Time will tell, people and analysts said the same thing about the PS2 and X-box. It all comes down to how much the companies are willing to lose on consoles and make up in software. Probably touchier for MS since they don't have as strong of first party games.

But if it's more than $400, I'll be waiting a long time or not getting one at all since I won't pay more than $200 for a console.

[QUOTE=Josh Hinkle]Time will tell, people and analysts said the same thing about the PS2 and X-box. It all comes down to how much the companies are willing to lose on consoles and make up in software. Probably touchier for MS since they don't have as strong of first party games.

At one point I would have agree with you that MS had weak first party support, but this late in the game I think Sony and MS have very comparble first party games. I think Sony and MS are following a trend that put more power in the hands of third party developers.

I don't know, Sony has a lot of game series they publish (GT, Jak, Ratchet and Clank, Sly Cooper and so on) that always are big sellers.

For MS it depends on how well sequels to games like Crimson Skies sell. Halo is there only proven 1st party series at the moment. I suppose you could argue for PGR as well, but it's hardly on the level of Gran Turismo or Need for Speed in terms of popularity.

Microsoft goes into Damage Control:

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

rotfl

I haven't seen this much spinning since after the first presidential debate of 2004!

They seem to keep saying the same things over and over.

The consoles really do look very even. So much for a year lead & one blowing the other away.

This works out best for gamers, instead of a programming for a least common denominator like last time with the PS2, all games on all consoles will look great. PS3 is minimum 720p right?

Oh I'm sure Sony will respond with more spin & hype, just like in that election you mentioned. ;) Hey, they did use the PS3 to render the Spider Man 2 in real time don'tcha know? :D

At least Nintendo seems to take the high road in all this. Good for them.

I think I have a better answer for you on this. It appears that Factor 5 - they make a whole bunch of Star Wars games - will be developing exclusively on the PS3:

http://news.com.com/In+console+smack...3-5712174.html

True. But so were the first two Grand Theft Auto titles.

Anyone with half a brain knows that the last opinion you should believe about a product is from the one who makes the product.

I found this part funny:

"The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming."

C'mon now. I think Sony knows what they're doing. :lol:

Sony has been just as guilty in the past. This type of PR will go back and forth even years after both consoles have been released.

I dunno, I think launch games should do the talking.

I think this is more of a response to Sony showing off CG and saying it was real time.

Well, believe it or not, some of those clips were in real time, so it wasn't all CG. But is that really any excuse for Microsoft to put out this garbage? I really need to track down the quote from that Sony rep saying the Killzone footage was realtime (looked CG to me), but besides that, games like GT5 and Fight Night were running in real time.

I think Microsoft needs to really focus on Live. Everyone knew that Sony would have a more powerful console when they released a year later, except apparently Microsoft. They need to drop the power comparision and focus on what they do best - software.

Both companies spin numbers, although I hope things don't get really ugly between them.

With the PS2, it could preform more flops per second, and people tried arguing that it was more powerful than the Xbox. Clearly that wasn't the case. Numbers don't always signify real performance. In all honesty, I expect there to be virtually no difference in graphics between the two systems.

I know that there were a few real time demos shown. They looked impressive to boot.

As for quotes on Killzone 2 footage being real, I heard it said by Sony execs on G4's E3 coverage.

You can watch it here at IGN.




Although I do have some exciting news for Sony fans. Seems Samsung has some fancy new 512MB ram stick and they are putting it in the PS3 instead of 256MB.

Link HERE.

FLOPS allows programs to produce more realistic environmental effects - like running water or wind blowing through a tree. In this sence, the PS2 was more powerful. For raw general power, the Xbox was clearly more powerful with its faster clock speed. Its sort of a toss-up between reality-based graphics and heavily processed graphics.

Actually, the system will still only have 512MB of memory. The Cell has a dedicated 256MB and the RSX has a dedication 256MB. Though, they can both access the other's memory to use the entire 512MB for themselves.

Well crap, I thought they were upgrading the amount of ram.

How does dedicated memory work if it can be shared? It would seem there would be extra latency involved, but I admittedly don't know THAT much about ram transfer rates.

You misunderstood me.

My post was in response to the article where Microsoft compares their 360 to the PS3. Of course, Microsoft will try to shoot down the PS3 in everyway.

If you recall (I hate digging for links), the PS2 architecture was said to be difficult to program for. Well, naturally. No one has been exposed to it before. This obviously didn't stop developers from making games for it.

Why would Sony develop something that is "not appropriate for game programming"?
Oh yeah, that's right! Because Microsoft said so.

interesting article from IGN...dunno if it has been posted. 360 looks to be the stronger system. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html


wlj

This is the article that was posted earlier and is the same one I'm referring to in my previous 2 posts. The author himself says it's from Microsoft and was untouched by the IGN staff. He is simply the bearer of [biased] news.

i am getting both but i trust xbox more then ps3

I'm interested in learning your reasons. Care to share?

For me, the Xbox had more of the games I enjoy playing. The controller was better but was not a factor in purhcasing the console. I'm hoping this is still true for the 360. They would have to do something outrageous for me NOT to buy one.

The next generation seems to narrow the gap, albeit, the PS3 will continue to have better Japanese support; so far, the 360 seems to have better online support.

i think it's evident the article is biased. it also seems incredibly speculative.

i have to laugh at the 'i have 3 processors, so i'm 3 times more speedy' graphic.

wait for the games. wait to see what sony's doing with the DSPs. then we'll find out who comes out on top.

personally, i'm still waiting for a Revolution to outdo them both.

I agree. Like I said before, I think Sony knows what they're doing.

Now that would be sweet!

sorry for posting old news....my bad. I agree that the report from MS is going to be biased, but there is some truth behind it I am sure. I will end up getting both systems, but I do think the PS3 will not be as powerful as it is being hyped to be.


wlj