By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Why is there soo much negativity in any 360 related thread?

NightAntilli on 08 March 2010
joeorc said:
NightAntilli said:

To be honest, I don't really care why the architecture is the way it is. Some people say it's to allow the graphics to get better over time, which is nothing but a lame excuse in my opinion. And actually, the one who is hurt the most by this is Sony. They need to put much more resources into developing for the PS3 than if the architecture was a bit more simple. They are the ones losing money over this. Aside from that, you really can't force a 3rd party developer to put more effort on your platform than on the other one. They do what they can within the limited time span, and chances are, the easier platform to develop for is gonna get the cake.

how do you know that it's an excuse:

you just stated:

"To be honest, I don't really care why the architecture is the way it is"

so why would you call it a lame excuse, how do you know for sure if you don't care?

as for

the easier platform take's the cake

what cake?

sofar the number of system's are all over 30+ million and the PS3 is getting most if not all 3rd party game's that the xbox360 is getting.

so what cake would that be?

It's a lame excuse because the graphics on a console get better anyway, whether it's "easy" to develop for or not, it still has a learning curve, and new rendering techniques are learned over time. Making the console a nightmare to develop for will appear to give you a greater graphical increase, but that's just because the games  in the first two years under-perform greatly, while it's not needed. And that's especially hurtful when you have such a great price disadvantage with the competition..

About the cake, I'm talking about the best results. As of now, most multi-plats have better results on the X360. The most common scenarios are:

- X360 looks (slightly) better and performs better
- Both are somewhat equal,  X360 performs better
- PS3 looks (slightly) better, X360 performs better

There are a few exceptions, but that is how it usually goes, and it simply didn't need to be that way. 



Truth does not fear investigation

Around the Network
Carl on 08 March 2010

I think people should CUT DOWN THE QUOTES!

At least just remove the first few quotes before the actual post you reply to!

it hurts my eyes!



                            

dsister44 on 08 March 2010
Icyedge said:
Do you realize that many persons here does exactly what they are criticism? Some of the name in here, I see them all the time posting negative things in the Sony forum. If you want that to stop, show the example! Its always a good start.

I'm guessing you are talking about me. Link me to where I said anything bad about Sony! :p



joeorc on 08 March 2010
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:
RAZurrection said:
CGI-Quality said:
RAZurrection said:
CGI-Quality said:

Really? 3rd Parties such as Id Tech 5 & Crytek, two of the most tech driven in existence (and two of the devs that people such as yourself  & RAZurrection use as references with graphics discussions), have agreed that the PS3 has more raw power, but that's besides the point. Unless you can factually prove that Sony somehow falsified their statements, you can't say what promises were broken.

One things for sure selnor, you use reviews as the template when judging graphics and right now, reviews are giving the nod to the PS3.

Yeah, see here's another problem, there's links and articles available which state the direct opposite, but you treat it like it's fact.

Let's have em.

John Carmack interview with Wired re: PS3


"It's not a bad console; it's certainly far better than everything else
except maybe the Xbox 360. In an ideal world PlayStation 3 will be more
powerful, but for the vast majority of the cases, you'll be able to
effectively exploit more power from the 360."

 

Rage preview/interview

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off..."

Another interview

, "...the only thing Sony has going for them over the 360, is the data storage on the blu-ray..." And about a minute and a half later, just in case we didn't quite hear him correctly the first time, he said, "...the only real advantage that the PS3 has over the 360, from our point of view, is the extra space."

...

..."Yeah, I mean that's our position that it's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is a better platform to develop for. When you get down into actual comparisons on the hardware performance characteristics, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. On almost anything on the strictly graphical side, in terms of pushing vertexes and triangles on there, the 360 hardware is superior to the PS3's RSX on there.

...


"On the processing side it's a little bit more complicated, where the main processor on the PS3 is roughly equivalent to one of the three processors on the 360. But then you wind up saying, you have to compare two other symmetric processors on the 360 versus the eight quirky cell processors. And that comes down to one of those questions, where if you just look at the raw numbers, the cells are much more powerful. Many more flops on there, in theory you can do a lot more, but that's where you come to the difference between theory and practice. And given an infinite amount of development time on there, you can craft a program that's gonna work more efficiently on the cells there than on two additional processors on the 360. But given a finite amount of development time, it's much-much easier to get things working well on the 360 than it is on the PS3. And that's pretty much the case across the board."

on blu-ray

"And if it winds up getting a benefit because of the blu-ray and having the better compression on there, then it's going to wind up looking like the PS3 was the better machine, even though it really wasn't.."

