or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › What exactly happened to the Playstation 3?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What exactly happened to the Playstation 3? - Page 8

post #281 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitNextEvent View Post

Ignoring that non-sensical blather.

Nonsensical huh? Well, I'm sorry you're too ignorant to understand it. Like I said, go learn some Physics before accusing others of talking nonsense.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #282 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

It really doesn't.

Getting a PS3 game to simply match the performance of a 360 takes months and months and months of additional work.

I'm not referring solely to the act of getting a game to have some ascribed level of performance. I'm referring to the potential as a platform, which it has plenty of. That said, tools for programming the Cell will improve, especially as the PS3 seems to be continually improving its place in the market.

The 360 is a fine product, but it's unfortunately attached to a marketing department that doesn't know how to win in a hostile market. In the end, this may make the difference.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #283 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitNextEvent View Post

Which is amazing when you consider the vast graphical power advantage the PS3 has over the 360.

(grin)

It's amazing that years after Sony put out some hyped-up nonsense about the "power advantage of the PS3". Years later, people still belive it to be true, despite all evidence to the contrary.

C.
post #284 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

(grin)

It's amazing that years after Sony put out some hyped-up nonsense about the "power advantage of the PS3". Years later, people still belive it to be true, despite all evidence to the contrary.

C.

Well, is the power there and people can't program for it efficiently enough? Or was the power never really there? How come the Xbox360 which is older than the PS3 has better graphics, and isn't the Xbox360 based off a PowerPC G5 in some way?
post #285 of 323
What is remarkable about this gen is we have seen the most enormous graphical power advantage one console has had over its competitors with the PS3.

It is understandable when you look back at what went wrong at Microsoft and led them to being forced to release such a poorly designed console. Back in 2005 the losses from the Xbox fiasco were up in the 4 billion plus range. The console had been on the brink of cancelation at least once and promises were made that if they were given a second chance they would get things right.

So manufacturing was halted around the middle of 2005 and the Xbox team scrambled to throw together something to get out the door as a replacement. Intel obviously had to be dumped if they were going to have something that wouldn't get humiliated by Sony,IBM,and Toshiba's upcoming Cell chips. IBM was their only real option and they basically just slapped a third core onto existing chip tech and made some tweaks to the vector stuff. A half-assed chip where all three cores are fighting over a single cache but certainly better than anything Intel had to offer and a large enough performance win over Intel that would be worth throwing away easy backwards compatibility.

But it was the ATI hardware where things went terribly wrong with the 360. It is graphics hardware that is essentially made for 480p being forced to try to handle 720p. The 360 was gimped with only 10 megs of EDRAM for frame buffer rendering. That is exactly enough memory for a 480p 4xAA framebuffer. To support anything larger than 480p with decent AA you are forced to waste time and performance breaking up your scene into tiles that fit sequentially into the small EDRAM. Many devs just didn't bother with AA and just added in for marketing bullshots. Amazingly stupid when there was so much bragging about 'free AA' on the system when in reality that was only for Nintendo Wii sized resolutions.

It was no surprise that given the rushed and botched hardware design on the 360 that it became to be known as the Xbox 1.5. It wasn't until Epic started putting out their laughably fake Unreal Engine marketing shots for Gears of War that the system had anything that wasn't a graphical embarrassment. There was such a desperate need for something to shed the Xbox 1.5 label that people didn't care that Epic was trying to pass off 5k by 5k marketing renders with massive AA and detail on models and world geometry ramped up as 'in game'.

What was even more embarrassing for the 360 was even when you got past the massively downgraded actual in game graphics for the flagship graphics title for the console, the game had been so massively gimped to allow the weak 360 graphics hardware to put those shiny normal maps on everything that the game ended up being an essentially claustrophobic on the rails shooter with levels designed to be tiny rooms and corridors with tiny numbers of objects on the screen at once or absurdly short draw distances with everything outside of the immediate foreground blurred out to try to hide the limited draw distance.

