Also, majority of the people don't go for graphics on a console, they have better options, a mid-range duo core with a 8800gts can beat a PS3 in just graphics, it's all about card power, so even if Xbox 720 is so powerful, you can probably get a card that outperforms it when it launches.
Console Performance - Now or Later
- Thread starter Rockster
- Start date
- Status
believe it when you see it.
Sony is actually in a very bad position, mostly because of price. They will be the most expensive console for the duration of this generation. That is not a position anyone wants to be in, even with an uber brand like Playstation as backing. Look at current sales. You have the 360, a console that basically breaks, and just about everyone knows it breaks by now. Yet its still outselling a Playstation branded box. Sony should be seriously concerned when a console that breaks is outselling theirs. They need to hit $399 yesterday.
Ten year lifecycle talk is 100% spin. The first three years are absolutely critical in a consoles life for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is momentum, both marketing and developmental. Plus, at the end of the day software houses like the one I work for want to make money, pure and simple. The big bucks are in years 3-5 of a new console, then they inevitably start to taper off.
Look at the Playstation 2. It has a userbase of 100+ million strong. Turns out that number is completely irrelevant to us. All that matters is how many of those 100+ million are willing to pay full price for a game, that's it. As it stands today, the company I work for can make more money from the ~10 million or so 360 owners than the ~100+ million PS2 owners. There's a reason why so many shops are eager to flock to the new consoles, because the old box has started drying up and the money is moving to the new ones. The 360 right now is money. 360 owner buy games. I see the numbers, they really buy games. Therefore, that's where shops like us want to be. In 3-4 more years, we'll be transitioning to the next machines.
Performance at 5+ years at the expense of the first few years is the worst possible strategy in the 360/PS3 console space. Note that Wii may very well be totally different. But the hardcore gamers, ie the 360/PS3 space, are very fickle. They will buy lots of games between the 3-5 year mark, then they will start looking to the new machines. With its high price, gimped video hardware, and an initial "screw you" attitude to devs, Sony have put themselves in a very bad position.
I do agree on the difficulty to develop part, however, look how good some games turn out on the PS3 this early in its life cycle, I mean, it's not even out for a year yet the time we're discussing this. Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Lair, Heavenly Sword, and many upcoming titles are already taking advantage of PS3's rendering power. It won't be long before consistent games come out with consistent visual quality. By that time, 360 games will more or less falter and look dated. And then Sony, with all the money from people buying their consistent flow of quality games, will start to really map out their tactics for their next console, presumably the Playstation 4, which is likely to be 6X or more powerful than the PS3. I don't believe Sony will fail at this point...to be honest, the 360 is cheap because it uses cheaper materials and have no HD-DVD support out of the box. It also lacks a hard-drive in the core bundle. Rockstar, the developer of GTA series, had problems already since HDD is not a standard feature of the Xbox 360. I am guessing some games will start to have a sticker that says "HDD required" later on. This will alienate casual gamers of the 360 from AAA games like GTA, unless GTA is really targeted ONLY for hardcore gamers, I don't see this as very smart on part of MS. MS should've included HDD standard in every 360 from Day 1 to totally eliminate this problem at all to developers.
On the other hand, every PS3 has all the features a dev will ever need, BD support, HDD. All PS3 owners are entitled to the same games requiring the same hardware, and not to mentions the expandability of the HDD is much cheaper and flexible than the Xbox 360...sure, the mod community can teach you how to hack a HDD and use it on the 360..but does the general public want to do that? For the PS3, the HDD can be any laptops 2.5". Also, the support for Linux will open endless possibilities to the homebrew community. The PS3 offers games/hi-def movies/computer if you install linux on it right out of the box. For the 360, if you buy the core pack, you need to buy many other things to get the same experience. And a premium is more expensive and still doesn't have HD-DVD drive.
My point is that Sony maybe in a bit of a slow start here, but I don't believe they will lose this war. If anything, they will tie with MS this round.
I'm not going to even bother anymore as i will get flamed for not sticking up for 360!...someone tell me im wrong.
god forbid anyone says something possitive about ps3 and not mention 360 in the same sentence.
Not that I disagree about the need for price drop, but as long as worldwide sales are better or comparable to 360, I don't think PS3 is in a very bad position because of its price.
You are talking about a company that mostly makes yearly sport titles. From Sony's perspective, PS2 is still selling more than 360, even making profit on hardware with greater software sales.
The question is, when will you abandon PS2?
You clearly didn't 3-4 years after it was first released.
.Melchiah.
Regular
PS2 was the most expensive console for the duration of the last generation.
deathkiller
Newcomer
Yes but it was only a little more expensive than the rest of the consoles and it's launch price/price evolution was similar to the PS1's.
[modhat]Comparisons stop now. The thread is about whether you want tapped performance early or room to grow. 'Which console is most powerful' is not on topic - and is never on topic.[/modhat]
In FY 2007, PS2 sw sold ~200M (for the 3rd year in a row). For the time being, that's still more then LTDs of all 3 current gen consoles combined, and more then the LTD of any other console released in last 7 years with exception of GBA.joker said:
I'm not gonna discuss what this means to individual titles (since there's obviously more titles out there), but it's clear SW of some kind is still selling. I suspect drop-off will finally start showing this year - but after 8 years, it's had one hell of a run.