Crytek

Cavet Yerli on Cryengine 3

"We realise the PS3 is going to be the lowest common denominator for a lot of developers"

http://www.destructoid.com/how-does-cryengine-3-run-differently-on-ps3-and-360--132464.phtml

.. If the game’s shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360" - This after commenting that they wanted to make Crysis 2 the most shader heavy game yet.

Odds are though i'm sure you will counter these statements with your own. My question is, why do you think your links over-rule mine?

Especially when we have previews like this

Rage runs faster on 360

"You can surmise that the Xbox 360 version of the engine (CryEngine 3) appears to be ahead in development compared to the PS3 rendition. You draw this conclusion simply from the fact that the majority of shots involving elements that really tax the engine (and thus incur frame loss) are using 360 video."

which, in apperently real-life situations paint an opposing picture.

Neither Carmack nor Crytek call the 360 more powerful. They both agree that it takes more to get out of the PS3, but neither have said the 360 IS the more powerful machine, which is what you're arguing.

In fact, in my links, Carmack admits to having a 360 preference, while also admitting that the PS3 has more peak power. Crytek admits that the PS3 version of Crysis 2 will be better, like I said, slightly though.

In other words, you haven't proven anything.

You seem to have not read the whole thing.....after he talks about the ps3 having more peak power he goes off into only saying that that is in only in theory.

Where does he state the 360 is the more powerful machine though? That's the argument with RAZ. You aren't keeping up.

Seriously CGI. You dont see it? Are we all reading the same thing? Please dont give me more twists. Ideal world is referring to ( theoretical power ). Noone will likely ever know if the PS3 is more powerful. The 360 is far from maxxed. As we are just getting the first games pushing propietry engines forward after M$ set up the studio to help devs with graphics. Funny enough, both coming from 3rd party devs ( Remedy and Bungie, albeit close devs ).

Those links were seriously in favour of 360. With more than 4 comments outright saying PS3 is not more powerful. IT completely shows my point that 3rd parties are on the fence either side. In fact where 3rd parties are concerned they often say more of the time that the 360 has the raw power in the real world. It's only ever Naughty Dog etc that say otherwise. I cant wait for 2011. 360's 2nd year of propietry rngines. And the new CRYENGINE 3, Rage and Betheda engines. They will all beat this years efforts.

an yet those very same 3rd party developer's use

multi-platform game engine's, which does not push the platform's.

that's the point

If what your saying is true Microsoft has not showcased a 1st party game engine in 4 year's

is that the case, did Microsoft just let 3rd party's use just their game Engine's to make XBOX360 game's , and not worry about pushing the xbox360?

 



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

SlipperyMooseCakes on 08 March 2010

This has become more of a specs war between the 360 and the PS3 than a discussion on the minority population of 360 fans on this site.

You guys just had your own mini reenactment of the fanboy wars right in this thread.



PSN: SlipperyMooseNG   XBL: SlipperyMooseNG

Around the Network
RAZurrection on 08 March 2010
CGI-Quality said:

Neither Carmack nor Crytek call the 360 more powerful.

Uh, they've said no such thing about the PS3.

For a start your Carmack link is dated  - ahem - 2006 before the PS3 cutbacks.

Mine are all from the last 12 months and affirm the following:

  • Xenos is faster than the RSX
  • PS3 has "a bit less memory"
  • The CPU's are "about the same"
  • The Cell only has more to offer if you have "infinite development time", if you don't Xenon is better
  • Blu-ray has more space then DVD, which might be advantageous to the game in the end

In scores that's the GPU and memory to 360 and a tie on the CPU unless your game has an infinite development cycle in which case the PS3 wins, but never actually comes out.

CGI-Quality said:

Crytek admits that the PS3 version of Crysis 2 will be better, like I said, slightly though.

So you got PS3 Crysis will be better from "So the PS3 will run slightly better here...", bearing in mind this includes the PC version in the comparison.

But this "... If the game's shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360" can be used to spin it in the 360s favour.

selnor said:

Seriously CGI. You dont see it?

I'm fairly sure he's choosing to either ignore or disbelieve.

 



Metallicube on 08 March 2010

This site is very pro Sony (and somewhat Wii) and anti 360. But I'd rather have that than gamepro, the site I use to post on, which was basically pro HD and anti Wii.