Its now been three years since the 360 was released and it is shocking that the same outdated Unreal Engine is the graphical showpiece for the console. There never has been another console that didnt have a single first party game running a custom engine but instead had to rely on a third party crossplatform engine.
post #286 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitNextEvent View Post

What is remarkable about this gen is we have seen the most enormous graphical power advantage one console has had over its competitors with the PS3.

I find it hard to understand why you think this - when there are good resources like this available, populated by authoritative and unbiased game developers.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=50674

As a consumer, you can argue endlessly about the merits of one platform over another.
But as a businessman what actually matters is one thing only: How does our investment in the device get turned into a profit.

C.
post #287 of 323
This is a good analysis. Unreal got away with some evildoing with their super good looking renders that varied a lot on the actual game. On PC however, I must say to this date, Unreal is a beautiful, evocative game engine (as in UT3 and Bioshock). Technically the engine may make some shortcuts, but in frenzied gameplay, the engine, well, I like it.

So anyways why in titles such as Fallout3, Dead Space, the PS3 graphics are worse than the Xbox360? Not sufficiently good coding of the PS3 titles?

The Transformers game graphics on the PS3 are quite average, is this because this game title is generally a just average movie game anyway?

Are our standards too high now because PC hardware lends itself to now almost monthly updates to peak graphical processing power?

Metal Gear Solid 4 (IIRC) as I have played it briefly on a PS3, the graphics, engine and playability, dare I say, are thoroughly beaten by the latest Ghost Recon, Valve's HL2: Episode2, latest Call of Duty and even in some ways, FEAR Extraction Point. FEAR: Project Origin: will the PC version play, look and feel better than the PS3 version?

I'm really curious because I'm at the stage of deciding between PS3, XBOX360, and going back to PC gaming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitNextEvent View Post

What is remarkable about this gen is we have seen the most enormous graphical power advantage one console has had over its competitors with the PS3.

It is understandable when you look back at what went wrong at Microsoft and led them to being forced to release such a poorly designed console. Back in 2005 the losses from the Xbox fiasco were up in the 4 billion plus range. The console had been on the brink of cancelation at least once and promises were made that if they were given a second chance they would get things right.

So manufacturing was halted around the middle of 2005 and the Xbox team scrambled to throw together something to get out the door as a replacement. Intel obviously had to be dumped if they were going to have something that wouldn't get humiliated by Sony,IBM,and Toshiba's upcoming Cell chips. IBM was their only real option and they basically just slapped a third core onto existing chip tech and made some tweaks to the vector stuff. A half-assed chip where all three cores are fighting over a single cache but certainly better than anything Intel had to offer and a large enough performance win over Intel that would be worth throwing away easy backwards compatibility.

But it was the ATI hardware where things went terribly wrong with the 360. It is graphics hardware that is essentially made for 480p being forced to try to handle 720p. The 360 was gimped with only 10 megs of EDRAM for frame buffer rendering. That is exactly enough memory for a 480p 4xAA framebuffer. To support anything larger than 480p with decent AA you are forced to waste time and performance breaking up your scene into tiles that fit sequentially into the small EDRAM. Many devs just didn't bother with AA and just added in for marketing bullshots. Amazingly stupid when there was so much bragging about 'free AA' on the system when in reality that was only for Nintendo Wii sized resolutions.

It was no surprise that given the rushed and botched hardware design on the 360 that it became to be known as the Xbox 1.5. It wasn't until Epic started putting out their laughably fake Unreal Engine marketing shots for Gears of War that the system had anything that wasn't a graphical embarrassment. There was such a desperate need for something to shed the Xbox 1.5 label that people didn't care that Epic was trying to pass off 5k by 5k marketing renders with massive AA and detail on models and world geometry ramped up as 'in game'.

What was even more embarrassing for the 360 was even when you got past the massively downgraded actual in game graphics for the flagship graphics title for the console, the game had been so massively gimped to allow the weak 360 graphics hardware to put those shiny normal maps on everything that the game ended up being an essentially claustrophobic on the rails shooter with levels designed to be tiny rooms and corridors with tiny numbers of objects on the screen at once or absurdly short draw distances with everything outside of the immediate foreground blurred out to try to hide the limited draw distance.

