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

Forums - Gaming - Naughty Dog : Ps3 and Vita Can Do Everything Wii U Can Do

archbrix on 18 July 2011
nitekrawler1285 said:

1. If the code is easily portable they might. I dont' see most japanese devs aiming to lift Wii Us graphics much more than the PS3s as that is already costing them an arm and a leg. Almost all of the 3rd party games shown have demos of that type of connectivity. I could see Japanese devs doing as much because of Vita penetration plus a decent(for japan) 5 or 6 million PS3 base.  I can easily see PS3/Wii-U multiplats there.  This could be the focal point of Vita's functionality. We don't know how Sony will choose to market it. 

3. It doesn't have to compete at the  Wii U's performance though. We will probably see games like the early life of PS360 that weren't as kind to the PS3 but I dont see them doing really demanding things as far as performance in the first place.

Sure, what you say is certainly possible; I agree that Sony could choose to market their connectivity as the next big thing, assuming touch-screen connectivity even is the next big thing to begin with.  However, it's likely that Nintendo has been at work on Wii U's connectivity feature for a while now, and if they have great ideas for the touch-screen interaction just as they did with things like Wii Sports for the Wii remote, they and their new console will get the mass attention for the new feature, unless Sony comes with the great ideas first.

This is where, in answer to your second paragraph, competing performance is important if Nintendo makes Wii U connectivity the new thing.  For most current PS3 owners, sure, they'd get a Vita.  But to a future system buyer (hundreds of thousands a week) Wii U could be looked at as the cool new system that does this new feature, while the PS3/Vita connectivity is looked at as, "Oh, and if you already have a PS3, you can do it... if you buy their hand-held too".  If you add to that, "Oh, and it can't do a lot of what Wii U can either", then Wii U is further seen as THE connectivity console.



Around the Network
Alby_da_Wolf on 18 July 2011
cyberninja45 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
cyberninja45 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
cyberninja45 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
cyberninja45 said:
osamanobama said:
cyberninja45 said:
osamanobama said:
cyberninja45 said:
dahuman said:
sigh..... PS3 is DLNA certified for down streaming HD videos, it's not an ideal device for up streaming HD videos unless you are running off the gigabit ethernet since you'd want the device to handle more than one stream, in which the memory print would become a problem due to the PS3 having shit for ram, the most it'd be able to do is acting like a file server in this case since coding it to encode videos to different devices via different profiles at the same time would be a pain in the ass for Sony.

 and im talking about upstreaming wireless here.

But Im just waiting for him when he realizes the ultimate Truth. PS3 is not design to run games  above(or any where near) 1560P. XD

Am just giving him the many other reason why this wont work. 

you do realize that the PSV is "only" qHD (960x540), so  why would we care if it streams 1560p (a resolution way higher than 1080p) it only has to stream qHD, as resolution thats still  higher than the wiiU controller

Are u joking or do I really have to explain here? Oh I said run not stream

it doesnt need to run games with that resolution, to stream games at qHD, yet alone at 1080p or lower. not to mention the Vita has its own cpu/gpu.

u clearly have no idea what you are talking about other than just making wild speculation. just wait for the PSV to come out.

youll be eating lot'O crow


OH boy. guess I got to explain.

Assuming the game is processed in the ps3 and then  stream to the PSV and hdtv.

 1080p + 540p= 1620p >1560p>1080p.

Now if u now have to resort to  processing graphics in the PSV. Well like I said this thread is irrelevant.

Not. Data processed and sent, pixels, triangles, other polygons, etc, are proportional to the area, 540p needs 1/4 of the data needed for 1080p to be sent. 1080p+540p needs the same throughput of 1350p, 1080p+1080p needs the same of 1620p, actually.

Ooooook buddy.(trying not to laugh here)

Well then u do realise that the whole point of the WiiU is to look at completely differnt viewpoints of the game and not spliting of same viewpoint right. So your "nice" little solution there ( which doesnt even rectify the issue) doesnt apply. LOL(sorry couldnt help it)

I corrected my maths, they were wrong (actual results are even lower) after you quoted my post, but anyway, looking at two different viewpoints implies more calculations in different stages, before rendering, it loads more the CPU, while projecting different scenes from different points of view actually implies sending different data and different matrices for the projections, so more internal throughput, with some overhead to replace the transformation matrices too instead of just sending extra data but the same load on raw GPU computing power and the same end result throughput. If they were the same scenes from the same point of view there would actually be a huge saving in calculations, as the lower res scene could just be made downscaling the high res one. Anyway, I wrote data PROCESSED and sent, so I never assumed there were the simplification allowed by the easy case of the same scene at two different res, don't put different words and meanings in what I wrote. It's just matter to know whether 1207p (the correct value) + the overhead for using different matrices exceeds or not the max power needed for a 1560p single scene with one point of view. Oh, I forgot, as GPUs have multiple shaders, actually the work could be split quite easily in theory, it all depends on how much independently they can work, but the fact that stereoscopic 3D is supported implies that the GPU can handle two different sets of transformation matrices at a time.

