PS3, Holiday 2006

[randycat99]

Assuming that PS3 is going to sell so well and be market leader just because of PS2 is being very niave if you ask me. There are too many unknown factors and I'll just leave it at that.

Again, we have yet another dubious claim. Who here are you referring to??? Is it just perhaps possible that some people believe the PS3 will do well for many reasons, rather than simply because PS2 did well?

You have fairly demonstrated how off-track you are in describing what "other" people feel about something. Perhaps you should just concentrate on how "you" feel about things and keep it at that? Just a suggestion.

 

[Hardknock]

Again, we have yet another dubious claim. Who here are you referring to??? Is it just perhaps possible that some people believe the PS3 will do well for many reasons, rather than simply because PS2 did well.

You have fairly demonstrated how off-track you are in describing what "other" people feel about something. Perhaps you should just concentrate on how "you" feel about things and keep it at that? Just a suggestion.

Are you just blind or are you an idiot? Just a few posts above:

It's also pretty reasonable to assume that the PS3 will outsell the Xbox 360 in all territories again, considering the Xbox was still outsold 2-1 in its strongest territory. It would be more unreasonable to assume that the Xbox would somehow overcome a 2-1 deficit in any territory to snatch the crown from Sony (let alone a 20-1 deficit in Japan and a 9-1 deficit in Europe), especially considering the next-gen cards that both companies have played.

My point is it's not reasonable at all if you look at the history of this industry.

 

[Sis]

Well if you look at my posts you'll see that my point has always been everybody starts at zero each new generation and I stand by that.

It's a "tempting" point but one that I don't think is quite true. Playstation the brand has a hell of a lot of history and momentum and Sony has yet to show one single misstep to indicate that they are weak, which historically precipitate a decline in console sales.

It might be easier to think they all start at zero, but I don't believe that to be true. Instead, as has been noted, look to where the games are. This is where it gets into a gray area, as I believe the 360 looks to have a lot of developer support--but not necessarily more than PS3. Certainly on a more equal footing than the original Xbox, though, no?

.Sis

 

[Hardknock]

It's a "tempting" point but one that I don't think is quite true. Playstation the brand has a hell of a lot of history and momentum and Sony has yet to show one single misstep to indicate that they are weak, which historically precipitate a decline in console sales.

It might be easier to think they all start at zero, but I don't believe that to be true. Instead, as has been noted, look to where the games are. This is where it gets into a gray area, as I believe the 360 looks to have a lot of developer support--but not necessarily more than PS3. Certainly on a more equal footing than the original Xbox, though, no?

.Sis

I agree whole-heartedly. I just made a post not to long ago that people will go where the games are, all this die-hard f@nboyism we see on message boards means nothing. I'll own all console next-gen so no worries here

 

[Mintmaster]

I don't think the early release of the Xbox 360 will help it much at all. Most of the launch titles are either A) 1st party or B) PC ports. Many big 3rd party developers simply haven't had enough time to develope software on the system yet, and many of them won't be releasing their software until the PS3 has released. This means that most developers have the option of waiting for the PS3, and many of them will, especially when you consider that the PS2 is still an abundantly sufficient source of income.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

What you're saying is that PS3 can be late and still come out on top. However, imagine if XB360 and PS3 came out at the same time. The PS3 would undoubtedly destroy it in sales. A one year delay is a very compelling reason to buy the XB360, and will give MS a huge cost advantage down the road. Many of the 3rd party developers wouldn't even bother with a XB360 port if both systems launched together, but now, even if they're waiting until PS3, they'd be stupid not to take advantage of the millions of XB360's already in place at the PS3's launch.

XB360's early launch is absolutely critical to its success. It by no means implies victory, but it gives MS a fighting chance that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

 

[mckmas8808]

Well if you look at my posts you'll see that my point has always been everybody starts at zero each new generation and I stand by that. I don't make any assumptions of who is going to outsell who, because in the end I really don't care. I go where the games I want to play are. Nobody thought PS1 would outsell N64 and Saturn. Nobody thought Genesis would outsell SNES in the States. Nobody thought Xbox would outsell Gamecube this gen.

BC erases that old notion now. People appreciated it with the PS2 and people will most definetly like it with the PS3 being that devs have already said that they will support the PS2 more than they did the PSone after the newer console came out.

