PDA

View Full Version : Only 1 million PS3's by year end



TrueDolFan
01-19-2007, 01:59 PM
I got my new issue of Game Informer yesterday, and there is along interview with the President of SCEA. In the interview he says that by the end of 2007, Sony should be able to put out 2 million PS3's. 1 million of which will go to the USA. WHAT? :confused: Are you kidding me?

Is it just me or does it seem like Sony is dooming themselves with the PS3? How are they going to get anybody to continue to make games for this platform? What it says to me is "good luck making a PS3 exclusive title and not losing money, 3rd party developers."

He also says how the PS3 is going to be THE entertainment device for the next decade. Sony actually expects the PS3 to have a life of 10 years! Sony's arrogance in the video game industry is only surpassed by that of EA Sports.

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy?

Phin-o-rama
01-19-2007, 02:07 PM
ps3 = 3DO

DeathStar
01-19-2007, 02:14 PM
went to the best buy early today, there were 30 of them sitting there. same 30 from last thursday.

Dol-Fan Dupree
01-19-2007, 02:19 PM
I got my new issue of Game Informer yesterday, and there is along interview with the President of SCEA. In the interview he says that by the end of 2007, Sony should be able to put out 2 million PS3's. 1 million of which will go to the USA. WHAT? :confused: Are you kidding me?

Is it just me or does it seem like Sony is dooming themselves with the PS3? How are they going to get anybody to continue to make games for this platform? What it says to me is "good luck making a PS3 exclusive title and not losing money, 3rd party developers."

He also says how the PS3 is going to be THE entertainment device for the next decade. Sony actually expects the PS3 to have a life of 10 years! Sony's arrogance in the video game industry is only surpassed by that of EA Sports.

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy?

Ps2 lifespan is going on 7 years now and I don't see it going away this year.

Dol-Fan Dupree
01-19-2007, 02:20 PM
went to the best buy early today, there were 30 of them sitting there. same 30 from last thursday.

must be weird not living in a tech area. I still can't find one.

TrueDolFan
01-19-2007, 02:20 PM
went to the best buy early today, there were 30 of them sitting there. same 30 from last thursday.

That doesn't surprise me at all. All the die-hard Sony fans got theirs already. Now we get to see how many people actually want to pay $600 for one.

The writing is on the wall, people.

Dol-Fan Dupree
01-19-2007, 02:24 PM
That doesn't surprise me at all. All the die-hard Sony fans got theirs already. Now we get to see how many people actually want to pay $600 for one.

The writing is on the wall, people.

they should lower the price 100 dollars soon

Dolfan5000
01-19-2007, 02:26 PM
*sigh*

Phin-o-rama
01-19-2007, 02:53 PM
must be weird not living in a tech area. I still can't find one.



order it online....they are everywhere

TrueDolFan
01-19-2007, 03:18 PM
they should lower the price 100 dollars soon

No they won't.

In the same interview, he was talking about the prices and R&D costs of the PS1, PS2, and PS3. What he said, in a nutshell, is that when the PS3's price drops (which he didn't expect anytime in the near future), it wouldn't be by much. It has cost Sony too much money to develop and produce.

Everybody should take a look at the article. It's absolutely opened my eyes. Like I said before, the writing is on the wall. With it's unheard of price point for a console, and a pathetic installed customer base in the first year, I predict the PS3 will put Sony firmly in 3rd place here in the U.S.A.

FinsNCanes
01-19-2007, 03:25 PM
360's price + HD DVD = ps3 price. There really isn't much of a difference.

I've read more reports saying the ps3 is going to outsell the 360 in the long run and projects like 6 million sales for this year once it actually goes world wide.

Daytona Fin
01-19-2007, 03:27 PM
I got my new issue of Game Informer yesterday, and there is along interview with the President of SCEA. In the interview he says that by the end of 2007, Sony should be able to put out 2 million PS3's. 1 million of which will go to the USA. WHAT? :confused: Are you kidding me?

Is it just me or does it seem like Sony is dooming themselves with the PS3? How are they going to get anybody to continue to make games for this platform? What it says to me is "good luck making a PS3 exclusive title and not losing money, 3rd party developers."

He also says how the PS3 is going to be THE entertainment device for the next decade. Sony actually expects the PS3 to have a life of 10 years! Sony's arrogance in the video game industry is only surpassed by that of EA Sports.

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy?

are you sure you read it right? heres what what i am reading from sony business article.

shipments in japan of the new ps3 reached 1 million tuesday, sony said,hitting the companys target about 2 weeks behind schedule.
sony had planned to ship roughly 2 million ps3's around the world by the end of last year. last week, sony said it met its shipping target of 1 million ps3's in the us in 2006.
so if your right that puts about 2 million ps3's in us by the end of 2007, 4 million worlwide.

Stitches
01-19-2007, 03:29 PM
I got my new issue of Game Informer yesterday, and there is along interview with the President of SCEA. In the interview he says that by the end of 2007, Sony should be able to put out 2 million PS3's. 1 million of which will go to the USA. WHAT? :confused: Are you kidding me?

Is it just me or does it seem like Sony is dooming themselves with the PS3? How are they going to get anybody to continue to make games for this platform? What it says to me is "good luck making a PS3 exclusive title and not losing money, 3rd party developers."

He also says how the PS3 is going to be THE entertainment device for the next decade. Sony actually expects the PS3 to have a life of 10 years! Sony's arrogance in the video game industry is only surpassed by that of EA Sports.

