PS3: Brain and Brawn

P

PHaLaNX GTR

CAGiversary!
PS2 had, by far, the strongest CPU, but had no GPU. Without a GPU, the PS2 was fighting on an uneven battle ground, since the CPU had to basically do all the graphical rendering via "software". While, on the other hand, the other consoles alleviated all that burden from their respective CPUs by using hardware designed specifically for graphics rendering (GPU). This giving the Xbox the definitive advantage over the PS2 and enabling the NGC to go heads up, and, at times, ahead of the PS2. Microsoft had Nvidia in its GPU corner and Nintendo had ATI. Now with the release of information regarding the next generation of game systems, Sony has just announced that they will have the always venerable Nvidia at its side. If the Cell is as capable as its brethren, the Emotion Engine, for its time, then Sony may just have the one two punch, if all goes well. But then again, from what I surmized MS seems to have something up their sleeves with their next gen processor, as it seems to share a few ideas as the Cell, with multilateral processing, or some thing or the other, where multiple processors are working together as one. So this should be interesting as always. I can't wait to see the combined might of these two processors working together.

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/571/571460p1.html

December 07, 2004 - In an announcement made around the midnight hour earlier this morning, Sony Computer Entertainment and NVIDIA Corporation jointly confirmed that they have teamed up to create the graphics chip for Sony's next videogame console. Though the system has not yet been given an official name, the highly anticipated PlayStation 2 follow-up (known in most circles as the PS3) will certainly have some powerful hardware behind it -- as the SCEI/NVIDIA collaboration will incorporate the next-generation GeForce technology as well as Sony's system solutions for Cell Processor-enabled consoles.

The collaboration itself has been made with a multi-year royalty-driven agreement in mind, with the custom GPU serving as the foundation for the PS3's graphics and image processing functions. Interestingly enough, this agreement will go beyond the confines of just the PS3, however, and will also apply to future Sony digital electronic products as well. The custom graphics chip will be manufactured by Sony's Nagasaki Fab2 group in addition to OTSS -- a joint fabrication facility co-run by Toshiba and Sony.

"In the future, the experience of computer entertainment systems and broadband-ready PCs will be fused together to generate and transfer multi-streams of rich content simultaneously. In this sense, we have found the best way to integrate the state-of-the-art technologies from NVIDIA and SCEI," said Ken Kutaragi, executive deputy president and COO, Sony Corporation, and president and Group CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. "Our collaboration includes not only the chip development but also a variety of graphics development tools and middleware, essential for efficient content creation."

"We are thrilled to partner with Sony Computer Entertainment to build what will certainly be one of the most important computer entertainment and digital media platforms of the twenty-first century," added Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO, NVIDIA. "Over the past two years NVIDIA has worked closely with Sony Computer Entertainment on their next-generation computer entertainment system. In parallel, we have been designing our next-generation GeForce GPU. The combination of the revolutionary Cell processor and NVIDIA's graphics technologies will enable the creation of breathtaking imagery that will surprise and captivate consumers."

Speculation as to when further announcements regarding the PlayStation 3 (or whatever it ends up being called) continue to run rampant throughout the industry. Several industry insiders point to E3 for the big unveiling, while others feel that the GDC may provide a surprise reveal early next year. Whatever the case may be, IGN will be there to bring it to you.
-- Jeremy Dunham
Click to expand...

Hey, IGN can be useful, at times.
 
[quote name='PHaLaNX GTR']This giving the Xbox the definitive advantage over the PS2 and enabling the NGC to go heads up, and, at times, ahead of the PS2. [/quote]

If by "at times" you mean "all the time" then um, yeah.... anyway, I think the PS3 will be on par with Nintendo's next offering and both will be more advanced than the new xbox.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='PHaLaNX GTR']This giving the Xbox the definitive advantage over the PS2 and enabling the NGC to go heads up, and, at times, ahead of the PS2. [/quote]

If by "at times" you mean "all the time" then um, yeah.... anyway, I think the PS3 will be on par with Nintendo's next offering and both will be more advanced than the new xbox.[/quote]

Not trying to flame, but why do you think that MS won't be able to compete?
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='PHaLaNX GTR']This giving the Xbox the definitive advantage over the PS2 and enabling the NGC to go heads up, and, at times, ahead of the PS2. [/quote]

If by "at times" you mean "all the time" then um, yeah.... anyway, I think the PS3 will be on par with Nintendo's next offering and both will be more advanced than the new xbox.[/quote]

I disagree. NGC doesn't really have much to offer over the Xbox, hardware-wise, and they basically came out around the same time-frame. So, what's your reasoning? Also, I've seen quite a few times where NGC is out-done by the PS2. No point in arguing about it, though.
 
