CES '05
- Thread starter Dave Baumann
- Start date
pc999 said:Evil_Cloud said:I know, that's why I said/meant those are the only probable third party titles for Xbox.
Sorry I misunderstud your post.
HL2 in XB2 would be a wast of power.
What platform would Valve make more money own long term, Xbox or Xbox 2? Xbox 2 in my opinion. They have Counter Strike 2, Day of Defeat 2, and Team Fortress 2 yet to be released.
In the other hand there is a lot more of XBOX users waiting a long time to get HL2, and this game probably would look inferior against XB2 titles, they wouldnt throw way the work already done for XB, then a revisted Source Engine for those games in XB2.
But it is only my opinion.
But it is only my opinion.
nAo said:I know nothing is never powerful enough for usBrimstone said:
ciao,
Marco
I'll be surprised if it was so, given:
1 - PS3 will be a year later
2 - MS going on the cheaper route this time (even tho going with the IP deals, etc).
That's interesting that MS was assumed to be emphasizing software over raw HW specs. but now, people are thinking Xenon will be impressive HW-wise while the PS3 may not be all it's cracked up to be or that the unfamiliar architecture will make it too difficult to produce appreciable advantages, if any, over Xenon, especially in multiplatform games (which have become more important relative to exclusives than in previous generations).
I think the software they demo in January could be important. Seems there's a lid on the games which are being worked on, aside from the assumed sequels like Halo, KOTOR and others.
I think the software they demo in January could be important. Seems there's a lid on the games which are being worked on, aside from the assumed sequels like Halo, KOTOR and others.
MaximilianSWE
Newcomer
Jov said:
1 - Wrong. Kutaragi has apparently said that PS3 will follow a similar release-schedule as PS2 did, which would mean a mars 2006 release in japan. In half a year, 3 machines will be released so power-wise, they will all be in "the same ball park".
2 - Kinda wrong. The deals MS has done allows them to be more aggressive with their prices and have a better control over hardware costs. It does NOT mean that the hardware will be "worse" JUST because of the deals it has with ATI and IBM. It was all about of control over pricing and such.
MaximilianSWE said:
OK. I had the impression it was Q3 release for Japan.
MaximilianSWE said:
Either MS is very good at making deals or Sony is stupid? You think MS can put together parts from other Vendors cheaper than Sony and also have a more powerful console overall?
STI has and still spending a lot on developing the tech behind the PS3 and the result will be something just comparable to the Xenon?
So 90nm processors for the Xenon will be similarly priced (cost wise) if not cheaper compared to 65nm for the PS3? And don't forget MS is getting TSM and/or IBM to fab them compared to Sony who is making it themselves.
MS Xenon more powerful and cheaper compared to Sony's PS3 just doesn't add up no matter how you cut it.
Nintendo did it with the gamecube. More powerful and it costs less to manufacture. Why is it impossible for MS to do the same? Even still, and this was an argument that many PS2 fans would use ove the years. They would say, "I can hardly tell the difference in graphics between xbox and PS2 games. So how is it more powerful?"
why is it this can't be the same with the next gen consoles? what makes you think anyone will be able to tell the xbox2 from the PS3 graphically? Why should "power" matter with next gen consoles when it obviously didn't matter with the current generation?
A double standard? I think so.
Points to note.
GC and XB released more than 18 months later. Moore's Law was still very active then. That literally already makes them next-gen compared to the O' PS2.
And of course, we never knew how much it costs to manufacture a console. No one does. We only know how much they retail for. Very favorable supply and demand forces may allow very profitable pricing strategies that the manufacturer really don't want the consumer to know.
Very Simple Example:
A costs $150 to manufacture. B costs $100 to manufacture.
A sells at $200, makes $50 profit.
B sells at $300, makes $200 profit. No problem. Demands are high! (manufacturer =
+ )Qroach said:
Firstly, the Cube was released ~1.5 year after the PS2 in Japan.
Secondly, with only gaming features (no dvd, usb, firewire, etc) unlike the PS2 and Xbox.
Qroach said:
You're going off on a tangent here. Use the "I can hardly tell the difference in graphics between xbox and PS2 games."" quote on me if I ever stated it. If not, try not to confuse the topic.
Qroach said:
It seems like you've taking that perception.
passerby said:And of course, we never knew how much it costs to manufacture a console. No one does. We only know how much they retail for. Very favorable supply and demand forces may allow very profitable pricing strategies that the manufacturer really don't want the consumer to know.