*sigh*...

Indeed.


Amm.. You do know you just confirmed what I said above right. (*keep laughter within, guy is trying to calulate a solution in which the gpu  hardware wasn't design for*)

I don't know whether the GPU supports it or not, I was just writing about the necessary GPU computing power and throughput being available or not: apparently it is (proving what you wrote about it wrong), whether the feature is feasible or not depends on other things too, but this part of the discussion was about computing power and throughput and I wrote about them. And all that was written by me, you and the other guy, is assuming all the graphics acceleration be made by PS3's GPU, not using the PS Vita's one. Using the latter, things become a lot simpler, with less data to transmit through the network and no multiple contexts, with their overhead, to be handled by the PS3's GPU.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


mjk45 on 18 July 2011

I read the whole thread every last post ,so i must be clinically insane.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

nitekrawler1285 on 18 July 2011
archbrix said:
nitekrawler1285 said:

1. If the code is easily portable they might. I dont' see most japanese devs aiming to lift Wii Us graphics much more than the PS3s as that is already costing them an arm and a leg. Almost all of the 3rd party games shown have demos of that type of connectivity. I could see Japanese devs doing as much because of Vita penetration plus a decent(for japan) 5 or 6 million PS3 base.  I can easily see PS3/Wii-U multiplats there.  This could be the focal point of Vita's functionality. We don't know how Sony will choose to market it. 

3. It doesn't have to compete at the  Wii U's performance though. We will probably see games like the early life of PS360 that weren't as kind to the PS3 but I dont see them doing really demanding things as far as performance in the first place.

Sure, what you say is certainly possible; I agree that Sony could choose to market their connectivity as the next big thing, assuming touch-screen connectivity even is the next big thing to begin with.  However, it's likely that Nintendo has been at work on Wii U's connectivity feature for a while now, and if they have great ideas for the touch-screen interaction just as they did with things like Wii Sports for the Wii remote, they and their new console will get the mass attention for the new feature, unless Sony comes with the great ideas first.

This is where, in answer to your second paragraph, competing performance is important if Nintendo makes Wii U connectivity the new thing.  For most current PS3 owners, sure, they'd get a Vita.  But to a future system buyer (hundreds of thousands a week) Wii U could be looked at as the cool new system that does this new feature, while the PS3/Vita connectivity is looked at as, "Oh, and if you already have a PS3, you can do it... if you buy their hand-held too".  If you add to that, "Oh, and it can't do a lot of what Wii U can either", then Wii U is further seen as THE connectivity console.

The 3DS is priced at 249 even though it costs much less than PSV to make.  Considering the margin Nintendo likes to make on their products the proposition of PS3/V might be very price competive. Then people might say that option is superior because you can really take the game with you and Wii-U looks bad for not offering a feature and being expensive considering what it offers.  

It could very feasibly go either way.  I just trust more in the company that has shown us games doing it and is motivating enough to have 3rd parties implement this optional feature already.  



HappySqurriel on 18 July 2011
nitekrawler1285 said:
archbrix said:
nitekrawler1285 said:

1. If the code is easily portable they might. I dont' see most japanese devs aiming to lift Wii Us graphics much more than the PS3s as that is already costing them an arm and a leg. Almost all of the 3rd party games shown have demos of that type of connectivity. I could see Japanese devs doing as much because of Vita penetration plus a decent(for japan) 5 or 6 million PS3 base.  I can easily see PS3/Wii-U multiplats there.  This could be the focal point of Vita's functionality. We don't know how Sony will choose to market it. 

3. It doesn't have to compete at the  Wii U's performance though. We will probably see games like the early life of PS360 that weren't as kind to the PS3 but I dont see them doing really demanding things as far as performance in the first place.

