Averagejoe
Regular
Didn't see many people buying a PS3 over a 360 over 7.1 sound on PS3 which was unrivaled by the 720 5.1 compress sound..
The 720 could have that advantage for sure,it just wouldn't count for much.
The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn
- Thread starter gongo
- Start date
Didn't see many people buying a PS3 over a 360 over 7.1 sound on PS3 which was unrivaled by the 720 5.1 compress sound..
The 720 could have that advantage for sure,it just wouldn't count for much.
Quite possibly, I'm sure there's a multitude of reasons behind a purchase but if 3rd party titles are the hook, as I say above I bet my last £1 they will be very similar no matter what the platform. Still it will keep the people over at Digital Foundary happy, dissecting every torn frame and frame drop.
From where does this surface bombed meme derrive. We simply don't know, although Friday's quarterly report should clear up that picture. The accounts that I have read have put sales in the millions of unit with no retail presence outside MS stores. That sounds pretty successful to me for a $600 piece of kit.
upnorthsox
Veteran
Why? It's their free-to-play and it appears to be profitable. It would be great if it turned into a runaway success but it doesn't have to be.
On another note, AMD is in trouble. They probably need both next gen consoles to be big hits but also, maybe Sony and MS shouldn't become too dependent on AMD?
If AMD is liquidated, I guess the former ATI assets would be spun off and picked up by somebody.
Sign of the times but AMD really needs to go into mobile markets, which dwarf what new consoles would be expected to produce.
NVidia is already there, which may be why they don't seem too nonplussed that they're not in the next gen consoles.
If AMD is liquidated, I guess the former ATI assets would be spun off and picked up by somebody.
Sign of the times but AMD really needs to go into mobile markets, which dwarf what new consoles would be expected to produce.
NVidia is already there, which may be why they don't seem too nonplussed that they're not in the next gen consoles.
upnorthsox
Veteran
I don't know to be honest, but if you think of it from a game perspective and it had 5 million "players" that would be considered pretty popular.
The important thing with free-to-play is, is it profitable.
Blazkowicz
Legend
In DX7 it looked like ass and still was very slow because the game was CPU hungry like hell. Bland, with very low res assets, running at 20 fps rather than the 60 fps a similar looking game would get on a geforce 2 MX and 700 MHz Duron.
I'm sure this is partly where their low-power CPU+GPU integrated efforts are coming from? These could become good parts for low-power laptops/high power tablets? And getting their stuff into the next-gen consoles is definitely going to help them in that respect, in that they will be working with demanding, knowledgeable partners on relatively cutting-edge stuff.
Well, hopefully AMD is making good money on these console chips. Could be they undercut Intel + others heavily on this contract because they were desperate. You just have to hope they didn't want the business so bad that they made a deal that isn't going to bring them a lot of money.
There should be the income from the actual initial design work, and potentially some future involvement in redesigns/shrinks.
Some incremental income would be made on a per-chip basis, but as console components the pricing isn't going to be as generous.
The other question beyond the revenue generated is the expected volume. AMD on bad quarters is losing a lot of money, and console generations and their total volume take years to have enough sales to make up a quarter's billion dollar loss.
Some incremental income would be made on a per-chip basis, but as console components the pricing isn't going to be as generous.
The other question beyond the revenue generated is the expected volume. AMD on bad quarters is losing a lot of money, and console generations and their total volume take years to have enough sales to make up a quarter's billion dollar loss.
Bagel seed
Veteran
According to AMD 20% of this year's expected revenue is supposed to come from their embedded and semi-custom APUs launching later this year (read PS4/720).
And in the next 3 years they expect it to drive an astounding 40-50%. Maybe it's not all consoles but if I didn't read it wrong it should still be a big piece of the pie ongoing.
And in the next 3 years they expect it to drive an astounding 40-50%. Maybe it's not all consoles but if I didn't read it wrong it should still be a big piece of the pie ongoing.
upnorthsox
Veteran
But that's not good, it means they see their own chip sales going down significantly.
The percentages would look nicer if the rest of the revenue pie hasn't been shrinking precipitously over the last year.
That's not to say the design wins aren't nice to have and do provide needed upside for the company, but I think we already have a thread about AMD's fortunes.
That's not to say the design wins aren't nice to have and do provide needed upside for the company, but I think we already have a thread about AMD's fortunes.
Bagel seed
Veteran
I think they basically decided to cede the desktop market and focus on their tablet level processors and become a custom SoC design house. That plus the console space. Less chip sales but more focused on trying to drive their custom applications.
Regerds home, I have heard from an insider that Home will not be on PS4 as is. That is, content created for Home cannot expect to be present on PS4. Gaikai would be an approach to solve that, but I expect Sony to revise the whole platform. Make Home agnostic, somewhere you visit on PS4, Vita, PC and tablet. Gaikai would also hope there. Then again, everything I expect Sony to do as a business sense, they don't as a business nonsense.
Compared to the XMB Chatroom, Home does one thing very well... which is to introduce new friends to an existing clique/party of gamers. It's natural to see and gatecrash any Home party in the public spaces.
If you want a private party, do it in your own private spaces.
The Home accessories are mostly for show only. I hope they tie the items in with community activities like user organized competition, or gifting.
