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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Is the Playstation 3 doomed?

Taz42 said:
Clearly, in the minds of hopeless fanboys, a x Mhz gpu from manufacturer A is exactly the same as an x Mhz gpu from manufacturer B. Yes, the RSX, aka GeForce 7600 lite edition, runs at 500 Mhz. It is crap for a lot of reasons but the frequency is just playing a tiny part in it. The 360 GPU run at the same frequency and still manages to do some things 3-4 times faster. Wierd huh? There are many little details to consider. How big is the texture cache? How big is the transformed vertex cache? Under which conditions can it setup 1 triangle per clock? How many shader pipelines? How many shader pipelines, really, with a complex shader? How many shader threads can it run, with a complex shader? What's the memory bandwidth, in practice? What's the texture cache hit rate? How does vertex attribute interpolation affecting triangle rate and rasterization rate? How many anisotropic texture look-ups can be done per second? I'm developing for both systems and from what I've gathered the RSX is doing worse in most of those things I mentioned. So the 360 SKU will inevitably look quite a bit better because of it. The worst thing probably is that the PS3 can't do HDR rendering with MSAA. That's a pretty insane mistake for something that is supposed to be future proof for 10 years.

THANK YOU!!!

Couldn't of said it better

PLEASE READ THIS: http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1  (I want you to read mainly pages 7 and 8 - But if interested, read the whole thing, its really interesting).

FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, BE INFORMED. IGNORANCE PISSES ME OFF



Around the Network

is the playstation 3 doomed? NO! and neither psp.



PLAYSTATION®3

What it comes down to is the PS2 has sold about 120 million and the Game Cube and Xbox have sold in the low to mid-20s.  The Game Cube did not do poorly compared to the Xbox, it did about the same.  When you're both selling 1/5 as much as the competition a few million units hardly matter.  They both were crushed by the PS2.  However, as far as which one won overall; the Xbox lost 4 billion dollars, the Game Cube made a profit.  I think it's clear the Game Cube beat the Xbox.



weezy said:

Inflated or not, the point was being made into response as to why one would choose to develop for the PS2 over the PS3. Please read the context of the argument before changing the subject completely.

 

-fishyjoe

 

 

i guess i cant give alittle insight on the inflated number of ps2's out there. ???

i know it was off subject but i can correct/give insight

settle down fishy i can say whatever i want..to a certain extent

 


 all console sales are inflated this time around... even the Wii has been having some problems.. the IR Senser failes, disc refused to load, etc. The 360 is the same thing. 2/3 systems are having the least failure this gen (PS3/Wii) but its shocking that Nintendo is having problems with their consoles.. 

 

Still I own my original PS & PS2, they still havent died. Actually they cant anymore, their unplugged and set aside thanks to my PS3. 



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 

I can't stand it any more. I have to respond. The PS3 is NOT doomed and it will NOT fail. Period. Here's why:

 

Sony is in this for the long haul. They will ride out the storm of their launch. It has been 6 months. Give it two years and the landscape will have changed dramatically.

Regardless of what any fanboy says, the PS3 is more poweful than any other console. Period. Maybe the 360 is close or "more or less" the same in overall gaming experience, but the addition of blue ray (and it's apparent success) will prove to be a decisive point in hindsight.

The cell IS a powerful chip. As developer's get a better handle on it, games are going to begin to set themselves apart from 360 equivalents.

The PS3 is more or less 100% backward compatible. That means no loss to the 100 million ps2 owners. This factor will be huge. Notice I said will be. It is too expensive now for this to matter.

HD isn't yet the standard, but we are rapidly approaching a point where it will be.

Yes, the price is high -- it's because the hardware is freaking bleeding edge. The prices of the hardware will come down and as they do, more and more "mainstream" will jump on board. Yes, this will take a couple of years. Until this happens, it will be a "hardcore gamer's" platform. That's not too bad, though, as your average "hard core" gamer is willing to spend the money and time to play cutting edge games.

This isn't a bash wii or 360 thread -- I think they will both be successful in what they are -- Wii as a family/party innovative controller system with classic nintendo games and the 360 as a competitive next-gen console to the Playstation 3.



