StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The more I hear about the PS3, the more it turns me off. Vice versa with the xbox2 and still in the dark with the revolution.

I'll probably end up sticking with my PC anyway. Graphics is one thing, gameplay another

What is the next generation of consoles going to cost? $300? $400? $250?

I can't say what I think the Revo. will be, since no specs are out. I'm guessing it will be cheaper than the 360...which will probobly run $300 without a game. For some reason, I want to say that the PS3 will be $500 without a game, but if people want backwards compatibility then they have to buy a memory stick. So maybe even pushing $550/$600?

PS3 will be "expensive" acording to Sony big wig, Xbox360 will probebly cost around 300$.

Unless hes talking about running them at 800X600 resolution, with medium detail.

If you can't build a PC that will run HL2 at 1280x1024 for under a grand, you're too stupid to live.

Of course it can be built, but at what detail? Show me what kind of specs your talking about.

And don't forget an HD, PSU, optical drives, all those things that computers need and that 1000$ price barrier gets in the way off.

mplsjocc wrote:I can't say what I think the Revo. will be, since no specs are out. I'm guessing it will be cheaper than the 360...which will probobly run $300 without a game. For some reason, I want to say that the PS3 will be $500 without a game, but if people want backwards compatibility then they have to buy a memory stick. So maybe even pushing $550/$600?

Nintendo said it will cost less than the competition.

Traditionally, Nintendo sold their systems at $250, except for the GameCube at $200.

Since it looks like the hard drive (removable, which is more expensive) does come with the XBox 360 now (Microsoft flip-flopped on the issue), there might not be too big a gap...


Personally, I doubt the PS3 will cost more than $400, maybe $450.

Praxis wrote: Nintendo said it will cost less than the competition.

Traditionally, Nintendo sold their systems at $250, except for the GameCube at $200.

It's hard to take that at face value considering Nintendo didn't know how much the competition would cost when they made that statement, but I accept that they'll probably come in under the $300 that the Xbox 360 will command.

Still, it's not going to do much for them, history has shown that $299 for a new console is a sweet spot, below that is a point of diminishing returns, especially when you consider how primitive the Revolution is going to look to people with HDTVs that have been waiting for a killer app for them.

Since it looks like the hard drive (removable, which is more expensive) does come with the XBox 360 now (Microsoft flip-flopped on the issue), there might not be too big a gap...

The gap will be at the most $100, at the least $50. I can't see Nintendo selling a new console for any lower than $200 unless they shortchange the hardware even more than it looks like they are already doing.

Personally, I doubt the PS3 will cost more than $400, maybe $450.

Which is total suicide. If the PS3 arrives at $450 or even $400, it's going to make a huge hit on Sony's sales. History has shown that $300 (or more precicely, $299) is the sweet spot for consoles, anything above that and the average Joe is going to start balking at the price and going for the alternatives (which in this case looks just as good).

The gap will be at the most $100, at the least $50. I can't see Nintendo selling a new console for any lower than $200 unless they shortchange the hardware even more than it looks like they are already doing.

Agreed. $200-$250 is the range I'd say. The question is, how much of the XBox 360's cost is the hard drive? If it's, say, $30, then hardware-wise the Revolution is only $20 less than the XBox 360, so Nintendo might be able to keep up.

Which is total suicide. If the PS3 arrives at $450 or even $400, it's going to make a huge hit on Sony's sales. History has shown that $300 (or more precicely, $299) is the sweet spot for consoles, anything above that and the average Joe is going to start balking at the price and going for the alternatives (which in this case looks just as good).

Agreed. Ken Kutaragi actually said it might cost too much for households.


My prediction on PS3:

$350 minimum (remember, no hard drive)
$450 maximum


Anyone predicting $500 or more is insane.

Praxis wrote: Agreed. $200-$250 is the range I'd say. The question is, how much of the XBox 360's cost is the hard drive? If it's, say, $30, then hardware-wise the Revolution is only $20 less than the XBox 360, so Nintendo might be able to keep up.

The situation is far more complicated than that, the Xbox 360 does not have identical hardware to the Revolution, so the hard drive is not the only factor. For example, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Nintendo is putting in a far less potent CPU/GPU combo (the fact that they are saying "no HD" despite the fact that Xbox 360 level hardware gives you this vitually for free, the tiny size indicating lack of agressive cooling, Nintendo's past pratices, etc) so it's likely that the Revolution will cost a lot less than the Xbox 360 to produce.

This doesn't really mean much to the final pricetag though, Microsoft is more than willing to sell the Xbox 360 at a loss, while Nintendo has always shown extreme reluctance to this strategy and the early indications are not encouraging for the state of the Revolution.

