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

Forums - Gaming - Why a new set of consoles in 2010 wouldn't be good for anyone

Words Of Wisdom on 20 August 2008
Nidan said:

3)The fact that the PS3 and 360 are so close power wise shows how much microsoft was ahead of sony "AS THEY LAUCHED 1 YEAR Earlier"... moores law would say that the PS3 should have been 2/3 faster than the 360 if they were built using the same tech.

Actually it shows priorities on Sony's part.  The original PS3 specifications that went floating around were far more powerful than the one that sits on store shelves today.  Had cost not been prohibitive and they launched that one, there wouldn't be a comparison at all. 

Sony went overboard trying to load too much into the PS3 while trying to maintain a reasonable price and the result is that they've taken a beating.  Consequently they've been stripping and retooling it over and over to get costs in line.



Around the Network
xman on 20 August 2008
deathgod33 said:
ps4 in 2013? wii2 in 2013? xbox 720 in 2011, 2012.

 

sounds about right



PS3, WII and 360 all great systems depends on what type of console player you are.

Currently playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Halo ODST and Dragon Age Origins is next game

Xbox live:mywiferocks

Dno on 20 August 2008
Bitmap Frogs said:

Impulsivity said:

Bunch of Sony PR

 

Dude, you've swallowed way too many Sony marketing material.

The ps3 doesn't have the horsepower to handle 1080p games (unless we're talking about specific games with few/simpler elements onscreen), so it's already lagging behind display technology (how many of you have 1080p TV's?). The GPU is already outdated (a 2006? design afterall and GPU's update twice a year), el cheapo 8800GT's outperform significatively the ps3 and they are around 100 bucks now. Finally, the much talked about cell cpu has yet to prove it's worth as far as gaming is concerned and it's supposed "future awesome potential" only exists in PR. The blue-ray player is slow and pimping the easy hard drive serviceability just because most games require installation sounds more like apologetic talk rather than a real assessment of the situation. Microsoft or Nintendo could do something better than the ps3 specs-wise right now, even more so in 2010 - there are now available faster cpu's, faster gpu's and RAM is cheaper. The only aspect where the ps3 is really future-proof is playing blue-rays: the console has the proper disc drive and firmware updates guarantee it'll stay on top of things as far as movie playing is concerned.

Note that none of the above means the ps3 can't be an excellent console and also that most of above applies to the 360 as well (as far as performance goes compared to current state of GPU/CPU technology). The truth of the situation is that consoles always and rapidly become obsolete tech because they don't even launch with cutting edge processors (since the cost would be prohibitive).

I hate to mention this, but you really need to doublecheck things before stating that MGS4 is almost at Crysis level. That's nuts - Crysis has more polygons, higher res textures, better lightning and shading and a ton more graphical prowess that MGS4 can't even match. Nevermind the fact current GPU's run Crysis at 1900x1200 while the ps3 renders MGS4 at 1280x720...

 

Lair, GT5, and about 20-30 other 1080p games say hi^^

 



Resident_Hazard on 20 August 2008
Dno said:
Bitmap Frogs said:

Impulsivity said:

Bunch of Sony PR

 

Dude, you've swallowed way too many Sony marketing material.

The ps3 doesn't have the horsepower to handle 1080p games (unless we're talking about specific games with few/simpler elements onscreen), so it's already lagging behind display technology (how many of you have 1080p TV's?). The GPU is already outdated (a 2006? design afterall and GPU's update twice a year), el cheapo 8800GT's outperform significatively the ps3 and they are around 100 bucks now. Finally, the much talked about cell cpu has yet to prove it's worth as far as gaming is concerned and it's supposed "future awesome potential" only exists in PR. The blue-ray player is slow and pimping the easy hard drive serviceability just because most games require installation sounds more like apologetic talk rather than a real assessment of the situation. Microsoft or Nintendo could do something better than the ps3 specs-wise right now, even more so in 2010 - there are now available faster cpu's, faster gpu's and RAM is cheaper. The only aspect where the ps3 is really future-proof is playing blue-rays: the console has the proper disc drive and firmware updates guarantee it'll stay on top of things as far as movie playing is concerned.

Note that none of the above means the ps3 can't be an excellent console and also that most of above applies to the 360 as well (as far as performance goes compared to current state of GPU/CPU technology). The truth of the situation is that consoles always and rapidly become obsolete tech because they don't even launch with cutting edge processors (since the cost would be prohibitive).

I hate to mention this, but you really need to doublecheck things before stating that MGS4 is almost at Crysis level. That's nuts - Crysis has more polygons, higher res textures, better lightning and shading and a ton more graphical prowess that MGS4 can't even match. Nevermind the fact current GPU's run Crysis at 1900x1200 while the ps3 renders MGS4 at 1280x720...

 

Lair, GT5, and about 20-30 other 1080p games say hi^^

 

 

 

The vast majority of PS3 games do not run in 1080, and many that do are not true 1080--they're just upscaled to 1080, but were actually made for lower resolutions.  Lair also struggled with some framerate issues showing that it was not quite optimized to be running in 1080 anyway.