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy?

Was it by the end of 2007, or the end of the fiscal year? because that would make a huge difference. Or, was the interview referring to the end of 2006? And it is very possible for the system to have a life span that lasts a decade, especially if blu-ray puicks up, because the capabilites that blu-ray presents won't be fully utilized for a couple years anyways. So it's not that far-fetched.

FinsNCanes
01-19-2007, 03:30 PM
Believe it or not the ps3 actually did better at launch then the 360 (by about 400k).

Phin-o-rama
01-19-2007, 03:34 PM
doesn't mean much.....360 launched early...xbox and ps2 were still receiving new games...


difference between ps3 and 360 prices is ps3 at 599.99 is losing money per console sold....360 at 399.99 is making money per console sold...

if M$ wanted to really go for the throat they lower it to 299.99 and dominate

Dol-Fan Dupree
01-19-2007, 03:35 PM
360's price + HD DVD = ps3 price. There really isn't much of a difference.

I've read more reports saying the ps3 is going to outsell the 360 in the long run and projects like 6 million sales for this year once it actually goes world wide.

in all fairness the HD DVD available for the 360 is quite pathetic in comparison to other HD Dvd players which are not 200 bucks.

Stitches
01-19-2007, 03:36 PM
No they won't.

In the same interview, he was talking about the prices and R&D costs of the PS1, PS2, and PS3. What he said, in a nutshell, is that when the PS3's price drops (which he didn't expect anytime in the near future), it wouldn't be by much. It has cost Sony too much money to develop and produce.

Everybody should take a look at the article. It's absolutely opened my eyes. Like I said before, the writing is on the wall. With it's unheard of price point for a console, and a pathetic installed customer base in the first year, I predict the PS3 will put Sony firmly in 3rd place here in the U.S.A.

I don't think it is an unheard of price at all. Game Informer had a great article breaking down the price of all previous consoles, and then pricing them with inflation and everything, and ps3 wasn't even the most expensive console. It was in the upper echelon, but when you compared all you are getting with the ps3 to those consoles, it is quite the bargain.

Dol-Fan Dupree
01-19-2007, 03:37 PM
the day I think PS3 has "writing on the wall" is the day they release a killer app and sales do not increase.

Right now it only has one game that is worth buying. Once it has two or three and still having problems selling then yes it is in trouble.

Then again it is still dominating in Japan, which also helps it out. It is still a 3 way race for dominance of the next generation. It is much too soon to say writing is on the wall. Unless the writing is in chalk.

TrueDolFan
01-19-2007, 03:59 PM
But with the lack of systems in people's homes, the killer app won't be coming from a 3rd party developer. I don't see developers wanting to take that kind of risk.

Sony has always relied on it's 3rd party supprt. I think now, Sony is going to be put in the place Nintendo put themselves after the SNES. The difference is Sony cannot single-handedly support a console with it's own first party games like Nintendo did.

Phin-o-rama
01-20-2007, 01:09 PM
the day I think PS3 has "writing on the wall" is the day they release a killer app and sales do not increase.

Right now it only has one game that is worth buying. Once it has two or three and still having problems selling then yes it is in trouble.

Then again it is still dominating in Japan, which also helps it out. It is still a 3 way race for dominance of the next generation. It is much too soon to say writing is on the wall. Unless the writing is in chalk.

no...the wii is dominating in japan..

Dol-Fan Dupree
01-20-2007, 01:26 PM
no...the wii is dominating in japan..

it is easy to dominate when you have more units available

SKing29
01-20-2007, 03:55 PM
Around where I live you can find a PS3 without a problem, but good luck getting a Wii. I think Sony has hurt itself with the PS3's price, even though it may be loaded with apps and a bargain, $600 isn't a bargain for the people who just want to game. I think the 360 has it all right, good price great graphics comparable to the PS3's, the best online there is (although the price I find a little much), I mean right now they're the best and this is coming from a former Sony fan who's made the switch.

Scatman
01-21-2007, 01:53 AM
you know.... the wii is dominating, but i think in a little over a year its novelty is gonna wear out substantially. of course there will still be some great 1st party games worth buying...but the systems gonna loose some of its strong footing by then.... cause end of the day graphics and online access (or easiness of that community) do make a huge difference.
by then japs are gonna be jumping on ps3's like hot potatoes.

fight far from over.... i like my 360 over any of the others for now, but i think each has its place.

Scatman
01-21-2007, 01:55 AM
it is easy to dominate when you have more units available

yea...but mostly price and the fact that its nintendo make it dominate..... like i said in a little over a year wii's are gonna be selling a lot less than now..and ps3s and 360 will be picking up pace.

this isnt like psp and ds. with home console you need something more substantial.

Fresh
01-22-2007, 12:53 AM
I don't believe that, and Game Informer is known for taking their own opinions and speculations and presenting them as facts.

By the way, keep checking bestbuy.com & circuitcity.com

Best Buy's site had them for a week, and Circuit City had them up to last week.

I got two when they came out......sold one on ebay for about 2 G's, and eventually sold the other a few weeks ago for $800 after ordering one from Circuit City's site. I ordered it last Friday, free shipping.......got it this past Tuesday.

Someone on here once accused me of lying. Finheaven in the laptop background, lol:

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2007/01/4d4yeqx-1.jpg

TheMageGandalf
01-22-2007, 01:16 AM
Found this on GameInformers site and it pisses me off because I wonder how many more developers think this way if the people from Valve do:


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gifn the February 2007 Issue of Game Informer Magazine we spoke with Valve’s Gabe Newell about Half-Life, Steam, Windows Vista, and Wii. While you can read the entire interview in the issue, here’s a quick excerpt from the interview in which he talks about his thoughts about everything related to the next generation.

