Microsoft has made a statement saying that since they cut the price across the board for their Xbox 360 console, the system has been outselling its rival, the Sony PlayStation 3, by a two-to-one ratio.
Figures from Chart Track seem to back up that statement, saying sale are up 215 percent since the price cut was announced in Europe.
"This data shows that the Xbox 360 trajectory continues ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
Originally posted by Jemborg: If you can't understand by now why I might have a point about the PS3's high potential for a BluRay-of-Death then I don't what else I can write. All I can do is say I'm not the only one who gets it. I point to the above post by Varnull-
Originally posted by varnull: We are starting to see the first of the ps3's with disk drive failure.. soon the floodgates will open and we will be back in ps2 world all over again....
If what you mean by "totals" is all PS2s sold up until this moment. 98-97% of PS2s EVER sold are STILL functioning without repair, sorry man, I just think that's just plain false....
A few posts about BD drive problems does not indicate a "high potential". That is all I have said which is indicative of the state of things right now. Not presumptions, not forecasts, not probables and definitely nothing about PS2's lasting forever or anything else.
Originally posted by Jemborg: "whimsical hypothesis"... hey, I called it first! :D It was a JOKE Oner, c'on. J-O-K-E y'know... haha! :D That's why I wrote "whimsical hypothesis" *oh for cripes sake!*
I understood it as a joke but, I think the issue here is that the web can be impersonal. Hell, I even put a smilie to show mine was a joke back! NP though.
Originally posted by Jemborg: The necessity for BluRay (or even HD-DVD) to improve gaming at this stage of the game is grossly exaggerated.
Not according to the information that devs say and beleive. Why would they want to limit creativity because of a disc size issue? Now if a game does not fill up a BD then no big deal but to have the ability without issue is better for all devs creations & imagination to make more expansive (and hopefully less "pay for additional downloadable content" BS that should have been in the game to begin with so they get to double, triple etc. dip!).
Originally posted by Jemborg: With the release of the Nov update loading times and noise won't be so much of an issue, if you have an X360 HDD. It may even help deal with the pop-in issues in GTA IV- since that is a game which loads on-the-fly.
I hope it does address these issues but what I find funny is how M$ & other "supporters" (to use a friendly term) tout that kind of feature was not needed (as well as HDMI, 1080p, HD-DVD etc.) and fault the other company for having them @ day 1. A bit hypocritical and just plain biased but that is neither here nor there as stuff like that will always be...
Originally posted by Jemborg: Sorry, one of these days it might help a little but hardware rendering will always trump software in terms of speed and you forget the bottleneck issues of the PS3. The time, trouble and money that game programmers/developers have to spend to "utilize properly" in your terms the PS3's configuration showed it's head in GTA IV. It's also gonna suck up more of the PS3's single GI core's time too regardless of FLOP speed.
I look at it like this. With the introduction of the PS1 people complained about it's architecture and how to use it and blah blah blah, then the same with the PS2 and then lookie what we have again with the PS3. So while I definitely agree with a lot of your points they are a bit misplaced in some of it's factors. I.E. GTA4, as I have heard the same amount of backlash but against the 360 version (disc size limiting graphics and content, only being able to stream etc.) so it is a double sided sword either way ;). Also with new technology there will be some (more like most as usual) that will just absolutely "hate" it because of a few things.
Quote:1) Fear of something new ~ which forces people to do more. In my opinion that's good as there is no stagnation and comfortability to slack off.
2) Not understanding how it can apply/better/optimize other areas when used properly ~ that is going to happen in the beginning but the end result in the long run is so much better. Look at how things are progressing at only the 2nd year of dev time with the PS3 in it's life cycle in comparison to the 360 which on all accounts has been almost maxed out for almost a year or so! When you look at Gears 1 it SOOOO outshines Halo 3 but then you look at Gears 2 and while it looks absolutely great it is not much "more". But contrast that to the PS3 and titles like R1 to R2, Ratchet & Clank (just in terms of quality), GT5P and how it look now just being a prologue not to mention KZ2 (only using 4 spe's or something like 60% of the "power" from my understanding) well you see where I am going...
3) Tools ~ since it is so new there aren't or there are very few tools of which that help alleviate the programming & creation process. But this has been addressed this time around with the Dev network Sony has in place. I may have it backwards but I remember reading something in the order of how Insomniac was able to help Guerrilla (or was it Naughty Dog?) in some water effects or something like that, whatever. The point being is that, either way with time comes additional channels of being able to address these issues which will help improve and optimize production.
So while you are right that "The time, trouble and money that game programmers/developers have to spend" is an issue. I beleive that is what expect them to do & deal with when we buy a $60 game!