Really the reason NGC ever gets beaten by the ps2 (and sometimes the xbox) is mainly because of the type of disks they use. The gamecube disks are much smaller so they obviously hold less. As a result the developers have to compress their data more, which causes there to be lots of losses graphically.
 
[quote name='stormenmormon']Really the reason NGC ever gets beaten by the ps2 (and sometimes the xbox) is mainly because of the type of disks they use. The gamecube disks are much smaller so they obviously hold less. As a result the developers have to compress their data more, which causes there to be lots of losses graphically.[/quote]

also many times the PS2 version gets made first, and xbox and gc gets ports, so in many instances, gc gets shafted like that. but then again, if I were a software company that cares about profits more. I would put more effort into the PS2 (and xbox) version as well.
 
It seems that SONY might have the most powerful console in the Next Generation. It will also be seen as the market leader after winning the last 32/64 and 128 bit wars. However, Nintendo had won the 8 and 16 bit wars and lost the next two. Nintendo supposedly had the more powerful hardware (N64) and was released a year after it's competition. It will be interesting to see whether history repeats itself. It will also be interesting to see how similar Xbox2 and Revolution's graphics will be since ATI will be providing the GPU's for both systems.
 
[quote name='PHaLaNX GTR'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='PHaLaNX GTR']This giving the Xbox the definitive advantage over the PS2 and enabling the NGC to go heads up, and, at times, ahead of the PS2. [/quote]

If by "at times" you mean "all the time" then um, yeah.... anyway, I think the PS3 will be on par with Nintendo's next offering and both will be more advanced than the new xbox.[/quote]

I disagree. NGC doesn't really have much to offer over the Xbox, hardware-wise, and they basically came out around the same time-frame. So, what's your reasoning? Also, I've seen quite a few times where NGC is out-done by the PS2. No point in arguing about it, though.[/quote]

The cube is rarely trumped graphically by the PS2...the only time I can think of is a crappy ports that came over much later (Baulder's Gate I'm looking at you).

Also, if the rumors are true Microsoft's system may come out as early as late 2005, where as Sony and Nintendo are aiming for Fall 2006 or so. So the next-gen systems may not be coming out around the same time frame. So it could be a case where Xbox Next is left out in the cold a little bit graphically at least, thanks to an earlier release, much like the PS2 was.
 
[quote name='Derwood43'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='PHaLaNX GTR']This giving the Xbox the definitive advantage over the PS2 and enabling the NGC to go heads up, and, at times, ahead of the PS2. [/quote]

If by "at times" you mean "all the time" then um, yeah.... anyway, I think the PS3 will be on par with Nintendo's next offering and both will be more advanced than the new xbox.[/quote]

Not trying to flame, but why do you think that MS won't be able to compete?[/quote]

I think MS will compete just fine - I just don't think the system will be as advanced though because it is set to be released a year ahead of Sony and Nintendo...
 
[quote name='PHaLaNX GTR']PS2 had, by far, the strongest CPU, but had no GPU.[/quote]

By strongest.. you're comparing what?

PS2 733mHz, Xbox 733mHz

And fanboy discussions really are better left to Gamefaqs. :roll:
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='PHaLaNX GTR'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='PHaLaNX GTR']This giving the Xbox the definitive advantage over the PS2 and enabling the NGC to go heads up, and, at times, ahead of the PS2. [/quote]

If by "at times" you mean "all the time" then um, yeah.... anyway, I think the PS3 will be on par with Nintendo's next offering and both will be more advanced than the new xbox.[/quote]

I disagree. NGC doesn't really have much to offer over the Xbox, hardware-wise, and they basically came out around the same time-frame. So, what's your reasoning? Also, I've seen quite a few times where NGC is out-done by the PS2. No point in arguing about it, though.[/quote]

The cube is rarely trumped graphically by the PS2...the only time I can think of is a crappy ports that came over much later (Baulder's Gate I'm looking at you).