It’s now been three years since the 360 was released and it is shocking that the same outdated Unreal Engine is the ‘graphical showpiece’ for the console. There never has been another console that didn’t have a single first party game running a custom engine but instead had to rely on a third party crossplatform engine.
post #288 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

I find it hard to understand why you think this - when there are good resources like this available, populated by authoritative and unbiased game developers.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=50674

As a consumer, you can argue endlessly about the merits of one platform over another.
But as a businessman what actually matters is one thing only: How does our investment in the device get turned into a profit.

C.

That's probably one of the worst threads for anyone to discern which platform is better. In any case B3D does have *some* devs but the discussions are dominated by folks that aren't or not involved with the game and is trying to guess at what might have been done. The place is interesting and sometimes informative but there are a good number of posers there.

Authoritative and UNBIASED? Since when the hell has any dev ever been "unbiased"? Devs fight over figging which editor is best much less tool chain and hardware.

Nice try though. How's the profit from the games you worked on?
post #289 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

So anyways why in titles such as Fallout3, Dead Space, the PS3 graphics are worse than the Xbox360? Not sufficiently good coding of the PS3 titles?

Say what you want about MS but they DO know how to support developers. Far more than Sony does anyway.

Quote:
I'm really curious because I'm at the stage of deciding between PS3, XBOX360, and going back to PC gaming.

I would say that it will wax and wane as time goes on. Of course PC gaming will be better as the years progress with respect to eye candy. The bottom line is still excellent gameplay. With so few exclusives it's simply a matter of preference and how often you update your PC.

If you're cash strapped and don't care beyond say 3 years the 360 is a no brainer.

But mostly there's no real reason to lock yourself into one platform. Even the PS3 isn't all THAT expensive if gaming is your thing.
post #290 of 323
[QUOTE=Carniphage;1359502But as a businessman what actually matters is one thing only: How does our investment in the device get turned into a profit. [/QUOTE]

The PS3, in all likelihood, won Sony the Bluray battle. That's bigger money than the game industry is. The PS3 is already a win for Sony.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #291 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

How's the profit from the games you worked on?

Thankfully, I now make a profit from every game I work on.
Whether the game goes into profit or not! :-)

C.
post #292 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

That's probably one of the worst threads for anyone to discern which platform is better. In any case B3D does have *some* devs but the discussions are dominated by folks that aren't or not involved with the game and is trying to guess at what might have been done. The place is interesting and sometimes informative but there are a good number of posers there.

Authoritative and UNBIASED? Since when the hell has any dev ever been "unbiased"? Devs fight over figging which editor is best much less tool chain and hardware.

Still, it's hard to read that thread and come away with the conclusion that the PS3 is in any way a vastly superior technology. (As WaitNext would have us believe). Looking at tens of titles and hundreds of screen shots - the PS3 and 360 are virtually indistinguishable. In some titles the PS3 is slightly worse. In a few the PS3 is slightly better.

So where is the crushing defeat? What evidence is there for WaitNext's "enormous graphical power advantage" ? It isn't there. For every example there's a counter example.

If Sony put as much effort into its console design as it did into its hype engine. We might see some advantage.

C.
post #293 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

The PS3, in all likelihood, won Sony the Bluray battle. That's bigger money than the game industry is. The PS3 is already a win for Sony.

You might want to check the numbers.
Sony makes 4c per Blu Ray disk - plus licencing fees.

On a game Sony / MS make $15

A Blu Ray buying PS3 owner has to buy an awful lot of disks to pay back that PS3 loan.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=365&tag=nl.e539

C.
post #294 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

You might want to check the numbers.
Sony makes 4c per Blu Ray disk - plus licencing fees.

On a game Sony / MS make $15

A Blu Ray buying PS3 owner has to buy an awful lot of disks to pay back that PS3 loan.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=365&tag=nl.e539

C.

1.7M The Dark Knight sold on Blu-Ray. By the way, that 4c goes to AACS...not Sony. Sony DADC makes money in replication and charges 1c if you want it to send the fee to AACS for you.

