mikeszekely Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 More fuel for the fire! ATI believes the Xbox 360 will be more powerful than the PS3. He mentions backward compatibility in the article. Our company just got more info on it. I don't know where Gamestop gets this info at, so I can't tell you how factual this will be... Supposedly, all single-layer DVDs will work fine on the Xbox 360. Microsoft and ATI are working on emulators for the dual-layer games. They want to get as many games up and running as they can on the 360, although some may not play without patches downloaded from Live at a later date. You can pretty much bet that the big sellers like the Star Wars games, Project Gotham, Halo, Fable, Ninja Gaiden, DoA, etc will work. They're not likely to work on sports games that get annual updates like Madden, or obscure games that no one liked like Azurik, though.
MGREXX Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 (edited) ATI has some nerve, as if their comments mattered. Microsoft says windows is better than the Apple OS McDonalds says that their burger meat is better than Burger Kings. Ford says that their cars are better than GM's. The fact is that Nvidia is the leader in Graphics card. The score: PS3 - 4 XBOX360 -0 Edited June 11, 2005 by MGREXX
Duke Togo Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 ATI has some nerve, as if their comments mattered.Microsoft says windows is better than the Apple OS McDonalds says that their burger meat is better than Burger Kings. Ford says that their cars are better than GM's. The fact is that Nvidia is the leader in Graphics card. The score: PS3 - 4 XBOX360 -0 And the kicker is, everybody knows Wendy's has better burgers than both of them.
JB0 Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 ATI has some nerve, as if their comments mattered.Microsoft says windows is better than the Apple OS McDonalds says that their burger meat is better than Burger Kings. Ford says that their cars are better than GM's. The fact is that Nvidia is the leader in Graphics card. The score: PS3 - 4 XBOX360 -0 On the other hand, MGREXX supports Sony over MS. Score: PS3: -1, XBox360: 5.
Jolly Rogers Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 ATI has some nerve, as if their comments mattered.Microsoft says windows is better than the Apple OS McDonalds says that their burger meat is better than Burger Kings. Ford says that their cars are better than GM's. The fact is that Nvidia is the leader in Graphics card. Doesn't seem to explain why Apple chose to put ATI cards in their pricier models of the G4 PowerBooks while the low-end 12" one got stuck with a Nvidia card.
mikeszekely Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 ATI has some nerve, as if their comments mattered.Microsoft says windows is better than the Apple OS McDonalds says that their burger meat is better than Burger Kings. Ford says that their cars are better than GM's. The fact is that Nvidia is the leader in Graphics card. The score: PS3 - 4 XBOX360 -0 This post is another example of how MGREXX's blind loyalty to Sony becomes his only "fact" for why the PS3 must be better than the Xbox 360. I understand that, of course the ATI guys are going to talk up their chip. But unlike MGREXX, they at least offer some reasons for why their chip might be better... which would make their opinion matter more than MGREXX's. He sees the unified pipeline, rather than segregated pixel and vertex engines, giving the 360 a huge a huge advantage in accessible processing power. Huddy also dispels the notion of the PlayStation 3's higher graphics clock speed (550MHz versus the 360's 500MHz) means that Sony's console will outperform the Xbox 360. He believes that its ATI's unified pipeline that will make the biggest difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3. ATI archrival Nvidia, who is providing the RSX graphics processor for the PS3, has chosen not to go the route of a unified pipeline."This time around, [Nvidia doesn’t] have the architecture and we do, so they have to knock it and say it isn’t worthwhile. But in the future, they’ll market themselves out of this corner, claiming that they’ve cracked how to do it best. But RSX isn’t unified, and this is why I think PS3 will almost certainly be slower and less powerful." Personally, I don't think the differences will matter much. There will likely be exclusives on both consoles that will play to the strengths of each to look better than average, but the average games that turn up on both consoles will look identical on both consoles... just like EA doesn't do anything to make NFS look any better on the current Xbox than the PS2 version. Although (and this is coming from someone who plays more PS2 games than Xbox games), MGREXX's "PS3 will rock because it's Sony, and 360 will suck because it's Microsoft" fanboy attitude really has me losing interest in the PS3. I'm seriously hoping the 360 will rock.
