PS3 Vs Xbox 360

[s|k]

ps3
vs
XBox360 (click thumbnails on left).

Which do you think will win overall? My money is on the PS3, the only thing the xbox had over the PS2 was power and that wont be true with the next gen consoles. So I think PS3's larger game library will bring the house down on the Xbox360.

[DukePaul]

Nintendo.

Atleast I hope so.

[MrL_JaKiri]

That's an extremely simplistic way of looking at things.

Instead of looking at the reasons the PS2 was more popular than the XBox, you are, for some reason, looking at reasons that people wanted to buy the XBox.

The PS2's popularity was a momentum thing. It was released years before the XBox and Gamecube (which is why both of those consoles are FAR more powerful than it). It was also the only console to feature DVD decoding "out of the box" in a time when DVD players were only starting to significantly penetrate the market.

Furthermore, it limited the effect the increased power of the XBox could have, because it's fairly obvious that it would only matter with exclusive games, like Halo - any cross platform games (like the EA Sports games) would have to be designed with the ability to run on the less powerful console in mind.

I don't think anyone can really call the next race - and of course, you haven't taken into account the existance of the Nintendo Revolution. There are things which each side can point to as a benefit. In some ways, the market penetration, for example, of the PS2 is a bad thing for the PS3, as it may mean that people will buy the new XBox in addition to their PS2, because then the number of "new" games available by buying one console will have swung to the XBox - or, of course, the Revolution (although most people believe this will exist in a "2nd console" slot behind the main choise of PS3 or X360).

Of course, Sony and Nintendo will win, Microsoft will lose - because Microsoft's business ethic isn't set up around making money. We're looking at several years of loss-leader before they actually start to do anything profitable.

[LHC]

I doubt many developers will be able to take advantage of the PS3's power.

edit:

A user profile, maintained at a Microsoft data center, will follow you around and track your progress from game to game. That way, if you're a Halo 3 ace, you won't get thrown into a multiplayer Splinter Cell session with a bunch of newbies.

this is stupid

[s|k]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That's an extremely simplistic way of looking at things.

I've deliberately shaped my rhetoric, based on past experience, to match the audiences colloquial expectations and interest to facilitate maximum participation.

In any sense, you never mentioned which would dominate, the PS3 or the Xbox360. I didn't include the revolution because I haven't seen pictures of it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

In any sense, you never mentioned which would dominate, the PS3 or the Xbox360.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't think anyone can really call the next race

GEE I WONDER WHY I DIDN'T.

Originally Posted by s|k

I didn't include the revolution because I haven't seen pictures of it.

[Thermodynamics]

Actaully, I would agree with MRL here.

The Xbox 360 has a hardware platfrom that is a lot easier for game develop's to take advantage of, not in the least because there's an Intel inside and ATI's R500. This probably means, that intially, when the market is "even" [not entirely appropiate...] that software develop's might favour the Xbox purely because they have to invest less time, and less resource into getting their title out onto the market. On the other hand, the PS3 is really an untested quality in terms of its hardware platform. Sure, on paper, Sony, IBM's and Toshiba's work looks great, but so little commercial gaming software has been made to run on a parallel processing machine such as the PS3... though I must applaud Nvidia's work- I'm very interested to see and PCI-e adaption of itp even though I'm an ATi man at heart.

MRL is very right in saying that the PS2 had a time advantage. Consoles tend to be a significant purchase for most people, so by the time the XBox came around, it had already acheived some hefty market penetration. Not to mention it had a larger variety of titles available- which has proved to be the dark leagcy dragging Nintendo down though some of the stuff they produce in-hous is great...]- I would really feel that this is the clincher-the software available. Especailly in the "next generation" of consoles- the hardware platfroms are so radically different, that we shall see far fewer multi-platfrom titles. SAd for PC gamers such as I.

[Dante Hicks]

I don't really understand how these things worse, but couldn't you have some sort of virtual machine (Java style) that could ensure interoperability on some titles? It's not exactly like the hardware's speed is a restricting factor with the next generation consoles.

[vampire_lestat]

Originally Posted by DukePaul

Nintendo.

Atleast I hope so.

[Thermodynamics]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't really understand how these things worse, but couldn't you have some sort of virtual machine (Java style) that could ensure interoperability on some titles? It's not exactly like the hardware's speed is a restricting factor with the next generation consoles.

