Dont know if this subject belongs in this forum, if not sorry guys. But i thought this was highly interesting: http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cg...x.ht&middle=ad_frame2_all&s=APmvUaBVqU29ueSB0
Playstation 3 this year?
- Thread starter sancheuz
- Start date
Joe DeFuria
Legend
First of all....perhaps the CONSOLE forum might be a BIT of a better fit for this?
Second: PS3 "this year"? Give me some of what Bloomberg is smoking...
Second: PS3 "this year"? Give me some of what Bloomberg is smoking...
sancheuz said:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH........
Sony is definitely sticking to the original 2005/2006 timetable.
However, Sony's own president (or was it chairman?) already publically stated that they feared Microsoft's Xbox might shorten the traditional console lifecycle and force them to release new PlayStations early. The vibes are coming from somewhere. Could be intentional misinformation.
However, Sony's own president (or was it chairman?) already publically stated that they feared Microsoft's Xbox might shorten the traditional console lifecycle and force them to release new PlayStations early. The vibes are coming from somewhere. Could be intentional misinformation.
Lazy8s said:
thing i don't quite understand is, how would the Xbox shorten the traditional console lifecycle? for one, i think that PS2 is actually delaying the release of next generation hardware, at least from Sony. As successful as it is, i would not rush a replacement so soon......and we all know that, whether we like it or not, Ps2 is not going to stop selling like crazy anytime soon.... gosh, GT4 is on the way and we're already seeing FFXII around and hearing about MGS3....
simple: if Microsoft decides to bring out a Xbox 2 at the end of 2003 with the latest PC-hybrid being able to run graphics far better than Doom 3, then PS2 simply would not be competitive anymore from a technical point of view.
At least now, their all about in the same generation with both offering different advantages and disadvantages. If Microsoft shorterns their lifecycle, so would the others in order to stay competitive.
At least now, their all about in the same generation with both offering different advantages and disadvantages. If Microsoft shorterns their lifecycle, so would the others in order to stay competitive.
marconelly!
Veteran
I think the comment that guy from Sony made was more in the vein of PC market (that Microsoft is a big part of) being notorious of updating their products very often, so he thought Sony will have to keep up with that.
He probably thought Xbox 2 will be released in 2-3 years after the Xbox launch, and made an appropriate comment.
*edit* Phil beat me to it.
Btw, that PS3 lauch report from bloomberg has already been disregarded as misinformation:
He probably thought Xbox 2 will be released in 2-3 years after the Xbox launch, and made an appropriate comment.
*edit* Phil beat me to it.
Btw, that PS3 lauch report from bloomberg has already been disregarded as misinformation:
megadrive0088
Regular
PS3 in 2005 is the best bet. if not, it wont be eariler, it would be later.
Phil:
I think Microsoft did a pretty good job making sure their hardware compared favorably in every significant way, especially now with the DVD remote rebate.
Your implication is with regards to technological advantages/disadvantages, so I'm curious as to which advantages you think PS2 has over Xbox and which disadvantages you think the Xbox has by comparison.
I think Microsoft did a pretty good job making sure their hardware compared favorably in every significant way, especially now with the DVD remote rebate.
marconelly! said:
and why would Microsoft want to release the Ybox at the end of this year??? its not like it would be taken seriously... oh wait, they can always stuff 5 games with it for a grand total of £100 and we're happy... i mean come on...
one of the reasons PS2 did so well at launch and until the other two got released, even without any major games, was because of PS1 and those 80million people who bought one.
and the same will happen with PS3. everyone (me included to be honest) will wait until the next big thing from Sony comes out. they will buy it whether there are good games or not.
now let's look at a possible Xbox at the end of 2003.... who would buy it? the same userbase as the current XBOX? or, the same userbase as the Xbox minus the ones who cant be bothered to buy a new system every 2 years... now thats a lot...
we're not talking about PC videocards here where they can afford to sell 1 million of them per generation and be happy.... that would be suicide for Microsoft. they would be stuck with a MUCH inferior half-next-generation-hardware than PS3 and a ridiculously small userbase. Dreamcast anyone?? actually, even Dreamcast would look successful compared to that... Phil said:
I'm sure Archie or Faf could do a much better job of explaining what said architecture is better at. I think you'd be pretty naiv and ignorant if you believe that the Xbox architecture offers anything but disadvantages..
well apart from fillrate and programmability, i cant see many aspects where the Xbox is inferior to the Ps2.... and i dont see why Lazy8 is praising microsoft for it, i mean, it's always 2-year younger hardware for god's sake... still it's not THAT superior.... a 2-year younger version of PS2 would pretty much eat a current Xbox for breakfast.... but we had this argument MANY times before on other threads...
Phil:
Naive? I'm not sure what nebulous idea you're clinging to, but newer comparable hardware should generally beat older hardware in every significant way technically. If game developers actually believe that the PS2 offers some significant advantage over what could be with Xbox for certain specific game types and situations, it'd be good to hear it.
Lazy8s said:
lazy, he must have misread the post.... all i'm asking is, why are u so proud of microsoft? OF COURSE newer hardware is better than older hardware.... OF COURSE a 2 year old console will not offer performance on the same level as a new console!!! jesus why are u so proud about microsoft? its not like they could get it wrong... they had a whole 2 years to come up with something more powerful... all the rest i've said in my previous post.
