i think that sony should charge for psn next generation. the revenue they create will help create stronger servers, whilst improving the ancillary servies needed to one day surpass xbox live.
and i doubt a ff7 remake will be on the ps4. most likely the ds, unless square wanted to put it on the current hd consoles sometime soon.
everything else is just common sense.
| asumal said: i think that sony should charge for psn next generation. the revenue they create will help create stronger servers, whilst improving the ancillary servies needed to one day surpass xbox live. and i doubt a ff7 remake will be on the ps4. most likely the ds, unless square wanted to put it on the current hd consoles sometime soon. everything else is just common sense. |
On the other hand I think Xbox shouldn't charge for live and would never pay just to play games online unless it's a MMO. PSN runs fine.
SickleSigh said:
On the other hand I think Xbox shouldn't charge for live and would never pay just to play games online unless it's a MMO. PSN runs fine. |
This makes no sense. You would cut company profits. Nothings broken...(Only your wallet is)...so nothing needs to be fixed.
S.T.A.G.E. said:
This makes no sense. You would cut company profits. Nothings broken...(Only your wallet is)...so nothing needs to be fixed.
|
I don't place a companies profit over my own funds. My wallet is fine, however if other companies can offer online services for free I see no reason to support one that doesn't. Never said Live was broken either or needs to be fixed.
| Sharky54 said: Funny thing is, the CELL is more powerful then all home computers even now I think. They could very well just beef up the cell(double the cores or something?) for not much of an extra price. If I am not mistaken it was designed so that more cores and stuff could be added at very little cost later down the road. The main thing that will make the PS4 cost more then 200 dollars would be the graphics card. My bet is like 299-399. I doubt they will go with different versions. And if they use a beefed up cell, the BC would be very easy for them. They could even stick an RSX in there for next to nothing and do a pure hardware emulation if it was needed. |
Um are you kidding? Umm any current dual core or Quad core pc will completly destroy the cell or any console cpu. And i repeat DESTROY!! nice try though
Long Live SHIO!
1337 Gamer said:
Um are you kidding? Umm any current dual core or Quad core pc will completly destroy the cell or any console cpu. And i repeat DESTROY!! nice try though |
Um I am fairly certain you are wrong, because my old quad ciore PC couldnt even run UT2004 with full physics and everything. So I am fairly certain you have no clue what you are talking about. Nice try though. :]
1337 Gamer I sense fear in you
Black Women Are The Most Beautiful Women On The Planet.
"In video game terms, RPGs are games that involve a form of separate battles taking place with a specialized battle system and the use of a system that increases your power through a form of points.
Sure, what you say is the definition, but the connotation of RPGs is what they are in video games." - dtewi
Sharky54 said:
Um I am fairly certain you are wrong, because my old quad ciore PC couldnt even run UT2004 with full physics and everything. So I am fairly certain you have no clue what you are talking about. Nice try though. :] |
No, 1337 Gamer is correct. He is correct for the wrong reasons, but he is correct. A quad core + modern gpu would stomp all over the Cell processor and the same modern GPU. A Cell + modern GPU is reduntant. They will both compete for the same tasks. If you compare a Cell processor to a Core 2 Quad in terms of number crunching, the Cell processor will whip the Core 2 Quad. Compare the Cell to a modern GPU at number crunching, and the GPU will humiliate the Cell with over 5X the performance.
The reason the Cell + RSX is a good idea is because RSX uses old technology. Modern GPUs (including the one in the Xbox 360) can be used for GPGPU. So it's essentially a Cell processor with 7 cores VS a GPU with 800 tiny stream processors made to crunch numbers.
The Core 2 Quad also has a heck lot more cache, OOO Execution, advanced branch predictions, and many other goodies which would really benefit modern games.
The new Cell processor will most likely not be that much powerful than the current one. Why invest precious silicon into a high number crunching CPU when the GPU does it so much faster? In fact, think of Larrabbe as what the Cell was suppose to be. The Playstation 3 wasn't even suppose to have a GPU, just 1 or 2 cell processors that would render everything via software. However, the Cell wasn't anywhere near as powerful as Sony expected and they ran to Nvidia for a last minute GPU. Sony has a lot of time to decide their hardware, they won't make the same mistake again. Expect either a modest bump in the Cell and a good GPU or a different architecture. Monster cell + monster CPU is redundant and a monster CPU + weak GPU is stupid.
Good news Everyone!
I've invented a device which makes you read this in your head, in my voice!
SickleSigh said:
I don't place a companies profit over my own funds. My wallet is fine, however if other companies can offer online services for free I see no reason to support one that doesn't. Never said Live was broken either or needs to be fixed. |
Then don't get Live, plain and simple. In order to make Live as good as it is paying for it is a very good idea. You're not supporting a free service if it's free. Supporting a service includes paying. Sony is giving free online at a huge loss. You just don't get it because you're only thinking of yourself. If you actually look at the cost for Sony it's huge. Microsoft has made billions in profit and Sony is salivating at the chance to get more money out of your pocket.
monster cell + monster GPU= monster games?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
