What are the Real differences between consoles?

Gummy Panda

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The thing is the PS3 technology isn't better than the 360's. They are both better in different areas but Sony made a huge mistake in not giving the graphics card enough memory bandwidth. You say that the PS3 will start to show high res textures but it's actually the 360 can can technically pump out more higher res textures thanks to it's 10mB eDRAM. The PS3 is slightly better with shaders which can be overlaid on top of the lower res textures to give them the illusion that they are higher res. As far as I can see both consoles are pretty much on par. I've been very disappointed in the PS3. It was out over a year after the 360 yet it's only really on par with that console. Compare that to Gamecube and Xbox, both of which came out a year after the PS2 and wiped the floor with it in terms of power.

Shouldn't you be off dressed like a Japanese school girl now?

Retr0gamer

I had my fun on thursday.

jesus_thats_gre

I haven't read the thread so not sure if this has been said.

I always considered Sony's decision to essentially add the Nvidea 7800 into the PS3 to be an after thought. I fully believe that they expected all processing to occur solely on the Cell processor and just threw in the dedicated GPU to make it easier for developers early on while they were getting to grips with the Cell processor.

Either way, I think the final design was quite a compromise and quite different to what they originally wanted to provide - dual 1080p outputs anybody?

dloob

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

I haven't read the thread so not sure if this has been said.

I always considered Sony's decision to essentially add the Nvidea 7800 into the PS3 to be an after thought. I fully believe that they expected all processing to occur solely on the Cell processor and just threw in the dedicated GPU to make it easier for developers early on while they were getting to grips with the Cell processor.

Either way, I think the final design was quite a compromise and quite different to what they originally wanted to provide - dual 1080p outputs anybody?

I also heard that was the original plan, the SPUs would do the graphics.
When it became obvious this wouldn't be enough the GPU was added.

Overheal

Perhaps their PS4 will be a much more powerful Cel/SPU build, pure. But then again, unless you're discussing a substantial gain in performance:cost ratio, I hardly see the point.

MooseJam

I don't like consoles because they are old tech as soon as you buy them and only get older as time goes by - whats are they now 4 years old, a top spec pc is far far more powerfull than either and the gap is only growing

Tea_Bag

MooseJam wrote: »

I don't like consoles because they are old tech as soon as you buy them and only get older as time goes by - whats are they now 4 years old, a top spec pc is far far more powerfull than either and the gap is only growing

yet we are still able to play the latest games on them, and they output at 1080p, and you can pick up a second hand one for under €100.

if you can find me a second hand pc, with 3 years warranty (in the case of an xbox), that can play COD4/farcry2/forza3 for around that price ill gladly switch no questions asked.

PogMoThoin

Tea_Bag wrote: »

yet we are still able to play the latest games on them, and they output at 1080p, and you can pick up a second hand one for under €100.

if you can find me a second hand pc, with 3 years warranty (in the case of an xbox), that can play COD4/farcry2/forza3 for around that price ill gladly switch no questions asked.

Back to the old argument that consoles are holding pc games back. Consoles might upscale to 1080p but pc's play at much higher resolutions than that, in much greater detail. But this is completely OT and is for another thread entirely.

LookingFor

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The thing is the PS3 technology isn't better than the 360's. They are both better in different areas but Sony made a huge mistake in not giving the graphics card enough memory bandwidth. You say that the PS3 will start to show high res textures but it's actually the 360 can can technically pump out more higher res textures thanks to it's 10mB eDRAM

That's not true. Pretty much no one is using the eDram for texturing, it doesn't make much sense to do so - since it's such a small amount of memory that's hard enough to fit the framebuffer in, let alone to leave room over for high res textures.

The advantage 360 has in terms of texturing, and it's a small one, is the amount of RAM the OS uses and the way the memory is split up in each system. The PS3's uses slightly more RAM than the 360's, so there's slightly less available for other things, including textures. However, Sony has been cutting back on the OS's RAM usage, freeing up memory over time. Compounding that is the way memory is set up on the PS3, with half hanging off the GPU and half off the CPU, making it a bit more challenging to split RAM usage exactly how a developer might like.

But, it's really nothing to do with the eDram.

