 15+ RPGs a year so...

Ya I'd love 15RPG's a year, but only if they're quality. I'd take 1 really good RPG over 5 crappy RPG's anyday.

[Shifty Geezer]

And I'd extend that same common sense approach to any dev, regardless of the system. I think you're really reaching if you think either of these will be flops, I'm not sayinf they're gaurenteed hits or anything, but if you had to bet your paycheque, what would you guess?I never said they would be flops. I said why call them Triple-A's? What's your definition? eg. I'm not sure I'd rate Oblivion or Fable as triple-AAA as I don't think either will be maxing the hardware to any degree. The term triple-AAA is often used but I've never seen it defined. What's the distinction between A grade, double A and triple A? What percentage of games this gen were triple A?

[expletive]

I never said they would be flops. I said why call them Triple-A's? What's your definition? eg. I'm not sure I'd rate Oblivion or Fable as triple-AAA as I don't think either will be maxing the hardware to any degree. The term triple-AAA is often used but I've never seen it defined. What's the distinction between A grade, double A and triple A? What percentage of games this gen were triple A?

To me AAA is a 'system selling' title, games that generate sales of hardware. Qualifying games is so subjective so i think when you go out and buy a console to play 'that game' it deserves to be in the rarified air of "AAA title".

Probably 1% or less this past gen were AAA? If i had a sense of how many games were released for each console i could venture a better guess.

[ROG27]

The Hollywood Reporter article is not necesarrily correct when it mentioned the PS3 is coming out in the States a year from now. That was merely the journalists speculation (refer to BBC for similar misinformation) and not a Howard Stringer direct quote. We all know the background this guy has in the games industry, considering he thinks the psp has a harddrive, etc. Here is the link to a reliable source of information, gamesindustry.biz, clarifiying the assumption:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12788

"One of the major drivers behind Sony's determination to establish Blu-Ray as the standard throughout the industry is its inclusion in the architecture of the PS3. The Reporter stated that Sony would be releasing a number of portable video devices to "fill the time gap before PlayStation 3 launches in Japan in March and in the US a year from now," though these dates appear to be the inference of the interviewer and did not come from Stringer himself."

Thank you. And goodnight.

[Edge]

n/m

edit: we need a delete option!

[Edge]

Edge.... sometimes I wonder why you even bother. Stop trolling.

Sorry, it was just a joke, but I guess it rubs the wrong way, when there is so much truth in it.

[mckmas8808]

The Hollywood Reporter article is not necesarrily correct when it mentioned the PS3 is coming out in the States a year from now. That was merely the journalists speculation (refer to BBC for similar misinformation) and not a Howard Stringer direct quote. We all know the background this guy has in the games industry, considering he thinks the psp has a harddrive, etc. Here is the link to a reliable source of information, gamesindustry.biz, clarifiying the assumption:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12788

"One of the major drivers behind Sony's determination to establish Blu-Ray as the standard throughout the industry is its inclusion in the architecture of the PS3. The Reporter stated that Sony would be releasing a number of portable video devices to "fill the time gap before PlayStation 3 launches in Japan in March and in the US a year from now," though these dates appear to be the inference of the interviewer and did not come from Stringer himself."

Thank you. And goodnight.

Thanks for pointing that out, but I think you are a little too late to change anyones mind on that truthful statement.

[SedentaryJourney]

Do you think that the 360s software situation wont improve from a launch titles (some of which actually do look fantastic)? I thought we'd already seen future games (GoW) in action that, quite honestly, embarrass most of the launch offerings.I agree with you, which is why I used "IF the Xbox360's software situation doesn't improve" as a qualifier in my statement; although I don't regard GOW or any of the launch titles as being killer apps. To me, anticipation for GOW is severely mitigated by the fact that UT2007 and several UE3 games will be on both PC and console platforms within a short period of time. The UT2007 rsx demo also served to undercut most of the hype surrounding GOW. What stops people from keeping their wallets shut and purse strings drawn until PS3 comes out and delivers the next MGS, GT, Tekken, and FF, in addition to ports and multiplatform titles that probably won't be any worse and may perhaps be a bit improved from 360 versions?

The MGS4 trailer did a lot to position Sony this gen. It gave gamers the impression that quality games and franchises are still targeted primarily for the PS3. PGR3 may be a stellar game, but does it carry with it the same mass appeal as GT? Could it ever make as big a sound? Perhaps, but only with the proper momentum. As an old Square fan, Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon are possibly both killer apps to me, should MS step up to the plate and strategically ramp up the cultural awareness; just as Sony did in '97 when it made FFVII and the RPG a phenomenon in North America.

