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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Gabe Newell says the PS3 is a waste of everybody's time

selnor on 14 October 2007
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:

http://www.edn.com/blog/1690000169/post/1110015711.html

I wonder what Gabe will say about this. It's the sort of thing he hates and ATI, Nvidia and IBM are all talking about going down this road.


One thing this article makes me think of is how bad for Sony! If this is the way forwar, PS3 will not last 5 years let alone the 10 Sony thought. It will hurt them more than MS as they invested heavily for PS3.


Eh? What they are desrcibing is very similar to the Cell. In fact IBM are talking about using the Cell for this purpose.


 Uh? did you read the same article? Neither PS3 or 360's graphics chips (which is what they are talking about) are capable of doing what they are saying hence, in a few years Pc's will be way ahead of this gens Consoles. They are talking about taking the load off of CPU's.



Around the Network
Saiyar on 14 October 2007
selnor said:
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:

http://www.edn.com/blog/1690000169/post/1110015711.html

I wonder what Gabe will say about this. It's the sort of thing he hates and ATI, Nvidia and IBM are all talking about going down this road.


One thing this article makes me think of is how bad for Sony! If this is the way forwar, PS3 will not last 5 years let alone the 10 Sony thought. It will hurt them more than MS as they invested heavily for PS3.


Eh? What they are desrcibing is very similar to the Cell. In fact IBM are talking about using the Cell for this purpose.


Uh? did you read the same article? Neither PS3 or 360's graphics chips (which is what they are talking about) are capable of doing what they are saying hence, in a few years Pc's will be way ahead of this gens Consoles. They are talking about taking the load off of CPU's.


The article has nothing to do with this generation. It is about the future of gaming. If this is bad news for the PS3 then it is equally bad for the 360 and terrible news for the Wii since none of them use a set up like this. PC's were way ahead of the PSone and PS2 a couple of years after they were released, it hardly hurt their lifetimes.

 



selnor on 14 October 2007
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:

http://www.edn.com/blog/1690000169/post/1110015711.html

I wonder what Gabe will say about this. It's the sort of thing he hates and ATI, Nvidia and IBM are all talking about going down this road.


One thing this article makes me think of is how bad for Sony! If this is the way forwar, PS3 will not last 5 years let alone the 10 Sony thought. It will hurt them more than MS as they invested heavily for PS3.


Eh? What they are desrcibing is very similar to the Cell. In fact IBM are talking about using the Cell for this purpose.


Uh? did you read the same article? Neither PS3 or 360's graphics chips (which is what they are talking about) are capable of doing what they are saying hence, in a few years Pc's will be way ahead of this gens Consoles. They are talking about taking the load off of CPU's.


The article has nothing to do with this generation. It is about the future of gaming. If this is bad news for the PS3 then it is equally bad for the 360 and terrible news for the Wii since none of them use a set up like this. PC's were way ahead of the PSone and PS2 a couple of years after they were released, it hardly hurt their lifetimes.

 


 Your missing the point. Sony dubbed PS3 as a super computer. Said it was future proof. (10 years)Considering it relies on appealing alot to the graphics side of the market it gets hurt quite bad by this. They spent the most money out of all of them and as of yet have no graphicall lead to show for it. MS were planning to build new 1 6 years after 360 anyway. And Nintendo sit pretty as they dont rely on graphics at all. IT'S GAMEPLAYWII.

So as I said Bad news for Sony's Strategy. 



Saiyar on 14 October 2007
selnor said:
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:

http://www.edn.com/blog/1690000169/post/1110015711.html

I wonder what Gabe will say about this. It's the sort of thing he hates and ATI, Nvidia and IBM are all talking about going down this road.


One thing this article makes me think of is how bad for Sony! If this is the way forwar, PS3 will not last 5 years let alone the 10 Sony thought. It will hurt them more than MS as they invested heavily for PS3.


Eh? What they are desrcibing is very similar to the Cell. In fact IBM are talking about using the Cell for this purpose.


Uh? did you read the same article? Neither PS3 or 360's graphics chips (which is what they are talking about) are capable of doing what they are saying hence, in a few years Pc's will be way ahead of this gens Consoles. They are talking about taking the load off of CPU's.


