Official PS3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. N. Revolution

I've read many posts and finally decided to throw in my 2 cents:

I currently own a PS2 and GameCube but I feel that this time around the Xbox 360 is going to be the best system for several reasons:

When comparing the 360 to PS3 on a technical level arguments can be made on each side that each system is more powerful. From a technical standpoint I've read that most game developers feel that the 360 is a great platform to develop games on and when compared to the PS3 will be much easier. Some developers have even gone on to say that Sony is being unrealistic about the standards they are expecting developers to achieve and that only a handful of developers would problaby meet Sony's expectations. Also, developers have indicated that Sony's cell technology will make game developement more difficult and it will be more costly. On a technical level you really can't compare the Revolution becuase alot is still unknown, and Nintendo has already made claims that they are not trying to compete for the "powerful system". They have their own niche and market regardless of their hardware.

For the reason I stated above I feel that you are going to see alot of developers jump on board with the 360, especially if the hardware sells since that is obviously what will sell their games.

The 360 will take the market share quickly because:

- Current fanbase will continue to support the system.
- It is the first system to come out (next gen).
- It will cost around $100 less than PS3
- MS Marketing strategy: Releasing Halo 3 at PS3 launch with rumours that 360 may drop price by $50 at the same time.
- Large library of games will already be available for 360 at time of PS3 launch.
- Xbox Live
- Public compassion - making a public claim that they will take a loss of $76 per system sold in order to make it affordable to the consumer.

I've already pre-ordered a 360 and will buy a Revolution for the first party games that you can't get on the other systems. Even though I'm a PS2 owner and the backward-compatibility would be nice with my current games, I doubt I will end up purchasing a PS3.

It looks to me like Mr. Gates did his homework this time.

 

The general person that reads and posts on afterdawn is nothing of the mindset the general consumer will have, stooge030. Your right, that is some reasons why some will buy it instead of the PS3. Take me for example, I could care less if the PS3 cost $1000, I'm still buying one for every high def tv(720p, 1080i) in my house. And I'm going to get a 1080p tv just because the PS3 will take advantage of it. There is many different types of people out there, the "public compassion" and $100 cheaper system wil not affect alot of people. The same as it will affect alot of other people, to buy the 360. Anyone with an IQ above 50 knows that Sony is taking a loss on the PS3 the same as they took a loss on the PSP, they just haven't bragged about it yet, if ever.

Hotwheel, because I lean towards Sony does not make me a

 

i have to agree with st00ge030 as the PS3 may seem to be the winning system in the technoloical run, but the xbox360 has got MAJOR advantages in the fields that it was (the oringinal xbox)constructed around the PC, but was made game orinentated to fill the needs of the customer. And as was mentioned earlier in the forum and i quote 'oh by the way, more processors doesnt = better system', and altho the PS3 may have better techonlogical traits in its console, the xbox games have their own processin and graphic engines built into the games, combined with this, the power of the xbox, will totally demolish the PS3 in techincal and graphical excellence.

 

solargame, GTA games does not count as origional games for PS2 because they are all out for xbox with add on's' and better graghics.

 

Galvatron, "xbox games have their own processin and graphic engines built into the games, combined with this, the power of the xbox, will totally demolish the PS3 in techincal and graphical excellence."

Do elaborate and show us where you found this, please...

 

Here we go again......................FFS!!!

 

Theres loads of games that prove that they have their own engines, or have engines based on other games. for example 'Doom 3' has its own graphical engine and the unreal tournement has its own engines to maximise performance, and these are all built into the game so that altho the console may not have the capabilities, the game does.

 

From a standing point of someone who can't shell out a few grand because a new technology has become available, I don't really care a great deal about 1080p because my new tv still only supports 480i. So what? there's a bit more to my life than computer games so i don't have to have the best of the best. Besides, most of the time i still use my 1536i PC. Games cheaper too. Plus you can upgrade it bit by bit and personalise it to your taste. SO generally i know prefer PC gaming to console gaming (though a few years ago i'd never believe i'd be saying that)

at the moment, i'm focusing on either a PS3 or an NR myself, mainly out of my taste for games, but hey, that could change. I'm unlikely to be able to afford either for a long while after their release, i'm saving for some meaty storage for my PC. As a student without a job yet, that's not easy by any means.

mega performance or not, the arm and a leg that consoles cost at launch doesn't tend to justify them being bought at release date (with the exception of the N64, that blew me away big time)

 

My PS2 is great for a quick blast. But my PC is for proper gaming!

Pulsar

PS, I still love my Dreamcast!!

@ sammorris, do you like your monitor? I have the same.

 

Here is the latest from Ken Kutaragi...

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/20/news_6127799.html

Now maybe it's just me, but I have some issues with what he said.

1. the 7 SPE's is because they don't expect that they can manufacture the Cell's with 8 working SPE's so they settled on 7 'working' SPE's instead of 8.

2. They intend the same with the RSX. They don't expect that they can make it work with the full specs so they are making it with 'reduced' efficiency.

