PS3 Goes Into Full Production...
- Thread starter Arsynic
- Start date
Arsynic said:
Me too. Especially since it's Sony. They like throwing specs at consumers.
Maybe they've changed their PR tune? Or didn't want to repeat the specs as they weren't 100% sure they would hit them at E3?
Not that I think it will matter a lot for the system by the way. It will still be a fine console. It's just not Sony-like to act like specs don't matter to them.
IMHO of course.
Yep. Call me stupid, but unless I'm told something's changed, I assume it's the same. I don't expect people to make an effort to communicate what's already known!Arsynic said:
All of which we've been told about
Because maybe they haven't changed? How would you update the specs if they're the same as they were a year ago? What exactly would write? Would you go from
Cell at 3.2 GHz
to
Cell at 3.2 GHz *still* < We haven't changed this!
??
I think that's more a matter of presentation. There are no tech specs at all on the official PS3 website (http://eu.playstation.com/ps3/), not just for CPU and GPU. Where's the transfer rates of the BRD drive? The latencies? Memory clock speeds and bus speeds? To me the PS3 specs page is akin to a TV's specs page, or any other CE goods. It's a glance-at list of 'features' mostly of connections and IO.
Are they refusing it, or have they not even been asked..? I guess they're refusing to post the processor and clockspeeds for their TVs too? Choosing not to post info isn't the same as refusing to reveal it.
Comparing PS3's repesentation on the PS3 website to XB360's is unfair. XB360's presentation on its website is pages and pages of marketting, listing all sorts of features extensively. They don't even have a comparable 'specs sheet' like the typical CE goods sheet. It's a very different style to PS3's Specs page, and a very different website to PS3s. Instead of comparing what Sony are doing to what MS are doing to decide whether they're hiding something or not, you should just look at Sony's actions.
Obviously you're a lot more cynical than I am, and assume at least in part 'no news is bad news'. For me, of course a change may happen, but until I'm told there is one I trust things remain as they were and don't assume lack of information is indicative of a change. Maybe I'd make a lousy cop, not having any 'gut instincts'?
Asus sounds pretty pissed about the leak:
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3467&Itemid=2
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3467&Itemid=2
Well, you're definitely not stupid and that's definitely the safe approach. If nothing else changed about the system and Sony left every bit of information the same as last year, I would be the same. But in lieu of other changes to the hardware and the replacement of detailed specs with vague specs, I find myself curious about what changed. It's like Sony's taking the Nintendo approach with their hardware when last year they threw everything at the wall. Come on, you're not telling me that you're not the LEAST bit curious about PS3 specs and whether or not Sony bumped up the speed on some stuff.Shifty Geezer said:
My point is that we were told a lot of things last year, most of which has changed. There's no denying that.All of which we've been told about
When you go from "Cell @ 3.2 GHz and RSX @ 550 MHz" to "Cell and RSX" I just wonder what the deal is. This doesn't exist in a vacuum though. It also stems from RSX clockspeeds being missing at the March Playstation meeting.
I'd use the PSP specs page as a better example. Clock speed is listed there for some components. You can't compare this to TV specs, you have to compare them to traditional console/computer specs where the clock speed of the two major processors are always listed. It's not necessary to go into other details like SPE's and whatnot. Generally consumers have been "trained" to expect clockspeed. There's nothing overly technical or confusing about "3.2 GHz" or "550 MHz". Companies like Intel have made this their bread and butter.
Apples and oranges, my friend. Seriously, who gives a damn about the clockspeed in their TV? Not many people, except hardcore videophiles. A better comparison would be Sony leaving out the max resolution on their televisions. How would you feel if you went to a Sony TV webpage and you couldn't find the picture resolution. Instead of "1080i/1080p" you see "HD Resolutions". If I'm spending $3,000 on a new TV, I definitely want to know what the most important specs are. Imagine Nvidia releasing a new videocard and listed everything but the clockspeed. Would it still matter to you what Nvidia SAID their specs were a year earlier? Any videocard afficianado knows better than assume that things stayed the same. Especially since such things require a rather significant investment. I give the PS3 equal treatment. At $600, I want to make sure things are still the same (especially in light of the fact that other things have changed).
I was looking at Sony's actions. I'm comparing Sony this year to Sony last year and I see two different approaches. The detailed PS3 specs WERE on Sony's page (albeit press-release-like) and they are now replaced with vague specs. Once again, I'll mention the PSP page. In the vein of this thread, if PS3 components are on their way to mass production facilities, you'd think that specs would be final.
I wouldn't say that I'm cynical, but I'd definitely admit that I'm skeptical. I don't trust anything. These companies are known to do anything to get a PR or marketing advantage over the competition. I can't be the only one that believes that Sony's still riding the hype of last year's E3 when it's quite obvious that none of that applies anymore. When I see alot of things about a system change and then certain details that were once listed are ommitted. I get a bit curious. If people are to just take what companies tell them at face value, we'd have no use for sites like B3D reviewing video cards. Why not just take what the ATi marketing folks told you at face value! The card has no weaknesses! Everything is what they say it is!Obviously you're a lot more cynical than I am, and assume at least in part 'no news is bad news'. For me, of course a change may happen, but until I'm told there is one I trust things remain as they were and don't assume lack of information is indicative of a change. Maybe I'd make a lousy cop, not having any 'gut instincts'?
inefficient
Veteran
Say what you want about Sony engineering. But if there is any one area they are basically peerless in - it is marketing.