[Laa-Yosh]

To be fair, no one thought Halo was a killer app before they actually played the final version...

Actually, most people almost stopped playing it after seeing the first level. I kinda liked it though, but I can understand them... It wasn't as nice a level as the second one, and with a low difficulty setting, combat wasn't too impressive either.

The beginning of Silent Cartographer, though, was a very different thing :)

[Laa-Yosh]

I think a consoles needs about 15+ RPGs a year so...

??? Just how much free time do you have? I can hardly play a single RPG per year nowadays...

[ImaginaryIndustryInsider]

The MGS4 trailer did a lot to position Sony this gen.

I think as trailer related hype goes, Killzone 2 at e3 did a lot more to sell the PS3 to the masses, at least in the USA.

[Laa-Yosh]

To everyone arguing about the DVD vs. Blueray thing - seriously, what other options would there be for MS? HD-DVD? It's not done yet. Blueray? They won't license it from Sony for sure. What else is there? 10GB flash memory sticks? 1.44 FDD? I don't really see any alternative for the Xbox360...

[nAo]

To everyone arguing about the DVD vs. Blueray thing - seriously, what other options would there be for MS? HD-DVD? It's not done yet. Blueray? They won't license it from Sony for sure. What else is there? 10GB flash memory sticks? 1.44 FDD? I don't really see any alternative for the Xbox360...
I agree, they had no choice...given their launch time.
Good timing is everything, you know.. :)

[Sis]

??? Just how much free time do you have? I can hardly play a single RPG per year nowadays...
I think it's probably a matter of having variety, not necessarily wanting to play all RPGs released every year. Anyone know if Atlus is doing anything for the 360?

.Sis

[cam]

The disc space blu-ray gives people is nice, after all its better to have something and not use it than not have it at all, but disc space is the last thing on Sony’s mind, the main objective is to get blu-ray players in people’s homes.

I can see Microsoft’s point in not giving the 360 a hd-dvd drive, It doesn’t really serve any purpose apart from adding $50+ to the price tag, if however they had hd-dvd players to sell and a movie studio or two, then it would be a given. It’s not like there the only one in the forthcoming market not to have a high def storage system.

[expletive]

I agree with you, which is why I used "IF the Xbox360's software situation doesn't improve" as a qualifier in my statement; although I don't regard GOW or any of the launch titles as being killer apps.

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'. If that happens (i.e. it DOESNT improve), MS should just turn the Xbox wing in Redmond into some squash courts and force the whole xbox team to collect towels in the locker room.

To me, anticipation for GOW is severely mitigated by the fact that UT2007 and several UE3 games will be on both PC and console platforms within a short period of time. The UT2007 rsx demo also served to undercut most of the hype surrounding GOW.

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.

What stops people from keeping their wallets shut and purse strings drawn until PS3 comes out and delivers the next MGS, GT, Tekken, and FF, in addition to ports and multiplatform titles that probably won't be any worse and may perhaps be a bit improved from 360 versions?

What if they are worse and their online component sucks? Speculation is fun! :)

The MGS4 trailer did a lot to position Sony this gen. It gave gamers the impression that quality games and franchises are still targeted primarily for the PS3. PGR3 may be a stellar game, but does it carry with it the same mass appeal as GT? Could it ever make as big a sound? Perhaps, but only with the proper momentum. As an old Square fan, Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon are possibly both killer apps to me, should MS step up to the plate and strategically ramp up the cultural awareness; just as Sony did in '97 when it made FFVII and the RPG a phenomenon in North America.

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 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? :)

[Mefisutoferesu]

Hmm, Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey crap? Well when the original team behind ChronoTrigger reunites I tend to have high expectations. And for lost odyssey it's the guy who created FF3 combined with a team over 30% comprised of ex Square employees, bankrolled by MS, I have no doubt this will be a AAA game.

And I'd extend that same common sense approach to any dev, regardless of the system. I think you're really reaching if you think either of these will be flops, I'm not sayinf they're gaurenteed hits or anything, but if you had to bet your paycheque, what would you guess?

Sigh, why does everyone do this? MS was GENIUS to get Sakaguchi to make games for them. "OMG, it's teh Sakaguchi, FF is OWNXXORD!!!" Please.

Blue Dragon != Chrono Trigger, don't pull another PD0 == Halo on MS, they can't take that kind of stuff. Just because Toriyama and Sakaguchi are working together doesn't mean squat! Toriyama's involved? Dragon Ball game? No? Dragon Quest game? No? Chrono game? No? Dragon something? Probably. Look, do me a favor go watch the credits to Chrono Trigger and count how many names you see. If you seriously think (Sakaguchi + Toriyama) == Chrono Trigger, you have NO respect for those who worked on the game.