Sure, what you say is certainly possible; I agree that Sony could choose to market their connectivity as the next big thing, assuming touch-screen connectivity even is the next big thing to begin with.  However, it's likely that Nintendo has been at work on Wii U's connectivity feature for a while now, and if they have great ideas for the touch-screen interaction just as they did with things like Wii Sports for the Wii remote, they and their new console will get the mass attention for the new feature, unless Sony comes with the great ideas first.

This is where, in answer to your second paragraph, competing performance is important if Nintendo makes Wii U connectivity the new thing.  For most current PS3 owners, sure, they'd get a Vita.  But to a future system buyer (hundreds of thousands a week) Wii U could be looked at as the cool new system that does this new feature, while the PS3/Vita connectivity is looked at as, "Oh, and if you already have a PS3, you can do it... if you buy their hand-held too".  If you add to that, "Oh, and it can't do a lot of what Wii U can either", then Wii U is further seen as THE connectivity console.

The 3DS is priced at 249 even though it costs much less than PSV to make.  Considering the margin Nintendo likes to make on their products the proposition of PS3/V might be very price competive. Then people might say that option is superior because you can really take the game with you and Wii-U looks bad for not offering a feature and being expensive considering what it offers.  

It could very feasibly go either way.  I just trust more in the company that has shown us games doing it and is motivating enough to have 3rd parties implement this optional feature already.  

Honestly, I don't think that Nintendo's pricing of the 3DS is strictly based on Nintendo's desire to have a healthy margin ...

The only times Nintendo has ever has lost money in a quarter has been due to exchange rate changes so it is reasonable to view Nintendo's pricing strategy in the context of currency exchange rate hedging. Over the past 5 years the American dollar has lost 33% of its value compared to the yen, and it has been falling at an more rapid pace in the past 2 years.I suspect that a large portion of the pricing of the 3DS was to ensure that Nintendo never has to increase the price of the 3DS.

While I'm not predicting a price increase on the PS Vita, if the Dollar falls to 70 yen or less I think Sony may be forced to either take extreme losses on hardware or increase the price of the PS Vita; while Sony may accept a risk like this, it isn't difficult to understand why Nintendo might not accept a similar risk.



Around the Network
archbrix on 19 July 2011
nitekrawler1285 said:

The 3DS is priced at 249 even though it costs much less than PSV to make.  Considering the margin Nintendo likes to make on their products the proposition of PS3/V might be very price competive. Then people might say that option is superior because you can really take the game with you and Wii-U looks bad for not offering a feature and being expensive considering what it offers.  

It could very feasibly go either way.  I just trust more in the company that has shown us games doing it and is motivating enough to have 3rd parties implement this optional feature already.  

Even with the PS3 and Vita down to $199 each, Wii U will almost certainly be $349 or less.  I don't see people seeing Nintendo's offering as too expensive for a brand new console unless it ends up higher.

And yes, it could go either way, but Nintendo has built the entire concept of Wii U around this streaming connectivity and, most importantly, have shown multiple times (particularly with DS) that they can make ingenious use of their concepts; ideas that most of us don't expect.  Sony and the PS3/Vita connectivity need to prove to me that they can do the same.



MARCUSDJACKSON on 19 July 2011

this whole thread has become pointless



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

nitekrawler1285 on 19 July 2011
archbrix said:
nitekrawler1285 said:

The 3DS is priced at 249 even though it costs much less than PSV to make.  Considering the margin Nintendo likes to make on their products the proposition of PS3/V might be very price competive. Then people might say that option is superior because you can really take the game with you and Wii-U looks bad for not offering a feature and being expensive considering what it offers.  

It could very feasibly go either way.  I just trust more in the company that has shown us games doing it and is motivating enough to have 3rd parties implement this optional feature already.  

Even with the PS3 and Vita down to $199 each, Wii U will almost certainly be $349 or less.  I don't see people seeing Nintendo's offering as too expensive for a brand new console unless it ends up higher.

And yes, it could go either way, but Nintendo has built the entire concept of Wii U around this streaming connectivity and, most importantly, have shown multiple times (particularly with DS) that they can make ingenious use of their concepts; ideas that most of us don't expect.  Sony and the PS3/Vita connectivity need to prove to me that they can do the same.

The two consoles being within 50 of the one console is extremely price competitve. We don't konw the price of the Wii  U but if you look at the earlier quote about pricing Nintendo may be forced to make it more expensive than they like because of the weak and steadily declining dollar.

