Sony's been quiet since TGS, is it just the calm before the storm?

[Gholbine]

Yes, this line will be remembered when PS3 games launch, and the battle cry will be "only a fraction of the power is being used at this time...wait till the next round of games."

Do you think that PS3 games will not improve upon the launch games? I certainly hope not. Do you agree that the PS3's launch games will be much better relatively than the PS2's? I don't see why not, my argument is completely logical.

Again...anyone who thinks PS3 and X360 capabilities are appreciably different in terms of games, is just kidding themselves.

I'd say the opposite is true. If you have somehow convinced yourself that a newer and more expensive machine is somehow not superior to an older, cheaper machine with components from the same companies, then I'd say it's you who's kidding yourself. To add to that, I never really mentioned that the PS3 was somehow graphically superior to the Xbox 360, and even though I think it is, I don't think it will show until at least the 2nd-3rd generation of games.

Nobody is doubting SONY's marketing machine...I mean look at all the "PS3 can render teh KZ" crap you keep hearing by some people.

Killzone was quite clearly pre-rendered. Does that mean it will never be achieved in the console generation? Certainly not. I think both systems will achieve a level of graphics close to that of Killzone before the generation has concluded.

And of course people are doubting Sony's marketing machine. You, among others, have done nothing but mock Sony's efforts, with particular reference to videos and CGI. You believe that just because Sony is using these marketing methods, that they're somehow incapable of presenting us with real games. I'd call it smart marketing actually, and I'd look no further than Microsoft as proof of this. Show real, choppy, average looking games and earn your system a lot of bad press? Or show target renders and realtime demos of games that will be achieved before the generation is done (as it was with the PS2) and steal the biggest videogame tradeshow of the year? There's really no comparison, I'd say.

We've already seen the power of Sony's marketing machine. They've said and shown so little of the new system, but it has somehow, until this point, held its own against a system who's relentless marketing campaign has been full-throttle for about 6 months now.

You want real games? You'll get them at CES, but somehow I doubt you'll be satisfied.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Do you think that PS3 games will not improve upon the launch games?

Yes, second gen PS3 games should improve against launch PS3 games. (Just as they will with XBox 360 as well.) You said the "power would be tapped much quicker". So what does this mean exactly? How long in the PS3 life cycle will we see games "plateau" then?

Do you agree that the PS3's launch games will be much better relatively than the PS2's? I don't see why not, my argument is completely logical.

I don't understand your point. I certainly hope PS3 games will be better than PS2 games.

I'd say the opposite is true. If you have somehow convinced yourself that a newer and more expensive machine is somehow not superior to an older, cheaper machine with components from the same companies, then I'd say it's you who's kidding yourself.

Um, both machines are using CPUs and GPUs fabbed on 90nm processes. Rumor has it that Cell is a bit more expensive than XBox360, but the XBOx GPU may be more expensive than PS3's.

The bottom line is...both companies are targetting similar costs and are using the same manufacturing processes. Again, if you think one system will have appreciably more "power" than the other, you're kidding yourself.

And of course people are doubting Sony's marketing machine.

Um, quite the contrary. It's the "marketing machine" that sets up unreasonable expectations that people buy into.

You believe that just because Sony is using these marketing methods, that they're somehow incapable of presenting us with real games.

No, I'd say that by using CGI, they are certainly not able to present us with real games now with that level of quality.

I'd call it smart marketing actually, and I'd look no further than Microsoft as proof of this. Show real, choppy, average looking games and earn your system a lot of bad press?

It's interesting that for all the "bad press" you claim MS has on xbox360....they are selling them faster than they can put them on the shelves.

It is physically impossible at this time for MS to show CGI movies because the system is out and on the market. The time will come, you know, when Sony will be forced to let people actually play the games, not just look at movies.

You'll get real games at CES (hopefully), and when they don't measure up to the CGI you've been shown to date, I doubt you'll still "believe it."

 

[liverkick]

PC-Engine strikes again. You're like clockwork dude.

Anyway on topic is Sony still planning their own February show? Im kinda not buying the whole CES blowout rumor. Im sure they'll have a Playstation presence but CES doesnt strike me as the type of event to rev up the full-on hype machine.

 

[seismologist]

because right now the PS2 is competing against Xbox 360 for sales.

 

[Gholbine]

Joe DeFuria, you're misunderstanding almost every point I'm making, and I get the distinct feeling that it's on purpose. Just to clarify, I never said that Sony could achieve everything they've displayed in real-time just yet. I did, however, say that they definitely would before the generation has concluded.