Game Informer: What about the PS3?
Gabe Newell: The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels. I think it’s really clear that Sony lost track of what customers wanted and what developers wanted. I’d say, even at this late date, they should cancel it and do a “do over.” Just say, “This was a horrible disaster and we’re sorry and we’re going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it.” The happy story is the Wii. I’m betting that by Christmas of next year, the Wii has a larger installed base than the 360. Other people think I’m crazy. I really like everything that Nintendo is doing.”

the rest is here: http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0116.1324.31632.htm

TrueDolFan
01-22-2007, 10:54 AM
it is easy to dominate when you have more units available

So if 2 countries are at war, and the first country brings 300,000 troops, and the second brings 800,000, would you fault the second country for dominating the battle? Hell, no you wouldn't. You would say that the first country was stupid for not bringing enough troops.

Sounds to me like you're upset Nintendo was better prepared for the launch of their system.

TrueDolFan
01-22-2007, 11:01 AM
yea...but mostly price and the fact that its nintendo make it dominate..... like i said in a little over a year wii's are gonna be selling a lot less than now..and ps3s and 360 will be picking up pace.

this isnt like psp and ds. with home console you need something more substantial.

I disagree. I think people want from their consoles exactly what they want from their handhelds - fun. A more powerful machine with better graphics will lose to a less powerful machine with games that are more fun to play every time. DS is proving that as we speak.

I am willing to bet that in a year's time, the Wii will only gain in popularity.

Bruzer
01-22-2007, 11:03 AM
^^ Its not so much preparing its not up to sony on all the parts. Last I knew it took a while to make the cell chip and I believe the rsx and obviously you cant put out a ps3 with nothing in it. Their production relies on their chip development.

Wii has older graphics and thats why its cheaper because its easier and quicker to make their parts hence they put out more systems.

I mean if you reference to world war 2 the sherman and the tiger tanks yes sherman put out faster and helped us win the war but the tiger tank was by far the better tank but because it was so well made and was a monster it took more time to make.

Yea I agree it hurts sony taking the time to make but they are making the better system of the two as far as power.

Agent51
01-22-2007, 11:16 AM
No they won't.

In the same interview, he was talking about the prices and R&D costs of the PS1, PS2, and PS3. What he said, in a nutshell, is that when the PS3's price drops (which he didn't expect anytime in the near future), it wouldn't be by much. It has cost Sony too much money to develop and produce.

Everybody should take a look at the article. It's absolutely opened my eyes. Like I said before, the writing is on the wall. With it's unheard of price point for a console, and a pathetic installed customer base in the first year, I predict the PS3 will put Sony firmly in 3rd place here in the U.S.A.

I read the same article (it's in the new GI with the Blue Dragon on the cover) and you are blowing it way out of proportion. Nothing he says makes the company look "doomed".

First off, it's not an "unheard of" price point. For the millionth time, there have been systems that cost more than that before. The friggin Jaguar system was $750, and that was back when $750 was more than it is today. Of course the Jaguar failed, but not because of it's price point, it was the fact that the system was crap. I'm SICK of this damn "PS3 is way too expensive" arguement. The same crap was said about every system that has come out since PS1, and yet ALL of them were massively successful (sans gamecube).

I've said it 2903876 times before, the PS3 is CHEAPER at $600 than a 360 would be if you made it the same (adding 40GB of HDs, a wi-fi adapter, the mmemory card reader, the hi-def DVD player etc etc) and it would still be lacking features (HDMI and ability to develope games on the next-gen DVD format for example). You (and others) say Sony is "cramming stuff down our throats" and "forcing you into features" etc because of the blu-ray drive, but what about MS's $50 a year to play online? There are tons of casual gamers, like myself, who aren't into online multiplayer but occasionally like a game of madden or something online. With the PS3 I can do it free, with the 360 I need to pay $50 for a feature I MAY or may not use every once in awhile. I understand that XBL is far superior to PS3's online, but the fact remains that for non-online gamers who just get that occasional urge to play a quick online game, you have to pay $50 to do so.

As far as blu-ray goes, who knows which will ultimately win, but do I fault Sony for adding the player to the PS3? No. It's not like it's a blu-ray player and the games use something else, it's a combo, the games are blu-ray too. To me that opens up WORLDS of possiblities, and when looking at standalone blu-ray prices, it's a steal, because you get the player AND a game system for $600 instead of just a player for $1,000.

This debate is SUPER old already, and I'm tired of it. Everyone complains about every single system before and through it's launch then those same people are praising it to high hell when they actually break down and buy one. I just love how people bash Sony's business plans and praise MS when MS is the one milking every last dollar out of people with all of their add-ons that could have, and probably should have, come standard out-of-the-box. Sony is the one taking LOSSES on thier system to get them to the consumer and MS's solution is to make yet a THIRD version of the 360 that has everything that should have been there the first time around just to compete with PS3's specs. Yay, go MS :rolleyes2 :shakeno:.

I own a 360, and as soon as the winter surf season is over I will buy a PS3 (no time for games right now) and I will say that the FUTURE of the PS3 has me excited, but as it stands right now the 360 is a better system if only because it has a larger game selection.

