ps3 much more powerful than xbox 360?

[Spidermate]

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 to the press was the usual PR.

Obviously, it had enough to do with it for EA to develop for it.

Again, EA doesn't really have any weight in which High def DVD format becomes the defacto standard. They merly published thier opinion to the press. Besides, the current focus on blue ray iis 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.

And why is this not also important with a handheld? There is still money to be made there as well.

Also, I'm not really understanding you on this weight thing. I am talking about limitations. Merging a format is irrelevant since the both allow you more freedom. EA comparing the two is a little silly. Comparing it to current gen discs would be more along those lines, however. As I said before, supporting both formats is more to be the like, but granting one format more content than the other seems a little more feasible without limitations, and I believe that's what they meant.

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

Unless you are choosing to ignore the obvious, then no.

 

[pegisys]

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.

the amazing part they can do is drop the price right before the ps3 comes out and since it's rumored that the ps3 will be around $500 at launch that can only help microsoft

 

[Pugger]

Although technically I get lost when the conversations start getting complicated, nobody has come back to me with a basic answer regarding what I think MS are doing. I reckon they are launching earlier because they are willing to take the risk that graphically the difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3 will be marginial. We know that Sony are using a PC derived GPU and many beleive that due to time restriants this Gpu will do the vecters and Pixels. If this holds true the difference we will see and the general public at large will be the difference between an ATI800 and a 6800. I really can't see how it can be different CELL or no CELL.

 

[Spidermate]

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.

Exactly, which is probably why they aren't including the HDD as an internal storage device. Point is, Microsoft is just as must concerned about cost or profitibility of their console as all the others. Many seem to think because of their annually income, they can flush as much money as they want without a care in the world. It doesn't work that. Even they need to profit from this division otherwise it's useless to them.

 

[Spidermate]

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.

the amazing part they can do is drop the price right before the ps3 comes out and since it's rumored that the ps3 will be around $500 at launch that can only help microsoft

Dropping the price is good. The rumor for $500 is silly. How many times has the public missed on their estimation?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony will play price match - they won't sit with a $500 machine while $200 XB360's fly off the shelves. It'll hurt if MS go silly, but they'll do it.

 

[McFly]

Most people expected the PSP would cost much more than it does as well, so the $500 rumor just because it sounds like expensive technology is silly.

Fredi

 

[Carl B]

Although technically I get lost when the conversations start getting complicated, nobody has come back to me with a basic answer regarding what I think MS are doing. I reckon they are launching earlier because they are willing to take the risk that graphically the difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3 will be marginial. We know that Sony are using a PC derived GPU and many beleive that due to time restriants this Gpu will do the vecters and Pixels. If this holds true the difference we will see and the general public at large will be the difference between an ATI800 and a 6800. I really can't see how it can be different CELL or no CELL.

I think they are launching early precisely because they don't know what those graphical differences will be, not necessarily because they are banking on those differences being slight. R500 and NV/G-whatever are totally new architectures, so there's always the chance for one to outperform the other by a significant margin.

It just makes sense for Microsoft to launch early; if PS3 is graphically noticeably better, then they had some time to build momentum - if PS3 is not noticeably better, well that's even better for MS. And you definitely get the sense that Microsoft is trying to shift the paradigm of 'gaming' to a more value-added model, where they will have their Web-TV stuff, seemingly some sort of media-center capabilities, and possibly that 'xpod' functionality (though I doubt it). If that all worked out for them, they could create an atmosphere where even with a better 'console', it might be percieved that Sony does not have the better system. I would be shocked and dissapointed in Sony though if they also were not going on a heavily 'value-added' route, especially since that seems to be one of their espoused goals.

 

[Qroach]

Obviously, it had enough to do with it for EA to develop for it.

but again, like I said before, EA didn't really have a immensly visible presence on the GBA. However in the console space it's totally different and EA can make or break a console with it's support (something they can't do on the GBA). Also this was just a PR annoucement of why they decided to develop for the platform.

And why is this not also important with a handheld? There is still money to be made there as well.

um what? I don't follow you... EA saying we love PSP for X & Y reasons was simply PR. I'm sure I can find some quote about why EA liked the GBA when it was annouced too. What I'm saying is the handheld market is very different from the home concole market, therefore it's not a good example proving your point.

Also, I'm not really understanding you on this weight thing. I am talking about limitations. Merging a format is irrelevant since the both allow you more freedom. EA comparing the two is a little silly. Comparing it to current gen discs would be more along those lines, however. As I said before, supporting both formats is more to be the like, but granting one format more content than the other seems a little more feasible without limitations, and I believe that's what they meant.