Also, in regards to the hardware in the actual machines. Meryll Lynch has the Cell pegged at $160 to produce, and the Xenon at $100. They also have both the GPUs at $100 each to produce. The cost factor is on Sony's side, but that's not even the whole story. The hardware is still at least 3-4 months newer in the PS3, and the price is still higher. How you could possibly expect a cheaper and older machine to keep up is beyond me. It reeks of denial.

No, I'd say that by using CGI, they are certainly not able to present us with real games now with that level of quality.

Of course they can't, they're not ready for graphics of that level. However, they know that they system is capable of these graphics, so why show consumers something they probably won't play? Unless of course it's a purely technical demonstration. This point is articulated by one game: Perfect Dark Zero. Microsoft showed early video and screenshots of a choppy, average looking game, and it did nothing but hurt PDZ's image. What's the point? Show them what they'll be playing, not 'work-in-progress'.

Anyway on topic is Sony still planning their own February show? Im kinda not buying the whole CES blowout rumor. Im sure they'll have a Playstation presence but CES doesnt strike me as the type of event to rev up the full-on hype machine.

Sony Moving To Main Show Floor At CES
It's going to a huge.

 

[wireframe]

Again, if you think one system will have appreciably more "power" than the other, you're kidding yourself.

[note: systems being Playstation 3 and Xbox 360]

I don't see why this couldn't be true. Care to give some reasoning why one would have to be kidding oneself to believe this possibility?

For example, I think there is a very good probability that Cell will kick the snot out of XeCPU for its intended purpose.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

I really dont see why PS3 couldn't achieve if not all, at least some of the graphics at E3. After watching the Warhawk vid from TGS, in my opinion, it looked better than a couple of the games I've seen so far on 360 and since the dev has managed to do the the impossible and show a PS3 game with gameplay , its no reason to say it wouldn't be a launch title in the U.S.

It seems like a lot of people look at it as Sony lied about the PS2's graphics so why wouldn't they lie this gen. Yet I would say if a game like WarDevil turns out look like it does in videos during gameplay, they who's to say another dev couldn't pull it off? The PS3's power is pretty obvious when Bandai can make a Gundam game look real instead of like those cartoonish ones they had on PS2.

 

[avaya]

The bomb SONY will show at CES is 25GB SL BR CGI movies using MPEG2 at 16Mbit/sec VBR.

...or Toshiba see sense and join the BDA

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

...or Toshiba see sense and join the BDA

pretty much they should because Microsoft supports HD-DVD but didn't put it in their console bad sign right there

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

Maybe they have nothing new to show

Maybe they don't have anything to show period. For a system that's supposed to launch in March, we sure haven't seen shit.

 

[zidane1strife]

Again...anyone who thinks PS3 and X360 capabilities are appreciably different in terms of games, is just kidding themselves.

On one system most I hear is 30fps and aiming to get a stable 30fps on final h/w, even while sometimes going below 720p. While on another 60fps on non-final h/w or aiming at a silky smooth solid 60fps is constantly mentioned...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe DeFuria, you're misunderstanding almost every point I'm making, and I get the distinct feeling that it's on purpose.

Perhaps if you were clearer with your points?

Just to clarify, I never said that Sony could achieve everything they've displayed in real-time just yet. I did, however, say that they definitely would before the generation has concluded.

I disagree. Sony may, or may not. I certainly wouldn't say "definitely."

Also, in regards to the hardware in the actual machines. Meryll Lynch has the Cell pegged at $160 to produce, and the Xenon at $100.

Interesting...the Sony fans outright dismissed the high cost for Cell in that Merril Lynch thread...(when trying to argue against the high cost of PS3)...but now it's correct?

They also have both the GPUs at $100 each to produce. The cost factor is on Sony's side, but that's not even the whole story. The hardware is still at least 3-4 months newer in the PS3...

No.

It's still on the same generation of fabrication process. 3-4 months, unless there is a change in process, doesn't mean much at all.

Show them what they'll be playing, not 'work-in-progress'.

That's the catch, isn't it? You can't show them what they'll be playing if you don't even have final hardware to get an idea of what they will actually be playing. So instead you show a CGI generated video with *cough* guesses *cough* as to the end result.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I don't see why this couldn't be true. Care to give some reasoning why one would have to be kidding oneself to believe this possibility?

As I said, the target costs are comparable, and the main ASICs are fabbed on the same process.

The difference between PS3 and XBOX360 will, IMO, be less than the difference between PS2 and XBox...which isn't much. Each system will have certain pros and cons...

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

That's the catch, isn't it? You can't show them what they'll be playing if you don't even have final hardware to get an idea of what they will actually be playing. So instead you show a CGI generated video with *cough* guesses *cough* as to the end result.

