Videogame leaders argue who's best

[mckmas8808]

In the new EGM magazine there is an interesting interview. Read the follow to see an overview with what was said.

US magazine Electronic Gaming Monthly has interviewed the big-shots promoting their next-gen console, with each unzipping and declaring theirs the biggest.

Sony's Kaz Hirai went first saying: "We put more technology into our system than the competitors, and we've designed it to do more things." He went on to downplay Microsoft's head start by launching earlier than the competition. "This logic that says the first console to market becomes the market leader is not true," he said.

It was then J Allard's turn to wave it around claiming that Sony are copying their ideas. "I think Sony is reacting to what we are doing," he said, with Shane Kim, head of Microsoft Game Studios, adding: "We have an enormous advantage over Sony in the online sector with Xbox Live and we will further invest in and develop it."

Reacting to Microsoft's claims Kaz Hirai responded by confirming Sony's strong online presence for the PS3 and the wireless connectivity between the PS3 and PSP. Reggie (who was no doubt taking names) was having none of this fancy multimedia stuff, claiming that gamers don't want such functionality and by not "inserting additional components," the Revolution will be able to undercut both the Xbox 360 and the PS3. He pointed towards the PSX, Sony's failed multimedia PlayStation 2, claiming, "the strategy failed."

So, that ends another round of "Mine is bigger than yours." Check back soon for the inevitable next instalment.

Who do you think is right? Are none, some, or all of them right? Is this strong fighting good for the future of videogames? I think it is. The more hard I hate you competition the better for us gamers imho.


Link http://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/nid/1030/

 

[jvd]

TO much uknown . i will say that ms does have the solid service in live that sony just doesn't have .


I have the egm and there is als o a quote int that from teh lead dev of oblivion where he says sony has the cpu power but ms has the better ram set up. Hold on let me make my sister go get it haha "The ps3 has more porcessing power" but the ram is not as nice . from tod howard

Then a guy from nvidia says "Sony doesn't have quite the history of development tools as ms does ,larger studios that have alot of technical resources where guys can create tools and train thier staffs will have a real advantage over smaller studios that have just 5 devs . "

What really gets annoying the more powerfull than a 6800ultra sli rig that costs 1000$ . Well we can now do that on the pc with the g70 for 600$ It was a good marketing point last month but now its moot

 

[Nicked]

Shouldn't post whilst drunk jvd

 

[jvd]

Shouldn't post whilst drunk jvd

Not drunk (Can't drink on these pills , would be out with one beer... but ih ave really bad sun burn haha )

Is it that bad ? heh , i think i got the point across haha

 

[Johnny_Physics]

This is my morning rant, and I'm bitter because my childhood hero Nintendo is no teeth and all gums these days:

Well, I think that Reggie isn't right when he says that gamers don't want extra features on their consoles.
Look at the japanese launch of the PS2 and how people bought it to play DVDs AND play games, or how many modded Xboxes with Xbox Media Center there are out there and how satisfied people are with the added functionality it provides.

Undercutting the price is nice, I like cheap stuff but I don't mind expensive stuff either if it's worth the money. I get the feeling that with statements like these Nintendo isn't going balls out and try to reclaim the throne as a console king or even challenge their competitors - they're trying to play it safe in an industry fueled by taking risks - and they're trying to latch on to the people that buy the other two consoles.
Sony is including all those extra features that is nice to have in a machine and Microsoft does the same, their reasoning for this goes something like "this is the only machine you'll need so it have to do everything you want it to do" and they're pretty confident with that, they really belive that they'll take over the livingroom and reign supreme there.
Nintendo on the other hand seems to say "Why should we add any extra capabilities when the consumer already got them in their Xbox(360) or Playstation 2/3? Let's just skip that and lower the price so that people might buy a Playstation/Xbox AND our console."

Nintendo acts a bit like a leech in that regard, and it's a bit sad to see what they've become, they were a pretty forward looking company at one time.

What brought this change? The death of Gumpei, Shigeru growing old, Yamauchi going off his rocker, an increasingly competitive industry or something entirely else?


