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

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft hails its killer weapon in battle with PS3 and Wii

welshbloke on 23 November 2009
Reasonable said:
ironman said:
PlaystaionGamer said:
ironman said:
gurglesletch said:
How were they the first to use facebook? Facebook has always been usable from the ps3 browser

That's laughable. The PS3 browser is crappy. Also, the PS3 does not have a Facebook specific app yet, the 360 does. That is why MS can make such a claim.

PS3 browser isnt 'crappy' its good for most things, IT does also mean i have facebook, twitter, youtube anything i want really so not 'crappy' at all lol

So then you must think Internet Explorer is not a crappy browser. Nor is my cell phone browser since It does allow me access to all the aforementioned sites. You sir are silly, just because you have a browser, does not mean it will work as well as an app used for one specific purpose. 

What does the 360 app add?  Is it just a specific app to do the same stuff as accessing Facebook from your PC (after all generic browser access to Facebook, whether from PC or iPhone is arguably the standard approach) or does it add stuff specific to gaming, etc.?  I'm presuming the latter, otherwise it offers nothing other than an integrated access point to the same destination.

I like it when stuff like this is integrated, and do feel Sony either need to give their browser a big boost or simply go via direct integration, but I think wayyy too many people make a big deal about it in terms of making a difference to either console.  It's simply plugging them into something that already exists with wayyy more users accessing it via other means, hardly Earthshattering and in the end, if you like Facebook, if the end result is similar whether via a PS3 browser or an integrated app neither can be said to be a huge USP.

Anyway, I think the title's misleading.  I thought Natal was MS killer weapon? 

I think you underestimate the power of integration. I would point to the huge uptake for the BBC iPlayer on the PS3 as an example of something freely available via the browser and now integrated which caused a massive surge in use, in fact.

Anthony Rose from the BBC had this to say:  "User response to our new iPlayer for PS3 has been amazing, [it] now accounts for a massive 10 per cent of all iPlayer viewing."

The killer app for Microsoft was when they updated to NXE and then provided the mechanism to make these kinds of integrations simple. Netflix, Twitter, Sky player, Facebook, Zune HD instant on, Last.FM all of which have added value to the service and I am sure added customers to the services when offered. I think these sorts of integration are the jewel in lives crown.



W.L.B.B. Member, Portsmouth Branch.

(Welsh(Folk) Living Beyond Borders)

Winner of the 2010 VGC Holiday sales prediction thread with an Average 1.6% accuracy rating. I am indeed awesome.

Kinect as seen by PS3 owners ...if you can pick at it   ...post it ... Did I mention the 360 was black and Shinny? Keeping Sigs obscure since 2007, Passed by the Sig police 5July10.
Around the Network
Reasonable on 23 November 2009
ironman said:
Reasonable said:
ironman said:
PlaystaionGamer said:
ironman said:
gurglesletch said:
How were they the first to use facebook? Facebook has always been usable from the ps3 browser

That's laughable. The PS3 browser is crappy. Also, the PS3 does not have a Facebook specific app yet, the 360 does. That is why MS can make such a claim.

PS3 browser isnt 'crappy' its good for most things, IT does also mean i have facebook, twitter, youtube anything i want really so not 'crappy' at all lol

So then you must think Internet Explorer is not a crappy browser. Nor is my cell phone browser since It does allow me access to all the aforementioned sites. You sir are silly, just because you have a browser, does not mean it will work as well as an app used for one specific purpose. 

What does the 360 app add?  Is it just a specific app to do the same stuff as accessing Facebook from your PC (after all generic browser access to Facebook, whether from PC or iPhone is arguably the standard approach) or does it add stuff specific to gaming, etc.?  I'm presuming the latter, otherwise it offers nothing other than an integrated access point to the same destination.

I like it when stuff like this is integrated, and do feel Sony either need to give their browser a big boost or simply go via direct integration, but I think wayyy too many people make a big deal about it in terms of making a difference to either console.  It's simply plugging them into something that already exists with wayyy more users accessing it via other means, hardly Earthshattering and in the end, if you like Facebook, if the end result is similar whether via a PS3 browser or an integrated app neither can be said to be a huge USP.

Anyway, I think the title's misleading.  I thought Natal was MS killer weapon? 

The 360 app is not a web browser. It is a Facebook specific app...so it streamlines everything and makes it easy to update your status, scores, and achievements on Facebook. Same with the Twitter app. Sure, it may seem pointless, but then, isn't that the case with Facebook and Twitter as well?

Besides, as crappy as the PS3 web browser is, it still has one vs. the 360 which does not. So don't for a minute think I am trolling the PS3's web browser, I'm just putting things into perspective for the blind.  

Yeah, I know.  I guess I see that stuff as 'nice to have' but nothing to influence your purchse.  I mean, if you're a real Facebook and Twitter fan then mobile options are surely the best, be it laptop, iPhone or whatever as you can do it all on the move.

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

selnor on 24 November 2009
NJ5 said:
An even more killer weapon is a browser, which allows you to access all those services.


But noone really uses it. It's like using the browser on your phone. You only use it when ALL else fails. It's clunky, awkward and requires a decade to use it once. Purpose built apps for a console and gamepad is what Sony should have done. Instead, most people dont use it. Well based on people I know with one and write ups about the PS3 browser.



Garnett on 24 November 2009
selnor said:
NJ5 said:
An even more killer weapon is a browser, which allows you to access all those services.


But noone really uses it. It's like using the browser on your phone. You only use it when ALL else fails. It's clunky, awkward and requires a decade to use it once. Purpose built apps for a console and gamepad is what Sony should have done. Instead, most people dont use it. Well based on people I know with one and write ups about the PS3 browser.