This is why all games are made to final spec of what the console maker tells them. The current dev kit or PC(according to some devs who showed games at E3) might not allow HDR lighting so you give the best you can on what you have.

if you look at the PS3 fight night demo and the 360 demo, you'll notice the 360 demo has sweat,blood,maybe some HDR lighting, and some good shading. The PS3 demo doesn't have those things and thats probably because what EA had at the time of the demo didn't support those things.

 

[wireframe]

As I said, the target costs are comparable, and the main ASICs are fabbed on the same process.

The difference between PS3 and XBOX360 will, IMO, be less than the difference between PS2 and XBox...which isn't much. Each system will have certain pros and cons...

I don't understand why you think target cost will be a deciding factor in this. You could cost up a console by filling it with ZX-81s, but that's not going to give you performance for today, is it?

Why would Sony invest so much thought and money into a chip unless they saw a gain in it? The die of the Cell may cost the same or similar to what XeCpu costs to produce, so it would make sense they were betting on getting a more efficient die for the purpose at hand.

The way I see this is that Microsoft got a snappy deal and went with it while Sony tasked themselves long and hard to produce a chip that is designed for the very purpose it will serve. Look at the Xbox, it has, by all acounts, a more powerful general CPU than the PS 2, but it still faces competition from the Emotion Engine because the EE is more specialized and suited for the task.

 

[JHoxley]

On the topic of costs...

I think one interesting angle is the wider usage of Cell chips. I can't remember the exact details, but i seem to remember they were going to take over the world - mobile phones, TV's, DVD (etc..) players, hi-fi's etc..etc..

I'm no financial analyst, but can Sony drive down costs by producing Cell chips in massive quantities, OR can they support the loss they make on PS3-Cells with the Cells used in their next-generation of ultra-cool home cinema TV's.. ?

Jack

 

[AlphaWolf]

Why would Sony invest so much thought and money into a chip unless they saw a gain in it? The die of the Cell may cost the same or similar to what XeCpu costs to produce, so it would make sense they were betting on getting a more efficient die for the purpose at hand.

Don't confuse expectations with reality. Once Sony made the large investment they are in a way stuck with it. I am not suggesting it is more or less efficient, but even if it were less efficient they have an investment to protect and bailing on it beyond a certain point may incur more losses than sticking with it.

 

[wireframe]

I think one interesting angle is the wider usage of Cell chips. I can't remember the exact details, but i seem to remember they were going to take over the world - mobile phones, TV's, DVD (etc..) players, hi-fi's etc..etc..

I'm no financial analyst, but can Sony drive down costs by producing Cell chips in massive quantities, OR can they support the loss they make on PS3-Cells with the Cells used in their next-generation of ultra-cool home cinema TV's.. ?

From the little I know about this, what Sony is touting with this is the scalability, specifically the SPEs, of the Cell design. Being designed like a network of processors, the design lends itself to be scaled and employed in interesting ways. For example, you can use a 2 SPE (as opposed to 8 SPE) "Cell" in a TV or DVD/Blu-Ray player. The 8 SPEs in the Playstation 3 design occupy roughly 2/3rds of the die, so you can see how it can be reduced in size dramatically. It may also be that there will be different PPEs in these versions used for simpler tasks, but the costs of redesign may outweigh the savings as you want to cover a broad base of products/tasks anyways.

I don't think this has anything to do with subsidizing or simple economies of scale, but that never hurt anyone.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

On the topic of costs...

I think one interesting angle is the wider usage of Cell chips. I can't remember the exact details, but i seem to remember they were going to take over the world - mobile phones, TV's, DVD (etc..) players, hi-fi's etc..etc..

I'm no financial analyst, but can Sony drive down costs by producing Cell chips in massive quantities, OR can they support the loss they make on PS3-Cells with the Cells used in their next-generation of ultra-cool home cinema TV's.. ?

Jack

yeah, the cell is already in use in military missle launch systems if I remeber correctly(and people thought they where lying when they said playstation systems could launch missles )

 

[wireframe]

Don't confuse expectations with reality. Once Sony made the large investment they are in a way stuck with it. I am not suggesting it is more or less efficient, but even if it were less efficient they have an investment to protect and bailing on it beyond a certain point may incur more losses than sticking with it.

I'm not confusing the two. I am simply saying that you design a new chip for a cetain task for a reason. Expecting it to be the opposite is not a realistic starting point.

Sure, it could turn sour and they will just keep churning it out to save face, but I see no indication that this is so. Just like I expect Intel's and AMD's next processors to have greater abilities than the CPUs they replace, I expect the design behind Cell to be aimed at exactly that and not a convoluted way of ending up with something that could have been achieve by sticking three of the Cell's PPEs together. It doesn't make sense to think against the design...yet.