MikeB said: @ sieanr "You think the PS3 can render 2.25x as many pixels as the 360?" You answer; "Well, the thing about 1080p is...." The way you put it, the question would be strange considering both consoles can output 1080p resolutions. And when addressing 1080p specifically, IMO it has to be clear what you are referring to exactly, FullHD or 1080p in general. IMO technically the PS3 is capable of doing a lot more in 1080p than the XBox 360 technically can, without wanting to attach an absolute figure on how much more powerful I consider the PS3 to be. This would depend on variable issues, like game engine design and platform specific optimizations. If you are unable to understand my postings, please don't get upset. In the middle ages you would have had a hard time as well, explaining to people the earth isn't flat.

No, I understood it just fine.

A guy asked you if you thought the PS3 could render games at 1080p better than the 360, and you responded with something completely unrelated to this. Go back to that original thread where other people said the exact same thing, the one you conviently left not long after this was posted;

 

Final-Fan said: Entroper said: Point of Clarification: 1920x1080 = 2.25 * (1280x720). Just so we're clear, you're stating that the PS3 has the potential to render 2.25 times as many pixels as the Xbox 360 with the same effects. Yes? I'm not debating anything in this post, just asking. MikeB said: @ Entroper FullHD is 1920 x 1080, 1080p is 1,080 lines of vertical resolution progressively scanned, so resolution can vary depending on horizontal resolution.

 

Funny, that just so happens to be another thing you've ignored

Ummmm..... what are you arguing about besides MikeB's ignoring of you?

Nintendo will only target little girls and they prefer portables and even though it's incredible year Wii has had, the words Wii and Fad cannot be seperated from each other

Umm... can this thread get back on topic, talking about the article from mcvuk?

Emmitt2222 said: This thread is hella long so I only read the first half of it. One thing definitely stood out to me though. The analyst said that while the PS3 was struggling this year, the software would be put on hold or delayed and then start up again once the PS3 hits its stride. Has this ever happened in the history of gaming?? Maybe I is ignent, but I thought that when a console is not doing well, sources move to the more successful console and they rarely come back. I have never heard of tons of projects just being put on hold and then later completed. It doesn't happen. Software companies are in the industry to make money and to do so they follow the money. All numbers and sales are pointing to the Wii and Xb0x360 to be the money makers. Why would software companies take a huge gamble on some unknown to just make games for a future 'successful' PS3, when they could simply stick to the successful consoles now and make money now? There is a reason that many people here often talk about the spiral of death that many consoles have gone through in the past. There has never been a case in the history of gaming when the spiral has been magically reversed. Now is it possible Sony could do some reversing? I believe so. But NOT enough to sell over 15 million a year for the next two years. The Wii is off to one of the best starts in hardware history and it will probably sell around 17 million this year. Who do these crazy analysts think they are? There is no historical precedent and all of the sales figures currently point in the opposite direction. This, to me, says they are basing their prediction on no solid ground. That's a bad analyst.

 The PSP's comeback does come somewhat close, but it wasn't spiraling. Then again, the PS3 isn't spiraling either. I still say wait until this holiday season. If the PS3 picks up, it could sell well, although unlikely as well as that article claims.

@ LordTheNightKnight

Like I pointed out the once popular Amiga CD32 dedicated games console can be connected to monitors as well. On some units out of the box through a SCART/RGB port (other models could be expanded to include such a port) or through the standard included S-Video port.

IMO having a Snes with monitor support wouldn't have disqualified the console as being a games console.

LordTheNightKnight said: Emmitt2222 said: This thread is hella long so I only read the first half of it. One thing definitely stood out to me though. The analyst said that while the PS3 was struggling this year, the software would be put on hold or delayed and then start up again once the PS3 hits its stride. Has this ever happened in the history of gaming?? Maybe I is ignent, but I thought that when a console is not doing well, sources move to the more successful console and they rarely come back. I have never heard of tons of projects just being put on hold and then later completed. It doesn't happen. Software companies are in the industry to make money and to do so they follow the money. All numbers and sales are pointing to the Wii and Xb0x360 to be the money makers. Why would software companies take a huge gamble on some unknown to just make games for a future 'successful' PS3, when they could simply stick to the successful consoles now and make money now? There is a reason that many people here often talk about the spiral of death that many consoles have gone through in the past. There has never been a case in the history of gaming when the spiral has been magically reversed. Now is it possible Sony could do some reversing? I believe so. But NOT enough to sell over 15 million a year for the next two years. The Wii is off to one of the best starts in hardware history and it will probably sell around 17 million this year. Who do these crazy analysts think they are? There is no historical precedent and all of the sales figures currently point in the opposite direction. This, to me, says they are basing their prediction on no solid ground. That's a bad analyst.  The PSP's comeback does come somewhat close, but it wasn't spiraling. Then again, the PS3 isn't spiraling either. I still say wait until this holiday season. If the PS3 picks up, it could sell well, although unlikely as well as that article claims.

