ps3 much more powerful than xbox 360?

[Titanio]

Do we know what processes Sony are using? Do we know the complete designs of both?

We can't talk in absolutes now, but if you were a betting man..?

Historical precedent favours later consoles being more powerful. And from we've heard of both thusfar, there's more to indicate that the trend won't be bucked than to indicate it will.

 

[Spidermate]

Since when has lack of power of a system been reason to leave it? PS2 is regarded as inferior in the power stakes but it keeps the developers. Even if PS3 is more powerful, as a company developing an XB360 game that alone wouldn't be reason to switch development to a new platform.

The only reason to cut one's losses is if you think a hardware platform is going to flunk out. Perhaps with PS3 being more powerful, devs think the one-horse race has become even more one-sided, and the PlayStation will extend it's dominance as no-one wants an XB360?

Seems illogical to me. Add a PS3 port of your XB360 game, sure, but desert XB360 entirely? I'd love to hear these developers' reasons!

First of all, this is a rumor. Hense the term RUMOR.

Second, why is it so surprising to some that the PS3 could turn out more powerful than the Xbox 360? The console is launching later with Sony having a better understanding of this field than the others.

To answer your question... Odd World, Half Life 2, Doom 3, Ninja Gaiden, Chronicles of Riddick. Do you want me to go on?

 

[Pozer]

Agreed, but on this point I think MS is playing a dangerous game. When anyone asks "why Xbox?", when a casual asks that, the first word out of people's mouths is power. That's what defined Xbox's advantage over PS2 and that's what sold it to many people who otherwise wouldn't have bought it - I can assure you having worked in retail that power was really THE major factor in swaying people away from Playstation (it was store policy to push Xbox..don't ask ) - along with the reassurance of eventual ports of the big playstation games (even if that wasn't always strictly true..). With X360 they may be losing all the things that defined Xbox as a viable alternative purchase - and no, they haven't built enough momentum with the masses by far to tear people away from the house of playstation based on name alone or even based on its characteristic exclusives, IMO. Judging from what we know now, when PS3 is sitting on a shelf, and X360 is sitting next to it, I think for the masses, the choice will be even more obvious next gen than this gen.

I'm speaking in terms of the masses here - of course, most "hardcore" gamers will buy a X360 because it has games they want. But in terms of the masses...I honestly think this is a big big risk for MS :?

By your reasoning then the ps2 should have been a failure (if it wasn't for the headstart the ps2 had). Launching a successful console requires a snowball effect. The more people that adopt the system the more publishers will make games for it meaning more people adopt the console. MS's strategy is to sell as manyx360s before ps3 even hits the market. Take the high ground early and make Sony fight uphill. People who don't hang out in game forums will most of the time buy the most popular console. If MS has a great launch and install base before the ps3 launch power won't matter that much because games will still suffer from port-itis . Similar to how most xbox games still look like ps2 games cause they're multiconsole releases. Then will have the reverse of this gen, in 2008 ps3 people complaining that MS is the reason games look like butt. ('poetic justice or tragic irony, you tell me')

 

[Spidermate]

When anyone asks "why Xbox?", when a casual asks that, the first word out of people's mouths is power. That's what defined Xbox's advantage over PS2 and that's what sold it to many people who otherwise wouldn't have bought it - I can assure you having worked in retail that power was really THE major factor in swaying people away from Playstation

This is very true. There was even a slogan they went by when advertising the console: There's no power greater than X

That is about as obvious as it could possibly get.

 

[Spidermate]

Agreed, but on this point I think MS is playing a dangerous game. When anyone asks "why Xbox?", when a casual asks that, the first word out of people's mouths is power. That's what defined Xbox's advantage over PS2 and that's what sold it to many people who otherwise wouldn't have bought it - I can assure you having worked in retail that power was really THE major factor in swaying people away from Playstation (it was store policy to push Xbox..don't ask ) - along with the reassurance of eventual ports of the big playstation games (even if that wasn't always strictly true..). With X360 they may be losing all the things that defined Xbox as a viable alternative purchase - and no, they haven't built enough momentum with the masses by far to tear people away from the house of playstation based on name alone or even based on its characteristic exclusives, IMO. Judging from what we know now, when PS3 is sitting on a shelf, and X360 is sitting next to it, I think for the masses, the choice will be even more obvious next gen than this gen.

I'm speaking in terms of the masses here - of course, most "hardcore" gamers will buy a X360 because it has games they want. But in terms of the masses...I honestly think this is a big big risk for MS :?