Well, fillrate is one, programmability is another one as LondonBoy pointed out. That's already two right there - guess that brings us to the conclusion that Microsoft really undelievered despite being almost 2 years later in the market.
Seriously though, I never said PS2 is better than Xbox or any other console. Being a regular on this board though, I suspect you do know a fair bit about the PS2's architecture - and I think with the programmibility and the freedom its hardware gives to developers - there's one big advantage there that developers will know how to use given that the effort is there. Especially if you consider the age of said hardware. Perhaps you can say that the newer Nvidia graphics card beats the older ones in every single aspect - when comparing two completely different architectures where developers need to use radical different approaches, I'd say it is ignorant to believe one offers nothing but advantages over the other.
london-boy:
"At least now, their all about in the same generation with both offering different advantages and disadvantages. If Microsoft shorterns their lifecycle, so would the others in order to stay competitive."
Going by that, you'd get the impression that a developer who was trying to pull off something technologically would find the PS2 more capable overall for certain real game types or situations they would have. Like a developer wouldn't instantly choose the Xbox platform over the PS2 if the primary goal was technological sophistication...
There is no significant choice there. Fillrate and programmability? Sorry, fillrate and programmability are like tools for accomplishing a goal, not a goal in themselves. If a developer is trying to make a real-game technological accomplishment (goal), the Xbox is better suited to do it. Whether the process is easier/harder/more-painful/less-painful for the developer is another story.
I think it be easier to speculate about an eighteen-month older Xbox. The primary philosophy behind Xbox seems to be to poach the best PC-like hardware parts of the time and optimize them for a console environment (unlike Sony's custom approach). For a March 2000 launch against PS2, Microsoft might've then ended up choosing PowerVR for graphics (hypothetically speaking only - exclusivity contracts might still have been in effect or any other number of factors). A PowerVR console around that time could've been like a Naomi 2, with ELAN for T&L, but with some more advanced Kyro-like core. In that case, I think the "eating for breakfast" would have been turned around to that hypothetical Xbox's favor.
Well, see, this was Phil's quote:
"At least now, their all about in the same generation with both offering different advantages and disadvantages. If Microsoft shorterns their lifecycle, so would the others in order to stay competitive."
Going by that, you'd get the impression that a developer who was trying to pull off something technologically would find the PS2 more capable overall for certain real game types or situations they would have. Like a developer wouldn't instantly choose the Xbox platform over the PS2 if the primary goal was technological sophistication...
There is no significant choice there. Fillrate and programmability? Sorry, fillrate and programmability are like tools for accomplishing a goal, not a goal in themselves. If a developer is trying to make a real-game technological accomplishment (goal), the Xbox is better suited to do it. Whether the process is easier/harder/more-painful/less-painful for the developer is another story.
Well, Microsoft made sure their system technically compared favorably in every significant way in the end. While that shouldn't be an unexpected accomplishment, the same can't be said for Sony and their PS2 over Dreamcast.
Would it? I don't know in which ways Sony would change an eighteen-month younger PS2. There's lots of possibilities, but it would be heavy speculation.
I think it be easier to speculate about an eighteen-month older Xbox. The primary philosophy behind Xbox seems to be to poach the best PC-like hardware parts of the time and optimize them for a console environment (unlike Sony's custom approach). For a March 2000 launch against PS2, Microsoft might've then ended up choosing PowerVR for graphics (hypothetically speaking only - exclusivity contracts might still have been in effect or any other number of factors). A PowerVR console around that time could've been like a Naomi 2, with ELAN for T&L, but with some more advanced Kyro-like core. In that case, I think the "eating for breakfast" would have been turned around to that hypothetical Xbox's favor.
Lazy8s said:
Ando said this before Xbox's launch when they were worried about the preformance hype (or around that time) and this was before PS2 started outselling Xbox month on month by 4X in the US, which is the Xbox's strongest territory, regardless of price. They have little to fear now.
I think you'll be a bit surprised.
Like tools? WTF? Programmability can be a very powerful advantage if you know how to use it. Sure, in the end one can argue if everyone chooses the "hard" way to reach similar things done easily on different hardware - that's something each developer has to choose for themselves. I sure know what I find more attractive though. I'm sure Jason Rubin wouldn't think much different, judging by interviews and Naughty Dogs work.
Judging by hardware or software library? Either way, I'd argue it - but we've already heard your countless praises for certain Dreamcast titles. No need to repeat it.
Where's that big rolleyes smilie when you need it?
If if if... whatever. No matter how you see things, it does not change the fact that Xbox is not superiour in all aspects.
Phil:
A significant end-result/technical-goal I'm talking about could be something like the realization of a detailed terrain engine for a flight simulator with heavy support for multitexturing, draw distances, and minimal texture errors as you look out towards the horizon... you know, things like that.
The two points you've emphasized are fillrate and programmability. What I'm trying to say is that neither qualify as an end result - they're not goals in themselves. A developer doesn't try to "accomplish" a technical feat of fillrate or of programmability in their app; those are characteristics of the hardware/architecture that, along with many other factors, enable them to pull off what their goals actually are. They "use" fillrate and programmability to achieve the end results to which I'm referring.
A significant end-result/technical-goal I'm talking about could be something like the realization of a detailed terrain engine for a flight simulator with heavy support for multitexturing, draw distances, and minimal texture errors as you look out towards the horizon... you know, things like that.
Similar threads