Anyway, I'll stick to what I said before - when you have systems like this that are more or less in a similar ballpark the difference really comes down to developers, and what developers you have working exclusively on a given system. Sony's advantage is there, not massively with the technology itself, though Cell in the right hands does seem to be more of an advantage than anything else either system has over the other. To a certain degree it is being turned into a second GPU in the more sophisticated games, and that's probably helping them a lot to reach that higher level of visuals. But it took those smart developers to do that in the first place

gizmo - I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. For sure, it has helped Sony that they've been around longer here and had more time perhaps to cultivate their devs. Comparing them both at similar points though, during the PS2 era sony invested heavily in these developers and in new developers, and came along in big strides on the software front. 360 is MS's second console, and so far they seem more inclined to divest themselves of development assets rather than to invest in them. It's left them at a big disadvantage in the 'best looking games' stakes IMO. The Sony developers seem to mostly use their own technology and share a lot of stuff around between them, and it's for the most part proprietary tech that's very focussed on getting the best out of the system. In Microsoft's case there doesn't seem to be that same level of technology investment, and I think that's a shame for the platform because I think the system is capable of much more than we've seen out of it.

Tea_Bag

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Back to the old argument that consoles are holding pc games back. Consoles might upscale to 1080p but pc's play at much higher resolutions than that, in much greater detail. But this is completely OT and is for another thread entirely.

you've misunderstood what im was trying to say.

Ive no argument about resolution vs PC, for sure, the PC will blow away any console in that department, but what im saying is that as it stands, 1080p is the norm now on TV's, and the consoles support upto that res.

my real point lay in the fact that a gamer with little money to throw at a PC, which lets be honest, is also dated the minute you buy it (though upgradable) has no choice but to get a ps3/xbox. but he/she wont be dissapointed because it can run all the new games.

Kinetic^

Lad's, keep the PC vs console gaming stuff out of this thread please.


I firmly believe that the PS3 has the potential to be the better console but whether or not the 3rd party developers will take advantage of it remains to be seen. I've not seen much difference the in the annual cross platform releases such as FIFA/PES/NBA.

Microsoft has the advantage because, much like they did when they first started out building operating systems, they were out first and were the only option for people. If the PS3 had come out at the same time I feel that they'd be the market leader with developers choosing Sony over Microsoft. The brief Blu-ray vs HD-DVD saga probaby would've never happened either.

I don't game on either system much anymore but actually prefer the PS3 GUI now then the updated dasboard of the Xbox 360. I didn't see the need to updated the original dashboard at all. The media capabilities on the PS3 far out weight those on the Xbox 360 and that's why it gets used more by ourselves at home. If I was to go back gaming on either, it would be the Xbox 360 though, purely down to the controller being miles ahead of the dual shock.

gizmo

LookingFor wrote: »

gizmo - I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. For sure, it has helped Sony that they've been around longer here and had more time perhaps to cultivate their devs. Comparing them both at similar points though, during the PS2 era sony invested heavily in these developers and in new developers, and came along in big strides on the software front. 360 is MS's second console, and so far they seem more inclined to divest themselves of development assets rather than to invest in them. It's left them at a big disadvantage in the 'best looking games' stakes IMO. The Sony developers seem to mostly use their own technology and share a lot of stuff around between them, and it's for the most part proprietary tech that's very focussed on getting the best out of the system. In Microsoft's case there doesn't seem to be that same level of technology investment, and I think that's a shame for the platform because I think the system is capable of much more than we've seen out of it.

Quite true, one need only look at the closure of the likes of Ensemble, ACES and FASA to see this in action. That being said, the first two were pretty specialised studios, neither of which really fit into the console market which I is understandable in that respect I guess.

Regarding the sharing of technology, well that again is true but for somewhat different reasons. For one, MS developer support is, in general, good enough for most studios to know what they're doing. Then in the hands of more experienced studios we see the best of what can be offered. As for exclusive titles these have mostly been released by non-MGS developers hence sharing tech isn't really appropriate. For Sony studios, however, this is certainly in their best interests and they've had no problem doing just that, even with the public. One need only look at Insomniacs R&D section of their website for some great material on their work on the platform.

I really don't agree with the assumption that the PS3 would be the market leader had it come to the market first though Kinetic^. Most of the best games on the PS3 have only come out in the last year which would mean the 360 would still have had some big titles under it's belt even with the delayed release. And lets not forget that in that time developers would still be getting to grips with the PS3 hardware and would suddenly have, at their disposal, a console which can do most of what they were trying to do with less effort.

As for the NXE Dashboard I must say I'm a big fan but having used the PS3 XMB more and more these days I do appreciate its slicker navigation. That being said, I still find the former far easier to find stuff I'm looking for rather than the more jumbled approach of the PSN. That and the fact there's a trial for everything is a huge benefit to those of us with limited funds.