Originally posted by Jemborg: If you can't understand by now why I might have a point about the PS3's high potential for a BluRay-of-Death then I don't what else I can write. All I can do is say I'm not the only one who gets it. I point to the above post by Varnull-
Originally posted by varnull: We are starting to see the first of the ps3's with disk drive failure.. soon the floodgates will open and we will be back in ps2 world all over again....
If what you mean by "totals" is all PS2s sold up until this moment. 98-97% of PS2s EVER sold are STILL functioning without repair, sorry man, I just think that's just plain false....
A few posts about BD drive problems does not indicate a "high potential". That is all I have said which is indicative of the state of things right now. Not presumptions, not forecasts, not probables and definitely nothing about PS2's lasting forever or anything else.
Originally posted by Jemborg: "whimsical hypothesis"... hey, I called it first! :D It was a JOKE Oner, c'on. J-O-K-E y'know... haha! :D That's why I wrote "whimsical hypothesis" *oh for cripes sake!*
I understood it as a joke but, I think the issue here is that the web can be impersonal. Hell, I even put a smilie to show mine was a joke back! NP though.
Originally posted by Jemborg: The necessity for BluRay (or even HD-DVD) to improve gaming at this stage of the game is grossly exaggerated.
Not according to the information that devs say and beleive. Why would they want to limit creativity because of a disc size issue? Now if a game does not fill up a BD then no big deal but to have the ability without issue is better for all devs creations & imagination to make more expansive (and hopefully less "pay for additional downloadable content" BS that should have been in the game to begin with so they get to double, triple etc. dip!).
Originally posted by Jemborg: With the release of the Nov update loading times and noise won't be so much of an issue, if you have an X360 HDD. It may even help deal with the pop-in issues in GTA IV- since that is a game which loads on-the-fly.
I hope it does address these issues but what I find funny is how M$ & other "supporters" (to use a friendly term) tout that kind of feature was not needed (as well as HDMI, 1080p, HD-DVD etc.) and fault the other company for having them @ day 1. A bit hypocritical and just plain biased but that is neither here nor there as stuff like that will always be...
Originally posted by Jemborg: Sorry, one of these days it might help a little but hardware rendering will always trump software in terms of speed and you forget the bottleneck issues of the PS3. The time, trouble and money that game programmers/developers have to spend to "utilize properly" in your terms the PS3's configuration showed it's head in GTA IV. It's also gonna suck up more of the PS3's single GI core's time too regardless of FLOP speed.
I look at it like this. With the introduction of the PS1 people complained about it's architecture and how to use it and blah blah blah, then the same with the PS2 and then lookie what we have again with the PS3. So while I definitely agree with a lot of your points they are a bit misplaced in some of it's factors. I.E. GTA4, as I have heard the same amount of backlash but against the 360 version (disc size limiting graphics and content, only being able to stream etc.) so it is a double sided sword either way ;). Also with new technology there will be some (more like most as usual) that will just absolutely "hate" it because of a few things.
Quote:1) Fear of something new ~ which forces people to do more. In my opinion that's good as there is no stagnation and comfortability to slack off.
2) Not understanding how it can apply/better/optimize other areas when used properly ~ that is going to happen in the beginning but the end result in the long run is so much better. Look at how things are progressing at only the 2nd year of dev time with the PS3 in it's life cycle in comparison to the 360 which on all accounts has been almost maxed out for almost a year or so! When you look at Gears 1 it SOOOO outshines Halo 3 but then you look at Gears 2 and while it looks absolutely great it is not much "more". But contrast that to the PS3 and titles like R1 to R2, Ratchet & Clank (just in terms of quality), GT5P and how it look now just being a prologue not to mention KZ2 (only using 4 spe's or something like 60% of the "power" from my understanding) well you see where I am going...
3) Tools ~ since it is so new there aren't or there are very few tools of which that help alleviate the programming & creation process. But this has been addressed this time around with the Dev network Sony has in place. I may have it backwards but I remember reading something in the order of how Insomniac was able to help Guerrilla (or was it Naughty Dog?) in some water effects or something like that, whatever. The point being is that, either way with time comes additional channels of being able to address these issues which will help improve and optimize production.
So while you are right that "The time, trouble and money that game programmers/developers have to spend" is an issue. I beleive that is what expect them to do & deal with when we buy a $60 game!
I'm always kind of heartened nowadays when only select bits of my posts are challenged. It means to me a tacit agreement to the unmentioned points.
