ATI XBOX 2 etc etc performance etc etc

[Spidermate]

The Gamecube came shortly before the Xbox

GC was after the xbox. I know that one for sure.

Ok. I knew it fell somewhere near the Xbox. Even still,the time frame was prettyt screwed up on these consoles.

20 months from release dates, but I suppose one could better make the case for "lockdown" timetables--when the designs would no longer be changed--as that more reflects the tech. (Things done afterward would better reflect manufacturing capabilities and other time-to-market factors.) Only I don't know when that would be for all the consoles...

The PS2's specs were locked-down around 99 while the Xbox specs were locked down about in the same year as its launch,cause I can remember Microsoft making last minute changes to,I believe, the the clock speed if memory serves correctly.

 

[London Geezer]

The PS2's specs were locked-down around 99 while the Xbox specs were locked down about in the same year as its launch,cause I can remember Microsoft making last minute changes to,I believe, the the clock speed if memory serves correctly.

There were last minute changes to the PS2 clock too, only the opposite way. Doesn't mean the design was less finalised than what it was.
The manufacturers finalise a design, then play around witht he clock speeds to see what is an acceptable compromise. In PS2's case, Sony realised they could clock it higher than they thought and in fact the clock went up a few months before launch. In the Xbox and GC's case, it was teh opposite. But the designs were finalised nonetheless.

 

[Spidermate]

I see only one rational way to read it, and it's not a joke. Good looking PS2 games are more a testament to developer power than hardware power. That is, as I said, my opinion.

Fair enough.

Or (c), I'm quite confused as to what you're talking about, unfortunately.

Ok,let's put it this way: forget about how many units (72 mill) the PS2 has manage to sell since its launch.Forget about that. We already know it's impossible for the Xbox and Gamecube to catch up in THAT area. But, what about monthly sells,weekly sells,their own terriory? With the prices slashed on these consoles (Xbox & Gamecube) as well as brand new titles,not to mention both of these consoles being a lot more powerful (some even with bonus features that you would normally have to purchase for the PS2 console) while the PS2 gives just about the total opposite, by now,the hype surrounding this console since the first time it launched market shelves should have subsided by now. But,it hasn't. Which means there has to be more than just hype surrounding this console if it has managed to lead this long while doing a few things opposite of its competitors. So,it is moot (as well as an excuse) to blame the continuous lead for this console on the time of its launch.

Oh, I got that. I got that several times. My counterpoint is that if you want to claim unfairness in hardware power, you must also agree that PS2 sales are unfairly ahead of Nintendo's and Microsoft's.

It's the same argument that's (rationally) leveled against Xbox fanboys. They claim the PS2 has so much more sales in part because the PS2 has been for sale much longer. It makes some sense, but in order to remove that effect, you'd also have to take away the Xbox's hardware advantage. You can have both or neither, but not just one.

But, what I am debating has much more of a point compared to what most bias fans would choose to bring forth. So yes,you can have one and still make sense of the discussion.

Every developer I've read has talked about how next-gen development will take more resources. Which ones are you hoping will be able to make bigger games with less effort?

I'm hoping no different from evenyone else. But,to say that this will happen and this won't all because some developer is sweating beads because HE can't figure out a solution to solving a problems is nothing short of taking your advice from any pre graduate. Of course, this is my honest opinion. You can choose to believe what you want,however.

 

[Spidermate]

The PS2's specs were locked-down around 99 while the Xbox specs were locked down about in the same year as its launch,cause I can remember Microsoft making last minute changes to,I believe, the the clock speed if memory serves correctly.

There were last minute changes to the PS2 clock too, only the opposite way. Doesn't mean the design was less finalised than what it was.
The manufacturers finalise a design, then play around witht he clock speeds to see what is an acceptable compromise. In PS2's case, Sony realised they could clock it higher than they thought and in fact the clock went up a few months before launch. In the Xbox and GC's case, it was teh opposite. But the designs were finalised nonetheless.

Like I said before, no matter how you slice it, the comparison is unfair. These firms were leading long after the PS2 was finalised. They were given more than enough time to build a better console. If you can not see this, then I have nothing more to convince you with.