As I said, it's a bitter rant in the morning and I just needed to ventilate some of my frustration

 

[PC-Engine]

Personally I don't mind that Revolution will not have a HDD, HD movie playback, and HD output as long as the games look good. I just wish Nintendo would price it higher like at $250 and throw in some more processing power and/or RAM. I already have 4 DVD players in my home so I don't really need another one especially when I could get a really good one for around $50.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Can;t see what wasted, expensive components XB360 and PS3 have that Rev won't to be cheaper. The extra features come on software. eg. Referring to PSX, PS3 doesn't come with TiVo HDD recording. And an HDD is a good component for games that can also be used for other stuff.

Hopefully Nintendo's console will have more impact then their PR campaigns

 

[Guden Oden]

Frankly, hardware details don't interest me the slightest anymore. I couldn't care less wether PS3 or x360 is the most powerful, when Sony decided to settle for "only" 7 SPEs, that pretty much decided both machines would be roughly evenly matched.

Also, increasing development costs mean titles will probably look pretty similar on both machines, especially as they both will have roughly similar in capabilities graphics processors. It will simply be costly enough to develop a title's engine to run well on the quirky nature of either machine's main processors without doing extra graphical special effects catering just to one system.

Or that's my prediction anyway.

And besides, PS2 proved you don't HAVE to have the best (or even easy to program for) hardware to be market leader, so though MS has a really smooth-lookin GPU and a head-start in the market, they still have their work cut out for them.

I sure hope MS launches soon after US in europe, coz I want myself some next-gen goodness. I will probably not buy ANY more console games for this generation, particulary not from Nintendo. Things simply look too unimpressive to be worth 75 bucks per game (yes, that's what we have to pay, generally, over here!)

 

[mckmas8808]

What really gets annoying the more powerfull than a 6800ultra sli rig that costs 1000$ . Well we can now do that on the pc with the g70 for 600$ It was a good marketing point last month but now its moot

In all fairness the G70 just, I mean just came out. No devs have even made games for it yet. So, no its not a moot point.

 

[jvd]

What really gets annoying the more powerfull than a 6800ultra sli rig that costs 1000$ . Well we can now do that on the pc with the g70 for 600$ It was a good marketing point last month but now its moot

In all fairness the G70 just, I mean just came out. No devs have even made games for it yet. So, no its not a moot point.

Err what bs is this ? No one was making games for a 1k nv40 sli system either . But any game that needed the speed of that (battle field 2 ) can use the speed of the g70 which is faster in every game . Or the now even faster g70 sli .

So yea , its moot .

 

[mckmas8808]

What really gets annoying the more powerfull than a 6800ultra sli rig that costs 1000$ . Well we can now do that on the pc with the g70 for 600$ It was a good marketing point last month but now its moot

In all fairness the G70 just, I mean just came out. No devs have even made games for it yet. So, no its not a moot point.

Err what bs is this ? No one was making games for a 1k nv40 sli system either . But any game that needed the speed of that (battle field 2 ) can use the speed of the g70 which is faster in every game . Or the now even faster g70 sli .

So yea , its moot .

I understand that and you are right, but most people still don't have that card yet. And Nvidia is trying to make a connection with people that they can understand. Saying that its more powerful than a 6800ultra sli is something that everyday people can understand and make a connection with and go "Oh ok I see". Saying that it's x amount better than a G70 is not something most people will understand. Most people will go "Oh ok so how good is that?"

 

[jvd]

I will let it go now . But the money part is whats annoying me . You can get that power or more now for 600$ and in a year when the ps3 does launch it will cost much less for that performance .

 

[mckmas8808]

I will let it go now . But the money part is whats annoying me . You can get that power or more now for 600$ and in a year when the ps3 does launch it will cost much less for that performance .

Oh well yeah if its the money thing that's getting you then I agree with you. They should just keep that part out. Talk about the tech not the money. Tech won't change, price will. So if that's the case I agree.

 

[jvd]

and also its better to compare it to the g70 as the g70 performs better than a 6800ultra in all games