Agreed. Ken Kutaragi actually said it might cost too much for households.


My prediction on PS3:

$350 minimum (remember, no hard drive)
$450 maximum


Anyone predicting $500 or more is insane.

Actually, $500 is insane from a marketing perspective, but as far as how much they should be selling it for under a traditional model (say Nintendo's for example), $500 or more seems about right. The problem is Blu-Ray is expensive even for Sony, and Cell is costing them an arm and a leg in R&D, not to mention fab costs at the Nagasaki plant for the manufacturing technology Sony is putting in and whatever yield problems Sony is having.

I am apalled, I can't believe half of that is true. WOW, if I buy a PS3 it'll be my rationale for buying the old X-Box -- it's for ONE game.

Seemed to me for a while X-Box was only an option for me if I wanted Halo or Halo 2. Now PS3 is only an option if Ace Combat 6 is everything the 5th one was, and more and online. Only if.

It's too early to call R.I.P. PS3 but these, urm, features mentioned in the article combined with the fact that PS3 isn't going to release first may be it. Any word yet on what's looking to be the most graphically powerful? You know, "UNLIMITED POWER!" strong?

Of course it can be built, but at what detail? Show me what kind of specs your talking about.

Jesus Christ, dude, what kind of obsessive psycho are you? Do you not realize that bloating the price of the hypothetical PC in question HELPS my point? Do you even remember what the point WAS? Do you not realize that the $1000 was chosen arbitrarily and randomly and was a generosity FOR PC gaming rather than against it? Or are you just arguing to be a dick?

And don't forget an HD, PSU, optical drives, all those things that computers need and that 1000$ price barrier gets in the way off.

I guess you've simply just proven that you're too stupid to live. Here's a dollar... take a bus somewhere and drown yourself.

PFC Brungardt wrote:I am apalled, I can't believe half of that is true. WOW, if I buy a PS3 it'll be my rationale for buying the old X-Box -- it's for ONE game.

Seemed to me for a while X-Box was only an option for me if I wanted Halo or Halo 2. Now PS3 is only an option if Ace Combat 6 is everything the 5th one was, and more and online. Only if.

It's too early to call R.I.P. PS3 but these, urm, features mentioned in the article combined with the fact that PS3 isn't going to release first may be it. Any word yet on what's looking to be the most graphically powerful? You know, "UNLIMITED POWER!" strong?

Um, I'm looking at this and trying to figure out what the heck you're talking about.

Here's a quick comparison.

1) Backwards compatability.

PS3: Cannot use old peripherals and memory cards
XBox 360: Cannot use old peripherals, AND cannot play all games.

PS3 is better off.

2) Specs.

PS3 already had better specs, and now might get even more.

3) Hard drive
Neither have caching, though it seems stupid that Sony won't allow saving. Hopefully this is wrong.

4) Extras. TiVo addon and PSP as a remote aren't too bad.

5) Low resolution support; Sony is apparently making it so that if you go with SD, you get to turn on extra options, just like with a PC. This is a GOOD idea.




There's a couple minor dissapointments but I still see it better off than the XBox 360.

Praxis wrote: Um, I'm looking at this and trying to figure out what the heck you're talking about.

Here's a quick comparison.

1) Backwards compatability.

PS3: Cannot use old peripherals and memory cards
XBox 360: Cannot use old peripherals, AND cannot play all games.

PS3 is better off.

Where are you getting this "cannot play all games" thing from? According to the last statements received from MS, backwards compatibility is absolute; there may be a handful of titles that aren't supported but the PS2 also doesn't support a handful of PS1 games so this is hardly news.

2) Specs.

PS3 already had better specs, and now might get even more.

1) PS3 does NOT have better specs outright, the Xbox 360 has many advantages and may even have the better overall game performance. The free 4x AA functionality is a huge boon for visual quality and the jury is still out on the RSX vs. Xbox 360 GPU.

2) Aside from revisions to the BD-ROM drive and some yield changes, the PS3 is not going to age well. Its design is set in stone and its hardware is overpriced, overengineered and generally useless in this design. The RSX is based on a chip that nVidia is set to deliver on the desktop early next year, whereas the competition has a much less conventional design, with many strong advantages. Once again, Sony's stupidity in investing in the CPU design over the GPU design on a games box rears its ugly head.

3) Hard drive
Neither have caching, though it seems stupid that Sony won't allow saving. Hopefully this is wrong.

If the hard drive is standard on the Xbox 360 it is ludicrous to think that it won't have caching. Do you have a relevent quote on this?