Also, if the rumors are true Microsoft's system may come out as early as late 2005, where as Sony and Nintendo are aiming for Fall 2006 or so. So the next-gen systems may not be coming out around the same time frame. So it could be a case where Xbox Next is left out in the cold a little bit graphically at least, thanks to an earlier release, much like the PS2 was.[/quote]

Sounds like a good move by MS . . . more often than not, the first console out in a generation, if worth its salt, wins the war. Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, PSone (here is the exception - Saturn made it out first, but bombed), and PS2. All of the console era "victories" were by very wide margins as well, except the very narrow win by Genesis over the SNES.

Dreamcast is kind of a "tweaner" console, like the Atari Jaguar, but nevertheless neither made much of an impact, sales wise. If you want say the Dreamcast is part of the latest generation, and that it beat the PS2 to market, be my guest, but I woudn't place it in the same generation.

Therefore, I'll take the safe money and bet that MS wins the next generation, although I may wait until all 3 are out until I choose a machine (I usually go with the first console out - thankfully I skipped the Saturn). This generation is still doing quite well, IMO, across all 3 major platforms.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb'][quote name='PHaLaNX GTR']PS2 had, by far, the strongest CPU, but had no GPU.[/quote]

By strongest.. you're comparing what?

PS2 733mHz, Xbox 733mHz

And fanboy discussions really are better left to Gamefaqs. :roll:[/quote]

I didn't try to come off as a "fanboy", but who really cares? It's some thing to discuss, if you're interested. I mainly wanted to get this piece of info out to you guys. Second, the MHz rating is only part of the factor. People should know this by now. I think it was EE Times that stated that the Emotion Engine was the equivelant to a Pentium 4 or 3 running at 1.4 or 1.7 GHz.
 
it'll be interesting to see if all of that 3rd party support and all the fans of the PS2 carry over to the PS3 since the XBOX2 will be the first one out...
 
I think it was EE Times that stated that the Emotion Engine was the equivelant to a Pentium 4 or 3 running at 1.4 or 1.7 GHz
Click to expand...

Only at vector instructions. And yes, the PS2 cpu "pwnes" the xBox cpu at vector calculations. But the xBox's Celeron is strongest at integer calculations. I think the Celeron might also beat out the PS2's MIPS cpu at floating point but i could be wrong on that last one.
 
[quote name='int80h']
I think it was EE Times that stated that the Emotion Engine was the equivelant to a Pentium 4 or 3 running at 1.4 or 1.7 GHz
Click to expand...

Only at vector instructions. And yes, the PS2 cpu "pwnes" the xBox cpu at vector calculations. But the xBox's Celeron is strongest at integer calculations. I think the Celeron might also beat out the PS2's MIPS cpu at floating point but i could be wrong on that last one.[/quote]

Yeah, you're right. "Integer operation" is where the x86 CPUs excel. However, I'm not sure of how much of an effect it has on gaming and graphics processing.

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/1q99/playstation2-cpu.html

I wonder how they plan to code for the system, assuming that the Cell is also an FPU monster, much like the GPU will no doubt be. FPUs are what counts when it comes to polygonal performance, if I remember correctly. Will they assign polygonal performance to both processing units, or just the GPU? That should be interesting for some people.

I wonder how the fan-base will fair, also, when and if the Xbox is released much earlier than the PS2. However, you can pretty much assume that Sony will start releasing the hardcore information when the next Xbox nears release, keeping their fan-base waiting. The main-stream gamers are the ones to watch for, though. And they're likely to buy whatever is available next Christmas. It's going to be a matter of affordability, games, and awareness by then.
 
If M$ launches first it will only be because they need the money sonner, XB got a lot of steam from people simply saying "it came out after the ps2 so it's more powerful." they wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of the same suggestion unless they HAD to but since Sony is more concerned with their own tech and they're still in first place this gen so they can afford to wait.