Now you know I've mentioned more than just a few (?) posts in the growing "PS3 blu-ray drive dead" thread. I believe my opinion has good foundations and I've stated plenty. I thought so for quite a while now, ever since that first smashed up PS3 came into the shop and I got a good look at it. Everything I've seen since has just borne that out. But I must point out that whist it may not be great for PS3 owners it sure is for my repair business. :D
"I understood it as a joke but, I think the issue here is that the web can be impersonal." ??? Sorry, I just thought you felt the need to be patronising. :) {<smiley face}.
Can you give me a link to where the Devs say and believe there is a (perhaps urgent) creative necessity for greater optical disc space on the X360? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just the first I've heard of it. Btw, I hate the downloadable content thing myself, but I've heard of it in reference to GT4 too.
"I hope it does address these issues but what I find funny is how M$ & other "supporters" (to use a friendly term) tout that kind of feature was not needed (as well as HDMI, 1080p, HD-DVD etc.) and fault the other company for having them @ day 1. A bit hypocritical and just plain biased..." Yeah true, kinda reminds you of how we were told again and again about how vibration wasn't needed or worth it in the PS3 controllers anymore by OPSM and other "supporters". Are DualShock3s standard when you buy a new PS3 now, I forget?
To the rest of your comments...
The brilliant work done by developers on the PS1 and PS2 is a testament to the art of programming rather than the machines themselves. Done in spite of rather than because of. Did it contribute to the creative process of game making? Not according to the creator of Metal Gear Solid. His comments in reference to MGS2 were that he would have liked to have done a lot more. God of War Two was not a huge improvement software design-wise over GOW1 (both bloody great fun) and they would have run easily on the Xbox1 (I'm looking to the future here).
(Where did you get those quotes from anyway?)
"So while you are right that "The time, trouble and money that game programmers/developers have to spend" is an issue. I beleive that is what expect them to do & deal with when we buy a $60 game!" Thank god we agree on something- but you sure take a hard-line on independent struggling not-so-well-off production houses who might give us something more than just another bloody sequel.
Did you know that PS3 games are $110-120 here? 360 games are $10 cheaper.
Since you talked of consensus before Oner... perhaps we should ask ourselves how many of the quality games you mentioned on the PS3 as opposed to the X360 are exclusives? The consensus on the sites I frequent, including http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/ or http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Board.aspx?b=59 seem pretty down on them generally (much to my surprise really).
Jemborg
The problem is the PS3 is just more powerful than the 360 but has currently slow software you are over underestimating the power of the PS3 and trumping up the aging 360.
With at least 2 tweaks the 360 would easily match the PS3 and yes that means BR drive the other would be more ramm for newer games, have it programed to alow more stuff on more ramm less on less ramm as you can get the games out on all the units.
Altho I have to wonder with BD as it is when media(games,software,ect) moves to it in 5+ years will software be ready for parallel processing or will we have more optimized/refined stuff based on what we have now. mmmmmm
Oner
I know FF loaded game chartz all wrong I thought the 3XM/2XM was the 360/ps3 is not, my apologies for talking out the ass :P
When do you think the PS3 will come in 2M -/+ of the 360 by summer or fall 09?
(am I replying to an old post? mew bwains are not working this morning!!)
I guess it all comes down to how it's looked at either way (on all our different subjects) but I can't agree that there will be an issue with BD lasers. If it does prove to be an issue in time then I would agree but there is none to be found at all as it stands.
I've never been to those sites, but I peruse at least 10-15 different ones and then see what references/links they go to before coming to my own understanding (rather than going with as an example say Kotaku's usual bias headline and news for hit counts ~ pro one/neg the other 95% of the time).
Zippy, NP it happens. No one is perfect ;) As for a guess...I dunno man, I've been right on my previous estimates up until this point but I honestly think with the worldwide economy factor being what it is, it can't be good all around. Plus the additional stuff like the 360 price drop but yet it's Euro & Asian market penetration being absolutely stalled, Wii's absolute dominance for casuals, HDTV's constant growth in sales, the US digital switch over in Feb etc. and many other things....including HUGE titles like R2, LBP & KZ2/GT5 coming soon damn! I am at that point where it's at wait and see how Christmas goes. But then again a lot can happen economy wise (stocks fluctuating, Dow being down consistently, job losses/unemployment, housing market, banks closing) but yet home entertainment seems to be holding steady? Shit man I am just confusing myself even more talking about it now! lol.
Originally posted by Oner: I guess it all comes down to how it's looked at either way (on all our different subjects) but I can't agree that there will be an issue with BD lasers. If it does prove to be an issue in time then I would agree but there is none to be found at all as it stands.
I've never been to those sites, but I peruse at least 10-15 different ones and then see what references/links they go to before coming to my own understanding (rather than going with as an example say Kotaku's usual bias headline and news for hit counts ~ pro one/neg the other 95% of the time).