So basically, Sony doesn't think that they can manufacture the technology (since they are producing the chips) good enough to work to spec, so they are lowering the specs...

 

If Sony can actually produce a game like they showed for Killzone at E3 then I'll be impressed. Until then it seems like they are pulling the same tricks they did before the PS2 was released. I've been somewhat happy with my PS2, but think from what I've seen Xbox was a better system and I should have purchased it instead. If the PS3 ends up being a better system than the 360 I'll be very surprised. Revolution will be in a unique class by itself so I'll pick it up regardless.

In all honesty I think it is very doubtful that you will see Killzone look like that demo at E3 when it is released. If I'm proven wrong then it is better for all of us because game developers will have a benchmark to strive for. Unfortunatley I don't think I am.

 

I see what Sony is going for. They look at for evryone including themselves especially. If the cell comes out with all SPEs it can be used in worksations etc. If it comes out with seven it can be used in the PS3, he didn't specify, but maybe if it has all eight then they can shut one down, and still use it for PS3. If it comes out with six use it for PCs. It is actually extremely economical, I like it, and I'm not a fanboy of Sony or xbox, I hate nintendo, if you didn't already get that jist.

The RSX must be based on the same SPE concept, sweet.

Stooge030, that killzone demo was running in real time, the PS3 can do it. It's up to the developer and your wallet to make the game that good.

Try not to over analyze this as if Sony is failing to produce the chips right. With something new like this and a deadline to make, it was smart to base it off seven operating SPEs. Leaves room for error, and still has outstanding performance. The mass manufacturing of a chip like the cell isn't time tested like multi-core processors like then xenon (360). It's a smart move, that leaves the PS3 still outstanding and to spec because they based it with this redundancy, and won't allow any less than seven.

Biggest point, the specs have this redundancy calculated in, apparently for the RSX too. Ones that don't make spec, go for another use. Thanks for the link.

 

Hi there.

I just joined this site and have read a lot of this massive thread. I just thought I would post something I read that made me lean toward the PS3 in terms of graphic quality. I'd give a direct link, but this quote is buried in a long thread stored on a single massive web page. Here it is:

(I had this whole next section quoted, but edited the quotes out again).

===
For the good of the industry at large, I hope all the consoles are met with great success. I think there are a number of reasons the Xbox could be a big success, but since your focus is on graphics power alone, I must admit that the Xbox 360 is going to be placing second this time around...but sadly, not for any of the reasons the author mentioned [the author refers to the power of the ATI GPU and the supposed difficulty in programming 7 SPEs]. It seems the author's thinking is stuck in the current-gen technology.

The "killer" spec for the next generation is sadly not even mentioned in this article. I don't think the author is familiar with the importance of SHADERS in the next-gen. Shader computations (there are more than one kind) are very complex floating point calculations used on the individual pixel level. These calculations used to be too complex to do "on the fly" in real-time for console gaming, and were primarily used in CGI rendering. The original XBox had an ability to do some limited amount of shaders, which gave it a big advantage over the competition. For the next-gen, graphic quality will be determined as much by the amount of shader computations a machine can process as polygon counts determined the quality of the current gen. Now, both consoles can effectively produce as many polygons as most consumer-level displays can produce pixels, (for the most part) so from that level, both systems would look similar on a "regular" TV or HDTV up to 720p. Shaders and "pixel precision" are the new benchmarks for quality graphics. It is here where the PS3 will beat the Xbox 360 in graphic quality. The PS3 can do many times more shader computations than can the XBox 360, and at a pixel precision that the XBox 360 cannot approach.

The other interesting thing about the addition of shaders as an integral part of the PS3 graphics processor is that developers are finding it actually quite easy to develop great graphics on the PS3 because it is very similar to the CGI workstations they all use for character designs and cut scenes. They use Open-GL and shaders just like they would if they were running it through the render farm! As was mentioned at Sony's press event, the EA "Fight Night" demo was being rendered in REAL TIME through Criterion's Renderware middleware. The Unreal developers also commented on how seamless the migration from CGI workstation to PS3 was.
Joel L.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/a...epartment_what_in_the_world_do_they_mean.html

After watching some of the PS3 and XBox 360 demos, I do have to say that the PS3 demos just seem to look a bit more 'real' overall. The characters seem to move more realistically, and the environments don't seem to look as 'plastic/shiny' as the Xbox titles did (however 'Need for Speed Most Wanted' had some very nice lighting I thought).

Now before anyone rips my head off, I understand that:

- who knows what the demos were actually running on (although for a number of them, the Sony people did mention they were running on a real PS3 - as it is today, ie: prelaunch version).
- the difference in my opinion that PS3 looked more 'real' may be more of an indication of the programmers who developed the game than the capabilities of the hardware.
- I'm sure there are a ton of other caveats to be added.

Anywho, just my 2 cents.

 

Reasons, Cranky:

First, the 'demo' of Killzone was nothing more than a movie. It was made as a video and didn't use anything like a game engine (ala UT2K7 or Fight Night). It was a pretty video like The Incredibles or Final Fantasy:Spirits Within. Everything other than 1. The duckies 2. UT 2007 3. Fight Night Round 3 was nothing but video and not game footage in the slightest.