In the end I think it'll still be much like it is right now, the PS system will hold the edge but only slightly over the XB system forcing nintendo to follow the leaders again but they'll probably do better this gen than last because it's ultimately about the games and most companies have shown a great deal of loyalty to the PS with the XB being secondary and the Nintendo system once again relying on it's first party titles to carry it.
 
[quote name='stormenmormon']Really the reason NGC ever gets beaten by the ps2 (and sometimes the xbox) is mainly because of the type of disks they use. The gamecube disks are much smaller so they obviously hold less. As a result the developers have to compress their data more, which causes there to be lots of losses graphically.[/quote]

Yeah, data compression, that's it. Yeah. Lazy, or pressured coders porting a PS2 game to the cube have been the only times I've seen the PS2 'beat' the cube. Otherwise, every side by side comparison I've ever made between the two have the Cube winning in the graphics department from depth and texture resolution to framerate with few exceptions.

Console sales have never had correlation to processing power or graphic prowess. There's no reason for the trend to change now.
 
[quote name='Derwood43'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='PHaLaNX GTR']This giving the Xbox the definitive advantage over the PS2 and enabling the NGC to go heads up, and, at times, ahead of the PS2. [/quote]

If by "at times" you mean "all the time" then um, yeah.... anyway, I think the PS3 will be on par with Nintendo's next offering and both will be more advanced than the new xbox.[/quote]

Not trying to flame, but why do you think that MS won't be able to compete?[/quote]

Because XB2 will be out a full year early. It'll compete, but it'll be the weakest of the 3.
 
If Sony and other game developers continue to make great games for the PS2 maybe the earlier release of XBox Next won't be helpful for Microsoft.

Is the general public looking for a newer, better console yet? I'm looking forward to seeing the PS3, but that's because I've had the PS2 from the start and I'm not even sure I would buy PS3 in its first year (maybe if it's backwards compatible)

And comment to a post before - The genesis beat the SNES? I always thought it was the other way around.
 
[quote name='alongx'][quote name='Derwood43'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='PHaLaNX GTR']This giving the Xbox the definitive advantage over the PS2 and enabling the NGC to go heads up, and, at times, ahead of the PS2. [/quote]

If by "at times" you mean "all the time" then um, yeah.... anyway, I think the PS3 will be on par with Nintendo's next offering and both will be more advanced than the new xbox.[/quote]

Not trying to flame, but why do you think that MS won't be able to compete?[/quote]

Because XB2 will be out a full year early. It'll compete, but it'll be the weakest of the 3.[/quote]

That's unless MS goes way overboard with the specs on the system ... I think we will just have to wait and see how it plays out. Has a system been released after another system and been weaker? I think the Jaguar 64 would probably be one wouldn't it?
 
I think its going to be extremely close between xbox and ps3. If they were released at the same time, IMO, sony would win.

The mainstream gamers will most likely flock to xbox 2 because it is coming out the earliest of the 3. Even though it will be slightly inferior hardware-wise, it will have a headstart on games (and halo 3) and will probably be the hottest thing next xmas.

Then again, sony usually does market their products well. Even with the dreamcase and saturn coming out before their own systems, they were still able to market the playstation to get people to wait for a better system.

Not really looking forward to either system until I see some more games.
 
Early on, consoles are difficult to program for because very few have experience coding for the hardware. You can gain an advantage by making it easier to make games on your console. This is where MS will have an advantage early on, since they better support their hardware and developers, and there are plenty of people out there with experience on the PowerPC platform, its nothing exotic or new. Unlike Cell. Playstation 1 had a ton of 3rd party developers on board because it was very easy to make games on it with the toolkits provided by Sony, though they were crappy looking. Saturn was the most difficult to program for because it had 2 Hitachi processors running parallel, though it was more powerful than the PS1. They ended up with the least 3rd party support, and very few 3rd party games looked nearly as good as the 1st party Sega games.

Xbox Live already being firmly established and more polished will also benefit MS. MS must do better in Japan though, at least as a close 3rd, close enough to attract Japanese developers and multiplatform titles which would otherwise be exclusives. I don't see them improving a lot in Japan though, their problems there are not as simple as the box being too big. I don't think that their hardware will be "inferior", its only going to be 1 year early at most. Xbox launched 1 year and 8 months after PS2.