Phin-o-rama
01-22-2007, 11:27 AM
yes the 360 would be just as expensive if not more when adding the components....but you don't need all the **** to experience HD gaming...plain and simple

so you're not forced to buy anything....sony is using the ps3 to push the blu ray fomat into succession....they are using their fan base to propell a format that may fail.....i have a problem with that

xbox live 50 bucks a year? its hands down the best online gaming setup there is dude...it almost rivals even that of pc as far as how you get into games and friends lists, private voice chat and now cams.....i mean pc can do all that but xbox live is fantastic ....$4.17 a month for xbox live.....come on


you want hdmi because there is less cables, ive heard you say...? ..... k....forget the fact that the graphical outcome is the same.....forget the fact that hdmi is component w/ built in copyright protection.....F hdmi....all 3 of my hdtv's have it and i couldn't give 2 ****s about it....component rocks


the future of ps3...well they already released the console a year late, and have hardly any games that make the system worht buying....(right now)....so all these people that are tired of waiting to play hd games buy a 360...and thats why ps3 is losing exclusives....and exclusives sell systems.

Motion
01-22-2007, 11:32 AM
And the battle continues........:jt0323:

Eop05
01-22-2007, 11:48 AM
I read the same article (it's in the new GI with the Blue Dragon on the cover) and you are blowing it way out of proportion. Nothing he says makes the company look "doomed".

First off, it's not an "unheard of" price point. For the millionth time, there have been systems that cost more than that before. The friggin Jaguar system was $750, and that was back when $750 was more than it is today. Of course the Jaguar failed, but not because of it's price point, it was the fact that the system was crap. I'm SICK of this damn "PS3 is way too expensive" arguement. The same crap was said about every system that has come out since PS1, and yet ALL of them were massively successful (sans gamecube).

I've said it 2903876 times before, the PS3 is CHEAPER at $600 than a 360 would be if you made it the same (adding 40GB of HDs, a wi-fi adapter, the mmemory card reader, the hi-def DVD player etc etc) and it would still be lacking features (HDMI and ability to develope games on the next-gen DVD format for example). You (and others) say Sony is "cramming stuff down our throats" and "forcing you into features" etc because of the blu-ray drive, but what about MS's $50 a year to play online? There are tons of casual gamers, like myself, who aren't into online multiplayer but occasionally like a game of madden or something online. With the PS3 I can do it free, with the 360 I need to pay $50 for a feature I MAY or may not use every once in awhile. I understand that XBL is far superior to PS3's online, but the fact remains that for non-online gamers who just get that occasional urge to play a quick online game, you have to pay $50 to do so.

As far as blu-ray goes, who knows which will ultimately win, but do I fault Sony for adding the player to the PS3? No. It's not like it's a blu-ray player and the games use something else, it's a combo, the games are blu-ray too. To me that opens up WORLDS of possiblities, and when looking at standalone blu-ray prices, it's a steal, because you get the player AND a game system for $600 instead of just a player for $1,000.

This debate is SUPER old already, and I'm tired of it. Everyone complains about every single system before and through it's launch then those same people are praising it to high hell when they actually break down and buy one. I just love how people bash Sony's business plans and praise MS when MS is the one milking every last dollar out of people with all of their add-ons that could have, and probably should have, come standard out-of-the-box. Sony is the one taking LOSSES on thier system to get them to the consumer and MS's solution is to make yet a THIRD version of the 360 that has everything that should have been there the first time around just to compete with PS3's specs. Yay, go MS :rolleyes2 :shakeno:.

I own a 360, and as soon as the winter surf season is over I will buy a PS3 (no time for games right now) and I will say that the FUTURE of the PS3 has me excited, but as it stands right now the 360 is a better system if only because it has a larger game selection.

I'm sure last year at this time everyone was whinning and moaning about the Xbox 360 too. At this time last year it was probably perceived as overpriced, and lack of titles (I mean I was just looking at the 360's launch games and wow! not too good. Most were just ports from PS2 and xbox). I'm glad I waited until just recently to pick one up because of games such as GOW, COD3, Fight Night RD3 didn't come out until late '06.

My point is: Everyone will complain always until games with Buzz start to come around. It's happening now with the PS3 and it probably happened last year with the Xbox.

And just like the 360, I feel that the PS3 will come around.

TrueDolFan
01-22-2007, 12:42 PM
ps3 is losing exclusives....and exclusives sell systems.

You hit the nail on the head, man.

FinsNCanes
01-22-2007, 04:02 PM
I disagree. I think people want from their consoles exactly what they want from their handhelds - fun. A more powerful machine with better graphics will lose to a less powerful machine with games that are more fun to play every time. DS is proving that as we speak.

I am willing to bet that in a year's time, the Wii will only gain in popularity.


I can't seem to find the huge interest in the Wii myself..

70% of their games are all for kids like 12 and under it seems.

TrueDolFan
01-22-2007, 04:21 PM
I can't seem to find the huge interest in the Wii myself..

70% of their games are all for kids like 12 and under it seems.

If they made games for Asian females like yourself, would it make you happy?

:D just kidding!

In all seriousness, just because a game has bright cartoony graphics, doesn't mean it's a "kids" game. To me, people not giving a game a chance because it isn't "realistic" enough is ridiculous. We are playing VIDEO GAMES, for christ's sake! Can you run forever without getting tired, jump higher than you are tall, or get 3 lives in real life? They're GAMES. All they are supposed to do is entertain us.