Garnett on 08 March 2010
Twistedpixel said:
Garnett said:

Sony said PS3 will be twice as powerful as Xbox 360

"According to IBM’s white pages, the cell processor being used in the ps3 is considerably less powerful than what it has been hyped up to be.
Sony officially revealed the PS3 and for the first time at E3 2005, and claimed that their Cell processor would be capable of 200 GFLOPS.

When physically tested however, only 155.5 GFLOP’s were actually achieved (see Table 4) with a total efficiency rate of 75.9%.
Because of manufacturing yield issues, the PS3 will only use 7 SPE’s with the theoretical peak for the PS3’s Cell processor being reduced to 176 GFLOP’s, each running at 25.12 GFLOP’s.

http://ps3.qj.net/Inside-the-PS3-s-O...g/49/aid/21047
According to the (unbiased) site above, the PS3 will also constantly reserve 1 SPE** for running its operating system. Now that there is actually one less SPE reserved for gaming purposes, it is definite that the ps3’s cell will only be capable of 114.4 GFLOP’s for the purpose of game processing."

 

The Xbox 360 has 3 general-purpose 2-threaded CPU's, which generates a proven 115.2 GFLOP’s which is dramatically easier for developers to utilize. By now it should be pathetically obvious that sony is no where near as far ahead as they try to lead you to think (keep in mind they claimed that the ps2 was more powerful than the original xbox, but were proven wrong publicly, since the xbox was indeed twice as powerful).

Remember the Xbox 360 also has part of the processor reserved for OS functions. In addition to this, its probably easier to devote one whole thread/processing element to a problem than to share execution resources and potentially conflict, in addition to this the Cell CPU probably makes better use of each execution unit due to the cache/streaming architecture. So I suspect the achieveable performance for the PS3 is about spot on whilst the Xbox 360 is a little over-exagerated there.

PS3 does 114.4 Gflops while in game.

360 does 115.2 Gflops while in game.

 

360 Xenos is more powerful than the Cell.



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

selnor on 08 March 2010
joeorc said:
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:
RAZurrection said:
CGI-Quality said:
RAZurrection said:
CGI-Quality said:

Really? 3rd Parties such as Id Tech 5 & Crytek, two of the most tech driven in existence (and two of the devs that people such as yourself  & RAZurrection use as references with graphics discussions), have agreed that the PS3 has more raw power, but that's besides the point. Unless you can factually prove that Sony somehow falsified their statements, you can't say what promises were broken.

One things for sure selnor, you use reviews as the template when judging graphics and right now, reviews are giving the nod to the PS3.

Yeah, see here's another problem, there's links and articles available which state the direct opposite, but you treat it like it's fact.

Let's have em.

John Carmack interview with Wired re: PS3


"It's not a bad console; it's certainly far better than everything else
except maybe the Xbox 360. In an ideal world PlayStation 3 will be more
powerful, but for the vast majority of the cases, you'll be able to
effectively exploit more power from the 360."

 

Rage preview/interview

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off..."

Another interview

, "...the only thing Sony has going for them over the 360, is the data storage on the blu-ray..." And about a minute and a half later, just in case we didn't quite hear him correctly the first time, he said, "...the only real advantage that the PS3 has over the 360, from our point of view, is the extra space."

...

..."Yeah, I mean that's our position that it's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is a better platform to develop for. When you get down into actual comparisons on the hardware performance characteristics, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. On almost anything on the strictly graphical side, in terms of pushing vertexes and triangles on there, the 360 hardware is superior to the PS3's RSX on there.

...


"On the processing side it's a little bit more complicated, where the main processor on the PS3 is roughly equivalent to one of the three processors on the 360. But then you wind up saying, you have to compare two other symmetric processors on the 360 versus the eight quirky cell processors. And that comes down to one of those questions, where if you just look at the raw numbers, the cells are much more powerful. Many more flops on there, in theory you can do a lot more, but that's where you come to the difference between theory and practice. And given an infinite amount of development time on there, you can craft a program that's gonna work more efficiently on the cells there than on two additional processors on the 360. But given a finite amount of development time, it's much-much easier to get things working well on the 360 than it is on the PS3. And that's pretty much the case across the board."

on blu-ray

"And if it winds up getting a benefit because of the blu-ray and having the better compression on there, then it's going to wind up looking like the PS3 was the better machine, even though it really wasn't.."