 

I think you're both correct ...

Third party developers had more faith in the PS3 than any other console has ever had due to the success of the PS2 and Playstation. This has had the side effect of developers being far more patient with the PS3 than they have been with any other console; had Nintendo released a system that sold as poorly as the PS3, with as poor of software sales, no third party publisher would be devoting any exclusive games for it.

Now, third party publishers have already devoted an unusually large ammount of money towards PS3 projects and they are probably both waiting to see if Sony can pull a rabbit out of their hat this holiday season and hedging their bets by porting their games to the XBox 360 and PC (even if there are no current plans to release the games on these systems).

If Sony falters this holiday season I would expect that several of their highly anticipated exclusive games will receive XBox 360 ports (some will have delays whilst others will be released together).

 

MikeB said: @ LordTheNightKnight Again, you "countered" with the very point I made. The SNES and Mega Drive don't have video connectors. RF and A/V plugs are the only options. I wasn't claiming that the Amiga didn't have those plugs. I was pointing out that the other systems didnt. No matter what you think, the Amiga is not a video game console. It is a gaming PC (although a very good one). Like I pointed out the once popular Amiga CD32 dedicated games console can be connected to monitors as well. On some units out of the box through a SCART/RGB port (other models could be expanded to include such a port) or through the standard included S-Video port. IMO having a Snes with monitor support wouldn't have disqualified the console as being a games console.

    But TV support doesn't make the Amiga a games console. That is my point. The Amiga is a PC. Ergo, comparing any spect to it is unfair, as PCs need higher specs to do their functions past gaming.

LordTheNightKnight said: MikeB said: @ LordTheNightKnight Again, you "countered" with the very point I made. The SNES and Mega Drive don't have video connectors. RF and A/V plugs are the only options. I wasn't claiming that the Amiga didn't have those plugs. I was pointing out that the other systems didnt. No matter what you think, the Amiga is not a video game console. It is a gaming PC (although a very good one). Like I pointed out the once popular Amiga CD32 dedicated games console can be connected to monitors as well. On some units out of the box through a SCART/RGB port (other models could be expanded to include such a port) or through the standard included S-Video port. IMO having a Snes with monitor support wouldn't have disqualified the console as being a games console.     But TV support doesn't make the Amiga a games console. That is my point. The Amiga is a PC. Ergo, comparing any spect to it is unfair, as PCs need higher specs to do their functions past gaming.

Wait a sec, did he just call the CD32 popular/succesful? That system was the very deffinition of a snafu, and sold horrid (well under 100k)

BTW, the SNES supports RGB as does the MD just like the CD32. So you can hook those consoles up to a RGB monitor if they support 15.75khz, such as an Amiga Monitor

@ LordTheNightKnight

Games can be the most demanding pieces of software, from another point of view you could say a top spec games console needs higher specifications in certain areas than a PC does (Blu-Ray, 8 CPUs, advanced bandwidth and memory architecture, in the case of the PS3), from another point of view you could argue a PC needs higher system resources as more memory is required to run a bloated largely unoptimised mainstream OS like Windows, Linux or MaxOS X, but even on just an ancient Pentium 133 Mhz (or an even far older Amiga) you can browse the web, read your emails, write your letters and use a messager just fine (above 90% of the average person's daily computer usage).

Look at what PCs could do in the early 80s, even a cheap Coleco Vision games console or Commodore 64 homecomputer offered better graphics and sound. The Coleco Adam was the computer version of the Coleco Vision which received some good reviews at the time. The C64GS was a games console version of the c64 homecomputer, so the line between consoles and computers is often blurry from a technical perspectice, the original XBox was basically a cutdown PC and the PS3 can potentially be used as a super computer.