Family Guy is a cartoon, but nobody would accuse me of watching a "kid's show" when I watch it. Same thing for a lot of so-called "kid's games".

muscle979
01-22-2007, 04:25 PM
The cell processor in the PS3 is cutting edge techology. The cell can blow away what's in the 360 but only when developers learn how to make games that utilize it's power. That's probably why some people think PS3 will be around for 10 years. It will be powerful enough to compete with Xbox's next generation.

PS3 is the first commercial application of this new type of processor. I was in a class recently where this was discussed briefly. The cell is around 3 times more powerful than what 360 has and about 10 times more powerful than a pentium 4.

Developers are going to need time to catch up to this technology. That's why I'm going to hold out for a while and then probably buy a PS3. I doubt it will be cheaper then but there should be better games out for it.

FinsNCanes
01-22-2007, 04:59 PM
If they made games for Asian females like yourself, would it make you happy?

:D just kidding!

In all seriousness, just because a game has bright cartoony graphics, doesn't mean it's a "kids" game. To me, people not giving a game a chance because it isn't "realistic" enough is ridiculous. We are playing VIDEO GAMES, for christ's sake! Can you run forever without getting tired, jump higher than you are tall, or get 3 lives in real life? They're GAMES. All they are supposed to do is entertain us.

Family Guy is a cartoon, but nobody would accuse me of watching a "kid's show" when I watch it. Same thing for a lot of so-called "kid's games".


I'm mainly an online gamer though. I guess I woudl rather just blow someones face off then go around collecting star cookies ;)

Bruzer
01-22-2007, 05:22 PM
^^ Just a matter of preference I like every game style only ones I do not care for are turned base, and the monotonous mmo games where you just kill for hours for 1 up level. I barely any mmo's because of that. Although like I said I will play the all I have played wow once and I would play it more if it wasnt 15$ a month. I also have played final fantasy just no my favorites.

TheMageGandalf
01-22-2007, 07:34 PM
PS3 is the first commercial application of this new type of processor. I was in a class recently where this was discussed briefly. The cell is around 3 times more powerful than what 360 has and about 10 times more powerful than a pentium 4.


Yeah, but the problem is that the Video Card/Processor of the PS3 was outdated when the thing hit the market.

Everyone seems to forget that when they mention the PS3.

The 360 video card/processor however has some pretty advanced tech that was tailor made for future gaming.

I dont care what CPU you have, if your video card is Bullocks you'll get only so far, as that'll be the bottleneck.

So you have this awesome futuristic, sci-fi piece of hardware CPU that spits out info faster than the video card can take it and you'll just get the same stuff that the 360 can dish out with its less powerful processor.

Why do you think people hate to develope for it? Because you say, "awe man, great this can run this like this", but when you actually sit down and write the code for it you realize the damn video card is mucking your game up because it cant run in stride with the processor.

Remember your computer (which is what these things are basically now) is only as good as your crappiest part.

Exclusives will dominate because they are tailor made for each consoles strengths. If you tailor make it, youll get GOW (360) or RFOM (PS3).

If you dont, the PS3 is an XBOX 360 and sometimes worse if the Devs were eating Cheetos instead of paying attention.

FinsNCanes
01-22-2007, 08:03 PM
Yeah, but the problem is that the Video Card/Processor of the PS3 was outdated when the thing hit the market.

Everyone seems to forget that when they mention the PS3.

The 360 video card/processor however has some pretty advanced tech that was tailor made for future gaming.

I dont care what CPU you have, if your video card is Bullocks you'll get only so far, as that'll be the bottleneck.

So you have this awesome futuristic, sci-fi piece of hardware CPU that spits out info faster than the video card can take it and you'll just get the same stuff that the 360 can dish out with its less powerful processor.

Why do you think people hate to develope for it? Because you say, "awe man, great this can run this like this", but when you actually sit down and write the code for it you realize the damn video card is mucking your game up because it cant run in stride with the processor.

Remember your computer (which is what these things are basically now) is only as good as your crappiest part.

Exclusives will dominate because they are tailor made for each consoles strengths. If you tailor make it, youll get GOW (360) or RFOM (PS3).

If you dont, the PS3 is an XBOX 360 and sometimes worse if the Devs were eating Cheetos instead of paying attention.

What kind of card does the 360 have compared to the ps3?

Dolfan5000
01-22-2007, 10:10 PM
What kind of card does the 360 have compared to the ps3?
A ***** one. :)

FinsNCanes
01-22-2007, 11:06 PM
A ***** one. :)

I've seen both graphics on both systems and the 360 isn't much better especially considering most it's a year older and most launch titles don't use the system to it's full potential (ps3).

So..I dunno.

TheMageGandalf
01-22-2007, 11:46 PM
What kind of card does the 360 have compared to the ps3?

I can keep searching, but I dont have much time right now guys, but here's one of many articles on the subject:

ATI v Nvidia: RSX, PS3 and the console wars


With the Xbox 360 Xenos core running at 500MHz, and the PlayStation3’s RSX graphics core running at 550MHz, the non-techie press are calling the specs a win for Sony. Is this really the case, though?

Richard is adamant that the extra graphics speed on paper is more than made up for by the differing architecture of the Xenos. “That mere 10% clock speed that RSX has on Xenos is easily countered by the unified shader architecture that we’ve implemented.

“Rather than separate pixel and vertex pipelines, we’ve created a single unified pipeline that can do both. Providing developers throw instructions at our architecture in the right way, Xenos can run at 100% efficiency all the time, rather than having some pipeline instructions waiting for others. For comparison, most high-end PC chips run at 50-60% typical efficiency. The super cool point is that ‘in the right way’ just means ‘give us plenty of work to do’. The hardware manages itself.”