The article has nothing to do with this generation. It is about the future of gaming. If this is bad news for the PS3 then it is equally bad for the 360 and terrible news for the Wii since none of them use a set up like this. PC's were way ahead of the PSone and PS2 a couple of years after they were released, it hardly hurt their lifetimes.

 


Your missing the point. Sony dubbed PS3 as a super computer. Said it was future proof. (10 years)Considering it relies on appealing alot to the graphics side of the market it gets hurt quite bad by this. They spent the most money out of all of them and as of yet have no graphicall lead to show for it. MS were planning to build new 1 6 years after 360 anyway. And Nintendo sit pretty as they dont rely on graphics at all. IT'S GAMEPLAYWII.

So as I said Bad news for Sony's Strategy.


I think you have misunderstood what Sony meatn by 10 year lifespan. it doesn't mean they are going to wait 10 years before releasing a new console (they will probably wait 6), it means they will support the PS3 for 10 years. They supported the PSOne for 11 years, including 5 years after the PS2 launched. They have supported the PS2 for 7 years and have shown no sign of stopping even with the launch of the PS3.



selnor on 14 October 2007
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:

http://www.edn.com/blog/1690000169/post/1110015711.html

I wonder what Gabe will say about this. It's the sort of thing he hates and ATI, Nvidia and IBM are all talking about going down this road.


One thing this article makes me think of is how bad for Sony! If this is the way forwar, PS3 will not last 5 years let alone the 10 Sony thought. It will hurt them more than MS as they invested heavily for PS3.


Eh? What they are desrcibing is very similar to the Cell. In fact IBM are talking about using the Cell for this purpose.


Uh? did you read the same article? Neither PS3 or 360's graphics chips (which is what they are talking about) are capable of doing what they are saying hence, in a few years Pc's will be way ahead of this gens Consoles. They are talking about taking the load off of CPU's.


The article has nothing to do with this generation. It is about the future of gaming. If this is bad news for the PS3 then it is equally bad for the 360 and terrible news for the Wii since none of them use a set up like this. PC's were way ahead of the PSone and PS2 a couple of years after they were released, it hardly hurt their lifetimes.

 


Your missing the point. Sony dubbed PS3 as a super computer. Said it was future proof. (10 years)Considering it relies on appealing alot to the graphics side of the market it gets hurt quite bad by this. They spent the most money out of all of them and as of yet have no graphicall lead to show for it. MS were planning to build new 1 6 years after 360 anyway. And Nintendo sit pretty as they dont rely on graphics at all. IT'S GAMEPLAYWII.

So as I said Bad news for Sony's Strategy.


I think you have misunderstood what Sony meatn by 10 year lifespan. it doesn't mean they are going to wait 10 years before releasing a new console (they will probably wait 6), it means they will support the PS3 for 10 years. They supported the PSOne for 11 years, including 5 years after the PS2 launched. They have supported the PS2 for 7 years and have shown no sign of stopping even with the launch of the PS3.


 No I disagree. The use of the words future proof prove that. They dont need to tell any1 that they will support it even through the next gen. It does nothing for sales now. Also just to get more consoles out the door they stop BC on the 40gb version. Thats not supporting PS2 at all!



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 14 October 2007

I think you both miss the point ...

PC hardware is already far ahead of the PS3 and XBox 360 ( http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3122&p=2 ) ( http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3122&p=3 )

The same game that the PS3 and XBox 360 are running at 720p (1280x720) is being run on a PC at 2560x1600; and that PC doesn't even take advantage of SLi

 



LordTheNightKnight on 14 October 2007
selnor said:
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:
selnor said:
Saiyar said:

http://www.edn.com/blog/1690000169/post/1110015711.html

I wonder what Gabe will say about this. It's the sort of thing he hates and ATI, Nvidia and IBM are all talking about going down this road.


One thing this article makes me think of is how bad for Sony! If this is the way forwar, PS3 will not last 5 years let alone the 10 Sony thought. It will hurt them more than MS as they invested heavily for PS3.


Eh? What they are desrcibing is very similar to the Cell. In fact IBM are talking about using the Cell for this purpose.


Uh? did you read the same article? Neither PS3 or 360's graphics chips (which is what they are talking about) are capable of doing what they are saying hence, in a few years Pc's will be way ahead of this gens Consoles. They are talking about taking the load off of CPU's.