Black Valkyrie Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 (edited) fanboy attitude really has me losing interest in the PS3. I'm seriously hoping the 360 will rock. You are not only one Mike many people I know including my friends want the Xbox360 to win even some are not MS fans, just to kick Sony. At least Xbox360`s pad is better than Sonys one in general, every body I know loved it. Edited June 12, 2005 by Black Valkyrie
JB0 Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 fanboy attitude really has me losing interest in the PS3. I'm seriously hoping the 360 will rock. You are not only one Mike many people I know including my friends want the Xbox360 to win even some are not MS fans, just to kick Sony. At least Xbox360`s pad is better than Sonys one in general, every body I know loved it. The PS3 pad actually looks like a MASSIVE improvement over the PS1/2 pads. Obviously a fair evaluation will have to wait untill I have access to one, but replacing those damned nubs they have on the bottom of the existing pads with full handles closes one of my long-standing gripes with the pads. Anyways, I hope the Revolution wins. Because I'm contrary and wierd.
Gunbuster Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Before the news of Apple switching over to Intel: there was an article in the NY times with this quote: “Mr. Kutaragi tried to interest Mr. Jobs in adopting the Cell chip, which is being developed by I.B.M. for use in the coming PlayStation 3, in exchange for access to certain Sony technologies. Mr. Jobs rejected the idea, telling Mr. Kutaragi that he was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC.” I wonder why Jobs think it’s less effective than the PPC ;; Anyone know?
Jolly Rogers Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Interesting, do you have a link to the quote? The public reason Jobs gave for shifting to Intel was because Apple saw that Intel's future roadmap is more promising than that of the PowerPC, whose projected growth in performance doesn't even come close to Intel's projections. Since Apple was making a long term decision, I guess they didn't want to gamble on something that does not have a solid history to back up any kind of future projections.
Gunbuster Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 here's the New York Times link (free registration required) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/technolo...ml?pagewanted=1
mikeszekely Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Okay, so while everything in the PS3 was supposed to be new and powerful, it seems that we have Apple shooting down the Cell and ATI shooting down the RSX. Square Enix isn't happy that the PS3 isn't likely to ship with a hard drive. HD-DVD just got a one-up on Blu-Ray. When I originally voted "more than one," I was thinking PS3 and Xbox 360... but every day it's looking more like Xbox 360 and Revolution.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Seems to me... Revolution will be cheaper, is appealing due to downloadable NES through n64 game libraries, backwards compatibility, and.... Hell I dunno seems the revolution is more game based if anything. I think nintendo could be the silent winner....but who knows? I think 360 has a lot of promise too hell I might get one. Free xbox live and backwards compatibility is ultra cool. Anyone got a price estimate? All I hear is that the huge ass controller ps3 will be pricy.
Fort Max Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 I have no idea now, PS3 is looking like a farce trying to live on past success and Revolution has so far dissapointed me with it's 2007 release and the news that old games won't be free downloads. I trust that Ninetendo does have something really impressive up it's sleeve but the release is so far away.
Duke Togo Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 When it comes right down to it, Sony still owns the market by a very wide margin, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
RichterX Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 ATI has some nerve, as if their comments mattered.Microsoft says windows is better than the Apple OS McDonalds says that their burger meat is better than Burger Kings. Ford says that their cars are better than GM's. The fact is that Nvidia is the leader in Graphics card. The score: PS3 - 4 XBOX360 -0 MGREXX has some nerve, as if his comments mattered. I have been checking the system specs of the three machines and they are quite remarkable, the specs and picture have been posted at walmart.com It is worrying me that Sony is using a new disc technology when the DVD technology has not been completely squeeze to develop games, I was hoping to see games that would go on through two DVDs...
Godzilla Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Well, ATI is the leader in Graphics Chips. Not that I like them. I like Nvidia better. Anyways, I like to get the Revolution since it is suppose to support previous Nintendo platforms. Now Xbox 360 will support previous games thru updates which I feel will hurt MS in the long run.
mikeszekely Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 When it comes right down to it, Sony still owns the market by a very wide margin, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Depends on what you mean by change. Is the Xbox 360 likely to outsell the PS3 and unseat Sony as the dominant force in the console industry? No. But is the PS3 going to enjoy the huge gap between it and the Xbox 360 that the PS2 enjoys over the current Xbox? Not likely. People like MGREXX have shown that people will buy the PS3 simply because it says "PlayStation" on the side. But people also remember having to buy two or three PS2's due to things like the infamous Disc Read Error. (And if you figure that everyone has bought two PS2s, allowing that some people haven't but that some people have bought more than that, Sony's lead isn't so impressive anyway.) And Microsoft has already gone from a joke in the industry to a serious contender. They're going to close that gap. And when it comes down to the PS4 vs. the Xbox 720? Well, Sony won't lead the industry forever. Microsoft could easily do to Sony what Sony already did to Nintendo.