Nintendo has also shown that they can completely fumble things up(particularly with Gamecube) Sony can make  pretty good use of their concepts too. It's why Kinect isn't that big in Europe because unlike America videogamers there actually saw and enjoyed the EyeToy. Even without as much marketing Eyetoy and EyeToy: Play have sold similarly to Kinect and Kinect Sports. They also already have games doing what Wii U is only talking about today. 



archbrix on 19 July 2011
nitekrawler1285 said:

The two consoles being within 50 of the one console is extremely price competitve. We don't konw the price of the Wii  U but if you look at the earlier quote about pricing Nintendo may be forced to make it more expensive than they like because of the weak and steadily declining dollar.

Nintendo has also shown that they can completely fumble things up(particularly with Gamecube) Sony can make  pretty good use of their concepts too. It's why Kinect isn't that big in Europe because unlike America videogamers there actually saw and enjoyed the EyeToy. Even without as much marketing Eyetoy and EyeToy: Play have sold similarly to Kinect and Kinect Sports. They also already have games doing what Wii U is only talking about today. 

... and Wii U could be as little as $299; the same price as the non-hard drive 360 at launch.  We don't even know how much PS3/Vita will be at the time of Wii U's launch.

While Nintendo's track record isn't perfect, the Gamecube wasn't a new concept, just a new console.  By new concepts, I mean introducing a new variant that delivers new experiences or interactions.  Things like an analogue stick, touch-screen, mic, motion controls.  Nintendo almost always shows ingenious ways to use these new devices.  Sony strikes me more (in this case) as being fortunate to have a similar set-up, rather than years of toying with ideas, games and uses for it.  And your Eyetoy reference doesn't help your case:  Eyetoy launched in what, 2003?  And Kinect has already matched its sales in less than a year?  Not a strong argument for Sony's ability to make their concepts irresistible...

And finally, no, they don't have games today that do everything that Wii U is talking about.  Some things, sure, but while things like Ruin look cool, it's certainly not the same as streaming a full, ground-up PS3 game (like Uncharted 3 or Last Guardian) flawlessly to a hand-held screen where the two can interact with each other.  Ps3/Vita would certainly have some advantages over Wii U as well, not the least of which is having an actual portable console to take with you, but It's the streaming method that Wii U is touting where I think Nintendo will be the victor.



o_O.Q on 19 July 2011
archbrix said:
nitekrawler1285 said:

The two consoles being within 50 of the one console is extremely price competitve. We don't konw the price of the Wii  U but if you look at the earlier quote about pricing Nintendo may be forced to make it more expensive than they like because of the weak and steadily declining dollar.

Nintendo has also shown that they can completely fumble things up(particularly with Gamecube) Sony can make  pretty good use of their concepts too. It's why Kinect isn't that big in Europe because unlike America videogamers there actually saw and enjoyed the EyeToy. Even without as much marketing Eyetoy and EyeToy: Play have sold similarly to Kinect and Kinect Sports. They also already have games doing what Wii U is only talking about today. 

... and Wii U could be as little as $299; the same price as the non-hard drive 360 at launch.  We don't even know how much PS3/Vita will be at the time of Wii U's launch.

While Nintendo's track record isn't perfect, the Gamecube wasn't a new concept, just a new console.  By new concepts, I mean introducing a new variant that delivers new experiences or interactions.  Things like an analogue stick, touch-screen, mic, motion controls.  Nintendo almost always shows ingenious ways to use these new devices.  Sony strikes me more (in this case) as being fortunate to have a similar set-up, rather than years of toying with ideas, games and uses for it.  And your Eyetoy reference doesn't help your case:  Eyetoy launched in what, 2003?  And Kinect has already matched its sales in less than a year?  Not a strong argument for Sony's ability to make their concepts irresistible...

And finally, no, they don't have games today that do everything that Wii U is talking about.  Some things, sure, but while things like Ruin look cool, it's certainly not the same as streaming a full, ground-up PS3 game (like Uncharted 3 or Last Guardian) flawlessly to a hand-held screen where the two can interact with each other.  Ps3/Vita would certainly have some advantages over Wii U as well, not the least of which is having an actual portable console to take with you, but It's the streaming method that Wii U is touting where I think Nintendo will be the victor.

 

um they have :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYKutQ_QBBw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mASdFCTNA7I

 

anything they do with vita - ps3 would just be them building on the foundation made by years of experimenting with connectivity between ps3 and psp