HappySqurriel on 20 August 2008
Dno said:
Bitmap Frogs said:

Impulsivity said:

Bunch of Sony PR

 

Dude, you've swallowed way too many Sony marketing material.

The ps3 doesn't have the horsepower to handle 1080p games (unless we're talking about specific games with few/simpler elements onscreen), so it's already lagging behind display technology (how many of you have 1080p TV's?). The GPU is already outdated (a 2006? design afterall and GPU's update twice a year), el cheapo 8800GT's outperform significatively the ps3 and they are around 100 bucks now. Finally, the much talked about cell cpu has yet to prove it's worth as far as gaming is concerned and it's supposed "future awesome potential" only exists in PR. The blue-ray player is slow and pimping the easy hard drive serviceability just because most games require installation sounds more like apologetic talk rather than a real assessment of the situation. Microsoft or Nintendo could do something better than the ps3 specs-wise right now, even more so in 2010 - there are now available faster cpu's, faster gpu's and RAM is cheaper. The only aspect where the ps3 is really future-proof is playing blue-rays: the console has the proper disc drive and firmware updates guarantee it'll stay on top of things as far as movie playing is concerned.

Note that none of the above means the ps3 can't be an excellent console and also that most of above applies to the 360 as well (as far as performance goes compared to current state of GPU/CPU technology). The truth of the situation is that consoles always and rapidly become obsolete tech because they don't even launch with cutting edge processors (since the cost would be prohibitive).

I hate to mention this, but you really need to doublecheck things before stating that MGS4 is almost at Crysis level. That's nuts - Crysis has more polygons, higher res textures, better lightning and shading and a ton more graphical prowess that MGS4 can't even match. Nevermind the fact current GPU's run Crysis at 1900x1200 while the ps3 renders MGS4 at 1280x720...

 

Lair, GT5, and about 20-30 other 1080p games say hi^^

 

 

I didn't know that rendering at a lower resolution and scaling to 1080p counted as 1080p ...

I guess I can go out and buy an upscaler and attach it to my Wii and claim that Mario Galaxy is a 1080p game, and my upscaling DVD player is displaying images that are the same as Blu-Ray movies.



Around the Network
bouzane on 20 August 2008

I'm not touching another console until 2012 at the earliest.



SnesTea on 20 August 2008
Impulsivity said:
Str8knox said:
Did you just say that the Wii sells to people who aren't making the jump to hd? nintendo gamers only? (one who didn't start owning a console or any Ninty games until the Wii)

Okay, there is no need to respond to this then. And I won't. Sorry but a LOT of your points are flawed on Nintendo's part, but whatever. believe what you want.

 

   Nintendo is not trading on graphics this generation, they're just not.  It's not a dis on Nintendo, they freely say that they are not going for the "Number One Super HD HUB prize" that Sony and Microsoft are chasing.  They sell to people who are not as concerned about how a game looks as they are other things.  Noone is picking up Mario Kart Wii for its cutting edge photo realistic graphics.

   Some people like the best graphics possible, some people like Nintendo type games with that distinctive look and gameplay.  It's like picking between Star Wars and Star Trek, people usually just like one or the other for more or less inexplicable reasons.

 

   Either way the point is that chasing the high priced console top of the line graphics prize has no point for Nintendo, they do better with a low starting cost and older graphics (ala Wii) then they do with current gen graphics and a higher price (ala gamecube).

GameCube was 100 dollars cheaper than Xbox and PS2 at the time of its release ($200USD) and Wii was 150 dollars cheaper than Xbox 360 (the good one at least).

GameCube was still cheaper than Wii though, not too mention GameCube was more powerful than PS2 and was less expensive.

 



Resident_Hazard on 20 August 2008
HappySqurriel said:
Dno said:
Bitmap Frogs said:

Impulsivity said:

Bunch of Sony PR

 

Dude, you've swallowed way too many Sony marketing material.

The ps3 doesn't have the horsepower to handle 1080p games (unless we're talking about specific games with few/simpler elements onscreen), so it's already lagging behind display technology (how many of you have 1080p TV's?). The GPU is already outdated (a 2006? design afterall and GPU's update twice a year), el cheapo 8800GT's outperform significatively the ps3 and they are around 100 bucks now. Finally, the much talked about cell cpu has yet to prove it's worth as far as gaming is concerned and it's supposed "future awesome potential" only exists in PR. The blue-ray player is slow and pimping the easy hard drive serviceability just because most games require installation sounds more like apologetic talk rather than a real assessment of the situation. Microsoft or Nintendo could do something better than the ps3 specs-wise right now, even more so in 2010 - there are now available faster cpu's, faster gpu's and RAM is cheaper. The only aspect where the ps3 is really future-proof is playing blue-rays: the console has the proper disc drive and firmware updates guarantee it'll stay on top of things as far as movie playing is concerned.