Zippy, NP it happens. No one is perfect ;) As for a guess...I dunno man, I've been right on my previous estimates up until this point but I honestly think with the worldwide economy factor being what it is, it can't be good all around. Plus the additional stuff like the 360 price drop but yet it's Euro & Asian market penetration being absolutely stalled, Wii's absolute dominance for casuals, HDTV's constant growth in sales, the US digital switch over in Feb etc. and many other things....including HUGE titles like R2, LBP & KZ2/GT5 coming soon damn! I am at that point where it's at wait and see how Christmas goes. But then again a lot can happen economy wise (stocks fluctuating, Dow being down consistently, job losses/unemployment, housing market, banks closing) but yet home entertainment seems to be holding steady? Shit man I am just confusing myself even more talking about it now! lol.
Well I might be dismissive of 360 and PS3 the WII has more than proven itself, but both have issues moving forward the PS3 has price issues thats going to stall its assent by years the BWC is an issue to me, the 360 is just a wreck its like a pop start that has talent but is in out of rehab I'd like to see it clean itself up and become a better console.
But besides the pure console issues I am looking at modern gaming and become more and more disgusted by its rushed and wanked products on to get it to market ASAP and whats worse a well sold game like Bioshock still can not get fixes for the PC version.... I am just getting fed up with it..
Originally posted by ZippyDSM: Jemborg
The problem is the PS3 is just more powerful than the 360 but has currently slow software you are over underestimating the power of the PS3 and trumping up the aging 360.
Gaaah, there you go again with your unsubstantiated all-sweeping pronouncements. I might be offended if they weren't so funny.
Zippy, the Cell CPU is a great little number cruncher, agreed. In fact on advising my my mate on building his new render farm I suggested we use PS3s, he can always whack more on should he feel like it.
But as far as gaming (and it's future) is concerned it's a different kettle of smeg. The X360s CPU has 3 general purpose cores each running two threads (and a contiguous 512mb memory wholly accessible by both it and the more powerful GPU) as opposed to the Cell's one (PS3's 512mb RAM is halved between the CPU and GPU).
YOU underestimate the importance of multicore game code and it's relevance. To illustrate...
Quote:We of course asked the obvious question: would game developers rather have 3 slow general purpose cores, or one of those cores paired with an array of specialized SPEs? The response was unanimous, everyone we have spoken to would rather take the general purpose core approach.
Citing everything from ease of programming to the limitations of the SPEs we mentioned previously, the Xbox 360 appears to be the more developer-friendly of the two platforms according to the cross-platform developers we've spoken to.
Rather than the X360s lack of a BR drive or more memory (which just ain't gonna happen- and you know that) that's holding back cross-platform development (and we all suffer here) it's the lack of GI multi-cores in the Cell.
Sure the PS3 code compilers will improve in time (you'd bloody hope so) but if you think that the 360's won't either in terms of optimization and research then you are barking mad. Whether one will surpass the other will depend on the overall configuration of the hardware not on a single component. I have my PC's CPU overclocked by 40% and it still can't take full advantage of it's RAMs bandwidth.
Sure the PS3 will produce some awesome games... sometime. Most hopefully in terms of overall gameplay which is something that seems to have been lost here. Till then I'll wait, there seems to be no point in getting one now, in terms of games and especially in terms of it's mediocre HD movie reproduction.
Originally posted by Oner: I guess it all comes down to how it's looked at either way (on all our different subjects) but I can't agree that there will be an issue with BD lasers. If it does prove to be an issue in time then I would agree but there is none to be found at all as it stands.
I've never been to those sites, but I peruse at least 10-15 different ones and then see what references/links they go to before coming to my own understanding (rather than going with as an example say Kotaku's usual bias headline and news for hit counts ~ pro one/neg the other 95% of the time).
"...there is none to be found at all as it stands..." ROFL what-eva. :D
Actually it's one site, the second link is to it's forum. I'm just giving a plug. ;)
Originally posted by ZippyDSM: Jemborg
The problem is the PS3 is just more powerful than the 360 but has currently slow software you are over underestimating the power of the PS3 and trumping up the aging 360.
Gaaah, there you go again with your unsubstantiated all-sweeping pronouncements. I might be offended if they weren't so funny.
Zippy, the Cell CPU is a great little number cruncher, agreed. In fact on advising my my mate on building his new render farm I suggested we use PS3s, he can always whack more on should he feel like it.
But as far as gaming (and it's future) is concerned it's a different kettle of smeg. The X360s CPU has 3 general purpose cores each running two threads (and a contiguous 512mb memory wholly accessible by both it and the more powerful GPU) as opposed to the Cell's one (PS3's 512mb RAM is halved between the CPU and GPU).