The issue of unified versus split shader pipelines is a critical one that we’ll come back to in a moment, but I was curious as to how Richard felt the CPU architecture between the two consoles makes a difference to the graphics and overall power.

“The PS3 does appear to have a huge amount of CPU power with the seven Cell cores. The problem they have is that CPU power isn’t really what developer’s need – the bottleneck is really the graphics. Everybody is going multi-threaded and multi-core – the Xbox 360 has three PowerPC cores, AMD and Intel both have dual-core chips, so everyone is having to learn how to write this stuff. But writing multi-threaded apps for two or three cores is difficult. Doing it for seven separate cores, when the main core has a slightly different feature-set from the other six, is very, very difficult.”

Here's the rest of it:
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/06/10/richard_huddy_ati/2.html

Agent51
01-24-2007, 11:50 AM
yes the 360 would be just as expensive if not more when adding the components....but you don't need all the **** to experience HD gaming...plain and simple

so you're not forced to buy anything....sony is using the ps3 to push the blu ray fomat into succession....they are using their fan base to propell a format that may fail.....i have a problem with that

xbox live 50 bucks a year? its hands down the best online gaming setup there is dude...it almost rivals even that of pc as far as how you get into games and friends lists, private voice chat and now cams.....i mean pc can do all that but xbox live is fantastic ....$4.17 a month for xbox live.....come on


you want hdmi because there is less cables, ive heard you say...? ..... k....forget the fact that the graphical outcome is the same.....forget the fact that hdmi is component w/ built in copyright protection.....F hdmi....all 3 of my hdtv's have it and i couldn't give 2 ****s about it....component rocks


the future of ps3...well they already released the console a year late, and have hardly any games that make the system worht buying....(right now)....so all these people that are tired of waiting to play hd games buy a 360...and thats why ps3 is losing exclusives....and exclusives sell systems.

The thing that pisses me off most about this VERY played out arguement is that the same people bashing the PS3 and praising the 360 were the same people bashing the 360 at it's launch. People hear crap on the internet and suddenly it's the cool thing to bash, and everyone does it. The fact remains, the PS3 has more stuff than the 360, therefore it costs more, it's how business works. People can whine all they want about Sony forcing this and that on you and blah blah bnlah, but the same BS was said about the 360 at launch, and now a year later everyone praises it.

I don't give a crap if XBL is the most amazing thing ever, for NON-online gamers it's a waste of money. Yea, $4 something a month isn't expensive, and $50 a year isn't expensive, to me or you, but others it could be a LOT of money, and for someone who hardly ever plays onl;ine but occasionally gets the urge, they miss out because playing a game or two of Madden a month doesn't justify paying $50. I SAID XBL is far superior to Sony's marketplace, but I also said it is ridiculous to have to pay to play otheras online. They should have online gaming free and charge a monthly fee for all of the other stuff if that's how they want to do it. Make the fee give you acess to the stores and all that. If money was tright for me I'd rather have access to gaming online for free and have to pay $50 a year to use the marketplace than have the marketplace free and pay to use gaming that I hardly ever use. $50 is nothing to me, but to the 12 year old kid who's parents are tight on cash but scraped together every dime they had to get him a 360 and a game for Xmass, $50 for him to now play that game online IS a lot.

If blu-ray fails it's not like the PS3 will fail, they still develope games in blu-ray format, so it'd just go to making games. Other systems use different disc formats (gamecube and wii), so the PS3 would just have a unique disc format. The thing is, when (or I'll say "if" so this doesn't start a HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray debate too) Blu-Ray does catch on/win, everyone will do a 180 and then Sony will be praiased as geniuses, because now they have a game system AND a next-gen formatt media player for one low price.

As for HDMI, so what, I want my stuff to look clean? If the graphical outcome is "the same" as you say (I still stand by there being a difference, not huge, maybe not even noticeable to some people, but there is a slight difference) then why would you want this huge bundle of cables when you could have ONE small cable that does the exact same thing? Big deal, there's copy protection in it, Don't steal **** and you won't have a problem :rolleyes2

PS3 is losing exclusives because the guy running the company took too long to get deals signed to MAKE them exclusives, not because PS3 sucks or because the 360 was out first, it's all in the very article that started this topic. If the PS3 lost games like Assasin's Creed and the next GTA because it came out later than the 360 then those games would already be out for the 360, they wouldn't be coming out at the same time as the PS3 release of them. So the system was delayed, yeah, cuz THAT's never happened in a system launch bfore. So there was a shortage. What, like EVERY other system launch? PS3 had a weak launch lineup? Oh, and the 360's was one for the ages right? :shakeno: At least there aren't widespread reports of machines melting down and red rings of death (which happened to my 360 right out of the box, so after buying the system I couldn't even play it til I went through the return process) and blah blah blah.

As I said before, this arguement is so played out. Every point has a counterpoint for BOTH sides of the arguement, so it goes in circles. All I can say is this crap happens at EVERY system launch, and then after it's been on the market a year or so everyone flips and ends up owning one and praising it. We just went through all this "crappy launch line up, overpriced, not worth it, the company is forcing this down our throats, etc etc" BS with the 360 and now look, people act like it's god's gift to video games. Well lets see, the launch lineup was crappy but the selection now is great, $400 was apparently "ridiculously expensive" one year ago but now it's justified because everyone has seen that it's worth it, everyone said MS was forcing HD down our throats because the system was designed for HDTVs and not everyone had one, yet now that people have one MS has never forced anything on anyone :confused:. It's such BS, people just go with whatever the trend is at the time, which right now happens to be bashing PS3 and praising 360, when at the 360's launch it was to bash the 360. :shakeno:

The fact remains that BOTH are great systems, and I will be owning both, and if you don't like PS3 (or 360) then you don't have to buy it, nobody is "forcing" you to do anything.