 

[mckmas8808]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

What you're saying is that PS3 can be late and still come out on top. However, imagine if XB360 and PS3 came out at the same time. The PS3 would undoubtedly destroy it in sales. A one year delay is a very compelling reason to buy the XB360, and will give MS a huge cost advantage down the road. Many of the 3rd party developers wouldn't even bother with a XB360 port if both systems launched together, but now, even if they're waiting until PS3, they'd be stupid not to take advantage of the millions of XB360's already in place at the PS3's launch.

XB360's early launch is absolutely critical to its success. It by no means implies victory, but it gives MS a fighting chance that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

See the fact that you even said that the 360 wouldn't have a fighting chance to compete if it came out at the sametime is my and some others point. The Xbox 360 shouldn't look that bad even if it came out at the sametime.

 

[Mintmaster]

Again, we have yet another dubious claim. Who here are you referring to??? Is it just perhaps possible that some people believe the PS3 will do well for many reasons, rather than simply because PS2 did well.

You have fairly demonstrated how off-track you are in describing what "other" people feel about something. Perhaps you should just concentrate on how "you" feel about things and keep it at that? Just a suggestion.

Well, have you read what others are saying? I think Hardknock is accurately representing the opinion of others with his statement:

It's also pretty reasonable to assume that the PS3 will outsell the Xbox 360 in all territories again, considering the Xbox was still outsold 2-1 in its strongest territory. It would be more unreasonable to assume that the Xbox would somehow overcome a 2-1 deficit in any territory to snatch the crown from Sony (let alone a 20-1 deficit in Japan and a 9-1 deficit in Europe), especially considering the next-gen cards that both companies have played.

Sony had a 5 million head start in North America, and now MS is at 11 million, and Sony almost at 40 million in North America. Sony has lapped MS like four times, and month to month continue to outsell them 3:1. Sony's early lead was only 5 million, now they are 29 million ahead.

The point I am making is that Microsoft just could not get nearly the same developer support for XBox as Sony did for PS2. It was late, it didn't give you much over the PS2, and it had a much smaller game library.

When XB360 launches in a few weeks it offers a lot over it's closest competitor, the PS2. It's in time for Christmas. It'll be top dog for a long time. It'll have quite a decent game library for a new system. By the time the PS3 launches, it'll have a large user base. HDTV sales have exploded in recent years, and many of those buyers are just itching for another way to use their bigscreen toy.

Comparing this battle to last gen is almost completely meaningless. I seriously doubt either console will dominate this battle like PS1 and PS2 have before. If you're the underdog, you need a big advantage over the leader, and last gen MS just didn't have it. This time they do: timing.

 

[Hardknock]

Oh yeah, let me address these points right quick:

Calm down playa. Whats up with you right now? I knew what kind of people you were talking about. People like me, xbd, Randy, l-b, etc. I have never written off MS.

I wasn't actually refering to anybody here in particular. I don't know enough about you or any of those people to say how they feel. Xbd I know for sure is pretty level-headed and I love reading his outlook on things because he is pretty spot-on the majority of the time. But do know there are plenty of people that have written MS off, just do some browsing to different message boards and you'll see first-hand.

I think even you can concede that the PS3 will be more powerful in some fashion, whether that be "substantially" or just slightly (I don't remember anybody saying it would be substantially more powerful).

Well you must be blind or living under a rock, because people all over the internet have been saying Xbox 1.5 and that PS3 would be leaps and bounds graphically superior. I don't know what point you were trying to make here.

I also don't remember anybody saying that the Xbox 360 would be left with ports of PS3 games, whether they be "mediocre" or nay (I don't remember anybody saying the 360 would get ports, let alone mediocre ones). Colourful use of language there.

All you have to do is read Gaming-age forums and plenty of other places. For example: Whenever new Madden, NBA live or other footage comes out that people don't particularly like. The first thing they say is "next-gen doesn't start til PS3!", or "PS3 will be EAs lead platform next-gen and Xbox 360 is going to get these downgraded ports. LOL!!" Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but do know all the things I mention have been said somewhere.

 

[Mintmaster]

See the fact that you even said that the 360 wouldn't have a fighting chance to compete if it came out at the sametime is my and some others point. The Xbox 360 shouldn't look that bad even if it came out at the sametime.

