MS wants XBox2 out before PS3?
- Thread starter megadrive0088
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Peace. 8)
That is why i fear for the PS3.
kabuke wariors is a MS game?
G
Guest
Guest
Thowllly said:
Too bad most, as in really most, the games dont show.
chap said:
Peace. 8)
That is why i fear for the PS3.
kabuke wariors is a MS game?
oops, nope...
developped by lightweight and published by crave entertainment...
so another example: bloodwake, fuzion frenzy
as they were published by MS they count as MS productx.
i personnaly wouldn't bet that every MS was > or = to its competitors.. because of the great number of different products MS has released it seems very unrealistic.
BenSkywalker
Regular
Archie-
I would see this as viable only if MS wanted to follow Sony's example of creating a very difficult to work with platform. Given Intel's failure in producing competitive products in the consumer 3D market(even after they purchased a company explicitly for that reason) they would almost assuredly rely on CPU power to fill in for dedicated hardware. Another aspect is that they would be turning their back on DirectX which I don't see happening. I suppose it is within the realm of possibilities, but the power and ease of development in terms of the XBox are something that I haven't seen any argue MS got wrong.
This is the general impression that I have gained from observing AI in action(I've never even see an AI script before so I have absolutely no idea what they even entail). The AI in Half-Life, just to use a very outdated example, still seems to be considerably better then what we see in most new games. More intelligent and simply more real then what we are seeing today.
Given the general direction that we see MS and Sony headed in, it appears nearly certain that Sony will follow their route(monster CPU) while MS will follow theirs(monster GPU). It is fairly obvious that with the amount of graphics power that the next gen will have it will almost certainly take an educated pair of eyes to spot the differences in the visuals, I am currently under the impression that the same scenario is going to play out on the AI/Physics side of the coin. We are going to reach a point, moreso then already, where coding skills determine how well AI/Physics work on a given platform and even taking that into consideration you will still need a trained pair of eyes to spot the difference between the AI physics between the two likely platforms(not many people will notice if a Vette is pulling an extra .05Gs over what it should on an off camber decreasing radius turn as an example ).
Faf-
Are you talking one hundred, or two hundred years out? A T3 line can't match my hard drive, not even close, and I can't even get DSL where I live(in the north eastern US). Much of the idea of Grid was hatched due to the immense venture capital that poored in to the telcoms to buld more bandwith, and it took them a decade to reach the state that they are at now. Now, the venture capital is gone and the BB expansion has slowed to a trickle. At its current rate it will take another five years or more before the majority of consumers have BB in their homes, significantly longer until it has the penetration that PCs have. Even then, the amount of bandwith available is an insignificant pittance to what will be required before the idea of a network computer is a viable replacement for PCs.
Look at the driving forces in PC marketing; actually, you may not see them where you are at so I'll fill you in on the US. The big things the companies are pushing over here is digital video and audio manipulation. Two areas where you really should have hundreds of MB/sec bandwith at least. With current actual transfer rates rarely exceeding 500KB/sec for bb users we are an extremely long way off from network computing being a viable option.
The amount of local data transfer I handle on my PC in a month would cost me over $1500 on the net(I've spent a great deal of time looking at bandwith options lately as my sites host shut down). That is ignoring the plethora of other issues with the technology(compatibility, security etc).
Vince-
Your utility comparisons are a bit off-
Wells were still hand pumped when they figured out how to use forced water to supply a city. The new utility had numerous advantages versus the one it replaced(like indoor plumbing).
Why exactly would anyone care that homes didn't have any way to generate electricity when noone used electricity? It isn't like people were wondering how they were going to power their gas lamps
For all the other utilities they provided a new service or greatly improved on one(cable didn't take off until cable tv came about and exceeded the limits of air waves). Computing as a utility has no meaningful upside for consumers and increases costs.
I would see this as viable only if MS wanted to follow Sony's example of creating a very difficult to work with platform. Given Intel's failure in producing competitive products in the consumer 3D market(even after they purchased a company explicitly for that reason) they would almost assuredly rely on CPU power to fill in for dedicated hardware. Another aspect is that they would be turning their back on DirectX which I don't see happening. I suppose it is within the realm of possibilities, but the power and ease of development in terms of the XBox are something that I haven't seen any argue MS got wrong.
This is the general impression that I have gained from observing AI in action(I've never even see an AI script before so I have absolutely no idea what they even entail). The AI in Half-Life, just to use a very outdated example, still seems to be considerably better then what we see in most new games. More intelligent and simply more real then what we are seeing today.