As for the hard drive not allowing saving, it makes perfect sense. Sony wants to sell memory sticks, not give gamers a "free" way to save their games.

4) Extras. TiVo addon and PSP as a remote aren't too bad.

Useless fluff in a games machine, especially if it raises the price. As for Tivo functionality, anyone can get Tivo from their cable/sat provider for a few dollars a month integrated right into their cable/sat boxes, I have a hard time seeing how Sony is going to provide a superior solution.

5) Low resolution support; Sony is apparently making it so that if you go with SD, you get to turn on extra options, just like with a PC. This is a GOOD idea.

You know, this is kind of amusing to list as a feature. What exactly does Sony mean by "extra options"? Well on the PC, it means two things: AA and AF, anything else is up to the game devs (something that neither Sony nor Microsoft is going to control directly).

Given that, what Sony is probably indicating is that AA can be turned on at standard def resolutions. Well whoopdie-shit, the Xbox 360 has 4x AA standard without a performance hit. Seems that Microsoft still has the advantage.

There's a couple minor dissapointments but I still see it better off than the XBox 360.

You know, I'm aware of your pathological hatred for Microsoft, but only a fool would assume that Sony is in the superior position based on the current information. Microsoft is set to deliver a balanced console with some very smart design decisions at a reasonable price, whereas Sony has a console that is very poorly designed from a performance perspective (tell me with a straight face that Cell was a good choice for the CPU), is going to be a year late (at least in the US), and will cost at the very least a hundred bucks more.

Where are you getting this "cannot play all games" thing from? According to the last statements received from MS, backwards compatibility is absolute; there may be a handful of titles that aren't supported but the PS2 also doesn't support a handful of PS1 games so this is hardly news.

Haven't seen anything of this sort. Microsoft has said their EVENTUAL goal (eventual is the key word) is to have full backwards compatability. Every indication is that backwards compatability is by means of patches of XBox games for them to run on the 360.

1) PS3 does NOT have better specs outright, the Xbox 360 has many advantages and may even have the better overall game performance. The free 4x AA functionality is a huge boon for visual quality and the jury is still out on the RSX vs. Xbox 360 GPU.

In terms of GPU and CPU, yes, they each have advantages and disadvantages. Throw in the faster RAM on the PS3, Bluetooth and WiFi (neither of which the XBox 360 has), support for multiple monitors, 1080p, CF, SD, memory stick support, and switch functionality...overall the specs are better.

Now this new info means there may be more RAM or other boosts.

I'd call that a good thing.

2) Aside from revisions to the BD-ROM drive and some yield changes, the PS3 is not going to age well. Its design is set in stone and its hardware is overpriced, overengineered and generally useless in this design. The RSX is based on a chip that nVidia is set to deliver on the desktop early next year, whereas the competition has a much less conventional design, with many strong advantages. Once again, Sony's stupidity in investing in the CPU design over the GPU design on a games box rears its ugly head.

Gotta agree there, but this has nothing to do with the new info. I'm trying to argue that this new info is not completely negative (though there are a few negative points, there are also a few positives) as the poster I replied to contended.

If the hard drive is standard on the Xbox 360 it is ludicrous to think that it won't have caching. Do you have a relevent quote on this?

As for the hard drive not allowing saving, it makes perfect sense. Sony wants to sell memory sticks, not give gamers a "free" way to save their games.

Microsoft has been telling developers for months (as recently as the last week of June) that the hard drive is not used for caching.

It's possible they changed this at the last minute. My question is, not being a programmer, if developers have been writing it all this time NOT to use caching, how hard is it to add that functionality?

I'm just going by MS's statements, but they've flipped flopped so much I really have no clue.

Useless fluff in a games machine, especially if it raises the price. As for Tivo functionality, anyone can get Tivo from their cable/sat provider for a few dollars a month integrated right into their cable/sat boxes, I have a hard time seeing how Sony is going to provide a superior solution.

It doesn't raise the price. It's a USB attachment.

You know, this is kind of amusing to list as a feature. What exactly does Sony mean by "extra options"? Well on the PC, it means two things: AA and AF, anything else is up to the game devs (something that neither Sony nor Microsoft is going to control directly).

Given that, what Sony is probably indicating is that AA can be turned on at standard def resolutions. Well whoopdie-shit, the Xbox 360 has 4x AA standard without a performance hit. Seems that Microsoft still has the advantage.

There's no other effects that can be turned on at higher resolution?