Duke Togo Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 I still have my original PS2, bought on release day (and I didn't even wait in line). Runs fine. People also remember that the PS3 is backwards compatible witht he biggest gaming library of any company; all of the PS1 and PS2 games. Three generations of games on one system. That's a huge selling point. Secondly, if MS doesn't make any serious gains in Japan, it hasn't a chance in any long term survival. The Xbox is still around because Microsoft ate a TON of cash to keep it going. Are they going to do that twice? Third, Sony didn't do anything to Nintendo. Nintendo did it to itself. They shot themselves in the head with the N64, when it was clear the CD-ROM games were the future. Had Nintendo's partnership with Sony stayed intact, and the Nintendo Playstation been released as planned, Nintendo would still rule the gaming world. Lastly, how many PC gamers, who spend thousands on their PC's, are going to shell out cash for an Xbox 360 and its games, when many of them are available on PC?
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 yes but who is to say that all the games on 360, or even most will end up on PC's? There is a ton of xbox games that have not made it to PC. Nintendo has more gaming libraries to stem from and that in itself, being able to play the games we all grew up with, should get nods from a lot of the older gamers. So far I think nintendo is playing it safe, I just hope they get a lot more 3rd party support. And a lot of people did get disc read errors, myself included. In va beach 2 x mass' ago, when I was home for break, the local news did a report on broken ps2's, RIGHT OUT THE BOX! There wasa good number of these in va beach at the time and sony declined comment. For most of you here, you all are lucky, but me and some others? We had it bad. My teacher's PS2 broke also. I'll put more faith in sony once they come up with a good price and can guarantee good quality of materials made in the system.
MGREXX Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Intresting article regarding the PS3 and Xbox360 backwards compatibility. very intresting............... PS3/Xbox360 article
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 That article was boring. These companies need to start shutting up and putting up! SHOW us how damn good this cell processor is and how much better PS3 will be better than 360 or whatever. Sheesh all this talk and yet kutaragi won't even show a damn thing.
mikeszekely Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Intresting article regarding the PS3 and Xbox360 backwards compatibility.very intresting............... PS3/Xbox360 article Kutaragi... who has nothing to do with Xbox 360 development... bashing the Xbox 360 really doesn't have anything to do with backwards compatibility. Kutaragi has been doing nothing but taking shots at the Xbox 360 since before E3. If anything, I'd say he's running scared.
NSJ23 Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 The Xbox is still around because Microsoft ate a TON of cash to keep it going. Are they going to do that twice? I'm glab somebody said this. If not for bill's deep pockets The X-box would have tanked long ago. If not for that it would have been another dreamcast.
Wes Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 How is backward-compatablity even a real selling point? I mean honestly, the whole reason people buy the new systems is to play the new games, with the shinier graphics and everything. How many of the general PS2-owning comunity, for example, kept getting more PS1 games and playing them on the PS2? Probably only the more hardcore gamers, and only for the best games of the system. The average Joe Consumer probably hasn't done it once, although I'm sure they thought to themselves, "Hey, I can even play old PS games with this!!" when picking it up, then said to themselves, "Why do I wanna play sh!tty old PS games, I can play sh!tty PS2 games!!" I mean, even I've been wanting to play Crono Cross thru a couple more times with mine, but has it happened yet? Nope. Fact of the matter is, if you really want to play old-gen games, you just pay the 50 bucks it cost to get the system, and whatever low price it takes to buy the 2 games you'll play. Yet the alternative seems to work so well. I just don't seen it rationally as a major selling point.
JB0 Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 (edited) Intresting article regarding the PS3 and Xbox360 backwards compatibility.very intresting............... PS3/Xbox360 article Kutaragi... who has nothing to do with Xbox 360 development... bashing the Xbox 360 really doesn't have anything to do with backwards compatibility. Kutaragi has been doing nothing but taking shots at the Xbox 360 since before E3. If anything, I'd say he's running scared. More Kutaragi quotes?!?!?! The man's a freaking GENIUS! No matter what, he ALWAYS gets a laugh out of me. Wait, we're supposed to be taking what he says seriously? Damn, I thought he was a comedian. ... Damn. He really let me down this time. Nothing funny at all. Just stupidity. Whoop, typo. Edited June 14, 2005 by JB0
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Its not a big selling point, but if anything its a cool feature. I think it is more important on the revolution though, since you get to play games that are relatively hard to find nowatdays, and you can play them all on the revolution's stored memory rather than having to purchase the actual disc to play(NES SNES and 64). With the 360 and PS3 you need the discs to play the old stuff.