Why not?

The reasons it would "look that bad" have nothing to do with the system itself. For consumers, it has to do with the PlayStation empire and the Sony brand. For developers, it has to do with marketshare and the way consumers see the consoles.

 

[randycat99]

Are you just blind or are you an idiot? Just a few posts above:

Neither, but you are quickly building the case for yourself. Expecting continued heavy outselling is certainly a plausibility for numerous reasons. Your point was that people believe it "simply because" of PS2. With that qualification, your seemingly legitimate statement transforms to strawman. There is no one who believes in the imminent success of PS3 over one single reason. You need to tone down the rhetoric, tone down the agressiveness towards those you "perceive" to be your opposition. It only serves to make you appear irrational and unreasonable.

 

[Gholbine]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

What you're saying is that PS3 can be late and still come out on top. However, imagine if XB360 and PS3 came out at the same time. The PS3 would undoubtedly destroy it in sales. A one year delay is a very compelling reason to buy the XB360, and will give MS a huge cost advantage down the road. Many of the 3rd party developers wouldn't even bother with a XB360 port if both systems launched together, but now, even if they're waiting until PS3, they'd be stupid not to take advantage of the millions of XB360's already in place at the PS3's launch.

XB360's early launch is absolutely critical to its success. It by no means implies victory, but it gives MS a fighting chance that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

I see where you're coming from. I suppose I should rephrase my statement in that, the early Xbox 360 release will not win them the generation, but it will help them to some extent. What I'm saying though, is that in terms of developer support, which is by far the most important factor, the early release won't help them an awful lot. The only way it will help them is in that they're the only next-gen system on the market for at least 6 months, so they're able to achieve a sizable (or small) lead on the PS3. It's just my opinion that developers have neither the need nor desire to rush into Xbox 360 development.

You also have to consider that it's not just about which system sells the most. If this were the case, there would have been no games at all on the Xbox or Gamecube. Some of the other factors include target audience, system hardware and fanbase. All of the big franchises that made the Playstation brand so successful (Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Tekken, etc.) will all return to the Playstation brand next generation, simply because their fanbase is with the Playstation brand. This time, however, the hardware stance has changed. Now the Playstation is the more powerful, fully featured system, and developers will not ignore this, especially the disc format.

As Hardknock says, the past is often a good indication of what's possible and what's not, and the early release of the Saturn and the Dreamcast didn't help them one bit, apart from their initial hardware lead. Many developers, including EA, had absolutely no need or desire to start Dreamcast development, and were perfectly happy with their cash flows on the current systems, and I feel the same may be true for the Xbox 360, especially when you consider how popular the PS2 is.

Disclaimer: I am not trying to say that the Xbox 360 is going the way of the Dreamcast, not at all. I don't think this is the case, and I'm not trying to imply it.

 

[seismologist]

Seems that some of you guys are buying into the notion that Sony has nothing since they haven't shown their hand yet.

I mean it seems like MS is doing alot of things right but just wait. Once the PS3 marketing machine kicks in and we start to get a glimpse of the 100+ PS3 games in development from Japanese studios.
People's perspective is going to change and with the impending PS3 launch, MS is going to have a heck of a time moving those $400 Xbox 360s.

 

[mckmas8808]

Seems that some of you guys are buying into the notion that Sony has nothing since they haven't shown their hand yet.

I mean it seems like MS is doing alot of things right but just wait. Once the PS3 marketting machine kicks in and we start to get a glimpse of the 100+ PS3 games in development from Japanese studios.

This is something that I've been trying to get across for days now. Just because everthing is 360 know doesn't mean that MS has a great shot at taking out the PS3. At least wait until we start seeing more PS3 and Revolution games.

 

[Mythos]

I mean it seems like MS is doing alot of things right but just wait. Once the PS3 marketting machine kicks in and we start to get a glimpse of the 100+ PS3 games in development from Japanese studios.
People's perspective is going to change and with the impending PS3 launch, MS is going to have a heck of a time moving those $400 Xbox 360s.

If anything I think MS has been slipping lately.

First, the specs. for the X360 were leaked,the X360 name itself, then the MTV showing sucked, at E3 they got showed up and TGS and X05 wasn't particlutarly standing out.

