GT4? when was Gran Turismo 4 EVER going to come out for the xbox, it's a PS2 game anyway. please TRY and get your facts straight.
I believe he meant GTA4 aka Grand THEFT AUTO 4. This appears to be more of laziness porting over games because the guys at Naughty Dog know how to make a great PS3 game (exclusive).
Parallel programming is a new paradigm for mainstream developers which is why there has been some struggle to adjust here. However, multi core processing such as the PS3's IBM cell design are the future and it is here to stay.
Intel recently made a statement to this effect, that developers need to start considering how their design scales to hundreds or thousands of cores not just quad or octa cores in the very near future. Intel and AMD have been saying for several years now that the free performance gained from just ramping up the clock on a single core design has ended.
So IMO the argument that this design is costly in terms of development and will fall away is a moot point. It is the way performance is going to be scaling now according to all of the major CPU vendors. So software development is going to be forced to embrace the parallel paradigm.
I know your dollar is sh1t at the moment, but really ps3s STILL cost that much? or is disinformation just where you live?
I'm talking about the people that bought it in the first few months. I know they are losing mad money on the console and trying to push it by bundling it with games and stuff but it's still expensive.
I'm talking about the people that bought it in the first few months. I know they are losing mad money on the console and trying to push it by bundling it with games and stuff but it's still expensive.
so you would still "promote" the iPhone as a $599 device.
Amid all this madness, anyone else excited for Mirror's Edge? I don't see how anyone could NOT be!
I'm not. I looked at the video at game-trailers, and I wasn't all that enthusiastic about it. It had a cool running thing, but without a plot, objectives and many other features it seems somewhat one dimensional and boring.
Why do you insist that countless reports, echoes from industry insiders, and many developers from AAA studios are lying? or manipulating the truth? Seriously, get a grip. The cell is a b/tch, it's been a b/tch since people got their hands on PS3 dev kits. Sony has never made their platform developer friendly but they were the dominate console last gen but that isn't the case anymore. Studios are questioning the return for their investment into developing for the PS3.
Case in point- Uncharted by the studio someone in here mentioned, Naughty Dog. They sunk a good chunk of money into that game which came out pretty decent but only turned a slight profit for the studio which umm i believe is owned by Sony.
I'm not. I looked at the video at game-trailers, and I wasn't all that enthusiastic about it. It had a cool running thing, but without a plot, objectives and many other features it seems somewhat one dimensional and boring.
What makes you think it wouldn't have a plot or objectives or anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elixir
*sigh*
If you would stop over exaggerating things, maybe people would actually listen to you?
Why do you insist that countless reports, echoes from industry insiders, and many developers from AAA studios are lying? or manipulating the truth? Seriously, get a grip. The cell is a b/tch, it's been a b/tch since people got their hands on PS3 dev kits. Sony has never made their platform developer friendly but they were the dominate console last gen but that isn't the case anymore. Studios are questioning the return for their investment into developing for the PS3.
Absolutely right, the cell is very expensive to program but more importantly it doesn't do the stuff that games really need.
The graphics pipeline on the PS3 is crippled by a lack of texture bandwidth, which is why so many games are running with texture filtering turned down low. Hence the really noisy texture look on the PS3.
Anyone developing for the PS3 is not supposed to openly criticize the platform. There are legal agreements in place which prevent that sort of commentary.
Behind closed doors there is a torrent of complaint.
Why do you insist that countless reports, echoes from industry insiders, and many developers from AAA studios are lying? or manipulating the truth? Seriously, get a grip. The cell is a b/tch, it's been a b/tch since people got their hands on PS3 dev kits. Sony has never made their platform developer friendly but they were the dominate console last gen but that isn't the case anymore. Studios are questioning the return for their investment into developing for the PS3.
Case in point- Uncharted by the studio someone in here mentioned, Naughty Dog. They sunk a good chunk of money into that game which came out pretty decent but only turned a slight profit for the studio which umm i believe is owned by Sony.
Countless reports vs. Countless reports. 360 VS. PS3 is just like Apple vs. Microsoft. In one hand you have people that swear by one, and in the other there are haters.
I have to defer to amcl's post who makes a point that is undeniable, and elaborate by adding that the days of the old are gone and developers have to move on and start learning again. There is no way around it. At least sony saw the shift and started planning for the future while M$ decided to keep milking old technologies rather than ramping up for the future. If anything I think M$ is hurting the developer industry as a whole and not just the gaming industry by hanging on to a dead horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amcl
Parallel programming is a new paradigm for mainstream developers which is why there has been some struggle to adjust here. However, multi core processing such as the PS3's IBM cell design are the future and it is here to stay.