By your reasoning then the ps2 should have been a failure (if it wasn't for the headstart the ps2 had). Launching a successful console requires a snowball effect. The more people that adopt the system the more publishers will make games for it meaning more people adopt the console. MS's strategy is to sell as manyx360s before ps3 even hits the market. Take the high ground early and make Sony fight uphill. People who don't hang out in game forums will most of the time buy the most popular console. If MS has a great launch and install base before the ps3 launch power won't matter that much because games will still suffer from port-itis . Similar to how most xbox games still look like ps2 games cause they're multiconsole releases. Then will have the reverse of this gen, in 2008 ps3 people complaining that MS is the reason games look like butt. ('poetic justice or tragic irony, you tell me')

I agree, this is exactly what Microsoft is doing. But, I believe what seperates Sony's launch from Microsoft's launch is Sony having a firm grip on their last market before the PS2 launched without the likes of any set slogan to penetrate those homes. Therefore, it allowed the next console to be delivered without as much effort. By Microsoft basing it's last system on a slogan and then cutting back on their next, it could possibly turn a few heads, although it's very possible that they will accumulate newer adopters in that process.

 

[one]

The point is, how much more powerful it is

 

[Teasy]

-Change of plans. After seeing PS3's power several big-time gamemakers have moved projects from XBOX 360 to PS3

Doesn't suprise me to be honest, and IMO a lot of consumers may do the same. That's the problem with releasing before the dominant console maker. Unless MS can get a very large userbase advantage over Sony and Nintendo (like Sony did with PS2) then developers will leave for the more powerful consoles.

 

[pegisys]

The point is, how much more powerful it is

I doubt if has a gap like xbox1 and ps2, I think microsoft can get a nice userbase because I think they are going to have some great launch titles and the graphics are going to blow away current consoles so everyone is going to want it I don't think they are going to wait a year for the ps3

 

[Spidermate]

Looking at the PSP, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss all the possibilities.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I doubt if has a gap like xbox1 and ps2, I think microsoft can get a nice userbase because I think they are going to have some great launch titles and the graphics are going to blow away current consoles so everyone is going to want it I don't think they are going to wait a year for the ps3

I don't know that early adopters of next-gen will wait for PS3, but such people I imagine will get all consoles, PS3 along with XB360. The key market isn't early adopters which, unless MS do something amazing, is going to be a finite market. The key is prolonged high-sales for those that don't adopt the next-gen ASAP but wait for better pricing and games.

The current gen doesn't end with the release of the next console, unless something profound happens. I don't see MS having any great advantage being first in, especially if 6 months later XB360 looks a little underpowered. Though to be honest I doubt consumers will see any difference. Whatever advatanges one system might have over the other it's unlikely it'll be apparent in games until a good few years in.

 

[BOOMEXPLODE]

Don't forget about Nintendo, if both Revolution and PS3 are more powerful than XBox 360 that puts MS in the position Sega was in with the Dreamcast (some advantages from an earlier launch, but less powerful hardware). Then again MS has much better bussiness acumen than Sega ever did, and no bad reputation carrying over from their previous console. This next generation will probably be another battle between MS and Nintendo for the #2 spot. And I would give them both equal odds.

 

[Qroach]

MS will never be in the postion sega was with the dreamcast. Why? ...because sega never had FULL support from EA on thier platform. EA owns too much of the market to not have them supporting your platform at all. They also didn't have a whole lot of franchises that were big in teh PSX days.

From what I've heard EA is using xbox 2 as their base platform for next generation, not unlike what they did with the PS2 this generation. There's no way EA is more interested in "power" then maximizing development budgets to get the most out of the dollar they spend. Which is why EA never made Xbox the dominant platform due to "power".

Consumers don't go for the most powerful platform, they go for the platform with the most games they want. it's always been this way and always will...

 

[Tacitblue]

True, when i ditched my PS for the Dreamcast it was because i felt there would be something fresh rather than improved look and flash of otherwise boring sequels on the upcoming competition hardware. History played the DC a cruel trick, but that doesn't mean i stop playing it! Not to mention at the time i didn't have a computer and the basic web browser let me have the capacity to have email for the first time.

 

[Spidermate]

From what I've heard EA is using xbox 2 as their base platform for next generation, not unlike what they did with the PS2 this generation. There's no way EA is more interested in "power" then maximizing development budgets to get the most out of the dollar they spend. Which is why EA never made Xbox the dominant platform due to "power".

