[SakSquash]

Awwww. Too bad!

[RLacey]

Who loses, exactly? Because of what?

And, being marginally less flippant, what exactly are you trying to prove? That Microsoft is very good at defending its own console? Would you seriously expect them to publish an article that came to the opposite conclusion?

Note that I'm not saying that Microsoft's conclusions are wrong. But they're not an independent source, and they are worth taking with a heavy pinch of salt.

[insane_cobra]

D00d, that's more than a year old.

EDIT: Less than a year old, but close.

[stinking_dylan]

I've never seen this article.
It's kind of funny the lengths the writer has gone to to convince us that only a very small fraction of instructions involve floating point maths in current game programs.
This is only true because we do everything we can to AVOID floating point operations because they currently take up so much resources. If the cell processor can easily handle floating point operations, then programmers are going to utilise that pawer.

[Spiwak]

I just have to point out that this was released this time last year (E3 2005). Would it be possible that Sony has since worked on their console since releasing their figures to the press last year?

[Dasilva]

And what about the Wii?!

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

Would it be possible that Sony has since worked on their console since releasing their figures to the press last year?

Yes, some stuff that was going to be in had to be taken out.

I've read a much better analysis on AnandTech (or was it Tom's Hardware?) around the same time. Basically it reiterates what we've been hearing all along, that they are of similar capabilities, with PS3 possibly being in slight advantage if utilised to its full potential. In most cases that's unlikely to happen as Xbox 360 is much easier to program for and most smaller companies will probably go the multiplatform way to compensate for increased development costs. Sure, PS2 was also a pain to program for yet it came out as a clear winner. But people bringing that argument up seem to forget that PlayStation was already a proven brand then, and Xbox was just a perspective newcomer. Things have changed and Microsoft has put forth a tremendous effort to attract more developers. So they're both fine machines and both will have loads of great games. Microsoft has a head start and Sony will probably have support of casual, less informed gamers; it could swing either way.

Originally Posted by Dasilva

And what about the Wii?!

Nintendo is putting all its eggs in one basket. If the new controller catches on, it will be a runaway success, if it fails... Well, It'll be a GameCube.

[squarejawhero]

Isn't this better for impact?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by SakSquash

Awwww. Too bad!

Dude can't you do a little bit more googling, and provide us something that is not 1 year old !

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Isn't this better for impact?

Yeah the launch games didn't seem that impressive to me as well, but there are a few games after launch that look promising. Heavenly Sword looks pretty cool, although whether it gets repetitve or not is yet to be seen. MGS 4 is again a very cool title with all the Japanese whackiness of its storyline. But the only title that actually has me floored is Assassin's Creed. That game looks totally brilliant, and with the pedigree of its developers, you can have faith that they won't disappoint.

EDIT:
actually Assassin's Creed most probably is coming to the 360 as well. here
I guess "exclusive" might mean time exclusive in this case.

[Karmillo]

Wonder if it will come to the PC aswell

[jjacob]

I don't see what that old article 'proves'. Sony's got a solid console coming, even if they made some regrettable mistakes (as has MS), including their screwed up E3 conference. The two consoles may look very similar on screenshots, but when the full power of the PS3 is unleashed, it'll be wayyy past the 360. For one, it features a higher resolution, progressively scanned (as opposed to interlaced on the 360). It looks like a big chunk of US consumers already own HDTVs capable of 1080p, especially in a year's (or two) time. So aside from featuring crisper graphics, it'll be able to do a lot more FPU calculations, and probably also physics. It'll be able to run both Linux and homemade software (!). Plus, owners will be able to replace the 20/60GB harddrive with ANY ATA HD, which is a big advantage over MS in my opinion (cheap media center anyone?). The only disadvantage it has versus the 360 is that it's harder (and more costly) to develop games for the PS3, but once developers get the hang of it, they'll begin to discover and utilize what the PS3 is capable of, at which point the 360 will be (technically atleast) no match for the 360.

I'm not defending of attacking any console here, and I'm still thinking which one I'll be buying, so this is just my view on things.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

SquashedSak

Hey, wot's yer shizznit, beeyatch? You instigating another console war? C'mon, it is wot it is. Each console has its idiosyncratic strengths and weaknesses and just because you selected one doesn't necessarily mean you should bash the others.

Personally I chose the 360 because I had a great time with the first Xbox and there are games coming out that I happen to prefer. I also like the Live feature and what it can do for me. But I know what I'll miss by not getting the PS3 or the Wii (I'm not a frickin' millionaire, you know), and frankly I don't have THAT much free time in my life to be able to get another console on top of the two I already have and play games on them all 24/7.