You know, I'm aware of your pathological hatred for Microsoft, but only a fool would assume that Sony is in the superior position based on the current information. Microsoft is set to deliver a balanced console with some very smart design decisions at a reasonable price, whereas Sony has a console that is very poorly designed from a performance perspective (tell me with a straight face that Cell was a good choice for the CPU), is going to be a year late (at least in the US), and will cost at the very least a hundred bucks more.

I do not feel Sony is in a blatantly superior position. To the contrary; I feel both companies are making their share of mistakes. Sony is making a massive mistake by targetting the high-end market and selling the more expensive machine at a later date; look at Alienware's marketshare. Microsoft however I also feel is making quite a few mistakes.

I feel PS3 is the better system. I *don't* know if it'll be worth the extra price though. We'll see.

Praxis wrote: Haven't seen anything of this sort. Microsoft has said their EVENTUAL goal (eventual is the key word) is to have full backwards compatability. Every indication is that backwards compatability is by means of patches of XBox games for them to run on the 360.

"Every indication"? What indications are those? Eventual goal could just as easily mean that they want it done eventually...as in by LAUNCH.

In terms of GPU and CPU, yes, they each have advantages and disadvantages.

Let's hear some GPU advantages. We already know the CPU advantages aren't worth much, but I'd like to hear how the RSX is better than the Xbox 360 GPU.

Throw in the faster RAM on the PS3,

And the integrated DRAM on the Xbox 360 GPU is far faster than the XDR on the PS3. Are you aware that superior performance is not simply a measure of who has more bandwidth and where? It needs a balance for different purposes, and the integrated DRAM on the Xbox has a lot of advantages over the PS3 partial XDR design, especially since system bandwidth isn't going to be stressed as heavily at 720p.

Bluetooth and WiFi (neither of which the XBox 360 has),

Bluetooth is useless and WiFi, nice as it is, is not a major concern to most people out of the box.

support for multiple monitors,

Which looks to be a gimmick that won't be implemented on anything but a handful of titles.

1080p

Both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 support 1080i functionality (1080p is an easy step from there given that they both internally render progressive, and any TV that can support 1080p has a better scaler than the PS3). Hell the Xbox and PS2 support 1080i. Doesn't mean that it gets used much. As this latest batch of info indicates, 720p is the standard for the PS3.

CF, SD, memory stick support, and switch functionality

All useless on a games machine.

...overall the specs are better.

If you want a wank media PC/console hybrid, yes. If you want a game console, no.

Now this new info means there may be more RAM or other boosts.

Given the high cost already of the PS3, and the yield problems Sony is having, any increase in specs is wishful thinking at best. Hell, Sony will be lucky if they can even ship this overengineered box AS IS and meet a reasonable price point.

I'd call that a good thing.

I wouldn't, and I'm not alone. I'm all for features that will improve gameplay experience, but none of the features you have mentioned do that.

Gotta agree there, but this has nothing to do with the new info. I'm trying to argue that this new info is not completely negative (though there are a few negative points, there are also a few positives) as the poster I replied to contended.

What this new info shows is that Sony is shaky about delivering on their promises about the PS3. And that is bad news.

Microsoft has been telling developers for months (as recently as the last week of June) that the hard drive is not used for caching.

They probably didn't know it was going to be a standard option until recently.

It's possible they changed this at the last minute. My question is, not being a programmer, if developers have been writing it all this time NOT to use caching, how hard is it to add that functionality?

At a basic load time reducing level, not that hard. As for advanced functionailty, it will have to wait till the next wave of games hits (the non-launch games), but no launch game takes full advantage of a console anyway.

It doesn't raise the price. It's a USB attachment.

Whoopdie-doo, it's still pointless. Standalone DVR's are going the way of the Dodo. The only reason that they still exist is because some people are willing to put up with a little hassle for the improved Tivo interface. And I seriously doubt Sony will ship a superior unit to Tivo (or even the cable/sat providers), especially if they don't charge a monthly fee for programming information. Sony doesn't even make a decent Tivo-copy on the consumer end and you expect them to deliver as a console add-on?

There's no other effects that can be turned on at higher resolution?

Not by Sony as standard, that would be up to the game developers (unless Sony takes a much stronger grip into limit devs which isn't going to happen) and they aren't likely to want to spend extra dollars optimizing when they can just let Sony flip the AA/AF switch.

I do not feel Sony is in a blatantly superior position. To the contrary; I feel both companies are making their share of mistakes. Sony is making a massive mistake by targetting the high-end market and selling the more expensive machine at a later date; look at Alienware's marketshare. Microsoft however I also feel is making quite a few mistakes.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on Microsoft's mistakes? The only one I can think of was not locking in the hard drive sooner, but that's a small error in the grand scheme of things. Otherwise, I see them doing a fantastic job; they have a killer box at the right price and they have all the dev support they need to give Sony a run for their money.