As to Lost Odyssey, well gee, it's good to know that as long as a team adds a few EX-Square employees they automatically win. Oh, and it's good to know that being the producer of a game means you made it, forget the long list of talent that worked and slaved on it.

Look, I'm not saying Mistwalker + whatever studio can't make a quality game, but to step on those involved in making a game and distilling it to Sakaguchi == "teh win" is silly. A lot of other talent contributed to those games and the situtation is far from being the same. Sakaguchi isn't Midas or anything, just look at the spirits within. Be excited, wonderful, but NOT because Blue Dragon == Chrono Trigger, that's insulting!

[Powderkeg]

Just because a lot of people did the grunt work of programming a game doesn't mean they had any influence in it's design.

I seriously doubt the guys who spent years making textures wrote the story, designed the gameplay or even the levels. There are usually only a couple of people who are responsible for the games conception and production, and the rest are simply grunts who type away creating what someone else told them to make.

[ERP]

Just because a lot of people did the grunt work of programming a game doesn't mean they had any influence in it's design.

I seriously doubt the guys who spent years making textures wrote the story, designed the gameplay or even the levels. There are usually only a couple of people who are responsible for the games conception and production, and the rest are simply grunts who type away creating what someone else told them to make.


Not really.

It depends a lot on the team, and the individuals involved but there are as many or more games that are the creative works of teams as there are games that are the creative works of individuals.

It sometime annoys me that the media tends to focus on very few of the people involved in product development, and overlooks the teams as a whole. The days of individuals building games is pretty much gone, with a few notable exceptions.

Not that I'm supporting either argument here, I don't know enough about the creative process of the games or individuals in question.

[scooby_dooby]

Sigh, why does everyone do this? MS was GENIUS to get Sakaguchi to make games for them. "OMG, it's teh Sakaguchi, FF is OWNXXORD!!!" Please.

Blue Dragon != Chrono Trigger, don't pull another PD0 == Halo on MS, they can't take that kind of stuff. Just because Toriyama and Sakaguchi are working together doesn't mean squat!

""OMG, it's teh Sakaguchi, FF is OWNXXORD!!!" "
Nobodys is saying this except you.

You're obviously extremely pessimistic about Sakaguch, and Mistwalker in General, I'm not sure why you seem so deadset against the guy, care to elaborate? This isn't the first time you've gone into a rant about this...

He was the producer of FF3, my favourite RPG of all time, and Chronotrigger, another all-time great. That alone should cause extremely high expectations. Combined that with the huge production values behind these games, and they should be high calibre.

How can you not give any respect to someone with a games portfolio like this?:
Final Fantasy Tactics Advance (2003)
Final Fantasy X-2 (2003)
Final Fantasy Origins (2002)
Kingdom Hearts (2002)
Driving Emotion Type-S (2001)
Final Fantasy Chronicles (2001)
Final Fantasy X (2001)
The Bouncer (2000)
Final Fantasy IX (2000)
Vagrant Story (2000)
Chocobo Racing (1999)
Chrono Cross (1999)
Final Fantasy Anthology (1999)
Final Fantasy VIII (1999)
Front Mission 3 (1999)
Parasite Eve II (1999)
Saga Frontier 2 (1999)
Brave Fencer Musashi (1998)
Bushido Blade 2 (1998)
Chocobo's Dungeon 2 (1998)
Ehrgeiz (1998)
Parasite Eve (1998)
Xenogears (1998)
Bushido Blade (1997)
Einhänder (1997)
Final Fantasy Tactics (1997)
Final Fantasy VII (1997)
Bahamut Lagoon (1996)
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (1996)
Tobal No.1 (1996)
Chrono Trigger (1995)
Seiken Densetsu 3 (1995)
Final Fantasy VI (1994)
Final Fantasy V (1992)
Final Fantasy IV (1991)
Final Fantasy III (1990)
Final Fantasy II (1988)
Final Fantasy (1987)
Rad Racer (1987)

PLEASE. Give the guy a little respect, he didn't amass credits like that from being a no-talent bum...

[Mefisutoferesu]

Scooby re-read my post, where did I say Sakaguchi is talentless? I'm saying you place too much importance on him!! The TEAM is what matters!! And I get pissed when people don't recognize this fact!!! He's not the only creative talent involved in a game and you disrespect people and his teams by saying so! NEXT TIME READ WHAT I WRITE!