Intel recently made a statement to this effect, that developers need to start considering how their design scales to hundreds or thousands of cores not just quad or octa cores in the very near future. Intel and AMD have been saying for several years now that the free performance gained from just ramping up the clock on a single core design has ended.
So IMO the argument that this design is costly in terms of development and will fall away is a moot point. It is the way performance is going to be scaling now according to all of the major CPU vendors. So software development is going to be forced to embrace the parallel paradigm.
Countless reports vs. Countless reports. 360 VS. PS3 is just like Apple vs. Microsoft. In one hand you have people that swear by one, and in the other there are haters.
I have to defer to amcl's post who makes a point that is undeniable, and elaborate by adding that the days of the old are gone and developers have to move on and start learning again. There is no way around it. At least sony saw the shift and started planning for the future while M$ decided to keep milking old technologies rather than ramping up for the future. If anything I think M$ is hurting the developer industry as a whole and not just the gaming industry by hanging on to a dead horse.
And i'll refer to Carniphage's post. The cell wasn't made specifically for gaming, it was a multi-purpose chip. Why should game developers deal with programming on a chip that isn't specifically designed for gaming? Nor supported with easy to use tools? Which is another huge complaint about Sony's platform verses Microsofts.
I love the hot air that spews out around here. There is no indication that gaming is moving in any direction but backwards. Look at the hype the Wii is getting, I hate it, believe me, I hate it, but to quote a general computing statement from an Intel person for the sake of this argument is completely off grounds with the argument.
If anything Sony has been doing nothing but playing catch up to their competitors in the gaming aspect of their "Personal Computing" unit. The company once stated "NExt gen doesn't start until we say it does" haha. all they do is mimic their competitors now.
Countless reports vs. Countless reports. 360 VS. PS3 is just like Apple vs. Microsoft. In one hand you have people that swear by one, and in the other there are haters.
I have to defer to amcl's post who makes a point that is undeniable, and elaborate by adding that the days of the old are gone and developers have to move on and start learning again. There is no way around it. At least sony saw the shift and started planning for the future while M$ decided to keep milking old technologies rather than ramping up for the future. If anything I think M$ is hurting the developer industry as a whole and not just the gaming industry by hanging on to a dead horse.
The games industry is a business.
To a developer, a console is a just a box. You put money into development, and take money out when the game sells. If it costs more to make a game than you get back in sales, you lose money. End of story. Check out Sony's balance sheet to see the numbers.
Parallel programming is indeed the future. An ideal gaming machine might have a quad cores, each with fast SSE style maths unit, alongside a fast (SLI) GPU with great bandwidth.
But the Cell represents a very strange model of that paradigm. A single conventional core with a bunch of fast gimp processors is ill-suited to the requirement of games. And even more ill suited to the needs of game developers.
Games *can* be written for the Cell for sure. It's just that if you spend $1M on the PS3 and $1M on the 360, you simply get more game for your money on the 360. That is partly because a lot of PS3 development revolves around low-level programming. The most sought-after PS3 engineers are old-school guys who can deal with this 20th century programming stuff.
Typical stories are teams who get devkits and get their engines up and running on the 360 in a couple of weeks. Whereas the PS3 versions take many many months and have stability and performance issues right up to shipping.
BTW, I am not impressed with the 360's non-electronic engineering. The fan on the 360 is deafening, and the red-ring-of-death is a total "Charlie Foxtrot" in Halo speak.
Pioneer, the Japanese drive manufacturer, has developed the first laboratory prototype of a Blu-ray Disc that can store 400 gigabytes on one side. Each of its 16 storage layers holds 25 gigabytes. The previous record holder, TDK, only managed to squeeze 200 gigabytes on to 6 to 8 storage layers.
Pioneer says the greatest difficulty it had to overcome was extracting a useful optical signal from the sandwiched layers. Its new lens technology however does a very good job of compensating for spherical aberration in the optical path and minimizing crosstalk and transmission losses, so the optical sensor is able to get a good signal even from the lowest layer.