Jolly Rogers Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 How is backward-compatablity even a real selling point? The ability to sell your older consoles for some store credit towards the spanking new generation console, and the room/clutter you'd be freeing up by getting rid of the older consoles.
mikeszekely Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 How is backward-compatablity even a real selling point? The ability to sell your older consoles for some store credit towards the spanking new generation console, and the room/clutter you'd be freeing up by getting rid of the older consoles. Not to mention that it eases the transition, especially if the launch line up is weak. Look at the PS2. I picked one up at launch with DoA 2, and that was pretty much it until the brief romp that was Onimusha (that was Feb or March) and the equally brief romp that was ZOE (April). It was close to year before we got anything solid, and during that time, I distinctly remember playing several PSone games. For a more current example, how about the DS? The best games for it so far are mildly amusing puzzle games... and the numerous gems available for the GBA.
mikeszekely Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 The Xbox is still around because Microsoft ate a TON of cash to keep it going. Are they going to do that twice? I'm glab somebody said this. If not for bill's deep pockets The X-box would have tanked long ago. If not for that it would have been another dreamcast. This is true, but whether or not a console is profitable isn't really an indication of how much fun it is. The Dreamcast was a great system, but Sega couldn't make money on it. Likewise, Microsoft loses money on every Xbox sold, and will lose money on every 360 sold... but the bigger Microsoft company will make more than that back from other divisions. They can afford for the Xbox division to take losses until the "Xbox" is as established as a brand as "PlayStation." (Ideally, at some point, they will make more money in licensing fees than they lose on hardware.)
NSJ23 Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 The Xbox is still around because Microsoft ate a TON of cash to keep it going. Are they going to do that twice? I'm glab somebody said this. If not for bill's deep pockets The X-box would have tanked long ago. If not for that it would have been another dreamcast. This is true, but whether or not a console is profitable isn't really an indication of how much fun it is. The Dreamcast was a great system, but Sega couldn't make money on it. Likewise, Microsoft loses money on every Xbox sold, and will lose money on every 360 sold... but the bigger Microsoft company will make more than that back from other divisions. They can afford for the Xbox division to take losses until the "Xbox" is as established as a brand as "PlayStation." (Ideally, at some point, they will make more money in licensing fees than they lose on hardware.) I didn't mean for it to sound like it was not a good system. I don't own one, but I can see why others Do. I own a dreamcast and I still play it to this day. I just was saying that no matter how good the X-box is it would not still be around if it brought out buy a compnay without money to burn.
Jolly Rogers Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 I can't help but feel you guys are making Ken out to be this evil corporate mouthpiece just to piss MGREXX off. Ken's the president of SCE, what did you expect him to say? "Oh sorry guys, we f'ed up with the PS3 architecture, the Xbox 360 is superior and we're only staying in the game thanks to the huge installed base"? As for his opinion of the Xbox 360, he sounded pretty diplomatic when asked to point out the difference of its design approach compared to the PS3. He could have easily said nastier things, but he didn't. He's obviously not too worried about losing market share to the Xbox 360. All in all, who cares. I'll decide when some must-have games come out after these systems launch and have a price drop. All the kickass specs don't mean jack if developers can't make awesome games for the system. PS2 specs looked awesome prior to release, but look what it got upon launch.
JB0 Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 I can't help but feel you guys are making Ken out to be this evil corporate mouthpiece just to piss MGREXX off. Kutaragai's not evil. He's just a gifted comedian.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Kutagari just seems overconfident to me, thats all. I wasn't saying all the kutagari stuff to piss mgrexx off.
Nani?! Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Not to follow cliche, but it's truly all about the games. The playstation brand has had marvelous timing and marketing genius to skyrocket it's PS platforms to the top, but I believe theyre at a similar position nintendo was when Sony knocked them off the pedestal. There are many factors to why I believe Microsoft will seriously take a bite out of Sony this generation and dethrone them eventually, but I'll just list the two I think will be the biggest factors. 1 - Price: Sony has always been the more expensive brand. Unfortunately quality has not always matched up to their prices of recent sales and thus they have been dethroned in the consumer electronics dept. Now theyre saying they'll make the PS3 blu-ray capable. Sounds great, but in reality, no. Blu-ray is new technology, and it WONT come cheap. Yeah sure it has enormous storage capability but it's much more than games will ever need for five years and it'll also cost more to make each disk. Even with DVD capabilities of both current generation systems most games used the CD format. Whenever it comes to format, cheaper and easy to produce ALWAYS WON. So, why the overkill? To win another war Sony is waging... Blu-ray vs HD DVD. I dunno about you, but I aint paying another $80-$90 bucks for a war that's not even decided yet. Not for a game console atleast. 2 - Xbox live: Seriously, internet gaming is the future, actually, it's also NOW. Standard XBOX LIVE will be free for all 360 owners... And given the network edge and the already established support microsoft has over Sony, this is no contest. Overall though, I'm still going to wait till the dust settles... it's always about the games, but I'm hoping for tighter competition from MS. It'll only make both consoles better.
Recommended Posts