Given the general direction that we see MS and Sony headed in, it appears nearly certain that Sony will follow their route(monster CPU) while MS will follow theirs(monster GPU). It is fairly obvious that with the amount of graphics power that the next gen will have it will almost certainly take an educated pair of eyes to spot the differences in the visuals, I am currently under the impression that the same scenario is going to play out on the AI/Physics side of the coin. We are going to reach a point, moreso then already, where coding skills determine how well AI/Physics work on a given platform and even taking that into consideration you will still need a trained pair of eyes to spot the difference between the AI physics between the two likely platforms(not many people will notice if a Vette is pulling an extra .05Gs over what it should on an off camber decreasing radius turn as an example
).Faf-
Are you talking one hundred, or two hundred years out? A T3 line can't match my hard drive, not even close, and I can't even get DSL where I live(in the north eastern US). Much of the idea of Grid was hatched due to the immense venture capital that poored in to the telcoms to buld more bandwith, and it took them a decade to reach the state that they are at now. Now, the venture capital is gone and the BB expansion has slowed to a trickle. At its current rate it will take another five years or more before the majority of consumers have BB in their homes, significantly longer until it has the penetration that PCs have. Even then, the amount of bandwith available is an insignificant pittance to what will be required before the idea of a network computer is a viable replacement for PCs.
Look at the driving forces in PC marketing; actually, you may not see them where you are at so I'll fill you in on the US. The big things the companies are pushing over here is digital video and audio manipulation. Two areas where you really should have hundreds of MB/sec bandwith at least. With current actual transfer rates rarely exceeding 500KB/sec for bb users we are an extremely long way off from network computing being a viable option.
The amount of local data transfer I handle on my PC in a month would cost me over $1500 on the net(I've spent a great deal of time looking at bandwith options lately as my sites host shut down). That is ignoring the plethora of other issues with the technology(compatibility, security etc).
Vince-
Your utility comparisons are a bit off-
Wells were still hand pumped when they figured out how to use forced water to supply a city. The new utility had numerous advantages versus the one it replaced(like indoor plumbing).
Why exactly would anyone care that homes didn't have any way to generate electricity when noone used electricity? It isn't like people were wondering how they were going to power their gas lamps
For all the other utilities they provided a new service or greatly improved on one(cable didn't take off until cable tv came about and exceeded the limits of air waves). Computing as a utility has no meaningful upside for consumers and increases costs.
Must be magic that we've been using then, making missing features appear.
Besides...
XBox launched with a super fast T&L unit with sub N64 capabilities. (no flow control of any kind). Not exactly state of the art for end of 2001.
8)
Ben,
I don't feel prophetic enough these days to go into actual time estimates. But you're skipping steps at any rate, I seriously doubt we could go from what is today to a network PC in one step. For instance, having online distribution of digital content much sooner then fully functional network PC's seems kinda likely.
And There's enough disbelief surrounding that relatively obvious step already, so let's not get ahead of ourselves
Though I would mention that speed of BB expansion depends on the country you live in. From what I know, in Japan, BB has been spreading like wildfire for last year or two.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I really wonder if Sony will even match DX9 features and IQ in the PS3 rasterizer (Graphics Synth 3, right?) That's probably the most they would be able to get in to it, since Sony is on roughly a 4-5 year development period with PS3, where as Nvidia/ATI GPUs are developed in 1-2 years.
PS3 specs should be taking fairly solid shape next year, and set in stone sometime in 2004, depending on the year of its release, in 2005 or 2006.
PS3 specs should be taking fairly solid shape next year, and set in stone sometime in 2004, depending on the year of its release, in 2005 or 2006.
G
Guest
Guest
Megadrive1988 said my thoughts exactly.
marconelly!
Veteran
Just think about it this way. The day PS2 launched in 2000, it had at least one technically more advanced game than anything on Dreamcast (Tekken Tag) Today, it's the same hardware that is running MGS2, J&D, BG
A, Burnout 2... and the same hardware that will be running ZoE2 and SH3. At the time of it's launch, the best looking games I could run on my PC with the latest graphic card, were looking pretty bad comapred to any of the listed PS2 games. Features or no features, PS2 hardware allowed for some very impressive looking games - better looking than any hardware before it allowed for. I see no reason why that will change with PS3.
G
Guest
Guest
Strangely, i find Shenmue 2 looking better than Gateaway.
SC/DOA2(Dreamcast) -> TTT < TTT -> DOA3
Dont forget that PC games are not as optimised for the hardware as consoles. I am still surprised at how Xbox can run 720p games considering the puny bandwidth and memory.