The success of the prototype will probably be exploited mainly for publicity purposes. It is doubtful, given the current state of the art, that such a 16-layer Blu-ray Disc would ever go into production. Present-day Blu-ray Discs can store 50 gigabytes on two layers. The return from the production effort falls dramatically with each additional storage layer, so economically justifiable mass production still seems far off.
For a practical drive, higher transfer rates would be desirable. If a 400-gigabyte disc were written to at the normal Blu-ray transfer rate – 4.5 megabytes per second – it would take 25 hours for the burner to fill it. Because of speed restrictions, it's expected that the Blu-ray Disc will in the future be limited to being read or written at a maximum of 12X. This makes it more likely that the technology developed by Pioneer will be used in coming generations of new optical storage media, rather than in a Blu-ray device.
And i'll refer to Carniphage's post. The cell wasn't made specifically for gaming, it was a multi-purpose chip. Why should game developers deal with programming on a chip that isn't specifically designed for gaming? Nor supported with easy to use tools? Which is another huge complaint about Sony's platform verses Microsofts.
I love the hot air that spews out around here. There is no indication that gaming is moving in any direction but backwards. Look at the hype the Wii is getting, I hate it, believe me, I hate it, but to quote a general computing statement from an Intel person for the sake of this argument is completely off grounds with the argument.
If anything Sony has been doing nothing but playing catch up to their competitors in the gaming aspect of their "Personal Computing" unit. The company once stated "NExt gen doesn't start until we say it does" haha. all they do is mimic their competitors now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
The games industry is a business.
To a developer, a console is a just a box. You put money into development, and take money out when the game sells. If it costs more to make a game than you get back in sales, you lose money. End of story. Check out Sony's balance sheet to see the numbers.
Parallel programming is indeed the future. An ideal gaming machine might have a quad cores, each with fast SSE style maths unit, alongside a fast (SLI) GPU with great bandwidth.
But the Cell represents a very strange model of that paradigm. A single conventional core with a bunch of fast gimp processors is ill-suited to the requirement of games. And even more ill suited to the needs of game developers.
Games *can* be written for the Cell for sure. It's just that if you spend $1M on the PS3 and $1M on the 360, you simply get more game for your money on the 360. That is partly because a lot of PS3 development revolves around low-level programming. The most sought-after PS3 engineers are old-school guys who can deal with this 20th century programming stuff.
Typical stories are teams who get devkits and get their engines up and running on the 360 in a couple of weeks. Whereas the PS3 versions take many many months and have stability and performance issues right up to shipping.
BTW, I am not impressed with the 360's non-electronic engineering. The fan on the 360 is deafening, and the red-ring-of-death is a total "Charlie Foxtrot" in Halo speak.
C.
You two keep crying the same tune. And it's stale. We hear about countless reports, and all these developers that are having such a hard time developing, but I've seen all the same arguments in favor of the PS3 too. When I said countless reports vs. countless reports I was saying someone says "tomato" someone else says "tomato".
Dig up some some real dirt if your going to try to argue.
You two keep crying the same tune. And it's stale. We hear about countless reports, and all these developers that are having such a hard time developing, but I've seen all the same arguments in favor of the PS3 too. When I said countless reports vs. countless reports I was saying someone says "tomato" someone else says "tomato".
Dig up some some real dirt if your going to try to argue.
And you have some facts? Or just tedious fanboyism.
All of the Sony developers say this stuff behind closed doors. Sony make them sign contracts which forbid open criticism of the platform. Obviously.
But the facts are out there.
Kutaragi originally stated that the PS3 would be superior.
But there is one really clear difference. It's the release dates of titles.
Sony had a line up of titles - and its fair to say there has been quite a bit of slippage.
The "Halo killer" - Killzone 2 has yet to appear. Despite being the most expensive media project ever to come out of the Netherlands. It is looking like a 4 year project! 4 years! That's the gap between the Xbox 1 and the Xbox 360.
Polyphony are an awesome development house. But where is Gran Turismo 4 ?
It's an upgrade of the PS2 game and it still has not materialized.
Oblivion appeared a year later on the PS3 (although it was supposed to be a launch title)
The PS3 version of Grand Theft Auto 4 was stalled because the PS3 version was not ready.
Comments
Careful, people here don't like to learn the truth about their $600 investment.
I know your dollar is sh1t at the moment, but really ps3s STILL cost that much? or is disinformation just where you live?
GT4? when was Gran Turismo 4 EVER going to come out for the xbox, it's a PS2 game anyway. please TRY and get your facts straight.