So most of the revenue stream is licensing and replication business. For DVD that was what? $10 per DVD player? Call it 140M DVD players in the US alone and that's $1.4B as licensing to whomever the license holders are. More than just Sony but it does show why winning the next gen format was important to both Sony and Toshiba.
post #295 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Still, it's hard to read that thread and come away with the conclusion that the PS3 is in any way a vastly superior technology. (As WaitNext would have us believe).

The PS3 isn't vastly superior from a rendering perspective. Overall the platform is superior technology. Vastly? Depends on what is important to you I guess. Machines that don't simply die from heat is "vastly superior" to me from a consumer perspective.

Quote:
Looking at tens of titles and hundreds of screen shots - the PS3 and 360 are virtually indistinguishable. In some titles the PS3 is slightly worse. In a few the PS3 is slightly better.

So where is the crushing defeat? What evidence is there for WaitNext's "enormous graphical power advantage" ? It isn't there. For every example there's a counter example.

If Sony put as much effort into its console design as it did into its hype engine. We might see some advantage.

C.

/shrug

You'd have hoped that Sony titles would have gotten better than they have but 2nd year in the consoles life with some major titles still being worked on it's hard to say. Plus there is 3D in the future. There may or may not be some advantages there for either console.

"The point is you're not going to get to see the PlayStation 3 for probably a couple of years, and then you're going to go, 'Wow, that's incredible.'" Dave Perry - GDC 2007

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...s-next-for-ps3

Couple years is this year I guess. 5 years between PS2 launch and God of War so I guess 2009 isn't that long to wait.
post #296 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

1.7M The Dark Knight sold on Blu-Ray. By the way, that 4c goes to AACS...not Sony.

You are right. Although Sony probably are probably the single largest beneficiary.

Sony made a big bet, and spent a lot of money on PS3 so that they would "win" the console war and "win" the next gen DVD war.

Commercially Sony have lost the console war. (Lost to Nintendo more than Microsoft.)
And although the enemy; HD DVD has been comprehensively vanquished, they won control over a territory that really isn't worth much.

1.7M Dark Knight Blu Ray sales nets them how much cash exactly?

There's not enough Batman movies in the world to turn Sony's gigantic wager into a win.

C.
post #297 of 323
Microsoft has mostly got their act together again with the XBox 360. The original hardware was wrought with problems, from the red ring of death to overheating, to loud noises to scratched disks. Still, they've slowly resolved these problems and stabilized the hardware. I bought the latest model in September, and so far, I've had no problems other than a few freezes/crashes. Still, I'm concerned enough that I always eject the disk when I'm done with the game, and turn off the console when I'm not using it. The power supply is still massive, and I occasionally get noisy DVDs, though not often.

The game selection is better than either the PS3 or Wii, with must-have exclusives like Fable 2 and Mass Effect. Also, they make it easy for devs to port games from Windows and the other way around with Direct X. From what I hear, the PS3 versions of some non-exclusives like Fallout 3 are inferior to the 360 versions. The new system software is a huge improvement, and it's much easier to shop for games, game demos, and movies.

What really burns me is the lack of a wireless network card. The PS3 has it. The Wii has it. Everybody has a wirless router nowadays, and you need to be online in order to get achievements or system updates. I live in an apartment, but I'd have to run a 30 foot network cable from my living room to my bedroom. They're still charging $90 CAD at Future Shop for the wireless network adapter, and don't include it even with the Elite. Also, they haven't implemented WPA2 yet, so I had to change my entire wireless network from WPA2 to WPA, despite WPA2 being supported by my iMac, Wii, and iPod touch, as well as my girlfriend's Windows XP laptop.

If Microsoft wants to increase their market share, they could take the $10 or so hit on their costs and include a cheap wireless card with every XBox.
post #298 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Machines that don't simply die from heat is "vastly superior" to me from a consumer perspective.

I have always agreed that Sony did a much better job of putting together a box full of electronic. The 360 fan noise is so bad. I won't use the console as a media player. And the RROD has cost Microsoft a fortune in cash and good will.

but...