Are you sure about that? I could have sworn EA making a comment about the PSP being the perfect handheld console to develope for because Sony deliverd very little restrictions and applied a wider screen to where they could bring their true imagination to life. Or what about the Blu Ray format? I believe they mentioned something about supporting it because it allowed them the capacity they needed to build a better game. I'm sure that didn't mean that they weren't going to support the others, but adding more content to a game does seem more feasible. So I wouldn't count on them not preferring more options to do their job. They supported the PlayStation because it had a wider fanbase than the Xbox. Meaning, the Xbox was still having to prove its worthiness in this industry.

Consumers don't go for the most powerful platform, they go for the platform with the most games they want. it's always been this way and always will...

That's trues, but with great power come greater options. I'm absolutely sure this is why Killzone couldn't keep up or why the PS2 was forsaken by many developers.

 

[Pozer]

I think RAM amount will play a critical role next gen. If X360 releases with 256megs and Ps3 is 512megs, MS will be in trouble. Despite the cpu/GPUs being close there will be games that simply wouldn't be porteable to X360 without a huge loss in quality.

HAd the Dreamcast shipped with 32meg I think it could've held its own very easily with ps2. A port like GTA3 would have been possible, but not on 16meg. Thats why when ps2 shipped it seemed like a true next gen system. I don't think RAM was the reason the DC failed though. I'm just saying the DC hardware would have held it's own against the ps2 easily with more.

 

[Brimstone]

Bill Gates is very aggressive. I believe he was insisting on maxium power during the development of the first X-Box, and I doubt his mentality has changed. It's more or less his company, afterall he is the largest shareholder and most of his friends are heavily invested into the company. While Ken Kutaragi has to struggle to convince Sony execs on taking some technology risks, Gates has no one looking over his shoulder.

Shane Kim who replaced Ed Fries reports directly to Peter Moore. The exclusive content compared to the first X-Box should be much improved. The exclusives should demonstrate the prowess of the hardware in a much better fashion.

 

[bbot]

If MS sticks with the underpowered three-core design, then the PS3, which uses a 256gflops CELL processor, will be more powerful. But if the rumors are true that XBOX 360 uses a dual-core PPC 970MP and a PPU, then maybe XBOX 360 will be able to match the power of PS3.

 

[Spidermate]

Bill Gates is very aggressive. I believe he was insisting on maxium power during the development of the first X-Box, and I doubt his mentality has changed. It's more or less his company, afterall he is the largest shareholder and most of his friends are heavily invested into the company. While Ken Kutaragi has to struggle to convince Sony execs on taking some technology risks, Gates has no one looking over his shoulder.

Shane Kim who replaced Ed Fries reports directly to Peter Moore. The exclusive content compared to the first X-Box should be much improved. The exclusives should demonstrate the prowess of the hardware in a much better fashion.

Bill Gates isn't building the console, now is he? It is the reason for him hiring people for the job. He only gives the go ahead. In Kutaragi's position, his position is no different from the hired employees over the Xbox. So what's makes their position so much greater than the people at Sony? If what you say really mattered, I don't believe Microsoft would be entering to next-gen with cost on their mind, but they are. Just needed to point that out.

 

[Qroach]

Spidermate

Are you sure about that? I could have sworn EA making a comment about the PSP being the perfect handheld console to develope for because Sony deliverd very little restrictions and applied a wider screen to where they could bring their true imagination to life.

Yes I'm sure about that. PSP has nothing to do with home console support honestly. I really don't see the simularities, as I don't think EA has really been a force in the portable gaming world. THQ publishes more gameboy games then EA. So for ea to put more support behind a platform in a space where they aren't nearly as visible, isn't really a financial risk, right? I think this was purely a financial decision. What they made public was the usual PR.

Or what about the Blu Ray format? I believe they mentioned something about supporting it because it allowed them the capacity they needed to build a better game. I'm sure that didn't mean that they weren't going to support the others, but adding more content to a game does seem more feasible.

Again that was PR, EA doesn't really have any weight in which High def DVD format becomes the defacto standard. Theyaren't a movie studio. They merly published thier opinion to the press. Besides, the current focus on blue ray it to merge it with the HD-DVD consortum. EA will deliver games on whatever format they have to use, as that's how they will make thier money.

So, I wouldn't count on them not preferring more options to do their job. They supported the PlayStation because it had a wider fanbase than the Xbox. Meaning, the Xbox was still having to prove its worthiness in this industry.

hmm I'm not quite sure you proved your point there... got a better example?

 

[Brimstone]

If what you say really mattered, I don't believe Microsoft would be entering to next-gen with cost on their mind, but they are. Just needed to point that out.

The next-gen cost they are worried about is failure. Monetary rewards will come in time. Market share is what matters now at this stage. Substantial market share growth is the goal. That doesn't mean you don't build a console with a smarter business model and learn from mistakes.