MS FAQ : Xbox Next Vs CELL....

[Deadmeat]

http://www.microsoft.com/xna/faq.aspx

Q: What's the difference between Microsoft's XNA and Sony's Cell?

A: In the next generation, software-not hardware-will drive the games industry forward. Microsoft XNA software brings together chip and OEM partners to ultimately deliver thousands of integrated digital entertainment devices that work together and give consumers choice. Sony is talking about a fixed world of hardware that requires everyone to buy everything Sony. Sony's Cell is a hardware solution. This is a software revolution.

Unfortunately, it's like choosing the lessor of two evils, SCEI standard or MS standard, as neither of them are open...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's interesting that MS repeatedly hammers the "it's the software, stupid!" message.

This indicates one of two things to me:

1) MS isn't confident that XBox Next to be as "powerful" in a raw sense as PS3.

2) MS thinks that the next gen consoles will be so powerful in general, that we'll be splitting hairs (even moreso than today), when evaluating which one is more "powerful". The differentiator will be software development, and ability to tap into that power.

The number 2 message isn't all that different than the message given at the onset of the original X-Box, though it's taken to a new level with XNA.

 

[V3]

Unfortunately, it's like choosing the lessor of two evils, SCEI standard or MS standard, as neither of them are open...

Or to hell with both of them.

 

[Paul]

MS thinks that the next gen consoles will be so powerful in general, that we'll be splitting hairs (even moreso than today), when evaluating which one is more "powerful". The differentiator will be software development, and ability to tap into that power.

I agree with this, I also agree that MS does not care if they do not match or beat Sony in specs.

Looking at This gen, MS has learned one thing, specs mean nothing sales wise. The games do.

 

[Paul]

More emphasis on 'software over hardware'

Q: When is the next generation Xbox shipping?
A: It's too early to announce future-generation Xbox products. That said, Microsoft XNA propels us ahead of Sony in the next-generation games race because the future of gaming is in software, not hardware. At GDC you are seeing some of the early possibilities of what the future will bring. Everything that comes to Windows and Xbox in the years to come is only going to get better and better in our never-ending quest to meet customer expectations and bridge the gap with developer realities

 

[hey69]

Microsoft is talking about a fixed world of Windows OS that requires everyone to buy everything Microsoft.

you can interchange actually a lot. the pot blames the ketle (or whatever in english hm hm ) :?

 

[rabidrabbit]

It's kinda odd that MS directly compares to Sony's Cell in their official site.
You don't see such marketing much nowadays.
Edit: Oh, there are some video demos on that site too, that girl from 'main and unexpected' is also there.

 

[Paul]

Cell is the building block for building Microprocessors, XNA is the building block for building games.

 

[Tsmit42]

I just don't understand that reasoning. I guess MS assumes that since Sony has powerful hardware that there is no way they can have equally flexible and powerful software tools. Even if they don't have them, they can always make them. It's like saying that 480i is better than 1080p because there are better tv series shown on 480i, when there can have the same shows on 1080p.

 

[Megadrive1988]

Microsoft, at least if you take what they say at face value, is ultimately right. the most powerful hardware is not what determines sucess in the videogame console industry.

the NES was weaker than the Sega Master System, but NES destroyed the competition (7800, SMS) in terms of sales.

MD/Genesis was weaker than SNES but Sega having the first 16-Bit console out (not counting the 8-Bit PC Engine/TG16) allowed Sega to basicly cut Nintendo's marketshare in half, even though in the end the SFC/SNES outsold the MD/Genesis. but the damage to Nintendo was already done. they would never recover in the console industry. What Sega started, Sony pretty much finished in the following generation. Nintendo would not be the main player in the console world. not to say that Nintendo is dead, they're very healthy, mainly because of GB/GBA.

The Playstation was weaker than Nintendo64, and some would argue even the Saturn (in SOME areas) but PS1 was by far the dominant console.

PS2 is both the weakest of the current consoles, *and* the strongest, in terms of hardware. it just depends on the specific area you look at within the PS2 architecture--when compared to Dreamcast, Gamecube and Xbox.

Microsoft realizes that it's not so much about the hardware, but GAMES and the ability to build them.


I know some people might have some disagreements with what I'm saying. or have several things to add. this is just what I could think of and type within a couple min time

 

[Vince]

1) MS isn't confident that XBox Next to be as "powerful" in a raw sense as PS3

What? Heresy... it's a "different" architecture.

Anyways, I suppose this is to be expected. We just recently had a thread in which I asked what's going to be Microsoft's niche next generation if Sony has the superior hardware AND is the de facto dev platform again -- some people responded back that they'd push with developer tool and deliver earlier. And that would appear to be exactly what happened.