I believe he meant GTA4 aka Grand THEFT AUTO 4. This appears to be more of laziness porting over games because the guys at Naughty Dog know how to make a great PS3 game (exclusive).
Intel recently made a statement to this effect, that developers need to start considering how their design scales to hundreds or thousands of cores not just quad or octa cores in the very near future. Intel and AMD have been saying for several years now that the free performance gained from just ramping up the clock on a single core design has ended.
So IMO the argument that this design is costly in terms of development and will fall away is a moot point. It is the way performance is going to be scaling now according to all of the major CPU vendors. So software development is going to be forced to embrace the parallel paradigm.
I know your dollar is sh1t at the moment, but really ps3s STILL cost that much? or is disinformation just where you live?
I'm talking about the people that bought it in the first few months. I know they are losing mad money on the console and trying to push it by bundling it with games and stuff but it's still expensive.
I'm talking about the people that bought it in the first few months. I know they are losing mad money on the console and trying to push it by bundling it with games and stuff but it's still expensive.
so you would still "promote" the iPhone as a $599 device.
Amid all this madness, anyone else excited for Mirror's Edge? I don't see how anyone could NOT be!
I'm not. I looked at the video at game-trailers, and I wasn't all that enthusiastic about it. It had a cool running thing, but without a plot, objectives and many other features it seems somewhat one dimensional and boring.
Your both diluted.
Why do you insist that countless reports, echoes from industry insiders, and many developers from AAA studios are lying? or manipulating the truth? Seriously, get a grip. The cell is a b/tch, it's been a b/tch since people got their hands on PS3 dev kits. Sony has never made their platform developer friendly but they were the dominate console last gen but that isn't the case anymore. Studios are questioning the return for their investment into developing for the PS3.
Case in point- Uncharted by the studio someone in here mentioned, Naughty Dog. They sunk a good chunk of money into that game which came out pretty decent but only turned a slight profit for the studio which umm i believe is owned by Sony.
I'm not. I looked at the video at game-trailers, and I wasn't all that enthusiastic about it. It had a cool running thing, but without a plot, objectives and many other features it seems somewhat one dimensional and boring.
What makes you think it wouldn't have a plot or objectives or anything?
*sigh*
If you would stop over exaggerating things, maybe people would actually listen to you?
Wait, I didn't think this was as widespread an issue anymore.
Why do you insist that countless reports, echoes from industry insiders, and many developers from AAA studios are lying? or manipulating the truth? Seriously, get a grip. The cell is a b/tch, it's been a b/tch since people got their hands on PS3 dev kits. Sony has never made their platform developer friendly but they were the dominate console last gen but that isn't the case anymore. Studios are questioning the return for their investment into developing for the PS3.
Absolutely right, the cell is very expensive to program but more importantly it doesn't do the stuff that games really need.
The graphics pipeline on the PS3 is crippled by a lack of texture bandwidth, which is why so many games are running with texture filtering turned down low. Hence the really noisy texture look on the PS3.
Anyone developing for the PS3 is not supposed to openly criticize the platform. There are legal agreements in place which prevent that sort of commentary.
Behind closed doors there is a torrent of complaint.
C.
Why do you insist that countless reports, echoes from industry insiders, and many developers from AAA studios are lying? or manipulating the truth? Seriously, get a grip. The cell is a b/tch, it's been a b/tch since people got their hands on PS3 dev kits. Sony has never made their platform developer friendly but they were the dominate console last gen but that isn't the case anymore. Studios are questioning the return for their investment into developing for the PS3.
Case in point- Uncharted by the studio someone in here mentioned, Naughty Dog. They sunk a good chunk of money into that game which came out pretty decent but only turned a slight profit for the studio which umm i believe is owned by Sony.
Countless reports vs. Countless reports. 360 VS. PS3 is just like Apple vs. Microsoft. In one hand you have people that swear by one, and in the other there are haters.
I have to defer to amcl's post who makes a point that is undeniable, and elaborate by adding that the days of the old are gone and developers have to move on and start learning again. There is no way around it. At least sony saw the shift and started planning for the future while M$ decided to keep milking old technologies rather than ramping up for the future. If anything I think M$ is hurting the developer industry as a whole and not just the gaming industry by hanging on to a dead horse.
Parallel programming is a new paradigm for mainstream developers which is why there has been some struggle to adjust here. However, multi core processing such as the PS3's IBM cell design are the future and it is here to stay.