Phin-o-rama
01-24-2007, 12:26 PM
you should get sony tattooed on your forearm

TrueDolFan
01-24-2007, 12:43 PM
PS3 is losing exclusives because the guy running the company took too long to get deals signed to MAKE them exclusives, not because PS3 sucks or because the 360 was out first.


PS3 is losing exclusives becuase 3rd party publishers don't want to put out an exclusive title on a system with such a small installed base. What's worse is that that base isn't going to grow very much over the next year.

Most big budget games need to sell at least a million copies in order to turn a profit. How are you going to sell a million copies when the installed base is less than 1 million?

Assuming that PS3 sells all of it's units this year, by Christmas, that installed base will be around 1.5 million. Selling a million games would STILL be next to impossible (it would require 2 of 3 PS3 owners to buy a copy). The only exclusives Sony will be getting will be 1st party.

I think Sony is already on the ropes in this console generation. Like I said earlier, Sony isn't Nintendo. They don't have the first party titles that can single-handedly support a system.

TrueDolFan
01-24-2007, 12:45 PM
you should get sony tattooed on your forearm

:sidelol:

Agent51
01-24-2007, 12:51 PM
you should get sony tattooed on your forearm

Yea, only if you get the 360 logo on yours :rolleyes2 :shakeno:

I am not a "fanboy", I like whatever systems are good and have games I like. Historically that has been the PS systems over the others, but if PS system came out that was a crappy system I wouldn't buy it. I am defending Sony not because I am Bias, but because it seems as if everyone else is bashing them in favor of the 360 when just a year ago it was everyone bashing the 360. I own a 360, and I love it, but they are two different machines. If everything were equal and the PS3 were still $200 extra, that'd be ridiculous, but they aren't, and I don't see a prblem with the price.

You, on the other hand, are most definately a MS fanboy because I have seen nothing but Sony bashing from you. You have tried to find a fault in every single positive thing said about the PS3. It's one thing to have an opinion and use it in a good debate/discussion, it's another to just bash on something just because you don't personally like it or you love it's competitor.

Excellent comeback by they way :rolleyes2

Motion
01-24-2007, 12:51 PM
you should get sony tattooed on your forearm

Could you recommend a good artist?

I heard your Xbox logo looks great on your shoulder. :wink:

Phin-o-rama
01-24-2007, 12:59 PM
i own plenty of sony equipment in my house


i just don't buy into everything companies feed me...when ps3 becomes a good console worth 600 bucks ill buy it....right now...it sucks

placing so much importance to hdmi for the reasons listed is an example of a corporations dream customer....like sheep....

Agent51
01-24-2007, 01:15 PM
i own plenty of sony equipment in my house


i just don't buy into everything companies feed me...when ps3 becomes a good console worth 600 bucks ill buy it....right now...it sucks

placing so much importance to hdmi for the reasons listed is an example of a corporations dream customer....like sheep....

OK, A, how am I "buying into" everything companies feed me buy not caring that a technically superior machine to the 360 costs more than it? I am probably THE most picky and particular person when it comes to my audio/video equipment and setup. I'm not some idiot who goes "ooo, Sony says it's the best so I guess it is". If that were the fact then I would have run out and bought a PS3 now because apparently it's a "must have". In fact, a PS2 (and eventually a PS3) is the only thing I DO own by Sony (save for an old discman in a closet somewhere), other than those I do not particularly care for their stuff when I have the means to be able to buy higher-nd products.

B, yea, I'm a "sheep" and a fool because I want a product to look more streamlined in my setup? You should probably stop playing the self-righteous "anti-big-business-I-learned-to-become-an-activist-in-college" roll and get a clue. Just because you don't like a particular thing doesn't mean it's wrong or crap. I never said HDMI was superior to component, I just said I prefer it because it gives my setup a cleaner look. Not to mention it frees up some component spots for stuff that doesn't have an HDMI connection, like some DVD players or PS2, or older cable boxes or whatever someone may have that supports component but not HDMI. Also, given the fact that, regardless of what you or I think of it, it IS becoming an industry standard means that it is something MS should have supported since day one of the 360 instead of releasing a 3rd version a year or two later.

Phin-o-rama
01-24-2007, 01:21 PM
why should they support it, its not needed, and there is no confirmation that a 3rd version will be released.....and even if it does get released....thats nothing new....p2 released multiple versions, so did psone...and xbox

Agent51
01-24-2007, 01:30 PM
why should they support it, its not needed, and there is no confirmation that a 3rd version will be released.....and even if it does get released....thats nothing new....p2 released multiple versions, so did psone...and xbox

They should support it because it's becoming a standard. TVs now a days are coming out with more and more HDMI slots, so why not just friggin include a slot on the machine, give people the option. Like I said, what the hell happens when someone has 2 component slots and two HDMI slots, but they have a DVD player and a cable reciever that only support component, are they supposed to unplug one everytime they wanna play 360? If there was an HDMI slot too they could just hook it up to that. The debate isn't about quality or which is technically better, it's about convienience. I know a bunch of people that have A/V components that supports component hookups but not HDMI, and their TVs don't have enough to have them all connected at once, yet they have unused HDMI slots sitting there.