Note that none of the above means the ps3 can't be an excellent console and also that most of above applies to the 360 as well (as far as performance goes compared to current state of GPU/CPU technology). The truth of the situation is that consoles always and rapidly become obsolete tech because they don't even launch with cutting edge processors (since the cost would be prohibitive).

I hate to mention this, but you really need to doublecheck things before stating that MGS4 is almost at Crysis level. That's nuts - Crysis has more polygons, higher res textures, better lightning and shading and a ton more graphical prowess that MGS4 can't even match. Nevermind the fact current GPU's run Crysis at 1900x1200 while the ps3 renders MGS4 at 1280x720...

 

Lair, GT5, and about 20-30 other 1080p games say hi^^

 

 

I didn't know that rendering at a lower resolution and scaling to 1080p counted as 1080p ...

I guess I can go out and buy an upscaler and attach it to my Wii and claim that Mario Galaxy is a 1080p game, and my upscaling DVD player is displaying images that are the same as Blu-Ray movies.

 

 

Essentially, upscaling is the way the Xbox360 supports 1080.  Sony went ahead and announced that the PS3 was the only console capable of 1080 resolution, and then MS did a firmware update and said, "hey, so do we."  In reality, the Xbox360's firmware update allows for up-scaling to 1080, not "true" 1080 which I believe is hardware-related, not firmware/software related.  The PS3 is the only system that does actual "true" 1080, but in a vast number of the early games, it wasn't used, but the PS3 had the ability to, shall we say, streamline those titles to look more 1080-ish. 

But again, most HDTV's are only now getting to 1080--at the time the PS3 launched, however, I believe that pretty much only some of Sony's HDTV's actually did 1080 and everyone else played catch-up soon after.  On top of which I believe that 720 is still the most commonly used HD resolution.  I could be mistaken.  To date, I don't think there are actually any Xbox360 games built for 1080 for the reason that it isn't a true hardware-based ability.  Much of what Microsoft and Sony did with a lot of the 1080 mumbo-jumbo was spin-doctoring with an ironic lesson that maybe 720 is the way to go. 

Feel free to come in with some other, newer facts if you have them, though, because some of what I'm going on might be dated information.

For instance, are there actually external hardware upscalers?  I haven't heard of that.  Probably need a firmware update from Nintendo to allow the use of such an object on the Wii.  Or some hardcore hacking of the thing because I have serious doubts Nintendo would ever support such a thing.  In theory, the Wii is capable of doing it's own upscaling to higher resolutions, but it would require a firmware update with the unfortunate side-effect that it would be way too taxing on the CPU thus making it pointless.  The lesson for the Wii is, from what I've read, get a Plasma TV, jam the Wii into that 480 and just be happy it goes that far (apparently the Wii isn't too LCD TV-friendly on the visual side).



S.T.A.G.E. on 20 August 2008

The gen is going to live past 2010 for sure. Im sure of this. Sony and Microsoft already made this clear. Sony needs to milk the PS3 and Microsoft will play mind games with Sony for an extended period of time.



Resident_Hazard on 20 August 2008
Snesboy said:
Impulsivity said:
Str8knox said:
Did you just say that the Wii sells to people who aren't making the jump to hd? nintendo gamers only? (one who didn't start owning a console or any Ninty games until the Wii)

Okay, there is no need to respond to this then. And I won't. Sorry but a LOT of your points are flawed on Nintendo's part, but whatever. believe what you want.

 

   Nintendo is not trading on graphics this generation, they're just not.  It's not a dis on Nintendo, they freely say that they are not going for the "Number One Super HD HUB prize" that Sony and Microsoft are chasing.  They sell to people who are not as concerned about how a game looks as they are other things.  Noone is picking up Mario Kart Wii for its cutting edge photo realistic graphics.

   Some people like the best graphics possible, some people like Nintendo type games with that distinctive look and gameplay.  It's like picking between Star Wars and Star Trek, people usually just like one or the other for more or less inexplicable reasons.

 

   Either way the point is that chasing the high priced console top of the line graphics prize has no point for Nintendo, they do better with a low starting cost and older graphics (ala Wii) then they do with current gen graphics and a higher price (ala gamecube).

GameCube was 100 dollars cheaper than Xbox and PS2 at the time of its release ($200USD) and Wii was 150 dollars cheaper than Xbox 360 (the good one at least).

GameCube was still cheaper than Wii though, not too mention GameCube was more powerful than PS2 and was less expensive.

 

Traditionally, Nintendo did pretty well with raw power for decent price--and traditionally, they went for raw horsepower in the CPU.  They did for the SNES, N64, and GameCube--all designed powerful machines and they all cost either the same or cheaper than the often weaker competition.  Granted, by the time the late-bloomer N64 finally came out, Sony and Sega were already embroiled in price war which made the N64 actually look like the expensive machine (launch prices:  Saturn:  $400, PS1 $300, N64 $250, quickly dropped to $200 to compete with Sony and Sega).