I hate trolls.

Systems I currently own:  360, PS3, Wii, DS Lite (2)
Systems I've owned: PS2, PS1, Dreamcast, Saturn, 3DO, Genesis, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GBA, GB, C64, Amiga, Atari 2600 and 5200, Sega Game Gear, Vectrex, Intellivision, Pong.  Yes, Pong.

Around the Network

"I have a sneaky feeling in a few years someone is going to outclass both Blu-Ray AND HD-DVD. Some new left field device that renders both obsolete. I just have a sneaking feeling this whole race is for naught." Digital distribution is about 2 years away. Microsoft is not dumping HD-DVD for Bluray, It is dumping it for Xbox live. The technology is here to have every movie ever made at your fingertips. The ONLY problem now is that you cannot download HD content faster then you can watch it. This will change very soon. This is going to change the way we watch movies and TV.



One has to make the distinction between digital distribution and internet distribution.  Cable companies have more than enough bandwidth. The cable companies are doing HD digital distribution TODAY and it is a quickly growing business. The cable companies can deliver the content at speeds hundreds, sometimes thousands of times faster than internet distribution.



footbag said:
"I have a sneaky feeling in a few years someone is going to outclass both Blu-Ray AND HD-DVD. Some new left field device that renders both obsolete. I just have a sneaking feeling this whole race is for naught."

Digital distribution is about 2 years away. Microsoft is not dumping HD-DVD for Bluray, It is dumping it for Xbox live. The technology is here to have every movie ever made at your fingertips. The ONLY problem now is that you cannot download HD content faster then you can watch it. This will change very soon. This is going to change the way we watch movies and TV.

That would be great only if everyone took their consoles online. The HDD drive in the new Microsoft console will be huge, probably 1 Terabyte, if they will allow people to download games. If the 120GB HDD costs $180, I don't want to fathom how much that console all together will cost.

 



FishyJoe said:
One has to make the distinction between digital distribution and internet distribution. Cable companies have more than enough bandwidth. The cable companies are doing HD digital distribution TODAY and it is a quickly growing business. The cable companies can deliver the content at speeds hundreds, sometimes thousands of times faster than internet distribution.

Yes, digital distribution is already available through your local cable company on your digital box today.  The quality is sometimes good, sometimes poor, depending on how compressed it is.  I think it will be 10 years or more before uncompressed HD will be streamable TO THE MASSES.  While it's good that things can be delivered now, I'd bet that the percentage of people that have the equipment, money, or even availability is less than 25% of the total viewing/playing audience.

The PS3 is currently proving how hard it is to sell when your technology is ahead of it's time (blue-ray is as of yet proven the winner -- though it appears headed that way) and is high priced.  The result is that it isn't massively accepted.

Why is the Wii doing so well?  A number of things, really, but two important ones are price and working with the current standard -- STANDARD DEF TV -- since it is still the only thing in the vast majority of homes.

Whether it is digital or internet distribution matters not.  What matters is that the technology is widely and cheaply available to almost everyone.  THEN you can launch a product/service and go for wide market penetration. 



I hate trolls.

Systems I currently own:  360, PS3, Wii, DS Lite (2)
Systems I've owned: PS2, PS1, Dreamcast, Saturn, 3DO, Genesis, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GBA, GB, C64, Amiga, Atari 2600 and 5200, Sega Game Gear, Vectrex, Intellivision, Pong.  Yes, Pong.

The digital distribution I'm refering to would be independent of cable distribution. Although it may come in through cable suppliers, it will truly be internet distributed content. All of a sudden, HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, etc... are going to find that they have a platform to distribute their product without letting the Comcasts determine the rates. I'm not referring to On Demand. I'm refering to a fully functioning universal media library. It will stream the content, so you will only need enough storage for one movies worth of content.

 

The same will be true for The Universals and the Disney's. When they find that just by cataloging their movies canmaximize on ther profits by cutting out the Comcasts and in turn the HBO's. This is what is happening to the Newspapers, and somewhat the TV news channels.

I cannot forsee the cost of a Digital Media box costing more then a cable box.  It will actually be a cheap computer with a modem, hard drive, and video processor.