Intel recently made a statement to this effect, that developers need to start considering how their design scales to hundreds or thousands of cores not just quad or octa cores in the very near future. Intel and AMD have been saying for several years now that the free performance gained from just ramping up the clock on a single core design has ended.
So IMO the argument that this design is costly in terms of development and will fall away is a moot point. It is the way performance is going to be scaling now according to all of the major CPU vendors. So software development is going to be forced to embrace the parallel paradigm.
Countless reports vs. Countless reports. 360 VS. PS3 is just like Apple vs. Microsoft. In one hand you have people that swear by one, and in the other there are haters.
I have to defer to amcl's post who makes a point that is undeniable, and elaborate by adding that the days of the old are gone and developers have to move on and start learning again. There is no way around it. At least sony saw the shift and started planning for the future while M$ decided to keep milking old technologies rather than ramping up for the future. If anything I think M$ is hurting the developer industry as a whole and not just the gaming industry by hanging on to a dead horse.
And i'll refer to Carniphage's post. The cell wasn't made specifically for gaming, it was a multi-purpose chip. Why should game developers deal with programming on a chip that isn't specifically designed for gaming? Nor supported with easy to use tools? Which is another huge complaint about Sony's platform verses Microsofts.
I love the hot air that spews out around here. There is no indication that gaming is moving in any direction but backwards. Look at the hype the Wii is getting, I hate it, believe me, I hate it, but to quote a general computing statement from an Intel person for the sake of this argument is completely off grounds with the argument.
If anything Sony has been doing nothing but playing catch up to their competitors in the gaming aspect of their "Personal Computing" unit. The company once stated "NExt gen doesn't start until we say it does" haha. all they do is mimic their competitors now.
Countless reports vs. Countless reports. 360 VS. PS3 is just like Apple vs. Microsoft. In one hand you have people that swear by one, and in the other there are haters.
I have to defer to amcl's post who makes a point that is undeniable, and elaborate by adding that the days of the old are gone and developers have to move on and start learning again. There is no way around it. At least sony saw the shift and started planning for the future while M$ decided to keep milking old technologies rather than ramping up for the future. If anything I think M$ is hurting the developer industry as a whole and not just the gaming industry by hanging on to a dead horse.
The games industry is a business.
To a developer, a console is a just a box. You put money into development, and take money out when the game sells. If it costs more to make a game than you get back in sales, you lose money. End of story. Check out Sony's balance sheet to see the numbers.
Parallel programming is indeed the future. An ideal gaming machine might have a quad cores, each with fast SSE style maths unit, alongside a fast (SLI) GPU with great bandwidth.
But the Cell represents a very strange model of that paradigm. A single conventional core with a bunch of fast gimp processors is ill-suited to the requirement of games. And even more ill suited to the needs of game developers.
Games *can* be written for the Cell for sure. It's just that if you spend $1M on the PS3 and $1M on the 360, you simply get more game for your money on the 360. That is partly because a lot of PS3 development revolves around low-level programming. The most sought-after PS3 engineers are old-school guys who can deal with this 20th century programming stuff.
Typical stories are teams who get devkits and get their engines up and running on the 360 in a couple of weeks. Whereas the PS3 versions take many many months and have stability and performance issues right up to shipping.
BTW, I am not impressed with the 360's non-electronic engineering. The fan on the 360 is deafening, and the red-ring-of-death is a total "Charlie Foxtrot" in Halo speak.
C.
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/110569
Pioneer, the Japanese drive manufacturer, has developed the first laboratory prototype of a Blu-ray Disc that can store 400 gigabytes on one side. Each of its 16 storage layers holds 25 gigabytes. The previous record holder, TDK, only managed to squeeze 200 gigabytes on to 6 to 8 storage layers.
Pioneer says the greatest difficulty it had to overcome was extracting a useful optical signal from the sandwiched layers. Its new lens technology however does a very good job of compensating for spherical aberration in the optical path and minimizing crosstalk and transmission losses, so the optical sensor is able to get a good signal even from the lowest layer.
The success of the prototype will probably be exploited mainly for publicity purposes. It is doubtful, given the current state of the art, that such a 16-layer Blu-ray Disc would ever go into production. Present-day Blu-ray Discs can store 50 gigabytes on two layers. The return from the production effort falls dramatically with each additional storage layer, so economically justifiable mass production still seems far off.
For a practical drive, higher transfer rates would be desirable. If a 400-gigabyte disc were written to at the normal Blu-ray transfer rate – 4.5 megabytes per second – it would take 25 hours for the burner to fill it. Because of speed restrictions, it's expected that the Blu-ray Disc will in the future be limited to being read or written at a maximum of 12X. This makes it more likely that the technology developed by Pioneer will be used in coming generations of new optical storage media, rather than in a Blu-ray device.
Pioneer makes a 400-gigabyte Blu-ray Disc
seen that the other day, looks interesting, now if only I could get an Apple supported burner for a cheap price.
I feel theres not much point in asking you Marz, have you bought a BD player yet? I think if you had you would have posted here
And i'll refer to Carniphage's post. The cell wasn't made specifically for gaming, it was a multi-purpose chip. Why should game developers deal with programming on a chip that isn't specifically designed for gaming? Nor supported with easy to use tools? Which is another huge complaint about Sony's platform verses Microsofts.
I love the hot air that spews out around here. There is no indication that gaming is moving in any direction but backwards. Look at the hype the Wii is getting, I hate it, believe me, I hate it, but to quote a general computing statement from an Intel person for the sake of this argument is completely off grounds with the argument.
If anything Sony has been doing nothing but playing catch up to their competitors in the gaming aspect of their "Personal Computing" unit. The company once stated "NExt gen doesn't start until we say it does" haha. all they do is mimic their competitors now.
The games industry is a business.
To a developer, a console is a just a box. You put money into development, and take money out when the game sells. If it costs more to make a game than you get back in sales, you lose money. End of story. Check out Sony's balance sheet to see the numbers.
Parallel programming is indeed the future. An ideal gaming machine might have a quad cores, each with fast SSE style maths unit, alongside a fast (SLI) GPU with great bandwidth.
But the Cell represents a very strange model of that paradigm. A single conventional core with a bunch of fast gimp processors is ill-suited to the requirement of games. And even more ill suited to the needs of game developers.
Games *can* be written for the Cell for sure. It's just that if you spend $1M on the PS3 and $1M on the 360, you simply get more game for your money on the 360. That is partly because a lot of PS3 development revolves around low-level programming. The most sought-after PS3 engineers are old-school guys who can deal with this 20th century programming stuff.
Typical stories are teams who get devkits and get their engines up and running on the 360 in a couple of weeks. Whereas the PS3 versions take many many months and have stability and performance issues right up to shipping.
BTW, I am not impressed with the 360's non-electronic engineering. The fan on the 360 is deafening, and the red-ring-of-death is a total "Charlie Foxtrot" in Halo speak.
C.
You two keep crying the same tune. And it's stale. We hear about countless reports, and all these developers that are having such a hard time developing, but I've seen all the same arguments in favor of the PS3 too. When I said countless reports vs. countless reports I was saying someone says "tomato" someone else says "tomato".
Dig up some some real dirt if your going to try to argue.
You two keep crying the same tune. And it's stale. We hear about countless reports, and all these developers that are having such a hard time developing, but I've seen all the same arguments in favor of the PS3 too. When I said countless reports vs. countless reports I was saying someone says "tomato" someone else says "tomato".
Dig up some some real dirt if your going to try to argue.
And you have some facts? Or just tedious fanboyism.
All of the Sony developers say this stuff behind closed doors. Sony make them sign contracts which forbid open criticism of the platform. Obviously.
But the facts are out there.
Kutaragi originally stated that the PS3 would be superior.
http://play.tm/wire/click/271864
Now Kutaragi is gone. I think the consensus is that in side by side comparisons we can't see any superiority.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3167612
But there is one really clear difference. It's the release dates of titles.
Sony had a line up of titles - and its fair to say there has been quite a bit of slippage.
The "Halo killer" - Killzone 2 has yet to appear. Despite being the most expensive media project ever to come out of the Netherlands. It is looking like a 4 year project! 4 years! That's the gap between the Xbox 1 and the Xbox 360.
Polyphony are an awesome development house. But where is Gran Turismo 4 ?
It's an upgrade of the PS2 game and it still has not materialized.
Oblivion appeared a year later on the PS3 (although it was supposed to be a launch title)
The PS3 version of Grand Theft Auto 4 was stalled because the PS3 version was not ready.
Dude the evidence is out there.
Let's sing the theme song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R98qC0fd_1w
C.