Very Simple Example:
A costs $150 to manufacture. B costs $100 to manufacture.
A sells at $200, makes $50 profit.
B sells at $300, makes $200 profit. No problem. Demands are high! (manufacturer =
With the fact the PS2 have sold about 5:1 (~75mil to ~15mil GCN/Xbox) compared to the others, just on the economy of scale alone the PS2's cost per unit saved compared to initial cost is something to consider. And Sony is bold enough to price it higher than the Xbox (at least in Australia) shows they’re doing something right.
(Just adding to this post not responding to passerby)
Even though MS will have better control and pricing for the Xenon (compared to the Xbox) that still does not automatically mean the will have the same level of control that Sony does, especially when Sony produces all core components and IPs in-house.
In-house only beats outsourcing when the capabilities of the in-house manufacturer are comparable to the best companies which specialize in those areas from the competitive market. If not, the in-house manufacturer will either have an inferior product or will spend too much in making it comparable.
Cutting out the middleman with in-house can afford more resources (money, design ambition) to the R&D, yet technology licensing can assure the choice of a top performing part. Neither is an inherent guarantee of success.
Cutting out the middleman with in-house can afford more resources (money, design ambition) to the R&D, yet technology licensing can assure the choice of a top performing part. Neither is an inherent guarantee of success.
Lazy8s said:
Obviously, thus one's perception will be their view of how good is Sony in delivering its in-house solution compared to MS/ATI for example in the graphics stake.
Lazy8s said:
Only at the time of licensing, also there is no guarantee MS chose the best graphics solution from ATI due to cost.
Neither will ensure 100% success or better cost saving, but looking at the history of the two companies and their results, it shows having more tech developed in-house proves to be more flexible and hence potentially cost effective (eg. PS2 -> PSTwo with its EE+GS on one chip, and then use the same tech/process for next-gent products).
Keeping my point in perspective, my initial comment was in response to MS making a cheaper, yet more powerful console with most favorable factors against them:
Having to outsource most, if not all the components in Xenon.
Earlier release of the console
Going the cheaper route.
I'll leave it at that before this turns into a "Sony vs ATI vs <Insert company>" thread.
You guys seem to have alot of faith in MS getting their XNA together to extract maximum performance out of Xbox2, with abstraction to make it easy for developers.
The one that I remember was them screwing up Sega Rally 2 port to Dreamcast. Sure the port probably took shorter time, but it didn't extract anywhere close to Dreamcast potential.
For Xbox2, its most likely be the same, they'll get better eventually, like any other developers in the past.
The one that I remember was them screwing up Sega Rally 2 port to Dreamcast. Sure the port probably took shorter time, but it didn't extract anywhere close to Dreamcast potential.
For Xbox2, its most likely be the same, they'll get better eventually, like any other developers in the past.
Yep, wanna get close to the metal? Gonna have to work. Hard.
MaximilianSWE
Newcomer
Jov said:
The deal MS has made with ATI and IBM are like the ones NIntendo made with ATI and IBM, licensing IP:s and letting others make the stuff. TSMC is dev:ing the GPU if I understood it correctly...
We can only speculate on the capabilities of Xenon, but thanks to these deals, MS can be more price-sensitive and still have a powerful hardware without having to lose as a much as they did with Xbox.
Besides..
PS3, Xenon and N5 will be on the market in a span of 6 months, compare Xbox with NGC and you can see that the difference are "not that great" (Xbox benefited from an 6 month+ newer GPU that GC had)
Xenon will be powerful and will not inflict as much "damage" in the economics as Xbox did... HOW much powerful remains to be seen..
Jov said:
Errmm...
My take on Sony's "vision" for Cell is that, yes they want a very powerful chip, but more than anything they want one single architecture to be used in all their future appliances.
If the PS3 implementation of Cell happens to be a very very powerful chip, more powerful than what MS can come up with, then good, but i think what Sony want is to get Cell in as many houses as possible.
Of course they'll make sure that the PS3 version of Cell has 8292323 cores in one chip, just to make sure they can hold their own in terms of hardware. Even if that means an efficency of 2% for the first 4 years.
Do we need more sam fishers in to this community. Or did nostredamus predict any next gen specs?. Software pirates seem to be the ones we need to get contact with?.
By the way if ps3 architechture is totally different compared to the other two, porting can become wery slow and costly?.
By the way if ps3 architechture is totally different compared to the other two, porting can become wery slow and costly?.