I feel PS3 is the better system. I *don't* know if it'll be worth the extra price though. We'll see.

Better as a game console or better as a hybrid box? As a hybrid box, I really doubt anyone is going to give two shits, the PSX (PS2 media hybrid box) sold extremely poorly despite a great features list. They didn't even have the sales to justify a US release.

If you think the PS3 is a better game console, I want to hear your reasons for why. So far, all I've heard is a bunch of fluff about all of the useless extras, without you getting your hands dirty with anything under the hood (at least nothing that has any merit), so if you think that Sony is packing better hardware, let's hear your reasoning.

Yet another potential nail in Sony's coffin...

IGN wrote:Square Enix Hints at Multiplatform
Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest could go multiplatform in the next generation.
by Anoop Gantayat

August 3, 2005 - Are all the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest fans out there ready to reserve that PlayStation 3? You may want to do a bit more scouting first. Recent comments from Square Enix president Yoichi Wada suggest that his company's two prized series could be taking a multiplatform route in the next generation.

Commenting to Japanese site Mainichi Interactive on August 3, Wada explained, "The market for next generation game machines will be split into 'high end' and 'low end' according to the type of user. Rather than one hardware dominating, the various machines will carve out their own share."

Final Fantasy is already known to be taking a multiplatform path, as the Crystal Chronicles and Final Fantasy XI offshoots will be appearing, respectively, on Nintendo's Revolution and Microsoft's Xbox 360. Square Enix has confirmed that the Final Fantasy series will come to PlayStation 3, although it hasn't gone into specifics.

Multiplatform development of Dragon Quest, on the other hand, would be a surprise. While Square Enix has brought offshoots of the Dragon Quest series to Nintendo's portable systems, with a DS version of Slime Mori Mori Dragon Quest due shortly, the series has stayed a PlayStation thing on home consoles since the original 32-bit PlayStation system.

If they lose FF as an exclusive...

"Every indication"? What indications are those? Eventual goal could just as easily mean that they want it done eventually...as in by LAUNCH.

I've seen multiple interviews with Microsoft and discussed it on SD.net somewhere, Microsoft would be pretty much patching games to run on the 360 because there would seem no way to write a real XBox emulator due to the vastly different processor design.

Just did a search.

http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=5103

Microsoft has actually agreed to pay Nvidia a small royalty in order to allow the ATI chipset on the Xbox 360 to emulate the Nvidia chipset's performance in reading certain Xbox games. The term 'certain' is used because currently only single-layered games will be emulated well with this hardware. For multi-layered games, there requires a further emulation in the form of 'patches' that Microsoft intends to include with the hard drive packaged along with the Xbox 360. One can assume that most Xbox games will be playable by the Xbox 360 in this way, but not all. However, Microsoft has promised that further patches will be added in case customer demand warrants the action.

What the heck is a single-layered game?

from an MS press briefing:

For games written in multiple layers, a further emulation must be provided. The company intends to create software “patches” (i.e., separate emulation programs) for top-selling Xbox games written in multiple layers, and intends to sell the Xbox 360 with a hard drive that is pre-loaded with these patches. We presume that the majority of Xbox games will be backward compatible, and the company assured us that it intends to add patches should consumer demand warrant such action.

As I predicted months ago.


A lot of XBox games will run, but some won't (and others will require you to download patches, which is a problem for those without internet connections).

Although it looks better than I originally thought.

Let's hear some GPU advantages. We already know the CPU advantages aren't worth much, but I'd like to hear how the RSX is better than the Xbox 360 GPU.

To be honest, I really don't know that much about GPU design (and NVidia hasn't released the RSX specs). I do know it has TurboCache and a higher clock speed, but that's about it.






Anyway, I don't really feel like arguing anymore. I'm about to leave for a five-day trip. I have to admit that you make a LOT of very good points. I'm not going to pull a double standard for the sake of an arguement; I've said the same thing about letting multimedia features get in the way of a gaming console and jacking up the price about both the XBox 360 and Playstation 3.

I DO think that Blu-ray and 7 player support are going to be big pluses multiplayer-wise, as are wireless Bluetooth peripherals. You asked which features benefitted the gameplay, thats it.

I'm going to wait till I hear the PS3 price point.

Otherwise, I'll probably buy it when it drops to something ridiculously low as a multimedia streamer/blu-ray player/Linux PC in a few years.


The reality is; I can pull out the launch title list for the XBox 360 *and* the PS3, and fail to find ONE GAME I am interested in on EITHER platform. I have looked over them both. Not counting the multiplatform games of course, which don't count as they're available on both.