And if we are to believe Carmack, Xbox can also run D3 with the same graphics fidelity as a high end PC.
Halo2 looks cool too. If it does run at 720p widescreen.....
SC/DOA2(Dreamcast) -> TTT < TTT -> DOA3
Dont forget that PC games are not as optimised for the hardware as consoles. I am still surprised at how Xbox can run 720p games considering the puny bandwidth and memory.
And if we are to believe Carmack, Xbox can also run D3 with the same graphics fidelity as a high end PC.
Halo2 looks cool too. If it does run at 720p widescreen.....
BenSkywalker said:
Actually their not, and I'll show you. I see a lack of thinking and imagination on your side, coupled with resentment of anything thats not plainly in your idea of the future. I fear you may be one of those people who Van Doren stated think strictly algabraically, in a world where technical advancement is geometric.
Ok, nitpicking. But the new computing utility has numerous advantaged as well. It's realitivly centralized processing can be several orders of magnitude more expensive, suck in more power, and be much more vast in scope (ie. Array) than your desktop can.
It's hassle-free (Thank you God). Nomore worrying about WindowsXP not reformatting everything or the quircky bugs on your desktop that keep crashing and loosing your data. No more technical worries at all - This has been the progression of human societal evolution when it comes to specilization and education. We no longer need to worry or know how to farm, produce energy, get and make sure the water is clean - Their's no reason we need to fuck with the problems of a desktop PC.
If you want computing or need it for something, you merely plug it in or it's already wirelessly connected, ect. The point is, it (computing = utility) could become as seemlessly integrated into everything we do as the present utilities, to a point where we don't even know it's there.
Why exactly would anyone care that homes didn't have any way to generate electricity when noone used electricity? It isn't like people were wondering how they were going to power their gas lamps
Ben, this is retarded. Your: a) being an asshole, b) disagreeing to disagree, c) nitpicking things that aren't there, d) All of the above
First off I never said "electricity" for a reason, I said power generation. People used several forms of power generation like taming the Wind, Flowing water, et al to help with manufacturing. Not everyone is as limitied in vision as you.
2nd of all, These forms of power generation were replaced during the industial revolution when the steam engine becam commonplace... Now adays we have no local power generation at al! Instead we rely on utilities like the Nuclear Plant that produce a steady stream of power thats millions of times more effecient and power producing.
Not true again. I stated a few reasons above. Their are many more - try thinking a few up tonight and turn them in by tomorrow, ok?
marconelly!
Veteran
That's cool. Some people like certain things, others don't.
It's undeniable, however, that TTT was technically more advanced game than either DOA2 or SC, just as PS2 was the technically ahead of other consoles in time of it's launch.
Panajev2001a
Veteran
CAUGHT!!! i finally found your secret... let me go around and spill the beans...
"Developers go back to voodoo class to enhance their games"
zidane1strife
Banned
Well, xbox1 has less fillrate, Vram bandwith... and a less powerful cpu for 3d and it came out 20Months later, without the competition knowing MS plans....
So DX10 cards will be released, DX11 plans will be flying around.... and sony engineers will just get high and forget about it? hmmmm.... after two gens of winning, sony will clearly risk EVEN greater $$$ loss on h/w in hopes of being the top.... and unless MS stockholders are really dense they won't allow xbox2 to have comparable losses....
Not multitextured.
Both the PS2 and Xbox are pretty UMA, the PS2 has 1.2gigs from GS<->RDRAM, the Xbox has 6.4gigs from NV2A<->DDR. As for FRAMEBUFFER the PS2 has a higher bandwidth.. but yet still struggles to output 480p
I'd reckon that 733mhz XCPU > 300mhz R9500. Again, this comes down to design philosophy, with Core+VUs on one die vs CPU + VS seperate. The nod goes to the VUs for advanced flow control and programmability and such, but if devs kill themselves trying to get performance out of them....
It would be interesting to see what some of the bigger studios could do with the Xbox if it had the budget and support that the PS2 currently has.
zurich
Panajev2001a
Veteran
next gen is not tooooooo far
G
Guest
Guest
marconelly! said:
Yes, but the technical jump from SC to TTT is much smaller than TTT to DOA3.
Yes again, but overall PS2 was just slightly ahead of other consoles in some ways and slightly behind or equal in others.
That is why i dont see any reason why Xbox2 will be any worse than PS3, earlier or not(+/- 1 year).