Retr0gamer

I think had the PS3 had come out first they would still have priced themselves out of the market. The price point of the PS3 was ridiculous and put off anybody but the hardcore and the rich. You can argue with the 360 costing as much if you wanted the same features of the PS3 but there was still that psychological barrier of the crazy price it had. The PS3 slim and it's lower price point however have been a big step in the right direction for sony and really MS should have seen it coming and worked on a smaller version of their console although I don't think anyone thought sony would get a slim PS3 out so quickly.

By the way has anyone got sales figures of the PS3 since the slim was released. I fully expect the PS3 to slingshot itself into 2nd place this christmas due to the newly affordable price and the PS brand still having a lot of pulling power.

noodler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

By the way has anyone got sales figures of the PS3 since the slim was released. I fully expect the PS3 to slingshot itself into 2nd place this christmas due to the newly affordable price and the PS brand still having a lot of pulling power.

Some pretty good games will help too.

Retr0gamer

You'll be surprised how little that helps. A small minority of the hardcore will see stuff like Uncharted 2 and think that at the price the PS3 is now worth buying for the exclusives. Captain casual however see's the new price and a way to play the new Fifa.

If games mattered we'd be playing the Dreamcast 2 now.

noodler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You'll be surprised how little that helps. A small minority of the hardcore will see stuff like Uncharted 2 and think that at the price the PS3 is now worth buying for the exclusives. Captain casual however see's the new price and a way to play the new Fifa.

If games mattered we'd be playing the Dreamcast 2 now.

Kind of taking the "surely games matter a little" argument to extremes there?

I don't disagree with your above apart from I would say it is a large minority that buy these systems (PS3/360 anyway) rather than a small minority. I would certainly disagree that a figure like 80-90% of (PS3-360) buy the console for Fifa.

More extreme DC love, thankfully the PS2 and XBOX had amazing games and now we play their successors.

Gummy Panda

noodler wrote: »

Kind of taking the "surely games matter a little" argument to extremes there?

I don't disagree with your above apart from I would say it is a large minority that buy these systems (PS3/360 anyway) rather than a small minority. I would certainly disagree that a figure like 80-90% of (PS3-360) buy the console for Fifa.

More extreme DC love, thankfully the PS2 and XBOX had amazing games and now we play their successors.

Tbh, I don't think the DC was all that. Anyway, I will agree that the PS3 price point was too high. Students, teenagers and kids couldn't really afford it. MS won there as they had affordable SKUs which you could add on the features later.

Retr0gamer

The majority of people that buy these consoles only ever play multiformat games. They are buying the PS3 on brand strength because they can play the same games on a 360 for a cheaper price. I tried to convince a friend of mine to get a360 instead of a PS3 because he only wanted to play PES, Fifa and UFC on it and he still went ahead and got the PS3.

As for the DC you have to remember that it only lasted 18 months and in those 18 months had an incredible amount of excellent titles on it. It wiped the floor in terms of quality exclusives compared to the PS2. Just before the DC died the PS2 came into it's own and by the end the PS2 was a much better machine. If you don't know your DC games you probably don't think much of it. It's a weird console with most of it's good games being very hardcore with not many decent casual games.

As for the Xbox having amazing games, I think not. In terms of exclusives the xbox had very little exclusives worth playing and most of it's good games were multiformat. It's probably the worst console I've owned for exclusives by a long shot.

The attach rate of most consoles is 1:3 or 1:4 in most cases like the PS2 (thats 3 games to every console). So the average punter will buy 3 or 4 games in the whole games life cycle. These people are the majority and will be buying PES, Fifa, CoD Singstar and other populist games. These are the people that make the most money for the console manufacturers. The initial console release loses money but they make it back on the early hardcore adopters that buy a lot of games. In the second phase the price of manufacture and the selling price of the console is lowered and they start making a profit on the console and attract casual gamers that only buy a handful of games.

Gummy Panda

The xbox had xbl. It was amazing at the time. Playing RS3 with voice chat on a console with friends. I remember games being bought by friends based on it having the live logo.

We were chasing our next online multiplayer thrill. I still remember nights of playing spy vs merc in splinter cell pandora tomorrow

Retr0gamer

If you had a PC you wouldn't have been impressed since there was a lot of Xbox 'exclusives' that could be played on the PC. Games available only on the xbox were few and far between.

