I don't expect there to be any real difference in the horsepower behind the consoles, but Sony will probably still get the most out of their machine.
| Dallinor said: I don't expect there to be any real difference in the horsepower behind the consoles, but Sony will probably still get the most out of their machine. |
why?
Ex Graphics Whore.
| Dallinor said: I don't expect there to be any real difference in the horsepower behind the consoles, but Sony will probably still get the most out of their machine. |
Why? Because they have better dev-kits?
TimCliveroller said:
why? |
You could be addressing either point so I'll answer both.
I don't see there being any real difference because we've had a few rumors/comments floating around over the past few months that puts the two consoles within a similar power range. Admittedly some were before Sony bumped the ram up to 8GB, so there may be a small difference, we'll see.
Secondly, I believe Sony will get more out of their machine because they see technology and visuals as key selling points for their software. They went with the most powerful console last gen and they might be going with it again this generation for a reason. They want the best looking games, and their dev teams like ND (with the ICE team purely working on graphics technology), GG and SSM produced some powerful engines this past generation. The PS3 was squeezed for everything it had, engines were optimized again and again. Things could change if MS shift their priorities, but we didn't see the 360 tapped in the same way by MS first party last gen. Halo 4 was a much talked about title that was utilizing everything the 360 had to offer, but that didn't land until 7 years after the 360 had launched, years prior to that Sony's studios had already mastered what was widely considered more difficult hardware to work with.
I really don't care if Xbox or Playstation will be sightly more powerfull it depends all on the price and the games of the console which one of both I will buy.
fillet said:
The Cell was a dog, it's the same as the 2 CPU setup in the Sega Saturn, sure there were one or two games that astounded visually but the majority looked like crap and ran at a lower res than the PS1, when they shouldn't have. Why would you applaud such silly decisions that works against consumers at the end of the day, now with both consoles being based on x86 instruction sets and using off the shelf GPUs (basically), we can finally do away with fanboy arguments on "which console is more powerful" for years on end, like with the Wii-U, it's basically established how powerful it is thanks to analysis that's been done and using a PC based GPU tech. All this in terms of the PS4/NextBox means lower development costs, better games per dollar investment and better value for gamers... I'd certainly chose that over 1 first party exclusive every 9 months or so that looks slightly better than other games. I'm more interested in the fanboy side of things though, the way things are set out now, we will know exactly which one's more powerful and be spared the fanboy wars because the specs will speak for themselves... Cell = 99% smoke and mirrors and it's destroyed gaming forums thanks to the smoke and mirrors being combined with cretinous internet fanboys and children. Viva Common Sense! |
I wouldn't applaud any decisions which are against consumers, neither bring up sheer fanboyism to project my personal interests in a thread. While replying to the concerned posts it's fair to justify Sony's Cell architecture to some extent and mention how 1st party studios have had more time than multiplat devs to work with it and bring out those great exclusives.
And relating PS3's Cell to Sega's 2-CPU... Seriously? Well Sega Saturn was a whole different story, Sega sucked at marketing, one of the major things attributed to their failure was their early surprise launch pissing 3rd party Genesis devs off as well as the prominent retail chain outlets. Sony is simply poles apart when it comes to such matters and they have proved it since PS1 era. PS3 has brought visually astounding games(not just one or two) and the console has had a fair marketshare which has been increasing over the years.
The Cell riddance "common sense" and downplay of yours simply aims at ignoring the success PS3 has had in this generation already like its competitors, if not dominate them. This doesn't imply by any means that I'm against Sony's decisions to replace Cell in their next gen console. It's rather a wise move and a potential next gen WIN-WIN situation conerning devs interests and the corporation's marketing strategy.
Well it still is. There haven't been any new credible rumors saying otherwise.
doesn't even matter if it won't have any games....
| gooch_destroyer said: doesn't even matter if it won't have any games.... |
I don't think Sony will release PS4 without games.
GameAnalyser said:
I wouldn't applaud any decisions which are against consumers, neither bring up sheer fanboyism to project my personal interests in a thread. While replying to the concerned posts it's fair to justify Sony's Cell architecture to some extent and mention how 1st party studios have had more time than multiplat devs to work with it and bring out those great exclusives. And relating PS3's Cell to Sega's 2-CPU... Seriously? Well Sega Saturn was a whole different story, Sega sucked at marketing, one of the major things attributed to their failure was their early surprise launch pissing 3rd party Genesis devs off as well as the prominent retail chain outlets. Sony is simply poles apart when it comes to such matters and they have proved it since PS1 era. PS3 has brought visually astounding games(not just one or two) and the console has had a fair marketshare which has been increasing over the years. The Cell riddance "common sense" and downplay of yours simply aims at ignoring the success PS3 has had in this generation already like its competitors, if not dominate them. This doesn't imply by any means that I'm against Sony's decisions to replace Cell in their next gen console. It's rather a wise move and a potential next gen WIN-WIN situation conerning devs interests and the corporation's marketing strategy. |
I agree with everything you say here, wasn't implying you're a fanboy by any means. I meant in the bigger picture, I totally agree with the part about the 1st party games being a cut above visually what's been churned out on the Xbox 360, with the exception of Halo 4, but like a few others have said, that's taken 7 years to happen. My post was more just pointing out that the Cell may have bought some astounding 1st party exclusives, I'd guess approximately 10 in the lifetime of the PS3 that simply couldn't be done on the Xbox 360, but the cost has been fanboy wars, elitist attitude and people not really knowing what the Cell is capable of, imagine if Sony had used a CPU that was easy to code for, but with the same talent working on those games. Even now, we really don't know if the visually brilliant games that the 1st party Sony developers have released are down to the power of the Cell or the talent they pose, or both. Hence the fanboyism, the elitist attitude that sometimes wears a bit thin, then the multiplat issue where studios with smaller budgets certainly don't have the budget to get the most out of it.
Like you say, the PS4 is a potential win-win on both fronts, and that's a great thing.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