MS has its worked cutout...let see what they do with the extra time?

 

[Mintmaster]

I see where you're coming from. I suppose I should rephrase my statement in that, the early Xbox 360 release will not win them the generation, but it will help them to some extent.

That I'll agree with.

What I'm saying though, is that in terms of developer support, which is by far the most important factor, the early release won't help them an awful lot. The only way it will help them is in that they're the only next-gen system on the market for at least 6 months, so they're able to achieve a sizable (or small) lead on the PS3. It's just my opinion that developers have neither the need nor desire to rush into Xbox 360 development.

OK, fine, they may not rush into XB360 development. But if the PS3 and XB360 launched simultaneously, they could ignore the XB360 without much financial consequence. That won't be the case now. Remember, just because developers aren't rushing to the XB360 doesn't mean it couldn't be worse for MS. If XB360 launched alongside PS3, it would be.

You also have to consider that it's not just about which system sells the most.

I never said it was. But it makes an enormous difference, especially when you're the underdog. If you make a game for only PS3 in Nov. 2006, then you'd likely earn a fraction as much as if you made it for both consoles, even if 50% of new PS3 owners buy it and only 20% of XB360 owners do. For the original XBox, this wasn't the case.

This time, however, the hardware stance has changed. Now the Playstation is the more powerful, fully featured system, and developers will not ignore this, especially the disc format.

That's your opinion, and hardly fact. Cell is likely more powerful than Xenon when coded for properly, but I'm sure Xenos will be more powerful than RSX in many circumstances, especially when developers go beyond simple texturing. RSX does not have 48 full pixel shaders. You can see on the PC that G70's pixel shader pipes are around 30% faster than those of R300 from 2002, not twice as fast. Then there's the eDRAM. Alpha blending will be about 2.8Gpix/s for RSX given its bandwidth and comparing with G70, and most likely under 2Gpix/s with 4xAA. Xenos will have a full 4 GPix/s. Unless RSX implements an 32-bit total RGB FP format like Xenos, the advantage will be even more with HDR rendering. Texture bandwidth will be very high for Xenos, since the memory is completely alleviated of framebuffer bandwidth. Finally there's the insane vertex shading speed of Xenos when needed to blast through hidden or backface triangles.

I definately think RSX will not be able to catch Xenos for truly next gen graphics with HDR and/or antialiasing, assuming it can even do both together.

Many developers, including EA, had absolutely no need or desire to start Dreamcast development, and were perfectly happy with their cash flows on the current systems, and I feel the same may be true for the Xbox 360, especially when you consider how popular the PS2 is.

Yes, but if we're going to make comparisons, note that despite the disadvantage of being a new player in the console market and being late, MS sold the XBox quite well. The will do much better, relatively speaking, this time around if we compare the circumstances.

My point is not that XBox will outsell PS3 over its lifetime. In fact, I doubt it. My point is, however, that XB360 will have a much higher marketshare than the original XBox.

 

[Gholbine]

OK, fine, they may not rush into XB360 development. But if the PS3 and XB360 launched simultaneously, they could ignore the XB360 without much financial consequence. That won't be the case now. Remember, just because developers aren't rushing to the XB360 doesn't mean it couldn't be worse for MS. If XB360 launched alongside PS3, it would be.

I don't quite follow you. Why is this any different now? Why won't developers ignore the Xbox 360? It will cost them more and return them less if they're releasing next-gen games on the Xbox 360 as opposed to the PS2/Xbox. What are you trying to say?

I never said it was. But it makes an enormous difference, especially when you're the underdog. If you make a game for only PS3 in Nov. 2006, then you'd likely earn a fraction as much as if you made it for both consoles, even if 50% of new PS3 owners buy it and only 20% of XB360 owners do. For the original XBox, this wasn't the case.

If they feel like they absolutely must enter next-generation development before the PS3 has come into its own, then sure, the Xbox 360 is probably the better choice at this point in time. However my point is, most developers are with the PS2 right now, and the PS2 is still going strong, so most of them gain nothing by moving to Xbox 360 development instead of sticking with the PS2 until the PS3 comes along.