Otherwise, Reasons, I'll go back to the Cel/RSX for a second. I won't argue that it makes great sense from a $ stand point, but I still have an issue with the fact that a manufacturer is saying "We know we can't get the design right but we can get it MOSTLY right, so we will go with that" It's not an issue with the design (IBM can make them), it's an issue with Sony not being able to make them. In effect, we are saying that it is OK to use 'defective' parts on the PS3. The fact that they plan for it is OK but these are still defective parts.

 

Ok a lot of ppl have talkig mad shit or being pure fanboys and i dont like using that word either ok PS3 VS.Xbox 360 ok i dont need to go thorugh the specs everyone allready has done that enough ok. First of all numbers are allways numbers at the end of the day numbers are written on paper the game is played on the field, so we wont know who's has better graphics or load time and all that other shit before it comes out we can just speculate. Ok 2nd thing is I think that the next gen console will be all about the type of gamer you are, for example I think PS3 will have better motion capture, better sports games,more games in general XBOX 360 will have prolly far superrior online play and I think online is a huge part of the gaming experience im guessing it will have better online play but i dont know sony hasnt said much about the online stuff. ok yeah I might have not covered every minnute detail but I think what Im saying is prety legit. Just my opinion, okthis has nothing to do with anything but i hate the xbox controller not even close to ps2, another thing why is PS3 supporting 7 conntrollers that make s no sense even it up 8-6 wte juss my opinons. SO RELAX ALL U Removed FANBOYS TALKIN SHIT ALLREADY B4 THEY EVEN COME OUT YOU DONT KNOW JACK SQWAT(BY THE WAY DONT GAMES MAKE THE SYSTEM JUSS A THOUGHT)
But at the end of the day i think I will be getting the PS3 personally.

 

to kilahcam: now who's the hypocrit? You say you hate using that word but there is more than enough in that post to get you banned. You don't HAVE to swear in a post, angry or not. Sorry, but people like you tick me off just as much as the people you're moaning about.

to wvengence: The rsx apparently won't be ready until autumn so i heard, so we have proof that the current demos arent real. But if they're not, what hardware are they really using?

to crankyho: welcome and your 2 cents are much appreciated.

to Reasons?: Why are you so against nintendo?

to pulsar: despite it weighing in at an impressive 59lbs, my e92 kicks some serious ass, and I won't have anyone knock it for being "one of those old, really massive monitors"
show me a 6ms TFT capable of 2048x1536 for that price!
What it lacks in portability (everything lol) it more than makes up for in performance.

 

Actually if i had it my way i wud like nintendo to be at the top but i don think thats goin to happen anytime soon

 

@ morda8, well half of those games you named comeout for PC with tons of add-ons and available skins and more, jeez. And morda8, almost everyone on aD right now will obviosly have a PC so i wouldnt be talking bs if i were you man.

 

Sammorris:
I'll cover this as I know it but this is what started the entire issue of Sony lying...
Day 2 of E3- Jack Tretton (I believe) interview where he is asked "Is the Killzone2 actual gameplay footage? Yes, yes it is."

At the same time, Mark Reins from Epic has an interview where is says that other than the duckies, UT & Fight Night, everything was just a video.

Then (about 3 hours later) Phil Harris (VP of SCEE) is asked the same question (both by G4TV I believe) and says "No, those were actually videos, not gameplay"

The next day, Van Beek (who is working on Killzone2) has an interview where he says that it is a video and "Yeah, it's basically a [bold]representation[/bold] of the look and feel of the game we're trying to make."

So yes, that was a video.

Otherwise, I have heard conflicting reports that say it was a G5 with 2 6800's or a G5 with a 7800 (G70) for the hardware. Not that it really matters though, as my DVD player can handle that...

 

http://www.g4tv.com/e32005/videos/index_pg3.html the vid w/Harrison
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/615/615178p1.html
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/616/616591p1.html

Some were done in real-time, some were CGI. This last part is especially important, since Killzone isn't confirmed to be either, it's just all the videos shown were running to PS3 spec. The PS3 will do it, if the developer will do it.

http://boards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=87590744&replies=51&ui=cb_post_05

Hmmmm, pretty obvious now isn't it. WVengence, your claim that Killzone 2 footage was just CGI is a little bogus now. These clips show people spawing in real time as the game is played. These are slight glitches, that we can be thankful for, it's a good thing they didn't polish the footage too much. It's blaringly obvious that killzone 2 is real time.

Did you catch all that, wath the video clips that the other forum users have provided. He.she will circle or point to people spawning.

This is the PS3 people, forget who said it is real-time, forget who said it is a "representation", because it's both. And every other demo was at the very minimun running to PS3 specifications (what it will generate in real time).

Game over, killzone 2 naysayers. CGI doesn't have characters spawn in the middle of a trailer. This wasn't a "pretty video" it was real time, that they didn't have time to buff out tiny errors before the presentation.