YOU underestimate the importance of multicore game code and it's relevance. To illustrate...
Quote:We of course asked the obvious question: would game developers rather have 3 slow general purpose cores, or one of those cores paired with an array of specialized SPEs? The response was unanimous, everyone we have spoken to would rather take the general purpose core approach.
Citing everything from ease of programming to the limitations of the SPEs we mentioned previously, the Xbox 360 appears to be the more developer-friendly of the two platforms according to the cross-platform developers we've spoken to.
Rather than the X360s lack of a BR drive or more memory (which just ain't gonna happen- and you know that) that's holding back cross-platform development (and we all suffer here) it's the lack of GI multi-cores in the Cell.
Sure the PS3 code compilers will improve in time (you'd bloody hope so) but if you think that the 360's won't either in terms of optimization and research then you are barking mad. Whether one will surpass the other will depend on the overall configuration of the hardware not on a single component. I have my PC's CPU overclocked by 40% and it still can't take full advantage of it's RAMs bandwidth.
Sure the PS3 will produce some awesome games... sometime. Most hopefully in terms of overall gameplay which is something that seems to have been lost here. Till then I'll wait, there seems to be no point in getting one now, in terms of games and especially in terms of it's mediocre HD movie reproduction.
Ya ya ya if the PS3 did not look better and sometimes preform better I would believe you, unfortunately for you the 360 is slightly antiquated and held down by locked HDD and DL dvds that simply do not allow it to keep up appearances for the coming years.
In some ways its like the PS2(360) vrs the GC(ps3) but if the GC had more consumer support. At the rate the PS3 is pushing units and games it will surpass the 360 in sales this is pretty much fact unless MS is willing to go 99 which I think the arcade is only worth 100-150 the premium is only worth 200 but not more than that and so much more if they want to keep momentum up.
The PS3 has issues but its potential and momentum are simply higher than the 360 which has been hampered by technical difficulties far more than the PS3..
The 360 has done greatly but it can not maintain 2nd place because of all it's fault, don't forget the only thing holding the PS3 back sales wise is price and I say this since the both the 360 and WII can sale well on mostly crappy titles the only thing preventing the PS3 taking the 360 out of 2nd place is price.
Should be interesting to see what happens when they go down 100$ the PS3 will gain a tidal wave of momentum and the 360 will get enough waves to surf on until its crushed by the tsunami(put into 3rd place).
I mean come on would not the 360 revamping itself do wonders for them and the 7th generation? If they unlocked the HDD, put in a BR drive and not change the price? I think it would boost sales 20-30% and change the ball game all together at the rate things are going without a focused effort to revamp the 360 its doomed to fade before the end of the 7th generation..
YA ya ya its called forward thinking the opposite of the 360 and is HDD and the late coming HDMIplug, however if they do not do something about price they are screwed
I don't take any credit for the below but it's a quote taken from beyond3d I came across a while ago
Quote:Taken from beyond3d:
In Lost Planet, each character is 10-20K polys. A VS robot is 30-40K polys. A background is about 500K. With shadows and other hidden rendering cost, it's about 3 million polys per frame.
Different platforms require different care, would not be surprised if ppl working on 360 and suddenly dropping their datasets onto RSX would not observe good numbers (and viceversa)
Now..I can't see how RSX, if used in the right way, should be so limited at vertex processing: in HS we easily render 2-2.5 MTriangles per frame at 30 fps without being VS limited and without making any use of CELL to speed up vertex shading and I know for sure that being more clever we could even go faster..(just using the GPU)
The numbers quoted about HS are slighty wrong..cause a few days a go I realized there's a bug in the code that computes the triangle count: in some cases it's more close to 3M triangles per frame mark than 2M.
Regarding cpu, yes its totally different arguments. The 360's is a very standard setup, a bunch of cores that can all see main memory. The advantage to this is that lots of thread coded written over the years can be ported to it easily. For example, Valve (the Half Life guys) are writing an entirely threaded engine for the PC. When it's done, porting it to the 360 will be easy. How about porting it to the PS3? Nope, won't work, it's a totally different setup. The PS3's main core is basically the same, but its spu's can't see main memory. Each one has 256k that it can work with, so you need to rewrite your code to pack things into 256k chunks, feed it to the spu's to process it, then copy it all back to main memory. In other words, you've gotta rewrite your code.