I agree that if your products are targeted at core gamers, this probably doesn't mean a whole lot - but the market is a lot bigger then hardcore audience, even before we talk about Nintendo.
Some interesting points for both preferences I think.
Overall it seems people agree that having some head room for developers to improve there games both visually and technically (i.e physics, A.I) throughout the lifetime of the console is both welcome and expected.
I guess in a black and white scenario I do personally prefer the greater room to grow over quicker initial results.
It's not as if the PS3 is performing poorly on the graphics front either. Most will agree titles for both consoles are roughly even with the first party offerings neck and neck with each other.
Considering I have been quite impressed up until this point with games from both companies, graphically at least, the thought that the visuals will continue to improve over the next 4-5 leaves me with a warm fuzzy feeling inside
.
Having owned a PS2 (still own) and watched the games on that system progress over the years has given me a great appreciation of leaving developers that extra headroom. And I half expect (maybe not reasonably) the PS3 to follow a similar cycle. Both have difficult architectures to program for initially, with the PS2 having a more exotic graphics card perhaps, but developers who did put in those initial efforts to get to grips with the hardware (especially when comparing the 3rd party offerings to those of the 1st party) saw large dividends and I hope the same will hold true with the PS3.
On some side notes I also think it's quite possible that the PS3 may last 10 years despite arguments to the contrary. Lasting 10 years dosn't mean the console won't be supesceded before this time. The PS2 continues to sell (at a decreasing rate admitidley) some 8 years after it's launch and thats with the unusually early arrival of the 360 into (4 or so years after it's launch).
The PS3 may not duplicate it's predecessors success but should still have healthy consumer base by the end of it's life cycle. I also feel Microsoft will not be in as big a rush to get their next console of store shelves considering how much profitable their position is now compared to last generation.
I also disagree with the view that people are in some way getting cheated for the fact that the console is not performing at it's peak shortly after purchased. I think in general people buy products these days with an expectation of improving them at some point in the future (especially in the consumer electronics and the PC space).
Some examples include things like amplifiers for the home theater. Full 7.1 surround sound was rare not that long ago and now there is talk of games including this feature so buying an amp a couple of years ago that supported the widley spread 5.1 format and also supported 7.1 doesn't seem that silly even though the functionality wasn't used right away.
How many people have High def T.V's but no HD-DVD or Blu Ray player? That could be seen as not getting everything out of the product initially as you are only viewing half the content in near it full resolution but I don't think people feel cheated by that.
The same is true for those PC user who have SLI mother boards with the latest graphics chips. There are no games currently (that I know of at least) that require a twin 8800 setup or even nearly utilise it fully.
I think this kind of "future proofing" is common and an intelligent design or purchase choice (at least in the long run finacially).
Anyway thats my two cents worth. Sorry if I started to wander off topic but I'm new and doing my best
Overall it seems people agree that having some head room for developers to improve there games both visually and technically (i.e physics, A.I) throughout the lifetime of the console is both welcome and expected.
I guess in a black and white scenario I do personally prefer the greater room to grow over quicker initial results.
It's not as if the PS3 is performing poorly on the graphics front either. Most will agree titles for both consoles are roughly even with the first party offerings neck and neck with each other.
Considering I have been quite impressed up until this point with games from both companies, graphically at least, the thought that the visuals will continue to improve over the next 4-5 leaves me with a warm fuzzy feeling inside
. Having owned a PS2 (still own) and watched the games on that system progress over the years has given me a great appreciation of leaving developers that extra headroom. And I half expect (maybe not reasonably) the PS3 to follow a similar cycle. Both have difficult architectures to program for initially, with the PS2 having a more exotic graphics card perhaps, but developers who did put in those initial efforts to get to grips with the hardware (especially when comparing the 3rd party offerings to those of the 1st party) saw large dividends and I hope the same will hold true with the PS3.
On some side notes I also think it's quite possible that the PS3 may last 10 years despite arguments to the contrary. Lasting 10 years dosn't mean the console won't be supesceded before this time. The PS2 continues to sell (at a decreasing rate admitidley) some 8 years after it's launch and thats with the unusually early arrival of the 360 into (4 or so years after it's launch).
The PS3 may not duplicate it's predecessors success but should still have healthy consumer base by the end of it's life cycle. I also feel Microsoft will not be in as big a rush to get their next console of store shelves considering how much profitable their position is now compared to last generation.
I also disagree with the view that people are in some way getting cheated for the fact that the console is not performing at it's peak shortly after purchased. I think in general people buy products these days with an expectation of improving them at some point in the future (especially in the consumer electronics and the PC space).
Some examples include things like amplifiers for the home theater. Full 7.1 surround sound was rare not that long ago and now there is talk of games including this feature so buying an amp a couple of years ago that supported the widley spread 5.1 format and also supported 7.1 doesn't seem that silly even though the functionality wasn't used right away.
How many people have High def T.V's but no HD-DVD or Blu Ray player? That could be seen as not getting everything out of the product initially as you are only viewing half the content in near it full resolution but I don't think people feel cheated by that.