So I choose the console not because it's perceived to be the best, but because it's the best FOR ME.

[squarejawhero]

So other than SD, I guess my article was ignored...

Anyhow, jjacob, those are a lot of unfounded facts. Last time I checked, the PS3 wasn't much more powerful than the 360, which ended up being able to calculate far more floating point operations than the official stats came out. MS is releasing an update that'll allow non-media center PC's to communicate directly with the console directly and XSATA (and various other devices appearing on the market) is a cheap way of offloading XBOX data from the HD.

[insane_cobra]

Whoa this is too good! I don't even have to turn my fanboy mode on to match, common sense will do.

Originally Posted by jjacob

The two consoles may look very similar on screenshots, but when the full power of the PS3 is unleashed, it'll be wayyy past the 360.

Too bad that the developers themselves don't share that sentiment.

For one, it features a higher resolution, progressively scanned (as opposed to interlaced on the 360).

Yet not used in most (any so far?) games and not fully taken advantage of on a cheaper model.

It'll be able to run both Linux and homemade software (!).

Absolutely unimportant to some 90% of its target audience.

Plus, owners will be able to replace the 20/60GB harddrive with ANY ATA HD, which is a big advantage over MS in my opinion (cheap media center anyone?).

As opposed to superior SATA drives in Xbox 360 consoles. Still, an advantage? Sure. A big advantage? Right...

The only disadvantage it has versus the 360 is that it's harder (and more costly) to develop games for the PS3, but once developers get the hang of it, they'll begin to discover and utilize what the PS3 is capable of, at which point the 360 will be (technically atleast) no match for the 360.

Boy, this is just like reading Sony's PR material. Love your crystalballing, so much style. I'd also like to hear your reasononing on PS3's online service. As servers will be run by developers/publishers themselves, they'll probably remain free of charge, just because everyone loves Raymond Sony.

I'm not defending of attacking any console here, and I'm still thinking which one I'll be buying, so this is just my view on things.

Yeah, it's obvious you're just doing that. Phil.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

So other than SD, I guess my article was ignored...

Aww, don't worry, you get attention from me too every now and then, puppy.

Some publishers are unwilling to risk the high cost of developing for the new console until they know more about its capabilities, said Mike Hickey, a video-games analyst for Janco Partners in Greenwood Village, Colorado.

Development Costs

``Developing for Sony's platform is incrementally more complex than what you're looking at for Microsoft or Nintendo,'' Hickey said. ``With costs that could go over $25 million a game.

Developers need the design information to decide what new features they can put into games. The development kits give publishers a working version of the machine with similar processors, hard drives and other components. They are updated until Sony settles on a final version.

A particular concern, Jeffrey said, is that developers haven't been given Sony's new Cell processor for evaluation.

Doesn't seem smart and efficient of Sony, the way they've been managing their relations with developers. No wonder some of these devs have been complaining, Sony kept screwing around with them.

EDIT: Basically what's been happening is that, in the race to be the biggest and the best and thus snag more of the market share, both MS and Sony are scrambling to beef up their wares and in the process it ends up confusing the software people as to what they can actually feature in their games for each respective console, and how much money to invest. In the end they can't take advantage of either console's particular strengths because they don't know the final details about them, thus they don't wanna risk spending too much money on un-finalized specs. Which is passed down to us, the consumers, and we're disappointed or confused about which console to get because very few of the games out or coming out haven't taken advantage of those particular hardware strengths and features.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Basically what's been happening is that, in the race to be the biggest and the best and thus snag more of the market share, both MS and Sony are scrambling to beef up their wares and in the process it ends up confusing the software people as to what they can actually feature in their games for each respective console, and how much money to invest. In the end they can't take advantage of either console's particular strengths because they don't know the final details about them, thus they don't wanna risk spending too much money on un-finalized specs.

I'd say Xbox 360 specs have been pretty much finalized for at least six months now.

[Spiwak]

Jeez people it's not worth getting so hissy about. PS3 isn't even out yet. And even if it were, don't buy it if you don't like it.

[insane_cobra]

It's not about liking it or not liking it, it's about presenting fanboy dreams and wishful thinking as hard facts. I just think words of people who have worked with the thing hold more weight than unfounded speculation and Sony's PR talk. It's puzzling how people can still believe them after the whole Emotion Engine fiasco and now their underwhelming E3 performance, even though independent sources and their own eyes tell them otherwise.

[RLacey]

I haven't actually watched the Sony E3 press conference yet - I've been that busy - but I jokingly suggested to Dale that they'd get a 4D reference in somewhere, and apparently they did .