What will benefit PS3 the most are the exclusive franchises and larger installed base of PS2's. As long as those exclusive franchises from 3rd parties stay exclusive, and most will. They need to go back to what they did when they launched PS1, make it very easy to make games for the platform. The Cell processor could be very challenging to program for, since its so new, its never been used before. They also need to improve their online component, its not hurting them now, but if it hasn't drastically improved 3-4-5 years from now, they'll be in real trouble.

Nintendo MUST have better 3rd party support and MUST have a good online component. Their excellent 1st party games will only take them so far. Also, Xbox 2 and PS3 are positioning themselves as multipurpose machines, as media centers, etc. Nintendo just wants to be a video game box, so the competition will appear to have more "value", just as they did when they had DVD players, and GC did not.
 
I have a new GamePro magazine and it has a preview of a PS3 game with "awesome graphics".

Basically, it will use ONLY prerendered lighting, automatically generated terrain, and primitive texturing, modelling, and animation.

WTF was GamePro thinking when they were gloriously praising those shitty graphics and cheap developer shortcuts?

Btw the game is called "Avalon".
 
[quote name='dafoomie']...Also, Xbox 2 and PS3 are positioning themselves as multipurpose machines, as media centers, etc. Nintendo just wants to be a video game box, so the competition will appear to have more "value", just as they did when they had DVD players, and GC did not.[/quote]

Well, the DVD thing was big. However today, it's just not as cool to fastforward a DVD using the "D-Pad". I really have to wonder if people are going to buy into the "entertainment center" concept with the next round of consoles.
 
[quote name='guyver2077']wasnt ps2's cpu clocked at 300mhz?? i know gc was 405 and x was 733[/quote]

You are correct, sir. PS2's Emotion Engine isn't as fast as the Xbox or GC's CPU.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']What will benefit PS3 the most are the exclusive franchises and larger installed base of PS2's. As long as those exclusive franchises from 3rd parties stay exclusive, and most will. They need to go back to what they did when they launched PS1, make it very easy to make games for the platform. The Cell processor could be very challenging to program for, since its so new, its never been used before.[/quote]

The PS3 may be rather tough to program for, but, as it stands, the PS2 is leaps and bounds more difficult to program for than the GC or XB. The reason PS3 is going to do well because 3rd parties are betting on Sony winning. It's the same as when the PS2 was launched - all of the big development companies assumed the PS2 was going to win, so all of the games went to PS2, and thus a lot of people bought PS2s. The Playstation brand weilds a lot of power now, and that'll be difficult for anyone to overcome.
 
The thing I've always hated about the XB was how M$ bulldozed their way into the industry they ran in like a freight train and basically told people "get on board or we mow you down" and anyone that was left they threw money at them in huge heaps. This is one reason I think the japanese have trouble accepting the XB, the Gates attitude that smacks of "I can have what ever I want because I have enough money to buy it."

When Sony started up they went to developers and said "what do you want?" they listened and impressed developers into coming on board with the Playstation, they didn't have to buy up everything in their path people just came to them.

Anyway I thought this might be intersting to know:

[quote name='Gamespot']PlayStation 3 chip will go easy on developers

IBM touts the PS3's Cell processor at San Francisco road show; company promises easier-to-grasp learning curve.

The Cell processor that will power the next version of the PlayStation game console will also be adaptable for advanced scientific research, but you won't have to be a rocket scientist to program it.

That is the pledge of one of the chief architects of the Cell, jointly developed by IBM, Sony, and Toshiba, who together on Friday sought to allay fears that the chip would create huge programming challenges for game developers just starting to learn their ways around the complex circuitry that powers the current PlayStation 2.

"We're very much aware of the need to balance between innovation in architecture and the ability to leverage that innovation," H. Peter Hofstee, a researcher in IBM's Systems and Technology division, said during a break at an IBM press event in San Francisco today. "The learning curve for this platform should be significantly better than previous ones."

The three companies announced their Cell plans three years ago, describing an advanced processor tailored for demanding multimedia tasks. The companies said earlier this week that they plan to begin test production of Cell chips early next year, with the first Cell-based products--workstation PCs for computer graphics production--set to arrive late in the year.