It's the sales of game titles that matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

"The point is you're not going to get to see the PlayStation 3 for probably a couple of years, and then you're going to go, 'Wow, that's incredible.'" Dave Perry - GDC 2007

It *is* incredible.

What's incredible is Killzone 2 is still not finished.
What's incredible is Gran Turismo 5 is still not finished.

(from Wikipedia)
In an April 2008 interview, Kazunori Yamauchi revealed that 150 people had worked on Gran Turismo 5 for four years, with all of Polyphony Digital's 120 employees working on GT5, and the game costing 50 times more to develop than 1997's Gran Turismo. He also confessed that GT5 might not be released until after 2009. In a July 2008 interview with IGN, Yamauchi mentioned that at the moment, Polyphony Digital is focused on updates for Gran Turismo 5 Prologue and that Gran Turismo 5 may not be released until 2010.

Do I see the little red-laser-dot of Howard Stringers sacred-cow-cannon being pointed at Polyphony?


C.
post #299 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

If Microsoft wants to increase their market share, they could take the $10 or so hit on their costs and include a cheap wireless card with every XBox.

Yeah, it's a total rip-off.

But think about this.

Sony loses at least $50 per console.
MS makes $50 on each WiFi adaptor.

Who is smarter?

C.
post #300 of 323
Sony's total victory with BluRay over Microsoft and Toshiba's is yet another perfect example of the collossal failure the Xbox 360 fiasco has turned out to be.

As the Xbox fiasco unfolded and the billions in losses racked up and the Xbox was at least once one meeting away from being completely shut down and put out of its misery there was always the inane hand waving about 'owning the living room' and that the obscene losses were 'worth it'.

Fast forward to the Xbox 360 and some eight billion or so in losses over seven years and in the only major market, the US, where the 360 was still a viable product it couldn't do anything to stop Sony from easily establishing BluRay as the next gen movie format for consumer 'living rooms'.
post #301 of 323
Found another Dave Perry quote. The tall guy is certainly a source of great quotes.

""Speaking at the Games Convention Developers Conference this afternoon, industry veteran Dave Perry (most known for his studio Shiny Entertainment and its games Enter the Matrix and Earthworm Jim), gave an overview of the games industry as he sees it today. When discussing the current console race, he brought up some interesting statistics that he obtained from research firm DFC Intelligence. According to Perry, Sony has lost more money selling PlayStation 3s than it made selling PlayStation 2s during the entire five years of its peak. So basically, all of the money Sony made on hardware last generation -- it's already spent more to sell the PS3 at a loss so far. Some estimates put that loss at $3 billion. ""

C.
post #302 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Yeah, it's a total rip-off.

But think about this.

Sony loses at least $50 per console.
MS makes $50 on each WiFi adaptor.

Who is smarter?

C.

Nintendo, since they sell cheap consoles with WiFi included and still make money off the sale of each console, which they refuse to sell as loss leaders.
post #303 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

Nintendo, since they sell cheap consoles with WiFi included and still make money off the sale of each console, which they refuse to sell as loss leaders.

True.

The only way to win is not playing the game.

C.
post #304 of 323
Did anyone see this? (Engadget's CES Press Event)

Can you see anything missing?

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/07/l...es-press-event
C.
post #305 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitNextEvent View Post

Sony's total victory with BluRay over Microsoft and Toshiba's is yet another perfect example of the collossal failure the Xbox 360 fiasco has turned out to be.

As the Xbox fiasco unfolded and the billions in losses racked up and the Xbox was at least once one meeting away from being completely shut down and put out of its misery there was always the inane hand waving about 'owning the living room' and that the obscene losses were 'worth it'.

Fast forward to the Xbox 360 and some eight billion or so in losses over seven years and in the only major market, the US, where the 360 was still a viable product it couldn't do anything to stop Sony from easily establishing BluRay as the next gen movie format for consumer 'living rooms'.

Well both MS and Sony has billions to lose to gain that ground.

MS could own the living room any time they want to piss off their OEMs. Just release MS Office Student to the 360 with keyboard and mouse. Then the 360 is a no brainer for parents in the console wars and is something that Sony can't answer.