Now before I get jumped on here let me briefly mention the downsides. The 360's cpu setup is painfully easy to code for. But, they really aren't all that fast. Worse yet, all three cores use the same memory controller so the three cores are not three times the power of the one core on the PS3 due to some overhead. The PS3's spu's on the other hand are monstrously fast. You need to setup your data correctly to work with them, but once thats done then yes, the 360's cpu setup is crap compared to fully working spu's. I say fully working because most current games out there barely even touch on them, it will take time to re-write everything.
============================= ================
MOST games use 90-180 mln. polys per second, since using more you won`t have stable framerate.
300 mln. polys per second is ENOUGH for this gen.
That is 10 mln. with 30fps or 5 mln. with 60fps. And again, Lost Planet only 3 mln. with 30fps.
============================= ================
"The game was originally designed to run at 60 frames per second at 720p, but it caused drops in the framerate.
The proof of this is the fact that Call of Duty 4 runs at a resolution of only 640p on both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3."
LoLz, then x360 version should be run at 720p IF it would depend ONLY on polys count. BUT it depend also on PROCESSING power, where x360 is WEAK.
And another really good post by aliveinboston on N4G
Quote:Compare polygon heavy console exclusive games that are optimized for the hardware (unlike multiplatform games) for which we know the numbers. These are the theoretical peak polygons being processed for the cars on track in the following racing games.
PGR4: 100,000 per car x 12 cars x 30fps = 36M per second
GT5: 200,000 per car x 16 cars x 60fps = 192M per second
Anyone who has seen both games will tell you the GT5 cars really do look that much better. Add another 2M/frame each for the environments and youre look at well over 200M for GT5 and over 50M for PGR4. That's about 4-5 times the performance.
What about resolution in a game with similar shader load?
PGR4: 1280x720 x 30fps = 27.7M per second
GT5: 1280x1080 x 60fps = 82.8M per second
GT5 is churning out more than 2.5 times as many pixels under a similar per pixel shader load. Thats more than 150% more performance!
Again, anyone who's seen the games side by side will tell you GT5 really does look that much sharper and cleaner.
Just goes to show that when a game is optimized for the PS3, it will significantly outperform a game that has been optimized for the XBox360.
Unfortunately, COD4 was made for the XBox360 and ported to the PS3 with minimal resources applied. This is typical of multi-platform games this generation because the XBox360 was released first and therefore has a larger number of existing customers. However, now that the PS3 is outselling it by a large margin developer attitudes are also changing.....
~In another post~
The most amazing thing about this whole killzone issue is how everyone pretends to be blind.
Yeah, im glad this article brought us back to how it WAS when the CGI trailer was released. EVERYONE, and i mean EVERYONE was on the "bwhahahah cgi that isn't realtime" trip. Because people felt that sony was lying about their oh so powerful hardware.
Now GG (Guerrilla Games) has completely shut down everyone. There is no denying that Killzone2 is THE most amazing FPS consoles have seen strictly from a visual standpoint. Even gamesrader/eurogamer can try to deny it all they want. IGN/Gamespot/Non traditional gaming media/ OUR OWN EYES confirms gamesradar/eurogamer as just bs fanboys digging for problems. THe second to none lighting/texture shader detail/post processing/ depth of field / OBJECT motion BLur/ Scale is second to none. And we have just seen 1 stupid level.
The one thing I hate to see, is that now that the graphics results are in, Gamesradar and Eurogamer are now trying to go after something else. They cant complain that the visuals aren't good because it doesn't stand up. When these sites have no problems giving Halo3 and COD4 AAA scores and overlooking mistakes, yet get hung up on Killzone2, its bs. All of the deep digging reasons that they have listed for Killzone2 applies to Halo3/Cod4, every single last one of them. The main reason for these sites sticking to their critical GUNS is because they were there along with everyone else condemning sony for lying about 4d killzone2 and toy story visuals. It doesn't seem that they can move on and give an amazing developer credit for pulling off such amazing visuals on a single console. So now they are trying to attack the gameplay?
Did anyone here actually PLAY halo3 and cod4? Halo3 had a short single player, it was fun. The online is great. And that sums up Halo3's contribution to the FPS genre. COD4 had a great SHORT single player campaign, which was linear(just like halo3) on maps where there is only 1 way to go ultimately to progress.The AI in COD4 was completely terrible. I dont think the AI was even programmed. They both share good visuals, as they both share SUBHD resolutions. COD4 has Halo3 beat when it comes to online features and just pure fun. Its variations in modes and rank really stand out for console games, and is a great contribution to the genre.