Sony and Toshiba both plan to start selling high-definition TV sets powered by the chip in 2006, which is also when Sony is expected to introduce the Cell-powered PlayStation 3.

Hofstee said the Cell will benefit game developers not only by giving them a stable and easily approachable foundation for games to run on, but also by powering the workstations they use to produce games. The upshot is that developers should be spending a lot less time waiting for their equipment to render the animations they create.

"We think it's going to be a much more seamless and speedy process for developers using these workstations," he said.

Besides workstations, game machines, and TV sets, the Cell is also likely to power certain types of scientific supercomputers, streaming media servers, and image analysis systems, all of which have continually expanding needs for processing power. Hofstee said the Cell taps into an emerging "convergence between what we think of as supercomputing and what we use in the entertainment space."

Beyond that, the sky's the limit, according to Hofstee, who said the Cell development team set out to create a flexible design that would dramatically increase processing power while skirting growing chipmaker concerns about power consumption.

"We've created something that is very flexible," he said. "Having a more generic architecture will allow people to do new things."


By David Becker -- News.com
POSTED: 12/03/04 04:16 PM PST [/quote]
 
[quote name='PHaLaNX GTR']But then again, from what I surmized MS seems to have something up their sleeves with their next gen processor, as it seems to share a few ideas as the Cell, with multilateral processing, or some thing or the other, where multiple processors are working together as one. So this should be interesting as always. I can't wait to see the combined might of these two processors working together.[/quote]

You realize the Saturn had three processors compared to the PS1's one, and the Playstation's graphics looked a lot better.
 
the extra processors in the saturn were in response to seeing the PS running things like toshinden for the first time and realizing they were way over matched and ran back to the drawing board to stick more processors in to try and power it up.

The saturn wasnt meant to be a serious 3d power house, atleast they hadn't expected to have to go as far so soon. The PS had special effects and polygonal rendering abilities that blew them away in comparison (the saturn couldnt even do true tranparancies).


Also on the question of the SNES beating the Genesis: The genesis had a huge head start on the SNES which they never surpassed but it was gaining quickly by the end of the systems life, had the 16 bit generation gone on one more year Nintendo would have likely passed them.
 
[quote name='Alpha2']The thing I've always hated about the XB was how M$ bulldozed their way into the industry they ran in like a freight train and basically told people "get on board or we mow you down" and anyone that was left they threw money at them in huge heaps. This is one reason I think the japanese have trouble accepting the XB, the Gates attitude that smacks of "I can have what ever I want because I have enough money to buy it."

When Sony started up they went to developers and said "what do you want?" they listened and impressed developers into coming on board with the Playstation, they didn't have to buy up everything in their path people just came to them.
[/quote]

This is one of the reasons i chose sony of MS in this generation. I knew little about the games for each platform but I chose sony. I really didn't want to support MS because of how the dominate the OS market.
 
[quote name='Alpha2']the extra processors in the saturn were in response to seeing the PS running things like toshinden for the first time and realizing they were way over matched and ran back to the drawing board to stick more processors in to try and power it up.

The saturn wasnt meant to be a serious 3d power house, atleast they hadn't expected to have to go as far so soon. The PS had special effects and polygonal rendering abilities that blew them away in comparison (the saturn couldnt even do true tranparancies).[/quote]

The Saturn was developed to be the best of the best in 2D gaming, to which it succeeded. The Playstation was developed to deliver great 3D gaming, to which it also succeeded. Sega just realized that, in comparison to the Playstation, the Saturn looked much less attractive, so they threw on dual Hitatchi GPU's for 3d rendering. Yes, the Saturn couldn't due true transparancies in 3d, but, in some of its last games, the Saturn was able to produce graphics that were as good or slightly better than anything the Playstation did.
 
I don't understand why people get b0n4rs over power of the console. For me it's always been the game library that would influence my purchases.
 
[quote name='Alpha2']the extra processors in the saturn were in response to seeing the PS running things like toshinden for the first time and realizing they were way over matched and ran back to the drawing board to stick more processors in to try and power it up.

The saturn wasnt meant to be a serious 3d power house, atleast they hadn't expected to have to go as far so soon. The PS had special effects and polygonal rendering abilities that blew them away in comparison (the saturn couldnt even do true tranparancies).