Yes, I know I will be called insane, but...
1) I'm a purist. I only play FPS with a MOUSE. Not a joystick.
2) I. Hate. Sports. Games.
3) Racing games usually bore me; I liked Gran Turismo for a time but it got old. The only one I really ever got into was Burnout 3. I love that game. And there are no Burnouts for launch titles.
4) Fighting games just seem to get too generic. Only one I like is Smash Bros, but that's something of a platforming-fighter.

Racing, sports, shooters, and fighting games. There goes the entire XBox 360 and PS3 launch lineup.


So looks like I'm going to get a Revolution, and in a year or two pick out PS3 or XBox 360 based on pricing and games available. So I don't feel any need to argue about it now, especially while I'm packing.

You made a very good arguement, at that, I'll remember your points.

Praxis wrote:

PFC Brungardt wrote:I am apalled, I can't believe half of that is true. WOW, if I buy a PS3 it'll be my rationale for buying the old X-Box -- it's for ONE game.

Seemed to me for a while X-Box was only an option for me if I wanted Halo or Halo 2. Now PS3 is only an option if Ace Combat 6 is everything the 5th one was, and more and online. Only if.

It's too early to call R.I.P. PS3 but these, urm, features mentioned in the article combined with the fact that PS3 isn't going to release first may be it. Any word yet on what's looking to be the most graphically powerful? You know, "UNLIMITED POWER!" strong?

Um, I'm looking at this and trying to figure out what the heck you're talking about.

Here's a quick comparison.

1) Backwards compatability.

PS3: Cannot use old peripherals and memory cards
XBox 360: Cannot use old peripherals, AND cannot play all games.

PS3 is better off.

2) Specs.

PS3 already had better specs, and now might get even more.

3) Hard drive
Neither have caching, though it seems stupid that Sony won't allow saving. Hopefully this is wrong.

4) Extras. TiVo addon and PSP as a remote aren't too bad.

5) Low resolution support; Sony is apparently making it so that if you go with SD, you get to turn on extra options, just like with a PC. This is a GOOD idea.




There's a couple minor dissapointments but I still see it better off than the XBox 360.

[Brandishes the Point of View gun and pulls the trigger]

1) I was looking forward to PS3 because lo and behold, I'm a PS2 user soley (speaking consoles here, not computer). So obviously, losing my game saves is annoying, I guess I'm hanging on to that PS2 after all.

And seeing as we're talking about next-gen consoles, I'm starting from scratch if I go for XBox 360 or PS2 since my file saves are null and void on that system. That's a draw in my book.

2) specs: well,

1) PS3 does NOT have better specs outright, the Xbox 360 has many advantages and may even have the better overall game performance. The free 4x AA functionality is a huge boon for visual quality and the jury is still out on the RSX vs. Xbox 360 GPU.

Actually, The Kernal said everything that needs to be said.

But more for why PS3 is NOT for me: I love FPS's.

XBox 360 will have Call of Duty 2, a Perfect Dark game, Halo 3, and god-knows-what-else. Microsoft, however much I despise it on the software/PC side of town has got their cows lined up on the console side. They have the resources to make a great system, no doubt and it's not like Microsoft of all companies, will fail to garner publicity and generate good marketing methods. HELL, they system even launches earlier than PS3? Just because PS3 is Sony's Next Big Thing doesn't mean shit -- brand loyalty's a crock.

I'll take sooner, cheaper, near-parity if not superiority in graphics and a good line up of games anyday over the alternative.

I'm not usually the one to call the writing on the wall but I think I see it. Sony's machine could be weakers, WILL be later, significantly so at that, overpriced, God forbid the thing isn't reliable like the PS2 as well. If anyone's noticed, Microsoft has steadily picked up a lot of 3rd party support over the years. The Halo-system is a thing of the past. To say nothing of Revolution, Sony's gonna be hard-pressed to beat the comptetition.

The reality is; I can pull out the launch title list for the XBox 360 *and* the PS3, and fail to find ONE GAME I am interested in on EITHER platform.

Relevant only if they're LAUNCHING at the same time.

I can't make a case to myself to get the PS3 exclusively (or perhaps at all!). I will for one game, and only if it's drop-dead gorgeous, a joy to play and online with plenty of options and reliability. God-for-fucking-bid that Namco releases Ace Combat 6 on the XBox 360. I haven't heard a rumor but like the FF series (although less so) the franchise has a loyal following.[/rant]

A PC isn't just a gaming machine, so to compare it to one is fucking retarded. It does so much more, and that includes in games (mods anyone?), that the price fits the service. You buy a console to do one thing.