IMHO, the rest are presentation fluff. I prefer to go into a basic room and let the users decorate it up, like LittleBigPlanet's pod. In fact, I wouldn't mind if they expand LBP to replace Home.
EDIT:
If it's a server-based implementation, we would be able to showcase and play a LBP user level while waiting for enough folks to show up in an Uncharted clan lobby.
I can't remember what was high end when Halo launched but certainly it ran well on my Ti4200. As that's not massively more powerful than the XGPU it does run counter to your original point that those games needed crazy amounts of power to run (in relation to the power of the consoles). You could argue the Ti4200 had a crazy amount of power but it wasn't huge compared to the XGPU which was also pretty crazy when it launched.
And yeah, MGS2 had issues on xbox, I remember the Sony fans jumping all over that one with glee lol.
I ran GTA4 on a Quad Core but was limited by my Graphics card, it was a pig, yeah i bought it both for the PS3 and PC
But at what settings and on what GPU? My old 4890 couldn't come close to maxxing GTA4 out but that's nothing to do with ite relative real world performance compared to the consoles and everything to do with how crazy high the settings in that game scale up. I think consoles settings are (officially according to the devs) something like draw distance 21 and detail distance 10, both out of 100 in the PC version.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
With regards to either console following an iOS type of hardware model.
It just doesn't make sense for a console. At least not while AAA games still remain a large focus.
iOS devices are successful with a quick hardware turnaround because the software apps can also be quickly turned around. We're comparing console AAA game developement times of 2-4 years to iOS app developement times of days, weeks, or possibly months for more ambitious apps.
In other words in any given iOS device hardware cycle there is plenty of time for apps, games, etc. to reach the user that targets those updated devices.
In the console space, if you went with a 2 year development cycle, games targetted at the current platform never get released while that platform is relevant.
They could also take the PC angle and try to guess what hardware will be in the console at the time the game launches but that is wrought with all kinds of pain.
Look at the original Crysis as a prime example of this. When Crytek started devopement of Crysis they had a clear prediction of what high end PCs would be like based on the past 5 years of PC advancement up to that point.
Unfortunately for Crytek, partway through developement of Crysis, performance advancements in the PC space, especially with regards to CPUs, came down to a veritable crawl. By the time the game launched PC hardware was far lower than their prediction of where it would be.
In other words, with an iOS hardware cycle, developers either target the current console knowing that their game won't be out while that console is relevant or they "hope" they guessed correctly at what will be in the next hardware update. Guess correctly and you have a winner. Guess too low and you possibly look bad compared to the competition. Guess too high and you end up with a game that runs poorly compared to your competition.
IMO, going with an iOS hardware model for consoles, as long as Core gamers and AAA games are a focus, is a no-win situation. There is zero upside to it. Developers don't have a constant target that can be optimized for over time. Users end up never knowing if the hardware they just bought will run a game well enough in a few years.
You end up with the same complaints about gaming as you had in the PC space before you saw a mass exodus of PC gamers going to consoles.
The key is striking the right balance. 2-3 years is way too short. 8-10 years is too long. 5-6 years is probably the sweet spot. At least if you want to remain relevant to core gamers and AAA game developement.
If you want a casual focused console with cheap throw away games then an iOS hardware model would probably work pretty well.
Regards,
SB
It just doesn't make sense for a console. At least not while AAA games still remain a large focus.
iOS devices are successful with a quick hardware turnaround because the software apps can also be quickly turned around. We're comparing console AAA game developement times of 2-4 years to iOS app developement times of days, weeks, or possibly months for more ambitious apps.
In other words in any given iOS device hardware cycle there is plenty of time for apps, games, etc. to reach the user that targets those updated devices.
In the console space, if you went with a 2 year development cycle, games targetted at the current platform never get released while that platform is relevant.
They could also take the PC angle and try to guess what hardware will be in the console at the time the game launches but that is wrought with all kinds of pain.
Look at the original Crysis as a prime example of this. When Crytek started devopement of Crysis they had a clear prediction of what high end PCs would be like based on the past 5 years of PC advancement up to that point.
Unfortunately for Crytek, partway through developement of Crysis, performance advancements in the PC space, especially with regards to CPUs, came down to a veritable crawl. By the time the game launched PC hardware was far lower than their prediction of where it would be.
In other words, with an iOS hardware cycle, developers either target the current console knowing that their game won't be out while that console is relevant or they "hope" they guessed correctly at what will be in the next hardware update. Guess correctly and you have a winner. Guess too low and you possibly look bad compared to the competition. Guess too high and you end up with a game that runs poorly compared to your competition.
IMO, going with an iOS hardware model for consoles, as long as Core gamers and AAA games are a focus, is a no-win situation. There is zero upside to it. Developers don't have a constant target that can be optimized for over time. Users end up never knowing if the hardware they just bought will run a game well enough in a few years.
You end up with the same complaints about gaming as you had in the PC space before you saw a mass exodus of PC gamers going to consoles.
The key is striking the right balance. 2-3 years is way too short. 8-10 years is too long. 5-6 years is probably the sweet spot. At least if you want to remain relevant to core gamers and AAA game developement.
If you want a casual focused console with cheap throw away games then an iOS hardware model would probably work pretty well.
Regards,
SB