Are Sony devs aiming higher?

[Johnny Awesome]

The idea that Sony is innovating more than MS is laughable IMO. Crackdown, Mass Effect and Viva Pinata prove otherwise. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but if Viva Pinata were on a Nintendo platform everyone would be singing the praises of their god Miyamoto-san. It's fresh and innovative, but unfortunately it failed at retail. I think it remains to be seen whether or not Sony's offerings are really shooting higher than MS'.

 

[Diesel2]

Nothing special? It allowed a console created in 2005, designed in 2004, to compete with (and surpass for now) one launched at the end of 2006. That's pretty amazing when you stop and think about it. Especially when that console is from Sony, hardware is their forte.

MS owes ATI big time, it's ATI's engineering that has allowed the console to be as strong as it is.

edit - Oh, I just realized you were talking about Xenon. It's not anything to write home about, though probably stronger than people give it credit for.

The delay of the PS3 launch, from what I understand, had nothing to do with the GPU. The GPU was set in stone at approximately the same period as ATI's offering, from what I understand.

While you correct that a console released in 2005 is equivalent to a console released in 2006, it has more to do with Sony delaying due to Blu-Ray/Software line-up than your ATI assertion. imo.

 

[blakjedi]

I think he just confused this thread with the PGR4 one. No play on words intended.

Uhhhh no.

 

[NERO]

Arrrgh!!! Advertising, advertising! Cell good..Xenos bad! Arrggh Re ality Synthesizer must be gooder than Xenon!

 

[scooby_dooby]

The delay of the PS3 launch, from what I understand, had nothing to do with the GPU. The GPU was set in stone at approximately the same period as ATI's offering, from what I understand.

Assuming the console ever really was 'delayed.' It seems fairly likely to me that Sony never intended on launching in spring 2006 regardless.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Bigus you got to trust me man. Blakjedi is NO WHERE NEAR a Sony fanboi. Not even close.
He is honestly speaking his mind.

Sorry, I tagged that musing onto a response to his post, but it wasn't directed to him specifically. There are many posts that have fit that stereotype, a few of his included, but I was speaking in more general terms about that type of mentality and how it changes the way people think about certain things.

LBP is a perfect example. It isn't graphically impressive (only) because it is on PS3 hardware, or because it is from a certain group of devs; in large part it is simply a function of the type of game style chosen which then allows rendering methods to be utilized that aren't possible in a free roaming world. Let use an extreme example to make the point... if we looked at a 2D game (not even 2.5D) one could use real photographs for the background environment. When people then raved about how realistic the lighting and texturing for the backgrounds are and ask why other games don't have such realistic lighting and texturing what should we think?

 

[chris100]

Arrrgh!!! Advertising, advertising! Cell good..Xenos bad! Arrggh Re ality Synthesizer must be gooder than Xenon!

You say it because many people did it before?

 

[NERO]

You say it because many people did it before?

Welcome chris100:smile:

I typed that silly post to reduce what I think prolongs these 360 dev v. PS3 dev debates, an attachment to the superiority (whether wrong or right) of one platform over the other. This particular thread was sparked due to a perceived lack of game development innovation in 360 devs relative to the PS3 devs who continually extol their hardware's design. IMO as stated above, PS3 devs praise the machine's media and cpu, while 360 devs praise online functionality, for the purpose of media talking points not their respective passions for their platforms.

 

[Lycan]

Nothing special? It allowed a console created in 2005, designed in 2004, to compete with (and surpass for now) one launched at the end of 2006. That's pretty amazing when you stop and think about it. Especially when that console is from Sony, hardware is their forte.

MS owes ATI big time, it's ATI's engineering that has allowed the console to be as strong as it is.

edit - Oh, I just realized you were talking about Xenon. It's not anything to write home about, though probably stronger than people give it credit for.

Well, the PS3 components were also created in 2005...

 

[scooby_dooby]

Well, the PS3 components were also created in 2005...

As opposed to 2004 for the 360. Correct

 

[Lycan]

Hum...not really. Cell was in the works way before the Xenon emerged. As for the RSX, it was more of a fab issue since the architecture is derived from that of the G70 family...and, unless I'm mistaken, this architecture has been in the works prior to the ATI GPU (or around the same time). I think that the idea of the PS3 technology being more recent is unfounded (imho). What delayed the launch was BR...

 

[Johnny Awesome]

The PS3 was delayed because of:

1. Switch from inhouse GPU to NVidia.
2. BR diode problems.
3. Software not ready.

Sony had no intention of launching in early '06. They just said that to delay X360 adoption. It mostly backfired.

 

[_phil_]

The PS3 was delayed because of:

1. Switch from inhouse GPU to NVidia.
2. BR diode problems.
3. Software not ready.

Sony had no intention of launching in early '06. They just said that to delay X360 adoption. It mostly backfired.

if think before being delayed ,the ps3 was forced early.Their roadmap wasn't to bring the ps3 on the market that early.
MS forced the generation earlier than what sony planed.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

if think before being delayed ,the ps3 was forced early.Their roadmap wasn't to bring the ps3 on the market that early.
MS forced the generation earlier than what sony planed.

I think Johnny is, also, missing HDMI 1.3 from that list.

 

[Akumajou]

The PS3 was delayed because of:

1. Switch from inhouse GPU to NVidia.
2. BR diode problems.
3. Software not ready.

Sony had no intention of launching in early '06. They just said that to delay X360 adoption. It mostly backfired.

As for number 1., do you have any proof to back up that statement?

Consoles are planned years in advance and E3 05 PS3 intro was no different than the Dreamcast intro, PS2 intro and N64 intros, Saturn and PSX even specially in respect to launch.

if I am not mistaken and I remember 2002, 2003 and 2004 very well there was alot of drama going on between Microsoft and Nvidia that eventually made ATI friends with MS with Nvidia secretly wanting to aim higher.

Basically Nvidia was looking at Sony's Playstation and PS2 track record and was more likely to be attracked to that path, in the end secret corporate alliances are not that impossible.

And Nvidia should know since they previously had a secret affair with Sega during the Nv1 days.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

The PS3 was delayed because of:

1. Switch from inhouse GPU to NVidia.

No it wasn't.

The PS3 got "delayed" because of bluray. And by "delayed" i dont mean delayed in the traditional sense, as there where no plan to release the PS3 when said to begin with.

 

[Dave Glue]

if think before being delayed ,the ps3 was forced early.Their roadmap wasn't to bring the ps3 on the market that early.
MS forced the generation earlier than what sony planed.

...so a year-old thread was bumped for this? Really?

 

[_phil_]

my fault ,didn't read the date.

 

[Mintmaster]

Not to continue keeping a dead thread on life support, but I think Johnny Awesome was being facetious. He's listing a bunch of reasons that are mentioned in justifying PS3's "delay", but then telling everyone (IMO correctly) that there never was any plan for an earlier launch.

 

[PARANOiA]

...so a year-old thread was bumped for this? Really?

Actually it was bumped by another overenthusiastic post which has since been deleted