Are there limitations that I'm not aware off why consoles don't include an optional mouse to play? You know, for people who like RTS games or games like total war?

Another day and another "Sony is doomed" tirade (actually this isn't very common, most people I met agree that Sony will win again).

I need to point out a few facts (and some opinions) about X360 vs. PS3:

1. Adjusted for inflation $300 is a very low price relative to previous consoles. Seeing how PS2's were going for $1000 on ebay shortly after launch I find it hard to believe that a price tag of around $400 is a major problem, especially given the fact that most will buy consoles at the $200 price range and only enthusiast get them at $300 or more. A lower pricetag also didn't save the Dreamcast either. Plus Sony has been known to surprise people on price before.

2. Xbox360 is only launching about 4-6 months earlier (unless you believe the 2007 launch idea from the "analysts"). That leaves them at most enough time to move about 5 million units, probably 3-4 million in my guess. That's not much of a head start in absolute terms.

3. Technically the PS3 is clearly superior in most respects. CPU-wise, since FP power is far more important than integer power for a console, PS3's CPU is very likely significantly superior that the X360's CPU in real world terms. Also PS3 has faster RAM than X360 as well as an integrated memory controller on the CPU.

4. GPU-wise I think most of you guys are buying into MS's PRspeak. X360's GPU has two things going for it: an eDRAM cache for the framebuffer and unified shaders.

The eDRAM is nothing but a cost saving feature to compensate for the fact that the X360 has very little main memory bandwidth (less than half of the PS3). Yes, it does give nearly free 4xAA, something that will cost you about 10-15% performance in the first place @ 1024x768 if you have plenty of memory bandwidth. i.e. it's not a big saving.

The unified shaders feature gives more efficient use of available shader resources, unfortunately at the cost of total shader resources. I believe nVidia when they say unified shaders is unnecessary right now, because it cost too much to implement. In fact the RSX has more pixel shading power than the X360's GPU has total shading power. Overall it should be fairly clear that PS3's GPU is the better GPU.

HyperionX wrote: 1. Adjusted for inflation $300 is a very low price relative to previous consoles. Seeing how PS2's were going for $1000 on ebay shortly after launch I find it hard to believe that a price tag of around $400 is a major problem, especially given the fact that most will buy consoles at the $200 price range and only enthusiast get them at $300 or more. A lower pricetag also didn't save the Dreamcast either. Plus Sony has been known to surprise people on price before.

If Sony comes out at $300, then this is irrelvent, but a $400 price tag is going to hurt Sony. Just because a few people were willing to pay exorberant prices for the PS2 at launch doesn't mean that a large audience will.

2. Xbox360 is only launching about 4-6 months earlier (unless you believe the 2007 launch idea from the "analysts"). That leaves them at most enough time to move about 5 million units, probably 3-4 million in my guess. That's not much of a head start in absolute terms.

4-6 months earlier in Japan, but the US launch will be later, probably around September 2006 if the launch doesn't get delayed. That's almost a year, which is quite a while given that the US is the largest market.

3. Technically the PS3 is clearly superior in most respects. CPU-wise, since FP power is far more important than integer power for a console, PS3's CPU is very likely significantly superior that the X360's CPU in real world terms. Also PS3 has faster RAM than X360 as well as an integrated memory controller on the CPU.

How do you figure that FP power is so much more important to a console? In the PS2 it was certainly important given that most of the graphics code was done on the CPU, but the PS3 has a GPU to do the T&L and shader code, why would FP be so important? Most programmers grumbled that they couldn't even find use for the PS2's vector units; EA even put in realtime DTS encoding because they couldn't think of anything else to do with the second vector unit.

4. GPU-wise I think most of you guys are buying into MS's PRspeak. X360's GPU has two things going for it: an eDRAM cache for the framebuffer and unified shaders.

The eDRAM is nothing but a cost saving feature to compensate for the fact that the X360 has very little main memory bandwidth (less than half of the PS3). Yes, it does give nearly free 4xAA, something that will cost you about 10-15% performance in the first place @ 1024x768 if you have plenty of memory bandwidth. i.e. it's not a big saving.

Actually, it's not the performance saving of the integrated cache that's the big deal (incidently, it's not the cache itself but the logic built into the cache) but the fact that 4x AA will always be turned on. The Xbox had AA capability but it was almost never used, now developers no longer have the choice on whether or not to use the AA, which gives a boost to the Xbox 360's graphics.