Also on the question of the SNES beating the Genesis: The genesis had a huge head start on the SNES which they never surpassed but it was gaining quickly by the end of the systems life, had the 16 bit generation gone on one more year Nintendo would have likely passed them.[/quote]

The SNES did sell more than the Genesis as the years went on and eventually surpassed the Genesis in sales. Things like DKC put them over the top.

on another note, SONY is not going to lose. They are going to push the blue-ray disc right down MS's throat (MS is probably going with HD-DVD) and take over the market on the sole fact that it can play blue ray discs. They own too many studios and have too big a catalog of films for it to not succeed. Not only that, but Microsoft is going to lose the technical advantage that won it so many sales of third party software, and got so many people to buy their system. Another thing is the fact that MS can not hold its own during a software drought, that first year is going to be terrible if they have no one on board. SONY may not have the best launches, but I bet they come out very hard (as will Nintendo)
 
all ps3 and nintendo revolution has to do is wait till xbox 2 comes out and improve on their consoles so that it is superior to it in every way. I think that it is a mistake to come out with their system a year earlier. The dreamcast really only lasted 2 years from 1999 to 2001 and then it slowly died because PS2 came out.

The only reason why PS2 was successful in coming out first is because of all the exclusive second and third party support that they have. Xbox has little or none no offense. PS2 launched with some 70+ games because of all their third party support

the PS2 and the Nintendo Revolution are going to kick xbox 2's ass. I am sorry to say it but microsoft has said that if they don't earn profit on xbox 2, they are leaving the console war.
 
I think that Microsoft will basically have the competition by the balls when it comes to consoles that are basically the equivalent of computers, they have all the experience with windows, and all the years of experience with programming, far more than that of nintendo, or even sony. Then you have to factor in the limitless amounts of money M$ has compared to the other two companies.
 
The only reason why PS2 was successful in coming out first is because of all the exclusive second and third party support that they have. Xbox has little or none no offense. PS2 launched with some 70+ games because of all their third party support
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Xbox has no 3rd party support? So all the good Xbox games are 1st party titles? And all those multiplatform games that look better on the Xbox aren't 3rd party either. I didn't realize that MS went out and bought Tecmo, Bioware, Sega, Ubisoft, SNK, Capcom, EA... You could make the argument that PS2 has better 3rd party support, thats been Sony's strength forever because they didn't necessarily have great (or any) 1st party games. But to say that Xbox has little to none is rediculous.
 
M$ didn't buy all of them but they bought franchaises. Mostly because a lot of japanese developers were hesitant to climb into bed with them for more than multiplatform games. They dropped a ton of money in Tecmo's lap for DOA and Ninja Gaiden, Sega seemed to go to them just because they weren't Sony or Nintendo, which explains their comment on how they were "going to make the xbox number one." But they seemed to ease off a little when they figured they could play with everyone exclusive-wise, the way capcom was doing, by feeding each company a little.

Over all though, the PS2 still has more of the smaller japanese developers, they know what side their bread is buttered on and where they'll make the most money in their own country and in large numbers those little guys help.

As for SNES vs Gen, Next Generation magazine (Dont remember which issue but it was an article about console wars) was where I read that the SNES was still in second, it was catching up quickly due to the steep drop genesis sales numbers and increased interest and popularity in nintendo's system but ultimately the numbers favored Sega at the end of the 16 bit era.
 
xbox has third party support but it is nowhere near as much support as PS2. Xbox has not bought those companies but it is proven that most of those companies are with Microsoft because it has the most graphical abilities. I remember someone from team ninja saying that they will always stay exclusive to the system with the best graphics. This was why they were with dreamcast, then ps2, then xbox. What made xbox so popular is Halo and the incredible graphics that only their system can handle. If they come out first, they won't have the graphics edge whenever the other systems come out.
 
