I think the point here is that they have had quite a lot of time to sort things out!
They will fix it, but having things "rushed" for a November 2007 release, after not one but two delays, just sounds weird...
Arstechnica Reviews the PS3
- Thread starter 22psi
- Start date
I think the point here is that they have had quite a lot of time to sort things out!
They will fix it, but having things "rushed" for a November 2007 release, after not one but two delays, just sounds weird...
Or...that they appreciated MS had the right idea, and had every intention of following them (not paying attention to the competition, when Sony are constantly being accused of copying everyone else?!
), but the execution was lacking. I don't know the situation, but I do know that I've never heard of any big project working to plan without hangups. The system features are locked down, the timeline is there to rollout features prior to launch, the launch-date is set, and then everything goes pear shaped, staff are running around like headless chickens, managers are lying about the state of their products in development because they don't want to get sacked, budgets start to overrun and cost-cutting measures hamper productivity...There's lots that can go wrong. I'd say if these key features don't appear in near (few months, maybe EU release) updates, it may be that Sony didn't think of them, and basically had their eye off the ball. But their absence on day one, to me anyway, doesn't mean Sony totally overlooked the issue for whatever reason. It'd nbe a mind-numbging business failure if they did, 'coz every man and his blind dog could see what services were needed! There isn't a man amongst us who wouldn't have thought 'when they are downloading media, they'll need t be able to do other things as well,' and I'd be gobsmacked if no-one in Sony thought of that too!
That's it exactly. One wonders what would have been released in Spring if original dates were ever met...
Apparently not enough to meet all requirements. I think there were 2 posts by Visez and Faf implying that the OS team had a hard time trying to fit within the resources allocated. Eventually they managed but I think there are still some optimization to do to show the benefits of the new OS.
mckmas8808
Legend
The Spring release date was always a lie. Sony knew it the whole time. The played me and everybody else when they even mentioned that date.
A lot of the UI and functionality isnt rocket science. The ability to download in the background has been around since what, 1985? Thier GPU is built by Nvidia, I am sure Nvidia provided them with dev tools. The Cell processor I am sure had help from IBM. Sony is a big company, the above problems shouldnt be an issue. The obvious question is why were they? Most likely too many cogs in the wheel's of the company.
But the OS and web browser has to be stablized first given that they intend to keep the browser available during in-game. I think there were most emphasis given to optimize and test the "base" rather than getting background downloading ready for public use.
As for their relationships with IBM, I do not know what kind of deals they have between them. Sony may want to do the OS themselves for security reasons.
EDIT: Actually... even with IBM's help, MS camp still have an edge because of the existing tested code, practices and supporting tools in the Windows side of their business. Cell (in particular the SPUs) is still a relatively new thing for IBM. There must be a lot of hard lessons learned during this period. I just hope the Sony (and IBM ?) guys have time to disseminate them (tough though).
Last edited by a moderator:
If they really are so good they would have no problem allowing Keyboard + Mouse on the machine.. ohh wait.. that would leave the Controller dudes with a disadvantage.
FPS games on Consoles are like sex in the snow with someone unattractive and unsexy. Purely instint driven and leaves you cold.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Really? I think pretty much everyone under the sun complained about that. I agree with you in principle though.
what in the world does what he say have to do with kb and mouse?
scooby_dooby
Legend
Jesus Christ you guys want Sony to have a console on day 1 with all the upgrades on Day 1.
Well....more like day 181 if you count the 6month delay
If he had stated that the 360 controllers were the best controllers for FPS's on any platform, you would have a point.
Since he relegated his comparison to controllers on consoles, you don't.
mckmas8808
Legend
Well....more like day 181 if you count the 6month delay
There was never a delay. Sony straight lied to us. The real release date was always November.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
The bottom line is, Sony is 1 year late.
By coming out a year earlier, MS gets (rightfully) to reap some rewards...namely, that Sony is not competing with where MS was one year ago. Sony must compete with what MS has out and available right now. Anyone trying to make the time-warp comparison is trying to make a flawed comparison.
Nobody should give a rats ass what MS did or did not have right at launch. What matters is what MS has now, and what Sony has now to compete with it. (And yes, this will change over time for both companies)
By being first, MS had to put up with its own "crap" comparisons last year. Remember those? All the hype surrounding a non-released console...how much "better" it would be...when it would be here...(Soon...really!) etc. Last year MS had to compete with a "future" product...cgi demos passing as real games, etc.
Now people are going to complain that the PS3 is being compared to what you can actually buy right now...and not what you would have bought a year ago?
So how does the diode problem come into play here? They knew a year ago that the problems would persist till now? Or is the whole diode problem a lie also?
mckmas8808
Legend
Dude think about it. A lot of their games weren't even stable in the spring. Think back to E3. The only game that was close to releaseable was Resistence. And even that game plays and looks better today than it did in May.
The Spring launch was a lie to hold people off from buying the 360. Yes I'm admitting that Sony tricked me. At least I'm honest about it.
mckmas8808
Legend
It does matter if MS had it at launch or not. Want to know why? Because it lets people know that such a thing can be upgraded through a firmware update. People need to know that something like that doesn't have to be that way for ever.
It's probably just me, but it almost feels like you're shifting the blame from one problem to the other...
Everyone: "sony are late"
You: "no they weren't, they just lied!"
As if that makes it ok, cause "they're not late"?!
In the end, whether the delays were real or not, the PS3 is late. Call it whatever you want, but in November 2007 the minimum Sony could do is to have a near-glitch-free machine. Not talking about a "perfect" machine, but AT LEAST a machine without glitches, especially that BIG scaling glitch. That really is silly.
In the end, it's one of two options:
- if the delay was caused by the diodes (like they said), that means that the rest of the PS3 was ready a long time ago, meaning they should have been working on making it as glitch-free as possible. This didn't happen so they either sat on their asses waiting for the blue laser diodes to come or...
- ...there was never a diode issue (not a last minute one anyway) and Sony's various teams (the ones responsible for the glitches, the OS people for the OS issues and the hardware people for the hardware issues - still not sure if the scaling problem is software or hardware) are just very slow and frankly, incompetent.
Your choice, but in the end, it's all the same, and shifting the blame from one issue to the other doesn't work much.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
But MS just isn't sitting still, either.
While sony is "fixing" something, MS is adding more functionality to their own product. In other words, what Sony is offering now doesn't have to stay that way forever...the same should be said for MS's product. Hey...maybe MS will lower Live Gold subscription rates or drop them altogether! How about Vista integration...who knows how fat that will go....
The bottom line is, we finally actually have 2 shipping products that can compete directly with one another on their own merits. Playing the "maybe they can address X-Y-Z" game is as foolish as buying a PC video card based on "maybe they'll address X-Y-Z problems in future drivers."
If you do not believe that the product out of the box is worth the price tag...then don't buy it. If behind the scene downloading would really, really piss you off...then either get an XBox 360 or wait until PS3 actually supports that before buying one.
At the same time, If HDMI suport is critical for you, don't by a 360 "hoping" they will come out with a cable.....
My point is that FPS on consoles suck ass thanks to controllers, his point is that the XBOX controllers are so good he would suggest FPS to anyone.
Similar threads