Gummy Panda

Retr0gamer wrote: »

If you had a PC you wouldn't have been impressed since there was a lot of Xbox 'exclusives' that could be played on the PC. Games available only on the xbox were few and far between.

True but like i said, we were gaming on a console not a PC. Also there was a sense of community as there wasn't much of the annoying screaming kids on XBL then.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The majority of people that buy these consoles only ever play multiformat games. They are buying the PS3 on brand strength because they can play the same games on a 360 for a cheaper price. I tried to convince a friend of mine to get a360 instead of a PS3 because he only wanted to play PES, Fifa and UFC on it and he still went ahead and got the PS3.

Of the top selling 360 games found here, 6 out of the top 12 are exclusives and the same goes for the PS3 sales found here so I'm not sure where your logic applies. Also, I wasn't aware PS3 games were cheaper than their 360 counterparts? Or did I miss something when I saw Infamous for £42 in GAME?

Unfortunately your friend sounds like most PS3 owners I know, one has even been raving about it since launch day where he extolled the awesomeness of MGS4, God Of War III and Gran Turismo 5 several years before their launch.

Retr0gamer

I meant he could have gotten a Xbox cheaper than a PS3.

Also no doubt exclusives sell well on each console but I don't think they factor as much into peoples decision to buy a console.

noodler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I meant he could have gotten a Xbox cheaper than a PS3.

Also no doubt exclusives sell well on each console but I don't think they factor as much into peoples decision to buy a console.

I don't play UFC much but for PES/Fifa the PS controller is just the only way to go for many. The D-pad is just unusable on he 360 and many people don't use the analogue sticks due to response times. Also, I believ there are serious problems / limitations on the 360 when it comes to editing and the option files for real kits etc.

Roar

really enjoying the debate here guys, keep it up!

LookingFor

Retr0gamer wrote: »

By the way has anyone got sales figures of the PS3 since the slim was released. I fully expect the PS3 to slingshot itself into 2nd place this christmas due to the newly affordable price and the PS brand still having a lot of pulling power.

Worldwide they said after 3 weeks that an estimated 1m units had been sold.

We don't have numbers for Europe, but it has led the home console market in Japan since it launched - only just since the Wii price cut - and did the same in the US in September.

I expect it'll be a back and forth between Wii and PS3 in Japan for the rest of the year. In the US i'd expect Wii to go back to #1 in October, but PS3 will probably still beat the 360. After October, I don't know. I think 360 could still beat it in North America for the holidays in total given the momentum it has had there, but I would expect the PS3 to do far better than it did last year (when the Wii and 360 really trounced it). I'd guess in Europe that it has been handily beating the 360 since Sept and I'd expect it to continue to do so for the rest of the year, but I've no idea vs the Wii.

Gummy Panda

I think the PS3 Slim will do well this christmas. The retailers seem keen on pushing it and Sony is a still a strong brand name in Ireland.

I know lads in work who got PS3s and when asked it was because they always had a playstation and perceived them as good consoles.

I think this generation has been interesting in how the markets have shaped unlike last gen which was basically PS2 > all in all markets.

PogMoThoin

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I think the PS3 Slim will do well this christmas. The retailers seem keen on pushing it and Sony is a still a strong brand name in Ireland.

I know lads in work who got PS3s and when asked it was because they always had a playstation and perceived them as good consoles.

I think this generation has been interesting in how the markets have shaped unlike last gen which was basically PS2 > all in all markets.

But not having backward compatibility with the ps2 is gonna be its downfall, everyones got a shed full of ps2 games

Gummy Panda

PogMoThoin wrote: »

But not having backward compatibility with the ps2 is gonna be its downfall, everyones got a shed full of ps2 games

what happen to their ps2 consoles?

IMO, back compat is really a selling point on paper for the start of consoles life. As soon as the games that demonstrate HD gaming show up, joe soap will push back compat aside. I think i used back compat twice on the xbox 360 and i moved from xbox to 360 with a decent library of games.

Would i like it? yes, least cables lying around.

smooch71

PogMoThoin wrote: »

But not having backward compatibility with the ps2 is gonna be its downfall, everyones got a shed full of ps2 games

Definitely not. That point is very much out of date.

I remember when the PS2 came out thinking how great it was that I could play PS1 games on it. But I never did.

Nobody is going to not buy a PS2 coz it doesn't play PS2 games.

I still have a PS2 that never gets turned on.