That's your opinion, and hardly fact. Cell is likely more powerful than Xenon when coded for properly, but I'm sure Xenos will be more powerful than RSX in many circumstances, especially when developers go beyond simple texturing. RSX does not have 48 full pixel shaders. You can see on the PC that G70's pixel shader pipes are around 30% faster than those of R300 from 2002, not twice as fast. Then there's the eDRAM. Alpha blending will be about 2.8Gpix/s for RSX given its bandwidth and comparing with G70, and most likely under 2Gpix/s with 4xAA. Xenos will have a full 4 GPix/s. Unless RSX implements an 32-bit total RGB FP format like Xenos, the advantage will be even more with HDR rendering. Texture bandwidth will be very high for Xenos, since the memory is completely alleviated of framebuffer bandwidth. Finally there's the insane vertex shading speed of Xenos when needed to blast through hidden or backface triangles.

I definately think RSX will not be able to catch Xenos for truly next gen graphics with HDR and/or antialiasing, assuming it can even do both together.

I'm really not interested in getting into a Xenos vs. RSX debate, I'll leave that to the more technically minded people on this forum. However, what I've heard and read (particularly around here) is that both GPUs are essentially very close in terms of power, and the real difference in graphics will come from the Cell. I also mentioned Blu-Ray specifically (since it was really my main focus when I mentioned a "hardware advantage"). I'm strongly of the opinion that sticking with DVD-9 will be Microsoft's eventual deathbed in the coming generation.

Edit: Note: by "deathbed", I mean a defining factor that stops Microsoft from realizing the potential of the system. If the Xbox 360 had HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, I'd seriously consider the possibility of the Xbox 360 beating out the PS3 in the US. However as it stands, I don't think it's possible, simply because of DVD-9.

Yes, but if we're going to make comparisons, note that despite the disadvantage of being a new player in the console market and being late, MS sold the XBox quite well. The will do much better, relatively speaking, this time around if we compare the circumstances.

Again I ask, what circumstances are we talking about here? The early release? I think the Dreamcast proved that early releases do little for a console's success or failure. Not sure I follow your logic here.

My point is not that XBox will outsell PS3 over its lifetime. In fact, I doubt it. My point is, however, that XB360 will have a much higher marketshare than the original XBox.

I don't think anybody ever really doubted that.

 

[dantruon]

I find it quite funny when someone here said that every generation start at zero. I find it funny because if you played a great game like Halo, would you pick the sequel up when it come out ? or maybe final fantasy game? or maybe a MGS game. What i mean was that there must be a fire if there is a smoke, if people buy a sequel to a game doesnt that imply that the original was good , now why cant we apply this to the console scenario, consumer buy the ps3 simply because ps2 have deliver them good gaming experience and this can also be said to the xbox. So is a funny statement to say that every generation of console game start at zero and the past is not a factor in determinging choice. Remember you must look at history to predict the future.

 

[Edge]

The market will not care about HDR, as it's effect is subtle, and 2X AA will be good enough for most games.

But in the end it will come down to GAMES, GAMES, and GAMES, and Sony wins in spades there.

Every generation certainly does not start at zero, that's like saying no one has any loyalties, or each console does not have franchises specific to it, that sees sequels from generation to generation.

 

[Hardknock]

I find it quite funny when someone here said that every generation start at zero. I find it funny because if you played a great game like Halo, would you pick the sequel up when it come out ? or maybe final fantasy game? or maybe a MGS game. What i mean was that there must be a fire if there is a smoke, if people buy a sequel to a game doesnt that imply that the original was good , now why cant we apply this to the console scenario, consumer buy the ps3 simply because ps2 have deliver them good gaming experience and this can also be said to the xbox. So is a funny statement to say that every generation of console game start at zero and the past is not a factor in determinging choice. Remember you must look at history to predict the future.

Well starting back at zero is refering to install base. Outside of the hardcore, desire for your new console has to be earned all over again. I never said past is not a factor, the past is where I'm getting "everyone starts at zero" from. You still have to gain developer support, you still need to market your console correctly, you still need to get the pricing right, etc... Just because your system was dominant the previous gen does not automatically mean you'll dominate again next gen. Why are people so afraid of change? Why does it matter who 'wins' next-gen? If you're happy with your system of choice shouldn't that be all that matters? It's amazing how even the slightest hint that MS could overthrow Sony as market leader gets some people into a hissy fit.