FastFord58 said:
Rpruett said:
Non Sequor said:
PS3 fans, please try to appreciate my honesty. I am not trying to anger you. I am trying to tell you that some of the things people are saying that you believe are biased against the PS3 are based on sound concerns.
The fact that the PS3 is outperforming what the 360 sold one year ago is not a valid metric of success. The PS3 is forced to compete with the 360 right now.
An overengineered processor does little to address the present problems of game development. Games are almost always I/O or GPU bottlenecked and improving non-bottlenecked areas does little to nothing to improve the available throughput to accommodate a given game design. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max-flow_min-cut_theorem
|
When you take no account for the price of the consoles or the time it takes to develop quality games or the time it takes to get a grip on designing quality games.....Yes it is biased and no those aren't sound concerns.
The fact that the PS3 is out performing what the 360 sold one year ago (At a higher price) IS a valid metric of success. It proves that people are willing to shell out 'more' money for a system that is no better than the 360 (According to some).
You're looking at this on a very short-sighted level. Businesses don't make an investment on a console like this for the short term. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo. None of them are in this game for the short term. All the years of R&D and money spent acquiring, implementing technology. Isn't for the short term pay-off. As long as the price is competitive and the games keep on coming a console will be competitive.
Sony has shown that there certainly is a market for their console. (Even with a ridiculously high price tag). By selling every bit as well as Microsoft has in similar time spans (All with a higher price of admission). The PS3 has shown itself to be a viable competitor with the Xbox 360.
Since the systems (360/PS3) are so comparable, it comes down to overall price (Which the PS3 has the most room of the three companies to lower their price) and what has the best exclusive games (Which most objective observers would easily give the PS3 the nod for 09' thus far over MS.) The future IS bright for the PS3. Saying otherwise is a complete fallacy. Sony still has two of it's largest titles yet to be released and people act like it's crazy talk for people to say that they have an amazing lineup coming up.
Assuming GT5 is released in 09' (Which it probably won't be ready).
Gran Turismo 5
God of War III
Uncharted 2
Is the equivalent of the Xbox releasing Halo 3, Gears of War, Fable II in one year. The PS3 still has quite a bit of 'gas' in it's tank left. Which is why all this talk of it's demise and it being an utter failure is ridiculous and extremely one-sided and biased.
And you are correct in the fact that games/programs in general are always bottlenecked by the slowest components of the system. (Generally I/O, Disk Access, GPU for games). What you aren't factoring in is that this 'overengineered' processor can take on the task of aiding the GPU (Reducing the bottleneck). Ofcourse there is a limit and the system still has other bottlenecks. The PS3 isn't going to suddenly transform it's graphics. The PS3 has serious RAM restrictions and like all systems it has limits.
However, games that are designed properly and take full use of the Cell and allow it to aid the GPU have had wonderful results. Further optimization of code/ work load on the Cell will only improve as time goes on.
|
Wow...every fanboy(read conjecture) argument wrapped up in one post. Like I said, maybe these questions asked to Jaffe should be answered. Then we can stop hearing the lol pricepoints, lol price drops, lol upcoming games, lol cell arguments over and over and over and over and...
No matter how it is said: whether it is vitriolic rehetoric by some of the more venomnous posters, or if it is a little more elegantly written like the above, it is all in the same pile. These arguments have had enough time and many opportunities to proven true, yet have still failed to do so at every juncture.
It is time for MS and Sony to take accountability for their missteps.
|
These questions CAN'T be answered yet. You can't sit in the middle of something going on and talk about it. If during the first year of the Xbox 360's release on the market, people started asking questions about why it sold so poorly? Why it had a lot of mediocre game titles? Would those questions have been fair? Would the responses of (Well Halo 3 is coming out next year, etc, etc). been valid? Ofcourse, they would have been.
The point is, the questions asked were a direct way of implying the PS3 is a categorical failure. (Which is absolutely false). The PS3 has done well for a myriad of reasons.
Price matters. (It's not some excuse).
This is a fact. Fact is, when the PS3 dropped its price last year. It saw 8 months of higher sales than the Xbox 360. Fact is, when the Xbox 360 dropped it's price this past couple of months, it has seen higher sales than the PS3 since. This isn't rocket science or fanboyism. It's simple economics.
Upcoming games argument?
I knew Halo 3, Gears of War 2, etc would be great games fueled by positive reviews and wonderful sales. Almost everyone else did too. To the Playstation brand, Gran Turismo / God of War are arguably their two biggest games for their system and very comparable in that regard. True or False? Why is this labeled as some excuse or delay tactic? The PS3 still has plenty of good games out currently. But thus far have really only released one of the three aces it has in it's deck (MSG4).
And no. Many of these 'arguments' haven't had enough time to be proven true. Not when 2 of 3 of your largest titles have yet to be released for your system.
Sure MS and Sony should take accountability for their mis-steps. Except you're missing the entire point of Jaffe. Sony apparently is expected to take accountability foir their mis-steps but not Microsoft. Why isn't Microsofts HD-DVD failure mentioned? Or the millions dumped into RROD? The continuing RRODs? The cost of a service that is comparable in many ways to a service provided for free by it's competitor?
Both companies have questions to answer and when you focus only on the negative aspects of one company (While putting other companies in a positive light at the same time) you are showing extreme bias. Which is precisely what Jaffe was referencing.