HDMI won't factor into many people's choice of buying a system or not, I doubt many who want a 360 people WON'T buy one just because it doesn't have them, but at the same time, having it would be a wonderful feature for people like I just mentioned, who don't have enough hookups for more components, and I bet HDMI support on the 360 could sway some people in it's favor.

FinsNCanes
01-24-2007, 02:00 PM
I can keep searching, but I dont have much time right now guys, but here's one of many articles on the subject:

ATI v Nvidia: RSX, PS3 and the console wars


With the Xbox 360 Xenos core running at 500MHz, and the PlayStation3’s RSX graphics core running at 550MHz, the non-techie press are calling the specs a win for Sony. Is this really the case, though?

Richard is adamant that the extra graphics speed on paper is more than made up for by the differing architecture of the Xenos. “That mere 10% clock speed that RSX has on Xenos is easily countered by the unified shader architecture that we’ve implemented.

“Rather than separate pixel and vertex pipelines, we’ve created a single unified pipeline that can do both. Providing developers throw instructions at our architecture in the right way, Xenos can run at 100% efficiency all the time, rather than having some pipeline instructions waiting for others. For comparison, most high-end PC chips run at 50-60% typical efficiency. The super cool point is that ‘in the right way’ just means ‘give us plenty of work to do’. The hardware manages itself.”

The issue of unified versus split shader pipelines is a critical one that we’ll come back to in a moment, but I was curious as to how Richard felt the CPU architecture between the two consoles makes a difference to the graphics and overall power.

“The PS3 does appear to have a huge amount of CPU power with the seven Cell cores. The problem they have is that CPU power isn’t really what developer’s need – the bottleneck is really the graphics. Everybody is going multi-threaded and multi-core – the Xbox 360 has three PowerPC cores, AMD and Intel both have dual-core chips, so everyone is having to learn how to write this stuff. But writing multi-threaded apps for two or three cores is difficult. Doing it for seven separate cores, when the main core has a slightly different feature-set from the other six, is very, very difficult.”

Here's the rest of it:
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/06/10/richard_huddy_ati/2.html

Maybe, but for every one of these write ups there is another saying something different.

Phin-o-rama
01-24-2007, 02:03 PM
buy a component hub for what? 30 bucks?

TrueDolFan
01-24-2007, 02:04 PM
They should support it because it's becoming a standard. TVs now a days are coming out with more and more HDMI slots, so why not just friggin include a slot on the machine, give people the option. Like I said, what the hell happens when someone has 2 component slots and two HDMI slots, but they have a DVD player and a cable reciever that only support component, are they supposed to unplug one everytime they wanna play 360? If there was an HDMI slot too they could just hook it up to that. The debate isn't about quality or which is technically better, it's about convienience. I know a bunch of people that have A/V components that supports component hookups but not HDMI, and their TVs don't have enough to have them all connected at once, yet they have unused HDMI slots sitting there.

HDMI won't factor into many people's choice of buying a system or not, I doubt many who want a 360 people WON'T buy one just because it doesn't have them, but at the same time, having it would be a wonderful feature for people like I just mentioned, who don't have enough hookups for more components, and I bet HDMI support on the 360 could sway some people in it's favor.

Have you ever heard of a switch box?

Surely a connoisseur of fine electronics such as yourself would know that there are switch boxes available for component A/V now. There's even models that switch by remote control, so your fat arse doesn't have to get off of your couch to switch between your high end electronics.

TrueDolFan
01-24-2007, 02:05 PM
buy a component hub for what? 30 bucks?

You beat me to it!

Motion
01-24-2007, 02:05 PM
:lol: Why is it that there always has to be an active thread in this forum
that is a Xbox vs. PS debate???

Can't we all just get along??? :D

Buy the system(s) you want and be happy with it, as long as you have the one(s) you want who cares about the rest?

Why must people try to convince others which one is better???

This **** gets so old.

Motion
01-24-2007, 02:07 PM
Have you ever heard of a switch box?

Surely a connoisseur of fine electronics such as yourself would know that there are switch boxes available for component A/V now. There's even models that switch by remote control, so your fat arse doesn't have to get off of your couch to switch between your high end electronics.

Yeah Agent, you heffer! :lol::rolleyes2:shakeno:

Mike13
01-24-2007, 02:17 PM
Yeah Agent, you heffer! :lol::rolleyes2:shakeno:

Yeah how those that fat ******* get all the chicks? Oh **** wrong topic.


In the same interview, he was talking about the prices and R&D costs of the PS1, PS2, and PS3. What he said, in a nutshell, is that when the PS3's price drops (which he didn't expect anytime in the near future), it wouldn't be by much. It has cost Sony too much money to develop and produce.


I hop there will be a price drop.

TrueDolFan
01-24-2007, 02:22 PM
I hop there will be a price drop.

There will be, just don't expect one anytime in the next year or more, and when it comes, don't expect it to be by much.

Agent51
01-26-2007, 09:47 AM
I know about the hubs, but that isn't the point. That just means you have to spend more money in addition to the money you already spent on the system. How much could it possibly cost them to just add it to the machine? Probably way less than the retail cost of a hub. Yeah, it's only $30, which seems like nothing but to some people it is a lot.

And for the record, I'm not even close to being a "fat arse" :lol: