Whats the story with PS3? & PS3 Release March 2007?

projectmayhem

steviec wrote:

It's definitely 7 bluetooth devices and it's completely independent of USB ports.
Having a hub and up to 7 devices connected to it is simply how Bluetooth works, that's why it's a weird number its just the maximum the format supports.

All of those devices will be joypads most likely. Remember, the joypads are wireless so that means bluetooth. It makes more sense for things like eyetoy to plug into a usb port, a wireless eyetoy that needs a battery would be kind of pointless. It would make sense for stuff like headsets to use bluetooth though, if they don't plug into the pad like on 360.

it appears we're both right... except i'm wrong. i checked one of the spec sheets and it's 7 wireless devices and 6 USB slots... Front x 4, Rear x 2 (USB2.0)

MontgomeryClift

An interesting read here - Impressions of a developer's near complete PS3 kit:
http://games.kikizo.com/news/200602/065_p1.asp

They make much of the lack of 1080p output in the games but most TVs sold now don't do 1080p it probably won't make a difference to most, and considering that people still don't even know the advantages of RGB SCART and insist on using those cruddy composite cables, gamers of the future probably won't even use component cables to play!

projectmayhem

read that article and went on a mad rant on another forum. from what they say and from what devs i talk to and other devs in the media it seems whoever kikizo talked to are just not talented at all. they were complaining about AA on ps3. i mean, come on... that's the last thing to be worrying about on a console like that.

Ciaran500

Why wouldn't you need AA on the PS3?

projectmayhem

Ciaran500 wrote:

Why wouldn't you need AA on the PS3?

no the articles "leaking devs" say it's hard to get AA running with other stuff because of performance, when the cell chip does AA alone, without RSX as a built-in thing, so the dip in performance is minimal. which makes me think that these devs are cowboys. or ea. same thing i guess

EasyBoy1974

from that artcle and other stuff we've been hearing it sounds like we'll be getting a console that's better at x360 at some things and worse at others, a year & a bit later, twice as large and 3 times the price of M$ console.

MS got some stick for it's worldwide release, but Sony should be trying to release quicker in this territory, especially if the machine is not the powerhouse we were primed and ready for ....

projectmayhem

EasyBoy1974 wrote:

from that artcle and other stuff we've been hearing it sounds like we'll be getting a console that's better at x360 at some things and worse at others, a year & a bit later, twice as large and 3 times the price of M$ console.

MS got some stick for it's worldwide release, but Sony should be trying to release quicker in this territory, especially if the machine is not the powerhouse we were primed and ready for ....

look at other interviews with devs and stuff. they all pretty much say it's an ultra-powerful computer (moreso then 360 anyway). that article was fairly strange tbh.

i don't know why any dev studio's would come out and break their nda's, unless they're cowboys. if you have a ps3 devkit you're not going to break the NDA with sony because it's sony who decide if your game comes out or not. despite the anonymity, any AAA devs wont take that kind of risk

steviec

EasyBoy1974 wrote:

from that artcle and other stuff we've been hearing it sounds like we'll be getting a console that's better at x360 at some things and worse at others, a year & a bit later, twice as large and 3 times the price of M$ console.

Why would Sony's parts be more expensive, bigger, and only slightly more powerful? Especially given they've had a year's more development time?

IBM is responsible for the processor in both consoles, their essentially very similar except the Cell has more cores. The cell was designed in partnership with Sony with cost effectiveness in mind. I don't see how it could possibly be vastly more expensive than a PPC processor without any improvement in performance.

ATI makes the 360 graphics chip, nvidia makes the PS3 one. Again, the nvidia one has slightly higher spec for the most part. The two companies have been practically neck and neck for years in the PC market, I think it's reasonable to expect an nvidia card that's making its first appearance this year will offer slightly more bang per buck than an ATI card that made its first appearance last year. Considering that's basically how its been for every card the two companies have produced for years.

The only thing that might really differenciate the two consoles is the blu ray player, and considering all the hardware is already in there to decode blu ray movies(the same hardware that runs games), the only increase in price here would be the laser, and I doubt thats any huge sum of cash.

All that article stated is that inexperienced developers are making slightly better looking games on the PS3 than inexperienced developers of so far made on Xbox 360. Which is exactly what I'd expect at this stage. I certainly don't think IBM & Nvidia are producing less efficient parts this year than IBM & ATI were producing last year. It doesn't make sense.

GrumPy

Whenever its out, we have mgs4 to look forward too, and by that time, the 360 will be pissing great online multi games can wait, a bit of competition is always good.