[Mythos]

To everyone arguing about the DVD vs. Blueray thing - seriously, what other options would there be for MS? HD-DVD? It's not done yet. Blueray? They won't license it from Sony for sure. What else is there? 10GB flash memory sticks? 1.44 FDD? I don't really see any alternative for the Xbox360...

Thats one point..another is how much leverage would either HD-DVD or Blu-ray give the respective console?

If one format takes off it could possiblely make an impact. Then the decision not adding one is seen as a missed opportunity.

[Powderkeg]

Thats one point..another is how much leverage would either HD-DVD or Blu-ray give the respective console?

If one format takes off it could possiblely make an impact. Then the decision not adding one is seen as a missed opportunity.

The odds of one taking off in the next generation of consoles is remote at best. The demand just isn't there. The only people who care are HDTV owners who don't think their current DVD's look good enough, and that group is tiny indeed.

Before either format can take off you'll have to get over 50% of the population switched to HDTV, and then convince them that their current DVD movies don't look good enough. Then you need to convince them to switch all of their current movies over to whatever format takes off.

I just can't see that happening in less than 6 years. It took DVD that long to replace VHS and the differences in those media was huge compared to the relatively minor resolution change that HD video will offer over current DVDs.

[Jov]

The odds of one taking off in the next generation of consoles is remote at best. The demand just isn't there. The only people who care are HDTV owners who don't think their current DVD's look good enough, and that group is tiny indeed.

Before either format can take off you'll have to get over 50% of the population switched to HDTV, and then convince them that their current DVD movies don't look good enough. Then you need to convince them to switch all of their current movies over to whatever format takes off.

I just can't see that happening in less than 6 years. It took DVD that long to replace VHS and the differences in those media was huge compared to the relatively minor resolution change that HD video will offer over current DVDs.

HDTVs like Plasmas and LCDs are dropping in price. I know a number of ppl willing to invest in one for their features and size.

Also if for example the PS3 plays DVD and BR, then there is no reason to replace existing DVD collection. Just build one's collection with HD/BR versions.

I know I initially purchased my PS2 for DVD given I didn't have a player at the time and most likely do the same for the PS3 if the movies on BR impress me.

[randycat99]

1080p vs. 480p is a "minor" change in resolution? :shock:

[Powderkeg]

HDTVs like Plasmas and LCDs are dropping in price. I know a number of ppl willing to invest in one for their features and size.

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.

Also if for example the PS3 plays DVD and BR, then there is no reason to replace existing DVD collection. Just build one's collection with HD/BR versions.

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.

[Powderkeg]

1080p vs. 480p is a "minor" change in resolution? :shock:

Do you know how low the odds are that HD movies will be in 1080p native format?

I expect 720p, but no higher. Too many time and cost issues to justify 1080p when less than 1% of the market has a set that can display that.

[Mythos]

The odds of one taking off in the next generation of consoles is remote at best. The demand just isn't there. The only people who care are HDTV owners who don't think their current DVD's look good enough, and that group is tiny indeed.

Before either format can take off you'll have to get over 50% of the population switched to HDTV, and then convince them that their current DVD movies don't look good enough. Then you need to convince them to switch all of their current movies over to whatever format takes off.

I just can't see that happening in less than 6 years. It took DVD that long to replace VHS and the differences in those media was huge compared to the relatively minor resolution change that HD video will offer over current DVDs.

Again look at the realities of the market...

CEA has television unit sales projections as follows: Analog 13.5 millon and 11.9 for digital sets. This is for 2006 and for 2007 digital sets most likely take hold on the market and besides its in the CE manufactors to sell digital sets to you.

Then again like JOV stated consumer can buy both if they like. Eventually they'll be eased into a format by the CE market that funnels people in that direction. [First the hardcore will buy into it and then everyone else follows. And what HDTV owner does'nt want a device that will display a movie of their likeing in HD?]

[The question of traction still remains]

But if it takes off the spoils goes to the victor!

[mckmas8808]

To everyone arguing about the DVD vs. Blueray thing - seriously, what other options would there be for MS? HD-DVD? It's not done yet. Blueray? They won't license it from Sony for sure. What else is there? 10GB flash memory sticks? 1.44 FDD? I don't really see any alternative for the Xbox360...

Of course they didn't have a choice. But it was them whom wanted to release a console in 2005.

[randycat99]

Do you know how low the odds are that HD movies will be in 1080p native format?

Do you? I know you have a guess, but do you really "know"?

I expect 720p, but no higher. Too many time and cost issues to justify 1080p when less than 1% of the market has a set that can display that.

So a future format is going to target the state of existing tech? 1% market? Is the install base going to freeze in its tracks today? A 1080p format will ensure optimal quality for all lower hd standards. This is getting ridiculous.