Emm... speed is only a small factor, its like the difference between my brian and yours and maybe Dace's. All work very well but alas very differently- Somethings that both you and I understand Dace has difficulty with [being nice... ;-)] and well we shall never understand Dace...

[Thermodynamics]

Think of it like the a PC and an Apple computer. Apple's have to "emulate" windows, thats just like the "java" thing you suggested, only problem is there is a huge performance drop. The PS3 has a "cell" processor, this means it has 9 "brains" [forgive me...] 1 of which dishes out the workload, the others do it. So software wil...

oh god i give up

I'm too lazy, i have exams tomorrow.

And yes, I know, some of its soooo wrong and simplistic, but please don't shoot me, I did it for simplicity's sake!

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Thermodynamics

Emm... speed is only a small factor.

Speed would be the only factor, as you go on to say in your next post.

[pablissimo]

But he has that nifty disclaimer Nod!

some of its soooo wrong and simplistic, but please don't shoot me, I did it for simplicity's sake!

OHHSHIT, HE'S LIKE A FOX!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's not exactly like the hardware's speed is a restricting factor with the next generation consoles.

Actually, it will be. Games look better over the console's lifespan mainly because they're being programmed more efficiently, not because the earlier ones weren't using the "full capability", although I must admit that is still a minor factor. Obviously there are some exceptions to this, but the early games will definitely be trying to push the envolope of console graphics, even if they are found wanting later.

[Thermodynamics]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Speed would be the only factor, as you go on to say in your next post.

performance drop doesn NOT mean just a speed thing. Not just a drop in FPS [frames per second] in terms of emulating a game, there could easily be things which won't get rendered, the anti-aliasing might be reduced from 4x to 2x, the resolution might drop etc. etc. I mean i could go on for ages, real in-depth if you want, but everyone else would yawn and wander off....






Like I am now...

[Thermodynamics]

Oh and I was reffering the processor "speed" eg. number of clock cycles it can perfom per second. Ghz etc. now, just look at AMD and Intel benchmarking, while Intel's chip always have a higher clock speed, AMD mostly outperfoms them. why?

things like Integrated memory controller, different chip architecture, a more effecient thermal envelope etc.

[Dante Hicks]

I was mainly referring to games which didn't _need_ to push the envelope. I don't see why you couldn't get "optimised" games written specifically for a consoles hardware and then more general releases on a sort of java virtual machine type quasi-platform. I realise there would be massive performance drops, but with many games that simply will not matter.

And Mark, I more meant that speed won't be what stops games being good. Yes, there are (obviously) hardware limitations that each generation of consoles has; but to me at least it seems that it's design / conceptual problems which affect the quality of current games, not the ability to have more realistic shadows or whatever else.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

And Mark, I more meant that speed won't be what stops games being good. Yes, there are (obviously) hardware limitations that each generation of consoles has; but to me at least it seems that it's design / conceptual problems which affect the quality of current games, not the ability to have more realistic shadows or whatever else.

In a very limited way, yes. However, it's not like "better graphics" don't have a gameplay value; Half Life 2, say, is infinitely more immersive than Doom. Or even Half Life 1.

But that's not really the point. This is a business, and there, for some reason, is a push to be the best and brightest, so games that just cut back on the graphical features almost certainly won't get the publisher support (in the form of money for advertising, patching, or actually just finishing coding the thing and putting it through QA).

You know the thing from Fight Club, with the cars and the liability? Something like that goes on all the time, especially with patches. Irrational Games had a patch for Tribes: Vengence ready to be put through final QA - maybe a fortnight away from going live. But Sierra pulled the patch (without informing the devs beforehand) because T:V didn't sell enough copies. KOTOR2 was pushed out the door early, buggy and unfinished, because Lucas Arts thought that the difference in amount of expected revenue was so small that cutting on dev time and QA was worth it. Chris Avallone, the designer, has begged Lucas Arts to be allowed to put out a content patch, but they didn't let him because of contractural obligations for payment. Vampire: Bloodlines is a pretty buggy game, and wasn't patched for a few months after release, even though Troika had many major fixes completed and working before the game was even released. Why? They didn't want to give Troika any money until they saw if it was an issue or not.