Now killzone2 comes along, and what does it show? The game reminds me completely of COD4 and other FPS's that have previously come before it. There isn't much variation you can get when the camera is locked at 1 pov. You get guns, and enemies. The only thing that differs from FPS to FPS are the little gimicks developers put in. Cool shield here, Cool shield there, Cover system, and multiplayer features. Killzone 2 has all of those prerequisites, and if you saw that STAT screen GG definitely is taking the multiplayer aspect of this game very seriously, Classes, Ranking, Combine Badges for different weapons and skillsets. If any of Killzone2's features were in COD4 it would be heavily praised. If Killzone2's visuals were in COD4 it would be universally accepted as one amazing FPS. Neither halo3 or COD4 innovated anything for the FPS genre. Everything we see has been already done on the PC, and better. The FPS as a genre is mainly the pickup and play games of choice. We are good at them because we have all been playing the same type of game since wolfenstein. But its not going to be that easy for this title. Killzone2 looks to be a great addition to the generic world of the FPS genre. Polished Visuals, Polished AI, Polished Gameplay, and Online is all that is required for AAA status these days. Again, why is this different for Killzone2? Accepting Killzone2 as a good FPS that should stand along the ranks of the other FPS and above for visual achievement is going to me hard for the media that threw the title under the bus.
Giving Killzone2 a passing grade for the exact same reasons Eurogamer/Gamesradar/Anyone gave Halo3 and COD4 will mean that ultimately, those gaming sites have to take a slice of humble pie, and admit that they judged the game on a CGI trailer a little too early, and that the visuals were in fact possible. Because outside of Visuals, all you have in an FPS. Which everyone has been perfectly fine with, until KZ2 showed up, showed that it is in fact real, and showed that it will be a great game.
Read this http://whatifgaming.com/whatifgaming-e30...ew-insuperable, and tell me that Killzone2 sounds terrible, bad gameplay, stupid Ai, bad visuals and everything else Eurogamer/GamesRadar is trying to promote, Those sites really do have personal vendettas against sony titles. I dont think Eurogamer has given more than 2 9's for ps3 titles ~
There are WAAAY too many "interwebz posters" that continually downplay the benefits, prospects, possibilities and untapped power of the Cell B.E. but these guys at Simbiosys.ca actually make stuff and DO things that PROVE otherwise. It still amazes me that the PS3 is only in it's 2nd year of dev time and there is still so much more to go (remember how the PS1 was & PS2 was..I mean is ;) and I am sorry to say the but 360 definitely can't say as much.
Edit: I forgot to touch upon this
Quote:kinda reminds you of how we were told again and again about how vibration wasn't needed or worth it in the PS3 controllers anymore by OPSM and other "supporters". Are DualShock3s standard when you buy a new PS3 now, I forget?
You can't really fault them as the "inventor" that was suing them did so in bad form and won. I actually applauded Sony for not paying them off (like M$ & Ninty did) but in the end they did it because their customers wanted it and Immersion knew they where losing money in the long run. So Immersion approached Sony to get them to put rumble back into the DS3's only to later be re-sued by M$ for giving Sony a deal! (actually applauded M$ for that one too!).
Oner
Its only reasonable that the 360 has limited max potential its much more open and easier to dev for. I truly think putting a BR drive in it and doubling the starting ramm would maximize what potential it has left, I would much rather see a 1.5 system come out to fix the 360s potential coming issues than to see a new console come out or it it start limping more than it already is.
I mean hell put a BR in it and I would rather have it than a PS3 at this point and time even if it was nearly 300 for a premium unit it would be worth every drop then as it is now its just waiting to die and I would hate to spend 200$ o it to have to replace it in 3 or less years........
Originally posted by ZippyDSM: Oner
Its only reasonable that the 360 has limited max potential its much more open and easier to dev for. I truly think putting a BR drive in it and doubling the starting ramm would maximize what potential it has left, I would much rather see a 1.5 system come out to fix the 360s potential coming issues than to see a new console come out or it it start limping more than it already is.
I mean hell put a BR in it and I would rather have it than a PS3 at this point and time even if it was nearly 300 for a premium unit it would be worth every drop then as it is now its just waiting to die and I would hate to spend 200$ o it to have to replace it in 3 or less years........
Originally posted by ZippyDSM: Oner
Its only reasonable that the 360 has limited max potential its much more open and easier to dev for. I truly think putting a BR drive in it and doubling the starting ramm would maximize what potential it has left, I would much rather see a 1.5 system come out to fix the 360s potential coming issues than to see a new console come out or it it start limping more than it already is.
I mean hell put a BR in it and I would rather have it than a PS3 at this point and time even if it was nearly 300 for a premium unit it would be worth every drop then as it is now its just waiting to die and I would hate to spend 200$ o it to have to replace it in 3 or less years........