The only one able to challenge MS in that regard is Apple...a Mini/aTV hybrid with half decent Wii-like games and some kind of motion based controller would go a long way toward making it a non-hobby and a real bid for set-top dominance.

iWork needs to be better and Apple would have to release a Keynote player on windows at a minimum. Even then they'd be playing with fire if MS killed Office on OSX.
post #306 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Did anyone see this? (Engadget's CES Press Event)

Can you see anything missing?

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/07/l...es-press-event
C.

"On the the PS3 and PSP. Not a ton to say about that apparently. They exist, they're on the floor."

No surprise...they aren't new, and they aren't kicking butt.

Stringer keynote now...wish I could catch the Tom Hanks portion...sounds funny.
post #307 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

EB Games/Game Stop is currently running a special when you trade in a working PS2 and extra Sony controller you will get a $100 off a Playstation 3? This console was just released a couple of months ago. Retailers need to find creative ways to sell these.

What exactly happened to the Playstation 3? It appears it has become a gigantic flop! I see them in practically every store I visit. Yes they are expensive, but I figured with the massive PS2 user base, early adaptors still would have paid the bucks to own the latest and greatest. Apparently, I was wrong. What ever happened to Sony fan-boys? Is the PS3 as good as dead or what??

Dave

Sony overestimated the impact of the hardcore gamer on the overall market and underestimated the costs of the new technologies. the PS2's launch price of $299 was pushing it and that didn't really explode until it got more affordable. Wii is doing new and exciting things for the casual gamer and the Xbox 360 can do most of what the PS3 can for half the price and has a better selection. Being last to the part didn't help either. Ironically, that was the same situation the original xbox was in. Better system but too late, too expensive, not enough AAA titles.
post #308 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Stringer keynote now...wish I could catch the Tom Hanks portion...sounds funny.

I followed the Stringer keynote.

WHAT THE HELL WAS ALL THAT ABOUT?

Tom Hanks, Doctor Oz and Reggie Jackson? And a phone powered by sugar.

Not to mention the Touch-Screen-open-platform-alarm-clock.

Double You Tee Eff!

C.
post #309 of 323
The PS3 has a long way to go before Sony will think about replacing or updating it. The PS2 lasted 6 years so there's no reason to expect an update before 2012 even if there's some amazing tech breakthrough.

Games take time to develop so they can't churn out consoles without annoying developers. At this halfway point, things still look a bit bleak for Sony and their consoles aren't coming down in price. They need to drop below the £200 mark.

Although Blu-Ray is seen as a good addition, it is also holding the PS3 back in terms of price. Is 3 years long enough for the choice to go all Blu-Ray to pay off? Even if/when it replaces DVD for the most part, Microsoft can simply make another console and include Blu-Ray.

Sony at least know how to put on an interesting event unlike some people. The amount of things they announced puts Apple to shame. They even announced interesting stuff they are working on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Ironically, that was the same situation the original xbox was in. Better system but too late, too expensive, not enough AAA titles.

Yeah, that's exactly what's happened. Following in Microsoft's footsteps is a sure route to disaster.
post #310 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Games take time to develop so they can't churn out consoles without annoying developers. At this halfway point, things still look a bit bleak for Sony and their consoles aren't coming down in price. They need to drop below the £200 mark.

What is interesting to me is at this point, Stringer must have pretty good revenue predictions which go forward the next four years. Right to the end-of-life of the console.
This would Include projections for console sale revenues & losses. Development costs for titles. And revenues from game unit licenses. It looks really unlikely that PS3 will will go into profit within two years. (Not looking at how Sony's key titles are money pit projects.)

Stringer also knows that if he does not slash the console retail price soon - the installed base will grow more slowly - and more importantly, that would cost them even more developer good will. But cutting the price will drive up the losses even more.

Listening to the keynote, the only clue was that he wants to drive as many content sales as possible though the internet. Cutting-out boxed goods middlemen and selling content directly to consumers could double the revenues on some content. But its going to piss-off lots of partners.