 

[MuFu]

...a similar architecture to the upcoming desktop chip...

Right... R600.

At this time, sources said the Xbox 2 development kit includes a 9800XT card and platform and you can only achieve five to 10 FPS with Xbox 2 working titles.

That's odd considering the specs of the GDC XNA demo platform. You'd think the latest XDK (4, 5?) uses R42x. Someone even told me they're now using Power Mac G5s + R42x. Is that right?

 

[London Geezer]

Like I said before, no matter how you slice it, the comparison is unfair. These firms were leading long after the PS2 was finalised. They were given more than enough time to build a better console. If you can not see this, then I have nothing more to convince you with.

Huh? What's your problem matey? You don't need to convince me of anything, all i'm saying is that clock revisions can happen after finalisation of hardware. I never doubted that Nintendo and Microsoft were in a position to launch better hardware, of course they were. I was merely clarifying that final hardware can get clock bumps or cuts.
Take a chill pill.

 

[-tkf-]

Good looking PS2 games are more a testament to developer power than hardware power. That is, as I said, my opinion.

AND! As clearly has been proven.. the exact thing apllies to the X-BOX and the Gamecube, considering the supposed "3 times the power" / "easy to develop for" and how the actual games turned out. There can be no discussion that the XBOX/GC needs developer power just as much as the next console. Saying anything else would be stupid.

I believe that pretty much every game that can be done on the XBOX/GC can be done on the PS2, except with lower res textures and things that would need a HD of course. The difference is so small that the 20-24 months older chipset that powers the PS2 could be considered a miracle, or maybe the other hardware just suck?

 

[Tysan]

Bump Mapping in Ps2? Per pixel effects like FF chronicles water? RE 4 lighting? Agresive 60 fps streaming engines like Metroid Prime? Its not just lower textures...

A lot of people does not take in account that Ps2 has aged well thanks to 20 extra months for develpers to figure out what are the strong points and how to overcome Ps2 hardware limitations, IMO right now Ps2 has reached its limits with GT4, FF XII or Ace Combat 5.

If GC/Xbox could use another 20 months optimizing game engines we would see some awesome things, we probably wont though, Xbox developers will be shifting soon to Xenon and, well, maybe we'll see a couple of nice developments in GC [Zelda? Zoonami project? Game Designers Studio new project?] not sure... RE 4 engine is hard to match, but theres a chance.

PD.- Damn!! I will be happy if I get to see just another RE4 engine game =P

 

[Spidermate]

Like I said before, no matter how you slice it, the comparison is unfair. These firms were leading long after the PS2 was finalised. They were given more than enough time to build a better console. If you can not see this, then I have nothing more to convince you with.

Huh? What's your problem matey? You don't need to convince me of anything, all i'm saying is that clock revisions can happen after finalisation of hardware. I never doubted that Nintendo and Microsoft were in a position to launch better hardware, of course they were. I was merely clarifying that final hardware can get clock bumps or cuts.
Take a chill pill.

Oh,ok... I misunderstood you. My mistake....

 

[London Geezer]

Whatever you people say, Wanda will be the best looking game, or one of, when it comes out, like ICO was in its year and that's without gazillion of polygons, per pixel lighting, or whatever else.

 

[Tuttle]

"A lot of people does not take in account that Ps2 has aged well thanks to 20 extra months for develpers to figure out what are the strong points and how to overcome Ps2 hardware limitations,"

You guys just won't ever give up.

 

[FatherJohn]

I think you-all are leaping to conclusions.

Fact: The PS2 outselling the other consoles.

Standard Beyond 3D conclusion: Therefore the PS2 must have superior hardware.

More likely reason: Console sales are driven by games. Games are driven by installed base. The PS2 sells more primarily because it has more games that people want to play. It has more games primarily because of its 18 month lead in each market. (And in the US market, having a two Christmas exclusive on GTA3 was a huge benefit to PS2 market share. People bought the console to play the game.)

In Japan, being a cheap DVD player was a big factor in early adoption of PS2.