Actually i like a portable web browser.



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

Slimebeast on 24 November 2009
Squilliam said:
KratosHimself said:
Squilliam said:

Nintendo have said the same thing actually. So theres no real connection between the two concepts.

The difference is Wii's specs are obviously inferior while 360 actually has good specs. It's just unreliable.

 

Semantics...

The ATI 5970 has between 12 and 15* more 3d performance than the PS3. Does the Wii look equally obsolete? Yep!

Now that's a huge exaggeration, isn't it? I'd estimate the ATI 5970 has 7-8 times (tops) more 3d performance than the PS3's Nvidia7800 equivalent.



Around the Network
Squilliam on 24 November 2009
Slimebeast said:
Squilliam said:
KratosHimself said:
Squilliam said:

Nintendo have said the same thing actually. So theres no real connection between the two concepts.

The difference is Wii's specs are obviously inferior while 360 actually has good specs. It's just unreliable.

 

Semantics...

The ATI 5970 has between 12 and 15* more 3d performance than the PS3. Does the Wii look equally obsolete? Yep!

Now that's a huge exaggeration, isn't it? I'd estimate the ATI 5970 has 7-8 times (tops) more 3d performance than the PS3's Nvidia7800 equivalent.

HD 5870 has:

  • 3B transistors vs ~300M
  • 1-2GB ram vs 256MB
  • 150GB/S B/W vs 25GB/S
  • Unified Shaders, Compute shaders, tessellation etc = much more efficient at implementing high end shaders/compute vs ???
  • 875Mhz clock speed vs 500mhz (confirmed from B3d developers)
  • 200W of heat vs ~40?

And the 5970 is ~ 180% of that.

 



Tease.

Slimebeast on 24 November 2009
Squilliam said:
Slimebeast said:
Squilliam said:
KratosHimself said:
Squilliam said:

Nintendo have said the same thing actually. So theres no real connection between the two concepts.

The difference is Wii's specs are obviously inferior while 360 actually has good specs. It's just unreliable.

 

Semantics...

The ATI 5970 has between 12 and 15* more 3d performance than the PS3. Does the Wii look equally obsolete? Yep!

Now that's a huge exaggeration, isn't it? I'd estimate the ATI 5970 has 7-8 times (tops) more 3d performance than the PS3's Nvidia7800 equivalent.

HD 5870 has:

  • 3B transistors vs ~300M
  • 1-2GB ram vs 256MB
  • 150GB/S B/W vs 25GB/S
  • Unified Shaders, Compute shaders, tessellation etc = much more efficient at implementing high end shaders/compute vs ???
  • 875Mhz clock speed vs 500mhz (confirmed from B3d developers)
  • 200W of heat vs ~40?

And the 5970 is ~ 180% of that.

 

You know very well that that's a flawed comparison. Only real life performance matters, and a ATI 5970 is not more than 8 times powerful as a "7800 PS3-style".

Performance is not in a linear relation to any of those parameters you listed in your comparison, I'm sure u know that.



nanarchy on 24 November 2009
Slimebeast said:
Squilliam said:
Slimebeast said:
Squilliam said:
KratosHimself said:
Squilliam said:

Nintendo have said the same thing actually. So theres no real connection between the two concepts.

The difference is Wii's specs are obviously inferior while 360 actually has good specs. It's just unreliable.

 

Semantics...

The ATI 5970 has between 12 and 15* more 3d performance than the PS3. Does the Wii look equally obsolete? Yep!

Now that's a huge exaggeration, isn't it? I'd estimate the ATI 5970 has 7-8 times (tops) more 3d performance than the PS3's Nvidia7800 equivalent.

HD 5870 has:

  • 3B transistors vs ~300M
  • 1-2GB ram vs 256MB
  • 150GB/S B/W vs 25GB/S
  • Unified Shaders, Compute shaders, tessellation etc = much more efficient at implementing high end shaders/compute vs ???
  • 875Mhz clock speed vs 500mhz (confirmed from B3d developers)
  • 200W of heat vs ~40?

And the 5970 is ~ 180% of that.

 

You know very well that that's a flawed comparison. Only real life performance matters, and a ATI 5970 is not more than 8 times powerful as a "7800 PS3-style".

Performance is not in a linear relation to any of those parameters you listed in your comparison, I'm sure u know that.
A 7800 used to score from around 3000 in 3D Mark06. current gen cards are pushing 25,000 and that is before the 5970 or Nvidia's newly announced chip. Yeah current cards really are around 8 times more powerfull.

 



Squilliam on 25 November 2009

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,699312/Modern-Warfare-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-of-the-latest-Call-of-Duty/Practice/

Considering that its a 7900GTX and the 7900GT is around the same level of the PS3 GPU my point stands. One 5870 is 8+ * more powerful than the PS3 GPU and therefore the 5970 is more than 12* more powerful.



Tease.

Slimebeast on 25 November 2009
Squilliam said:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,699312/Modern-Warfare-2-Graphics-card-benchmarks-of-the-latest-Call-of-Duty/Practice/

Considering that its a 7900GTX and the 7900GT is around the same level of the PS3 GPU my point stands. One 5870 is 8+ * more powerful than the PS3 GPU and therefore the 5970 is more than 12* more powerful.

Nice cherry-picking m8.

So then follows that you also believe that a 8800GT 512Mb is 62,7/16,7= 3,75  times more powerful than a 7900GTX 512Mb?

I didn't think so.