Console wars

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Dowly

PS kicks Xbox's butt and HARD. My main reason for that statement; The games. Xbox came to the markets with one "good" game, the Halo (Which I still dont think of as nothing else than an average shoot-'em-up.). The PS has ben delivering the most varied and simply the most addicting games I've played (including PC games). It was used to revive the Metal Gear Solid series, Silent Hills, Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy series.

I'll pick my rifle for PS in this war.

I don't think there are many 'exclusive' titles this time around, so don't expect great things exclusive to PS3. I own none of the platforms mentioned though, but to tell you the truth, both PS3 and XBox-360 are targetting games that can also be found on the PC, so I'll opt for the Wii if I do buy one of these new generation consoles. Wii is offering something that can't be found on the PC.

-S

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Did you not bother to listen to Carmack talk about the PS3 in the above video? You are completely wrong on this point. The PS3 is out of resources when the 360 still has more to give. This is why they develope the code to run on the PS3 first because if it runs there, then it will run on XBox 360 too since the 360 has more capability to deliver more content.

Go watch the video I just posted and then come back and re-state your opinions with fact.

I've watched the video & it holds no weight with me. How can a console which has to compress it's graphics onto a HD DVD out perform/render better than a system that has uncompressed resources ready to go? When you compress graphics, you loose quality. FACT. Not only that but the video you linked to shows a game that's still in development, you can't really expect the same quality from a WIP from a devs system to match that of the final release. Dev versions tend to have less being rendered than the final version.

Unfortunately, you will get always get people taking sides of the fence in the console wars.

Regardless of Carmack's accomplishments (I won't begrudge him that & applaud him for it), he is a known supporter of the 360. I would also state that the resources in the 360 are easier to 'unlock' or utilize than the PS3's are currently, which is why there are currently no major 3rd party PS3 exclusive games.

I still hold firm on the fact that by the end of 2008/start of 2009 the PS3 will be out performing the 360.

Bottom line, currently the 360 is easier for developers to produce stuff for, therefore they will favour it. A small minority outside of Sony know how to fully unlock the full processing power of the Cell Chip.

This is why they develop the code to run on the PS3 first because if it runs there, then it will run on XBox 360 too since the 360 has more capability to deliver more content.

No, this why Id dev their code on the PS3.

Explain this to me:

Why would any game developer, create a game based on the PS3's Cell processor, using a Blueray 35GB disk just to down size it to a HD DVD 15GB single layer disc with compressed graphics. Makes no sense to me.

We will always disagree and we will always be able to produce an arguement for each console.

EDIT - During my response, I have read your reply to Dowly. There are many games currently in development that will be exclusive to the PS3 but we will not see them until early to mid 2008. Example - GT5, MGS4, SOCOM, Warhawk and possibly/probably GTA4 (at least at full content). However, there are game that will be exclusive to the 360.

I agree, for 'fun factor, the Wii is the way to go. It's the only one which offers a difference to the norm but the graphics are Sh1te!:p

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Did you not bother to listen to Carmack talk about the PS3 in the above video? You are completely wrong on this point. The PS3 is out of resources when the 360 still has more to give. THis is why they develope the code to run on the PS3 first because if it runs there, then it will run on XBox 360 too since the 360 has more capability to deliver more content.

Go watch the video I just posted and then come back and re-state your opinions with fact.

-S

What he is actually talking about in the video is Video Memory, which is a major hurdle you will always be up against with the PS3.

But the multicore processor for the PS3 is much more powerful than that of the 360. Unfortunately, it takes an awful lot of programming knowledge to push the proccesses out to the different cores to conserve on the shared memory of the PS3.

It's like a 64mb memory hit on the PS3 to bring up a save game screen.

I am a Sony fanboy, and I Microshaft Hater, and I still have to shake my head at PS3. Plus, they lost GTA4, and Ace Combat 6 as exclusive titles. This is shaping up to look like the Sega Saturn.

And you really to need to test on BlueRay if you want to get a true picture of how games will perform when developing for PS3. As you can imagine, this is ridiculously expensive.

[fatty]

This is a good thread... I've been contemplating buying a console as my new gaming platform because my PC is getting a bit long in the tooth (running Athlon 2500+ with Radeon 9600 PRO and 512mb), and it seems like it is becoming more expensive to upgrade and maintain a gaming-grade computer these days. Consoles have also seem to have really taken off with multiplayer and game downloads (patches etc.). The only downside I see so far is the games: the kinds of games I like, simulators, good deep strategies and such continue to make a very slim showing on consoles. And still, you can't edit photos, develop websites, or write emails from a console. I will probably upgrade my computer one more time in the next year or so and then reassess the situation.

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by fatty

And still, you can't edit photos

Soon

Originally Posted by fatty

develop websites

Sadly not yet but you might if you install Linux on the PS3.

Originally Posted by fatty

or write emails from a console

Again, you can with Linux but the PS3 has an online messaging sevice between other PS3 users. This wiil & can be expanded.