Fact: Most games don't look significantly better on Xbox/Gamecube than on PS2

Standard Beyond 3D conclusion: Therefore the PS2 graphics hardware must be as good as the Xbox / Gamecube hardware.

More likely reason: Good graphics are expensive to create. Few games have the budget to create good graphics. And clearly the majority of the game playing public does not value good graphics very highly. (see: poor sales of Ico vs. GTA3.) When you combine this low value of good graphics with the high market share of the PS2, you can see that most game developers are going to optimize their graphics for the PS2, and then just port them to the other consoles. Perhaps they'll bump up the texture map resolution one level for the Xbox, but that's not always a noticable change, unless you put the two games side by side.

Another likely reason: Good looking graphics is often more about art sense than about raw hardware power. For example, Ico/Wanda are very good looking, even though they are both low-poly, low-texture games. Similarly the GT games look beautiful by careful use of textures, sound, lighting, cameras, and so on, even though the underlying hardware is not as powerful as other consoles.

 

[Spidermate]

I think you-all are leaping to conclusions.

Fact: The PS2 outselling the other consoles.

Standard Beyond 3D conclusion: Therefore the PS2 must have superior hardware.

More likely reason: Console sales are driven by games. Games are driven by installed base. The PS2 sells more primarily because it has more games that people want to play. It has more games primarily because of its 18 month lead in each market. (And in the US market, having a two Christmas exclusive on GTA3 was a huge benefit to PS2 market share. People bought the console to play the game.)

You forgot backwards compatibility for those who didn't have a PS1 but wanted a PS2. :?

Also, is all of this the reason the Xbox couldn't keep a desent exclusive to itself or maybe the audience Nintendo were reaching out to or are you also adding this into the time the PS2 had been on the market shelves? Oh,and do you mind telling me who thinks the PS2 is superior in hardware? I'm just curious to know.

GTA3 is what sold the PS2? Ok, I can partially accept that,but what about Team Ninja? You can not blame the console for getting an exclusive like GTA all to itself when other companies turn around and do the very samething for all the other consoles,especially the Xbox since it is the most powerful,... which, then, takes us back to those weekly sales. hmm....

In Japan, being a cheap DVD player was a big factor in early adoption of PS2.

Fact: Most games don't look significantly better on Xbox/Gamecube than on PS2

Standard Beyond 3D conclusion: Therefore the PS2 graphics hardware must be as good as the Xbox / Gamecube hardware.

More likely reason: Good graphics are expensive to create. Few games have the budget to create good graphics. And clearly the majority of the game playing public does not value good graphics very highly. (see: poor sales of Ico vs. GTA3.) When you combine this low value of good graphics with the high market share of the PS2, you can see that most game developers are going to optimize their graphics for the PS2, and then just port them to the other consoles. Perhaps they'll bump up the texture map resolution one level for the Xbox, but that's not always a noticable change, unless you put the two games side by side.

Another likely reason: Good looking graphics is often more about art sense than about raw hardware power. For example, Ico/Wanda are very good looking, even though they are both low-poly, low-texture games. Similarly the GT games look beautiful by careful use of textures, sound, lighting, cameras, and so on, even though the underlying hardware is not as powerful as other consoles.

Most likely the DVD player did help sales,but I wouldn't go as far as saying that it created sales this high since the Xbox had one as well -- aside from the controller you had to purchase. I would say it was the console as a whole. You can blame this on cost and you can blame it on launch dates, but anytime a competitor can roll right over the competition (not once,but twice:N64 & DC) and remain victorious, then there is really no excuse for the PS2 when compared to the other consoles.

 

[-tkf-]

Bump Mapping in Ps2? Per pixel effects like FF chronicles water? RE 4 lighting? Agresive 60 fps streaming engines like Metroid Prime? Its not just lower textures...

You know.. what you mention there just isn't good enough. I own all 3 (4 with DC consoles i don't think.. OMG this look incredible thank you PS2/GC/XBOX the difference just isn't big enough. And it seems that everytime the XBOX has to show all it has, the framerate drops, guess those features didn't come cheap.