The article has nothing to do with this generation. It is about the future of gaming. If this is bad news for the PS3 then it is equally bad for the 360 and terrible news for the Wii since none of them use a set up like this. PC's were way ahead of the PSone and PS2 a couple of years after they were released, it hardly hurt their lifetimes.

 


Your missing the point. Sony dubbed PS3 as a super computer. Said it was future proof. (10 years)Considering it relies on appealing alot to the graphics side of the market it gets hurt quite bad by this. They spent the most money out of all of them and as of yet have no graphicall lead to show for it. MS were planning to build new 1 6 years after 360 anyway. And Nintendo sit pretty as they dont rely on graphics at all. IT'S GAMEPLAYWII.

So as I said Bad news for Sony's Strategy.


I think you have misunderstood what Sony meatn by 10 year lifespan. it doesn't mean they are going to wait 10 years before releasing a new console (they will probably wait 6), it means they will support the PS3 for 10 years. They supported the PSOne for 11 years, including 5 years after the PS2 launched. They have supported the PS2 for 7 years and have shown no sign of stopping even with the launch of the PS3.


No I disagree. The use of the words future proof prove that. They dont need to tell any1 that they will support it even through the next gen. It does nothing for sales now. Also just to get more consoles out the door they stop BC on the 40gb version. Thats not supporting PS2 at all!


 It doesn't prove Sony wants to extend the cycle. It only proves Sony used a bunch of spin words.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Sqrl on 14 October 2007

@Sayair,

Sony was explicit in their statements. "We will not ask our consumers to make another investment in 5 to 6 years, which is why we feel the price of the PS3 is a worthwhile investment." That might not be the exact wording but its damn close.

With that said I fully expect that they are lying through their teeth. Just as they have with several other things (rumble, price cuts, launch availability, etc...).

As for the article, what they are talking about there is very different from any of the consoles on the market right now. So given the PS3's investment in new architecture and planned life span, I don't see how anyone could say this direction is just as bad for the 360. The 360 is designed with the current architecture in mind and thus no new expense was needed to engineer those aspects of it, no loss there. And MS is planning to release a new console almost certainly within the next 5 years, putting them in a good position to take advantage of this as/if it becomes available.

The impact to the Wii is pretty much identical to the 360. With the possible exception that Nintendo seems to be focused on lower price points currently and depending on how things play out, if the technology takes off Nintendo could take advantage of lowering technology prices.



To Each Man, Responsibility
Crucial on 14 October 2007
scotland yard said:
Crucial said:

It is quite possible that Gabe Newell has simply eaten too many PS3s. His unending hunger requires new flavors.


Classy. I get the feeling you're the type of person who tells random strangers to 'pull my finger' and thinks its hilarious.


 You are correct.  From your name and avatar I get the feeling that you're an incredible douche.  Quite possibly as fat as Gabe Newell.



Saiyar on 14 October 2007
Sqrl said:
@Sayair,

Sony was explicit in their statements. "We will not ask our consumers to make another investment in 5 to 6 years, which is why we feel the price of the PS3 is a worthwhile investment." That might not be the exact wording but its damn close.

With that said I fully expect that they are lying through their teeth. Just as they have with several other things (rumble, price cuts, launch availability, etc...).

As for the article, what they are talking about there is very different from any of the consoles on the market right now. So given the PS3's investment in new architecture and planned life span, I don't see how anyone could say this direction is just as bad for the 360. The 360 is designed with the current architecture in mind and thus no new expense was needed to engineer those aspects of it, no loss there. And MS is planning to release a new console almost certainly within the next 5 years, putting them in a good position to take advantage of this as/if it becomes available.

The impact to the Wii is pretty much identical to the 360. With the possible exception that Nintendo seems to be focused on lower price points currently and depending on how things play out, if the technology takes off Nintendo could take advantage of lowering technology prices.
 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=19342

SCEA president Kaz Hirai has predicted that the PlayStation 3's life cycle will last for 10 years, hinting that the console's successor is more than five years away at least.

In an interview with CNET, Hirai said: "We look at our products having a 10 year life cycle, which we've proven with the PlayStation. Therefore, the PlayStation 3 is going to be a console that's going to be with you again for 10 years.

Given the direct reference to the playstation I think it is fairly obvious what they mean.