For many many people, they only have to be told it has "Advanced Sony Technology" and then throw in tradmarked buzz words like "Reality Synthesizer" and "Blu-ray" and they are already oohing and awing. Hell, most people only have to be told it's the next Playstation.
Do you think the huge hype around the ps2 occured because ordinary people were getting excited about the clock speeds of the components? Buzz words like "Emotion Engine" and then comments like "powerfull enough for millitary use" got the masses excited. Even when ps3 launch games looked worse or only par with Dreamcast games, people believed in what Sony was selling them.
The actual tech specs are only important to the platform developers and hardcore enthusiasts.
Why loudly promote a number like 3.2Ghz when you know your competetors CPU is also 3.2Ghz. Why not promote something like the "Teraflop Cell".
For many many people, they only have to be told it has "Advanced Sony Technology" and then throw in tradmarked buzz words like "Reality Synthesizer" and "Blu-ray" and they are already oohing and awing. Hell, most people only have to be told it's the next Playstation.
Do you think the huge hype around the ps2 occured because ordinary people were getting excited about the clock speeds of the components? Buzz words like "Emotion Engine" and then comments like "powerfull enough for millitary use" got the masses excited. Even when ps3 launch games looked worse or only par with Dreamcast games, people believed in what Sony was selling them.
The actual tech specs are only important to the platform developers and hardcore enthusiasts.
Why loudly promote a number like 3.2Ghz when you know your competetors CPU is also 3.2Ghz. Why not promote something like the "Teraflop Cell".
Gradthrawn
Veteran
In regards to what specs SCE puts on their PS3 promotional sites, I think some of you are overlooking the very simply fact that its now out yet. The PSP has detailed specs and so does the PS2. Those two, however, are on store shelves, with complete webpages. Trying to guess at their marketing tactics or if there have been changes in specs at this early point based on their PS3 websites will likely lead to having one's own foot in their mouth later on. Simply put, their web-based marketing tools are barely even off the ground. Why should they rush it? The internet forums and publications create all of the buzz needed to sustain interest amongst early adopters. And for that matter, an ambiguous website only fuels the fire even more.:smile:
The PSP has detailed specs and so does the PS2. Those two, however, are on store shelves, with complete webpages. Trying to guess at their marketing tactics or if there have been changes in specs at this early point based on their PS3 websites will likely lead to having one's own foot in their mouth later on. Simply put, their web-based marketing tools are barely even off the ground. Why should they rush it? The internet forums and publications create all of the buzz needed to sustain interest amongst early adopters. And for that matter, an ambiguous website only fuels the fire even more.:smile:
That's fair. Still, PSP is a product that's out and released. At the moment PS3 is waiting in the wings, and the rough spce-sheet on show at the moment is likely to remain the only coverage of the device. It's like PS2 has a full specsheet including clockspeeds to 3 decimal places, available as a .pdf. I expect the same for PS3 when it releases. Everything is still viable to change before then and I wouldn't expect such detail until the product is available to buy.Arsynic said:
But that doesn't mean Sony want yet to release them on a teaser website. Perhaps the tech-specs .pdf is already authored, but not out yet?
I don't think the specs would matter anyway. Talk now is of how hard PS3 is to develop for and how everyone prefers Wii. Performance advantage had it's moment and has dropped off the radar. If I were Sony, I'd be looking at differnt marketting strategies to just posting big numbers (especially when they're marginally bigger than your much cheaper rival - 512 MB RAM, 3.2 GHz CPU, 550 MHz GPU, 2x the cost - those specs don't seem to justify the cost as they're listed there. Posting Teraflops on your specs sheet won't help any amount if your rival doesn't do the same, as there's no comparison. If you can't bend the stats in your favour, and presenting them straight doesn't benefit you, not presenting them at all makes sense.
That's different. That's reviewing specs based on actual hardware. This is believing specs have changed versus not on account of no new specs info. I'm definitely curious to know what state PS3's components will arrive in. For the time being, I expect a 550 MHz GPU (still don't know much about RSX!) and 3.2 GHz Cell and see know reason to think it'll be otherwise!
good , Sony should do that toserenity said:
inefficient said:
Agreed on all counts - Great Post!:smile:
Good point about not wanting to compare cell speed in marketing material is to the general public they would see it as equal to xcpu. However why they wouldn't boast of a faster gpu seems a bit odd but then if they advertise the gpu speed one would question why they omitted the cpu speed. It is best to leave those numbers off and have consumers fall in line with "were faster because we have x tech and look at our price, you get what you pay for".
It does seem a bit odd if they are in fact running production line ps3's at this time and the clockspeeds are not yet confirmed. If this Asus ps3 run is production then they obviously are set in stone at this point so it would seem to make sense that they would want to dispell the 2.8ghz rumours. Even if it isn't in their marketing materials.
edit - good points shiftty
Darkon said:
More likely Sony warned Asustek.
And that should answer many other questions as well - now that the 360 is out there, and the Wii isn't, Sony is wise to not show off too much, as this will allow competitors to prepare and counter any perceived advantages. The point when that no longer really matters is when there's not enough time left to do anything serious about it. Therefore you typically see that happen during the last three months before launch, which has the added benefit of also making people excited about the console.
It was very similar with the 360, if you remember - the last three months is when you really started getting the info. Of course, that was amplified with the developers also getting their final devkits just three months before launch, which imho explains why many games of that period aren't really indicative of the 360s real power.