Crytek

Cavet Yerli on Cryengine 3

"We realise the PS3 is going to be the lowest common denominator for a lot of developers"

http://www.destructoid.com/how-does-cryengine-3-run-differently-on-ps3-and-360--132464.phtml

.. If the game’s shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360" - This after commenting that they wanted to make Crysis 2 the most shader heavy game yet.

Odds are though i'm sure you will counter these statements with your own. My question is, why do you think your links over-rule mine?

Especially when we have previews like this

Rage runs faster on 360

"You can surmise that the Xbox 360 version of the engine (CryEngine 3) appears to be ahead in development compared to the PS3 rendition. You draw this conclusion simply from the fact that the majority of shots involving elements that really tax the engine (and thus incur frame loss) are using 360 video."

which, in apperently real-life situations paint an opposing picture.

Neither Carmack nor Crytek call the 360 more powerful. They both agree that it takes more to get out of the PS3, but neither have said the 360 IS the more powerful machine, which is what you're arguing.

In fact, in my links, Carmack admits to having a 360 preference, while also admitting that the PS3 has more peak power. Crytek admits that the PS3 version of Crysis 2 will be better, like I said, slightly though.

In other words, you haven't proven anything.

You seem to have not read the whole thing.....after he talks about the ps3 having more peak power he goes off into only saying that that is in only in theory.

Where does he state the 360 is the more powerful machine though? That's the argument with RAZ. You aren't keeping up.

Seriously CGI. You dont see it? Are we all reading the same thing? Please dont give me more twists. Ideal world is referring to ( theoretical power ). Noone will likely ever know if the PS3 is more powerful. The 360 is far from maxxed. As we are just getting the first games pushing propietry engines forward after M$ set up the studio to help devs with graphics. Funny enough, both coming from 3rd party devs ( Remedy and Bungie, albeit close devs ).

Those links were seriously in favour of 360. With more than 4 comments outright saying PS3 is not more powerful. IT completely shows my point that 3rd parties are on the fence either side. In fact where 3rd parties are concerned they often say more of the time that the 360 has the raw power in the real world. It's only ever Naughty Dog etc that say otherwise. I cant wait for 2011. 360's 2nd year of propietry rngines. And the new CRYENGINE 3, Rage and Betheda engines. They will all beat this years efforts.

an yet those very same 3rd party developer's use

multi-platform game engine's, which does not push the platform's.

that's the poit

If what your saying is true Microsoft has not showcased a 1st party game engine in 4 year's

is that the case, did Microsoft just let 3rd party's use just their game Engine's to make XBOX360 game's , and not worry about pushing the xbox360?

 

Basically all the top 360 games for graphics so far are all Unreal Engine 3. Except Forza 3 which was developed in 2 years. So yes the first real proper pushing the envelope engines are out this year for 360. First Alan Wake. Even Splinter Cell Conviction uses UE3.5.



RAZurrection on 08 March 2010
CGI-Quality said:
RAZurrection said:
CGI-Quality said:

Neither Carmack nor Crytek call the 360 more powerful.

Uh, they've said no such thing about the PS3.

For a start your Carmack link is dated  - ahem - 2006 before the PS3 cutbacks.

Mine are all from the last 12 months and affirm the following:

  • Xenos is faster than the RSX
  • PS3 has "a bit less memory"
  • The CPU's are "about the same"
  • The Cell only has more to offer if you have "infinite development time", if you don't Xenon is better
  • Blu-ray has more space then DVD, which might be advantageous to the game in the end

In scores that's the GPU and memory to 360 and a tie on the CPU unless your game has an infinite development cycle in which case the PS3 wins, but never actually comes out.

CGI-Quality said:

Crytek admits that the PS3 version of Crysis 2 will be better, like I said, slightly though.

So you got PS3 Crysis will be better from "So the PS3 will run slightly better here...", bearing in mind this includes the PC version in the comparison.

But this "... If the game's shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360" can be used to spin it in the 360s favour.

selnor said:

Seriously CGI. You dont see it?

I'm fairly sure he's choosing to either ignore or disbelieve.

 

One of the most ironic responses I've seen on VG Chartz.

Further ironic that you respond, without a response.

Seriously, you've yet to answer my question before, why is Carmacks more recent revelation that "The only thing the PS3 has on the 360 is disc space" supposedly not as relevant as yours, or is it just a case of clinging to the past?