The unified shaders feature gives more efficient use of available shader resources, unfortunately at the cost of total shader resources. I believe nVidia when they say unified shaders is unnecessary right now, because it cost too much to implement. In fact the RSX has more pixel shading power than the X360's GPU has total shading power. Overall it should be fairly clear that PS3's GPU is the better GPU.

Since we have never seen a unified shader architecture, it's a bit early to be drawing conclusions about it (especially from self-serving statements delivered by nVidia). You'll notice that I didn't make any call about the unified shaders one way or the other.

wautd wrote:Are there limitations that I'm not aware off why consoles don't include an optional mouse to play? You know, for people who like RTS games or games like total war?

Environment.

Consoles (for those of us who don't live in our bedrooms) are primarily a living room device, racked up with your DVD player and big ass TV.

You play them in comfort, on your sofa.

Mousing surfaces, and a comfortable mousing position, are not compatible.

There was a mouse peripheral for both the SNES and Megadrive, but no-one wanted it.

The Kernel wrote:

HyperionX wrote: 1. Adjusted for inflation $300 is a very low price relative to previous consoles. Seeing how PS2's were going for $1000 on ebay shortly after launch I find it hard to believe that a price tag of around $400 is a major problem, especially given the fact that most will buy consoles at the $200 price range and only enthusiast get them at $300 or more. A lower pricetag also didn't save the Dreamcast either. Plus Sony has been known to surprise people on price before.

If Sony comes out at $300, then this is irrelvent, but a $400 price tag is going to hurt Sony. Just because a few people were willing to pay exorberant prices for the PS2 at launch doesn't mean that a large audience will.

Why exactly? $400, when adjusted for inflation is less than $300 10 years ago. It's also way less than a comparably powerful PC at launch too, so I see no reason why the enthusiasts won't pay that much.

2. Xbox360 is only launching about 4-6 months earlier (unless you believe the 2007 launch idea from the "analysts"). That leaves them at most enough time to move about 5 million units, probably 3-4 million in my guess. That's not much of a head start in absolute terms.

4-6 months earlier in Japan, but the US launch will be later, probably around September 2006 if the launch doesn't get delayed. That's almost a year, which is quite a while given that the US is the largest market.

US launch is slated sometimes in Spring 2006 AFAIK. Even a year late is still only like 5-7 million units.

3. Technically the PS3 is clearly superior in most respects. CPU-wise, since FP power is far more important than integer power for a console, PS3's CPU is very likely significantly superior that the X360's CPU in real world terms. Also PS3 has faster RAM than X360 as well as an integrated memory controller on the CPU.

How do you figure that FP power is so much more important to a console? In the PS2 it was certainly important given that most of the graphics code was done on the CPU, but the PS3 has a GPU to do the T&L and shader code, why would FP be so important? Most programmers grumbled that they couldn't even find use for the PS2's vector units; EA even put in realtime DTS encoding because they couldn't think of anything else to do with the second vector unit.

The CPU can still run T&L on top of the GPU still. Nothing to stop the devs from doing so. Also it is needed to run things like physics, audio, video, etc. Anyways, stop with trying to shift the burden of proof to me: exactly what will you do with integer power in a console? Outside of AI and game logic there's basically nothing usable.

The eDRAM is nothing but a cost saving feature to compensate for the fact that the X360 has very little main memory bandwidth (less than half of the PS3). Yes, it does give nearly free 4xAA, something that will cost you about 10-15% performance in the first place @ 1024x768 if you have plenty of memory bandwidth. i.e. it's not a big saving.

Actually, it's not the performance saving of the integrated cache that's the big deal (incidently, it's not the cache itself but the logic built into the cache) but the fact that 4x AA will always be turned on. The Xbox had AA capability but it was almost never used, now developers no longer have the choice on whether or not to use the AA, which gives a boost to the Xbox 360's graphics.

You could turn on 4xAA for the PS3 and still come out ahead performance-wise.

The unified shaders feature gives more efficient use of available shader resources, unfortunately at the cost of total shader resources. I believe nVidia when they say unified shaders is unnecessary right now, because it cost too much to implement. In fact the RSX has more pixel shading power than the X360's GPU has total shading power. Overall it should be fairly clear that PS3's GPU is the better GPU.

Since we have never seen a unified shader architecture, it's a bit early to be drawing conclusions about it (especially from self-serving statements delivered by nVidia). You'll notice that I didn't make any call about the unified shaders one way or the other.

Self-selving doesn't mean their wrong. We do know the specs, and specs-wise the RSX has more pixel shading power than the Xenos has total shading power (24 pipelines w/ 2 ALU's each vs. 48 ALUs total for the Xenos).