The weight comment comes from being able to make or break whatever EA decides to support. EA couldn't make or break the GBA on it's support. They couldn't make or break the Blue ray with thier support, and this is part of the reason they decide to support something, so they can been seen as a visible power in a space (like PSP) and make a larger name for themselves. We all know nintendo doesn't really covet third parties, meanwhile sony would bend over backwards for EA. Anyway this is slightly off topic, but IMO related to the "not aving EA on dreamcast" comments I made earlier.

Wait a minute you list EA saying they support blue ray as an example of them supporting emerging technology that is technically teh most advanced, and I'm saying this was just a PR move by EA. Saying EA is supporting blue ray for various reason is a PR move, plain and simple. Not an example of EA throwing support behind better technology. EA has zero impact on the succces of blue ray or HD-DVD. Unlike the next gen consoles. As I mentioned before both formats are merging so this was a moot point in teh edn anyway.

Unless you are choosing to ignore the obvious, then no.

not ignoring, but I don't think you had good examples that are showing a trend of EA to throwing support behind new technology that is the most advanced. jeez, EA did support nvidia for years with 3dfx around., rermber those days? Nvidia had better technology with more features imo, but EA didn't suddenly say they were supporting them.

 

[Kolgar]

the amazing part they can do is drop the price right before the ps3 comes out and since it's rumored that the ps3 will be around $500 at launch that can only help microsoft

Sony isn't 3D0. They know better than to launch PS3 at more than $299. It's simply not going to happen.

 

[jvd]

I highly doubt the diffrence will be big , mabye like the jump between a 3200 athlon 64 + 6800 non ultra vs a 3600+ a64 and a 6800ultra . Not big but it will be there and in the end it will barely amount to anything

 

[PC-Engine]

I think if MS wants to counter PS3 when PS3 launches, they should release a Xenon premium edition with HD movie playback. They also need to redesign Xenon's casing or offer more attractive snapon designs. Processing power will not be all that relevent.

 

[Carl B]

Processing power will not be all that relevent.

Well, I think it's a little premature to say that. Processing power will be as relevant as Sony is able to make it.

 

[PC-Engine]

Processing power will not be all that relevent.

Well, I think it's a little premature to say that. Processing power will be as relevant as Sony is able to make it.

Correction realworld processing power will not be all that relevent...

 

[Carl B]

Processing power will not be all that relevent.

Well, I think it's a little premature to say that. Processing power will be as relevant as Sony is able to make it.

Correction realworld processing power will not be all that relevent...

Oh don't worry, I know what you meant.

 

[PC-Engine]

Processing power will not be all that relevent.

Well, I think it's a little premature to say that. Processing power will be as relevant as Sony is able to make it.

Correction realworld processing power will not be all that relevent...

Oh don't worry, I know what you meant.

Judging by your name, it seems you're hoping/wishing/praying PS3 processing power will be relevent which it won't.

 

[Carl B]

Processing power will not be all that relevent.

Well, I think it's a little premature to say that. Processing power will be as relevant as Sony is able to make it.

Correction realworld processing power will not be all that relevent...

Oh don't worry, I know what you meant.

Judging by your name, it seems you're hoping/wishing/praying PS3 processing power will be relevent which it won't.

Don't read too much into the name, it's for cross-forum consistency more than anything else.

I think when you have a significant advantage, and at roughly ~2x the estimated processing power I think that counts, efforts should be towards pushing that advantage such that people who may not have thought it mattered before, start thinking it matters now. It seems, seems, that the Cell chip PS3 will be getting will be powerful enough in relation to the 360's CPU, that if things like physics do indeed catch on as being very important this generation, Sony would have an advantage there. I'm not trying to waste too much time with speculation, but if the processing power can be brought to bare in other, maybe more imaginitive ways, I'm sure it will be.

All I'm saying is if you were Sony, wouldn't you be looking to see how far you could push whatever advantages you had?

 

[PC-Engine]

Sure SONY may be able to push physics slightly beyond what Xenon will be able to do in their launch games, but do you think the non geek would even notice any differnce? What about AI, does CELL lend itself to good AI? From what we know about CELL and XPU, XPU would be better for AI. Not only that but it can run many many threads.

 

[marconelly!]

Are you sure about that?

Apparently they are using Xbox 2 as a base platform. For now

There are some juicy rumors that EA really likes the extra power of PS3 devkit though

 

[PC-Engine]

Why would EA abandon Xenon for PS3?

Makes no sense at all, unless you're somebody in desparate need to find excuses for whatever reasons...