Got any good articles over PS3 drive speed? That's looking to be a big annoyance, I mean they are getting use to coding so ramm usage is not a super annoying issue right now but sheesh with the drive speed what it is in order to get stuff to load you kinda have to install it and that will put off some.
I wonder if they plan on upping the drive speed anytime soon....
Thanks Oner just got back from reading all that- I really do appreciate the time and trouble you went through putting that together. And it has certainly given me a lot of food for thought, very cool.
*Sigh* I guess my major beef with the PS3, in terms of performance, is with it's GPU really. I just wish it would have been better- regardless of what the "Talk Playstation" article says about it. (I do prefer nVidia over ATI btw).
Jon Stokes in the first link seems circumspect about the Cell's "appropriateness" for gaming (following a link to another of his articles)-
"What this means for gaming on the PS3 is that, no, there will never be a game that truly taps the "full potential" of the Cell BE, because that full potential can only be tapped by certain types of data-parallel HPC workloads. The data-parallel portion of a game will always be better suited to the PS3's NVIDIA-designed GPU."
If it's GPU had just been a stronger performer, it would have been pwning out-of-the-gate (and just getting better), instead of us having to wait a few years for over-the-horizon games. And, I guess, we wouldn't be having these mad debates and it would be a fait accompli.
Perhaps we can look forward to the next PlayStation (I know vapourware) using the future Cell 5.0. The issues with "weird" coding having being deal with mostly. So it won't be such a struggle for devs to optimise the code/compilers. Perhaps whacking two Cells on the one chip and a dual core GPU this time- LOL now that IS blue-sky dreaming :D.
PS. I never "faulted" $ony over the lack of vibes in the controller- just the hype that came with it... the public didn't buy it.
I'll try and find a link to the "mind-controller" (bloody brilliant imo) and post that in the Off-topic section. Pretty sure I can dig one up.
Also, a quick note, the RRoD may be somewhat alleviated by the Nov update. The problem seems to come down to placing the DVD drive on top of the GPU. Running the game from the HDD might lesson the heat build-up preventing the mainboard from warping (and I've seen plenty of those lol) and popping the chips.
Originally posted by ZippyDSM: Got any good articles over PS3 drive speed? That's looking to be a big annoyance, I mean they are getting use to coding so ramm usage is not a super annoying issue right now but sheesh with the drive speed what it is in order to get stuff to load you kinda have to install it and that will put off some.
I wonder if they plan on upping the drive speed anytime soon....
I can't seem to find the exact information that I read last, but this is from a quick Google search that I will explain a bit differently to make it easier to understand as it was a bit confusing but what it basically comes down to is CAV vs CLV & SL vs DL.
CAV = Constant Angular Velocity ~ where the speed varies on the disc from start to end.
For a SL DVD it is about 9.25MB/s up to 15.85MB/s = Average of ~8x (10.57MB/s) while a DL DVD is about 4.36MB/s up to 10.57MB/s = Average of ~6x (7.93MB/s)
CLV = Constant Linear Velocity ~ where the speed is constant/same across entire disk form start to end.
For a BD information throughput is wider so you get more data at a "slower" speed SL/DL BD 2x = Constant 72Mbps (9MB/s) no matter where you are on the disc.
So in the end the final tallies comes out to something like this
Quote:A Single Layer DVD averages 1.57MB/s more (10.57 > 9) by the end of the disc which is "faster" than a BD
A Dual Layer DVD averages 1.07MB/s less (7.93 < 9) by the end of the disc which is "slower" than a BD
Now there are other little items you need to take into account like where the audio and less important things are on the disc which can slightly change some factors but the basic premise above is a general understanding for explanation and still holds true.
Another way to think of it is you can burn a CD-R @ 48x, a DVD-R @ 16x, & a BD-R @ 4x and they will still be about the same for say a 700mb file (now those are just examples and probably incorrect but you understand my point) since the speed is not the factor but the throughput/bandwidth of the medium/technology is.
So in summation most popular 360 titles (Gears, Halo, Forza, COD etc) whether they be first party of third will almost be guaranteed to be a DL DVD which would be "slower" than a BD's counterpart. But in all honesty it's really a moot point, as in my opinion both are equal when you come that close to speed vs throughput/bandwidth for SL vs DL vs BD.
Also with the installation of games to the harddrives it takes wear and tear off of the disc drives so this in itself will also help subside both the PS3 & 360's POSSIBLE drive issues along with helping load times.
Oner
Not what I was asking as the PS3 is streaming alot of data at some times higher bit rates and as things move forward thats not going to drop of anything it will go up thus why the speed of the disc to get data that Hdef data proceed might wind up being an issue down the road.
Or is this line of thought just crazy talk from a fevered mind ^_~