C.
post #311 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

...What's incredible is Gran Turismo 5 is still not finished.

(from Wikipedia)
In an April 2008 interview, Kazunori Yamauchi revealed that 150 people had worked on Gran Turismo 5 for four years, with all of Polyphony Digital's 120 employees working on GT5, and the game costing 50 times more to develop than 1997's Gran Turismo. He also confessed that GT5 might not be released until after 2009. In a July 2008 interview with IGN, Yamauchi mentioned that at the moment, Polyphony Digital is focused on updates for Gran Turismo 5 Prologue and that Gran Turismo 5 may not be released until 2010.

Do I see the little red-laser-dot of Howard Stringers sacred-cow-cannon being pointed at Polyphony?


C.

Bingo. Even from a neutral perspective, I really do not know what the hell is so great about Gran Turismo. GT5 Prologue is well, average. I mean Grid came in and opened up a big can of racing game whoopass on a variety of platforms.

At the risk of sounding harsh, Gran Turismo is one sacred cow that needs to be swiftly decapitated and then cremated.
post #312 of 323
[QUOTE=nvidia2008;1360629]GT5 Prologue is well, average. I mean Grid came in and opened up a big can of racing game whoopass on a variety of platforms.
QUOTE]

Grid???

post #313 of 323
It is amazing that the Xbox fiasco wasn't killed off like so many at Microsoft wanted back in 2002-2005. But it is funny to think back to the Xbox team making desperate promises that they would get things right with the next Xbox if they were given another chance.

And then went on to create what is universally regarded as the worst console in history with the Xbox 360.

Already talked about the botched and wimpy 360 graphics hardware. And everyone is painfully aware of the RRoD fiasco, disc scratching and destroying drives, and various other hardware problems with the 360.

But if anyone had told you that a console would ever be created that actually had less usuable storage space for games than previous gen consoles did, no one would of believed that a company would be that stupid.

The PS2 and Xbox had roughly 4/8.5 gigabytes per DVD for games.

The PS3 has 25/50 gigabytes pre BluRay disc for games.

And the Xbox 360 only has 3.5/7 gigabytes per DVD for games.

It does make the Xbox 1.5 label the 360 has for the crappy graphics innacurate. Should have been Xbox 0.8.

It isn't funny though when you consider how it has ruined some major titles like GTA 4 that have had to be massively downgraded to fit on the gimped 360 hardware. You have to have nothing but pity for the poor Rockstar devs dealing with the nightmare of having to work with the gimped 360 hardware. Can't imagine what it must have felt like to find out that instead of making a real next gen game you instead are going to be going through the nightmare of trying to fit your new game onto a smaller storage format than you had last gen.
post #314 of 323
GTA4 - PS3 640p
GTA4 - 360 720p

C.
post #315 of 323
I think it's obvious that WaitNextEvent has stopped reading what anyone else is writing in this thread. Valid points get in the way of his propaganda
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #316 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

I think it's obvious that WaitNextEvent has stopped reading what anyone else is writing in this thread. Valid points get in the way of his propaganda

I thought he was a troll - but now I am thinking he's a bot.

C.
post #317 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

GTA4 - PS3 640p
GTA4 - 360 720p

C.

post #318 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

You might want to check the numbers.
Sony makes 4c per Blu Ray disk - plus licencing fees.
A Blu Ray buying PS3 owner has to buy an awful lot of disks to pay back that PS3 loan.

Yes, but the 4c is almost pure profit, and I would expect Bluray to be around for a long, long time. And it doesn't matter if the buyer has a PS3 or not.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #319 of 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitNextEvent View Post


http://vbforums.gametrailers.com/sho...d.php?t=386279

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f353...-360-a-439829/

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/30/ps...p-nobody-cares

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread...=46242&page=25

If you read the last thread you can see examples that clearly show...
360 is running @ 1280x720p with 2x anti-aliasing.
PS3 is running @ 1152x640p with no anti-aliasing.

It's a marginal difference.

C.
post #320 of 323
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › What exactly happened to the Playstation 3?