[quote name='davidflecha17']xbox has third party support but it is nowhere near as much support as PS2. Xbox has not bought those companies but it is proven that most of those companies are with Microsoft because it has the most graphical abilities. I remember someone from team ninja saying that they will always stay exclusive to the system with the best graphics. This was why they were with dreamcast, then ps2, then xbox. What made xbox so popular is Halo and the incredible graphics that only their system can handle. If they come out first, they won't have the graphics edge whenever the other systems come out.[/quote]

yeah, most of those companies are with xbox, thats why PS2 has over 3 times the amount of games Xbox has, and companies make for PS2 because more people have a PS2 than an Xbox, which is more important to most companies than graphics.
 
[quote name='whoknows'][quote name='davidflecha17']xbox has third party support but it is nowhere near as much support as PS2. Xbox has not bought those companies but it is proven that most of those companies are with Microsoft because it has the most graphical abilities. I remember someone from team ninja saying that they will always stay exclusive to the system with the best graphics. This was why they were with dreamcast, then ps2, then xbox. What made xbox so popular is Halo and the incredible graphics that only their system can handle. If they come out first, they won't have the graphics edge whenever the other systems come out.[/quote]

yeah, most of those companies are with xbox, thats why PS2 has over 3 times the amount of games Xbox has, and companies make for PS2 because more people have a PS2 than an Xbox, which is more important to most companies than graphics.[/quote]
The point someone made before him was that Xbox had NO 3rd party support, which is ludicrous. Xbox has good 3rd party support. Does PS2 have better 3rd party support? Yes, that is PS2's biggest strength. But to say that Xbox has none is stupid.
 
Although MS strong point was sheer power this gen, I think they will still be able to succeed next gen even with theirs coming out first. First off, IMO, they have the best supported, easiest to use online plan. Out of the 3, MS's online plan is the one I favor most, but I only own a PS2 and GCN. Secondly, they have games like Halo, Star Wars KOTOR, and Fable(haven't heard of a fable sequel but there probably will be).

I do think that they will lose some 3rd party support because they won't be the most powerful this time around, but they will definetly not fail.
 
[quote name='Spawn Of Hell']I think that Microsoft will basically have the competition by the balls when it comes to consoles that are basically the equivalent of computers, they have all the experience with windows, and all the years of experience with programming, far more than that of nintendo, or even sony. Then you have to factor in the limitless amounts of money M$ has compared to the other two companies.[/quote]

1. A video game console is a computer

2. Nintendo has been writing software for longer than Microsoft has been in existence.
 
Next generation console wars will be the most interesting for me. It's almost guarenteed that PS3 and revolution will be stronger. The main reason developers like Tecmo and other people have been developing for XBox is that it can do things PS2 or gamecube can't do as well. Also, the main attraction for xbox (besides Halo) is it's graphics but when it's not as strong as the other systems what will it do? I have no doubt that it will still succeed. But I predict that Revolution and PS3 will grow more than Xbox 2 does...

Although, I am curious what Sony and Nintendo do about online gaming... Sony seems to be vying for a more "XBox Live" approach... and the XBox Live Style of strict control seems to be very Nintendo-ish. So if Xbox goes down in history as doing anything it will be that they produced one of the first good online systems for consoles.
 
Expectedly, most of these posts are just fanboy rants. Nobody will know which of the consoles will be the most powerful until all three's specs are officially released. Besides, we all know that its about content, not power. Look at all three of the console makers games. They are all evidently serious about this current generation, as well as the next one. They are all here to stay for a while, and no one can predict the state of the gaming world a few years from now, regardless of what machine has which cpu / gpu / whatever.
 
I fail to see how paying to play games online with Live is any easier than the standard connect and play of both PS2 and the average PC.
 
[quote name='Alpha2']I fail to see how paying to play games online with Live is any easier than the standard connect and play of both PS2 and the average PC.[/quote]
I own all 3. PS2 online sucks. I wish it didn't, but it does. XBL is a great service, but you have to pay for it. On PC, you don't have a centralized network for playing games with *every* other PC out there, and the ability to see the status of friends who aren't playing the same game as you are, there is not necessarily strict control on cheating, and what you get varies wildly from game to game. XBL is about the same no matter what game, the service is always there. Its fast, convienant, and the vast majority of people have headsets for talking. No typing out messages.

Do you own an Xbox and play XBL? I'm not particularly a fan of MS, theres more games that I like on PS2, and I used to play online with my Dreamcast, but XBL is the dominant console online service, bar none.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top