The same is true for those PC user who have SLI mother boards with the latest graphics chips. There are no games currently (that I know of at least) that require a twin 8800 setup or even nearly utilise it fully.
I think this kind of "future proofing" is common and an intelligent design or purchase choice (at least in the long run finacially).
Anyway thats my two cents worth. Sorry if I started to wander off topic but I'm new and doing my best
You didn't say anything positive. You just made an unsubstantiated generalization that amounts to nothing more than "PS3 > 360".
Conversely, if what he said was true and everything on console Y was better than console A or B, AND it had room to grow, obviously, that would be the ideal console. Such isn't the case though.
I do see similarities with ps3 and ps2 in multiplat games looking better on non-ps platforms initially, but MS isn't Sega and xb360 isn't DC.
Now, come ps4 gen, depending on how long Sony sits on their hands ...
I'm so curious to see how MS will answer PS4 as it will be the first time in a very long time (ever?) where the architecture is actually an extension of the previous console. Devs should have a serious leg-up vs working with other consoles assuming Sony goes the obvious route and extends cell arch for ps4 along with the latest, extended NVidia gpu.
MS dev tools will likely negate some of this advantage, but I'm sure development will be a bit flip-flopped from this gen ... only question is timing. If sony drops a year later - again - then it may be a different situation.
So many variables!
Any way you look at it though, ps4/xb720 gen will get off the ground very quickly and ps3 will likely be the last console we see which has a steep learning curve and continues to grow at a rapid pace. (aka: performance later)
Comparsion are kind of hard not to discuss since this topic is the birth child of the current perception of this generation.
In reality, don't you generally get both every generation. You can easily tap performance to get better graphics than the previous generation and it can be counted on that you will have headroom to get better graphics further into the generation as the tech is new and not fully explored in terms of real world implementation .
I have a hard time fathoming if "either/or" is a question asked when designing a console. I can see there being a push for tapping power early but I think the opposite is the result of someone going "the power is there let the devs figure out how to extract it" not some planned execution.
I can see where designers, in the attempt to maximize the theorectical power of their technology while at the same time minimizing cost, coming up with an exotic design that takes some time to wrap your head around.
But what to be said if the competitors eats the cost and produce an easily accessible tech that produces real world performance from the start where it may take your console 6 years to get there. Are consumers really going to enjoy the improvement of over time when its already available now on another console?
I dont think you thought it through all the way. Futureproofing has nothing to do with people buying 8800GTX SLI setups. PC users buying SLI 8800 setups are just hardware geeks.
You would have been better of for the future, buying just a single 8800GTX, save the $500 and spend them for an upgrade in 2 years or whatever.
It is possible to go too far with too much future proofing, which can ultimately lead to unforeseen circumstances. For the sake of argument, lets just assume the PS3 is perfectly future proofed. That future proofing came at a cost, most notably the $599 initial price of entry. That price of entry has affected sales of the unit. Now as a result, uber budget PS3 exclusive games like Metal Gear are being faced with the potential reality that they may not recoup their huge development costs. Other uber budget games also face this potential situation. This in turn gets the suits and bean counters thinking if being platform exclusive really makes sense. (Note, I'm just using Metal Gear as an example of a 'what if' consequence).
Geoson said:
I could tell you exactly why GTA was delayed to next year...but I'll never betray sources. Plus, it's way more fun to hear people post "facts" as to why it was delayed. One thing is for sure though, the people on this forum would never believe the real answer anyways
The same is true for those PC user who have SLI mother boards with the latest graphics chips. There are no games currently (that I know of at least) that require a twin 8800 setup or even nearly utilise it fully.
I think this kind of "future proofing" is common and an intelligent design or purchase choice (at least in the long run finacially).
Anyway thats my two cents worth. Sorry if I started to wander off topic but I'm new and doing my best
Devs' baseline for performance are the midrange cards not the highend. You could lock in a requirement for highend SLI setup at the release of your game.
But prepare to sell it for a few thousand dollars a unit as the is no chance of recovering any profit from selling a quality title to the highend only market for 40 bucks a pop.
What ATI and Nvidia are doing is not "future proofing" it is "competitive proofing" as both have to face competitive pressure to produce the most capable cards without going overboard with costs. If ATI or Nvidia operated as a monopoly, devs would be ahead of the curve and not behind.
I could tell you exactly why GTA was delayed to next year...but I'll never betray sources. Plus, it's way more fun to hear people post "facts" as to why it was delayed. One thing is for sure though, the people on this forum would never believe the real answer anyways
what? I got a few ideas.
T2 wanted to avoid competing against Viva Pinata 2?
How about the PETRM (People for the Ethical Treatment of the Russian Mafia) pressured T2 to rewrite some GTA's storyline.
Maybe someone decided that the bright idea of having virtual toll booths in game that actually charged your credit card each time you passed through them in game may have been a little too much.
Well, either way, it's a double-edged sword. You get performance early with less potential down the road or you get performance later (which in PS3's case isn't that bad anyways, some games already can compete with 360, well most of them anyway), and get more potential later on down the road.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