However, I think you are correct to wait and upgrade your PC. Consoles are not at a level where they can compete with a PC, yet. Like I said the next round of consoles will probably contain all that and more.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by danlisa

I've watched the video & it holds no weight with me. How can a console which has to compress it's graphics onto a HD DVD out perform/render better than a system that has uncompressed resources ready to go? When you compress graphics, you loose quality. FACT. Not only that but the video you linked to shows a game that's still in development, you can't really expect the same quality from a WIP from a devs system to match that of the final release. Dev versions tend to have less being rendered than the final version.

Unfortunately, you will get always get people taking sides of the fence in the console wars.

Regardless of Carmack's accomplishments (I won't begrudge him that & applaud him for it), he is a known supporter of the 360. I would also state that the resources in the 360 are easier to 'unlock' or utilize than the PS3's are currently, which is why there are currently no major 3rd party PS3 exclusive games.

Heibges beat me too most of the punch line, but still didn't address this. Whom exactly is going to use this space you speak of here? No one is the answer. Also, don't even think for a second that textures won't be compressed on a PS3 - not only because of the limited video memory (Which negates any ability to use RAW textures), but also compressed textures look nearly identicle and run many times faster. Its a no brainer.

The Blu-Ray portion of the system exists for only one reason - movies. The storage for textures is not going to happen ever on this console. Probably PS4 if Sony sticks around long enough to produce one.

Besides, the 35 GB capacity of HD DVD (Yes, it is 35 GB, not 15 GB - 15 GB is strictly single layer HD DVD) is plenty of capacity for any game that will ever come down the pike for this generation of hardware. It is incredibly overkill actually. Most games probably won't see the other side of 5 GB.

-S

PS. As you know from my other posts that I'm no MS fan either. I personally think Sony flubbed up PS3 though - and pretty bad.

[SUBMAN1]

Oops, I'm wrong - Toshiba expanded HD DVD to 45 GB capacity. THought it was only 35 GB, but I am behind the times.

-S

I`am not a big console fan, but i have my opinion.

I play all 3 PS3,XBOX360 and WII

And i liked all of them , damn what should i do .

All of thise consoles have they good and bad sides (sorry for that English).

But one thing i don`t like its fanboys "who looking only on one side of the stick and refuse to look to another one"

For example i like WII but i will not start yeling on every webside "XBOX sucks or PS3 sucks" . Thise is retarded imho

Here is a example of how fanboy is sound like

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Dimitrius07

But one thing i don`t like its fanboys "who looking only on one side of the stick and refuse to look to another one"

Actually - I want a Wii! But PS3 does kinda suck with its memory limitation, so I have to disagree with you.

-S

[geetrue]

I want a Wii ... I just want something simple/uncomplicated.

Fun games like Mario don't need great graphics or fast speed.

As soon as I can afford one it's going to Wii ...

My PC is great on graphics anyway ... I just want to have some quick fun, before supper, plus something for my seven year old grand daughter can look forward to playing on a rainey day.

[bookworm_020]

Well you could look at the PS3 as a cheap blue ray DVD player!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

Well you could look at the PS3 as a cheap blue ray DVD player!

Why would you want Blu-Ray over HD DVD anyway? It is nothing more than a higher capacity DVD player.

HD DVD is superior an has multiple decoders and graphics capabilities, has a 3 Ghz PIV inside, and even has 1 GB of RAM.

An example of things you can do with HD DVD in that Fast and Furious in TOkyo is to repaint the cars (I'd be putting my name on it!) and re-run the same scenes with your newly painted cars!

300 - another just higher capacity movie for Blu-Ray. There are cool features on the HD DVD version again though - like picture in picture for example - this is not found on the Blu-Ray titles.

HD DVD is cheaper to make resulting ultimately in cheaper movies for us - you can make HD DVD on current DVD pressing equipment. With Blu-Ray - the studio has to buy all new equipment! No thanks since that means $20 to $30 titles from here to the moon.

Also, with only 5 GB of actual storage seperating the two formats now, there is no real space advantage for Blu-Ray anymore. Besides Sony's excellent marketing department, why would you want it?

-S

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

Well you could look at the PS3 as a cheap blue ray DVD player!

That's how Sony sold the PS2, as a cheap dvd player, when it too lacked a strong set of launch titles.

But the AVI declared HD DVD would be their standard, and when they declared VHS their standard they pretty much killed Betamax.

[joea]

I loved the Atari console Santa brought us for Xmas. Space invaders, my very first "flight sim" two biplanes flying around shooting single shots or two tanks runiing around in a maze. Purple and blue tanks / planes but whatever.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

X-box 360 has been plagued with reliability problems.

The word is they have a 30% failure rate, to date.

I'd consider a PS3 for the next Grand Theft Auto game and possibly Unreal Tournament. I've all but given up on finding a Wii any time soon.