Also, I think the Microsoft isn't going to get very far with that argument against Cell

 

[Natoma]

Agreed save for one thing. In the case of the N64, it was definitely the hardware, i.e. cartridges, that did them in. If they had released a cd-based system, Sony wouldn't have had a prayer imo.

Remember the big flight at the time was Squaresoft. Why did they leave? Cartridge vs CD. That defection alone killed the N64 and spurred the PS1 to dominance if you recall.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I just don't understand that reasoning. I guess MS assumes that since Sony has powerful hardware that there is no way they can have equally flexible and powerful software tools.

MS didn't say that.

They're saying that their tools are superior. Given that MS apparently has tools to launch at this time, I'd say that's a good assesment for the time being.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Also, I think the Microsoft isn't going to get very far with that argument against Cell

Um...why?

Do you think cell's development tools will be superior to those of MS's...or that cell will be so much more powerful that dev tools won't make a difference?

Oh, and what will be Sony's niche if MS has both superior hardware and development tools, other than it's brand? (Granted, that's a significant factor...)

 

[ERP]

I think it's just MS realising what their real strength in the console race is, if MS can make it easy to develop and get the most out of the platform while people struggle with PS3 development, there is a chance that Xbox2 titles will be the lead SKU's or at least turn out to be the better version.

MS is a software company, Sony is primarilly a hardware company. I'm sure when Sony announce it will all be about the Gigaflops.

 

[Evil_Cloud]

It might turn out like Saturn <-> PlayStation previous generation. Power that can't be used to it's full extend and Sony's superior software libraries.

 

[McFly]

And it could be that MS knows the real power of Cell and realised that the only thing they can do is concentrate on software.

Fredi

 

[Tsmit42]

I just don't understand that reasoning. I guess MS assumes that since Sony has powerful hardware that there is no way they can have equally flexible and powerful software tools.

MS didn't say that.

They're saying that their tools are superior. Given that MS apparently has tools to launch at this time, I'd say that's a good assesment for the time being.

MS clearly sasys that it would give them an advantage vs Sony.

Microsoft XNA propels us ahead of Sony...

How can MS know that it will, do they know that Sony has no plan on releasing tools that will do the same thing that XNA does? I just don't see the advantage of it because Sony can do the exact same thing if it sees fit.

Example.

2 people are about to play paintball. Player 1 has a pretty good gun, but Player 2 has a better gun. Player 1 tells player 2 that he has the advantage because he went to the store and got better ammunition. But while player 1 is telling that to player 2, player 2 is already on his way to the store to get the same ammunition that player 1 has. Now who has the advantage? The game starts and player 2 splatters player 1.

That is what it is like with hardware and software. Software can be easliy obtained and made better, but hardware is fixed. While the platform with the better software at the time might have the advantage, the platform with the best hardware has the most potential.

I'm not sayint that Sony has the best hardware or that MS does, I'm just saying that MS has no justification to make such a statement. It's pretty silly if you ask me.

 

[bbot]

If MS or nintendo can't match the power of ps3, i'm going to get ps3.

 

[Vince]

Do you think cell's development tools will be superior to those of MS's...or that cell will be so much more powerful that dev tools won't make a difference?

I'd assume they'll be competent, but how they compare is irrelevant at the end of the day. With the PlayStation3 in a position to capitalize on the PS2's success, IMHO we're going to be in a position soon in which the PS3 outsells drastically the XBox2 and is reasonably more powerful - the question then becomes, why will a developer develop for XBox2? Developers are subservient to the Publishers, who are subservient to the almighty dollar.

Do you really think a company like EA, which at the end of the day is the kind of company that actually matters, gives a shit about XNA when their PS2 title alone outsells the other versions combined? What's this going to do, what dynamic is this going to change other than further artificially *boost* MS's library up by PC cannibalization?

Oh, and what will be Sony's niche if MS has both superior hardware and development tools, other than it's brand? (Granted, that's a significant factor...)

Um, that's exactly what it will have - and the intangible benefits for them are one of their biggest advantages. Kind of funny you'd even say this. Replay of PS2-XBox.. I doubt Sony would mind.

Anyways, the reason this Cell argument doesn't hold water is that Cell would appear, fundamentally, to be an architecture based around the distributed, pervasive, broadband aware world of tomorrow and it primarily is targeted at that. Playing Games, and doing it really well, just happens to be a subset feature of this; where as this XNS is just a development environment. Cell is much more akin to Microsoft's Media Centre software, which if you've seen the proposed designs by 3rd parties so far will be a give-me for Sony if they do it right. Cell's software tools have yet to be stated outside of brief talk of usage of the open-source Eclipse-IDE and as such, this argument doesn't hold water yet.