-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
ATI says: Xbox 360 will outperform PS3
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
FallenOne666
Banned
Let's see... ATI made the GPU for 360, so tell me how they are reliable again? :lol
krypt0nian
Banned
Just so you know...this is a Revenge old....
OLD!
OLD!
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Thats funny, Sony says the exact opposite...
Who is right???
We will find out when *BOTH* are shipping production-ready hardware, which will be in a few months time....
Who is right???
We will find out when *BOTH* are shipping production-ready hardware, which will be in a few months time....
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Phoenix said:
you know what. that brings up an interesting point. for the first gen ever, the dev of both chips (rev and xbox360) will be the same, and thus can give us a more accurate assessment of which one will be better.
MetalAlien
Banned
It better, that's the only thing that saved XB1.
CrimsonSkies
Member
Where's the GameSpot editorial spin on this article ahah.
Virgin Wii
Banned
There was a point in time where I wouldn't have given this any consideration. But that was when I thought PS3 would be launching a year after X360. PS3 now won't be launching even 6 months later, so Sony can't really say they have a year's worth of technology advances on MS. So I don't consider this to be too out there. As always, we'll see.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
The online phenomenon that has 2 million users??
Is that the one you mean??
Is that the one you mean??
MetalAlien
Banned
Amir0x said:
No, it wasn't that..
atomiswave
Member
Amir0x said:
yeah i mean a console can have no power and obviously automatically take you online, giving you the greatest online gaming experience. oh wait.....maybe thats why Gran turismo 4 wasnt ready for online....because ps2 couldn't handle online gaming as well as xbox....
in all honesty though, everyone has to admit a lot of the xbox accomplishments were possible thanks to its power over the competition.
**cue xbot wave**
GhaleonEB said:
This is as far from the point as possible. If Sony wanted to, they could choose to have a comprehensive Live-similar system that work even better for those who did have HD, and would provide updates for those people. The technological limitation is none except for the fact that Sony decided just not to.
atomiswave
Member
yeah im not saying ps2 wasn't capable of going online, but what i am saying is that while ps2 could handle say 4-6 players online in gt4 (and that would be pushing it) while the xbox could probably handle 8-10 or even more thanks to its superior power = better online experience.
ill give it to microsoft, their xbox live campaign/strategy was probably what made it known that the xbox could in fact give you a good online gaming.
ill give it to microsoft, their xbox live campaign/strategy was probably what made it known that the xbox could in fact give you a good online gaming.
atomiswave said:
I don't necessarily agree that more players = better online experience, but I know understand your angle. While I'm sure this is technically true, that's just a limitation of the spec. I'm sure they could tune down the visuals a bit and get you those 8-10 cars. SOCOM 3 has 32 players.
atomiswave
Member
your absolutely right, and i would probably give a flying phuck 
about graphics as long as its a really good game.
but i find it kind of funny that theres a lot of threads whoring over ps3/xbox360 graphics, and its generally the superior console which gets more positive attention(PD ZERO COMES TO MIND). and then you have the mainstream consumers, which probably base all their purchases on graphics. (damn do i know a lot of people like that!)
about graphics as long as its a really good game. but i find it kind of funny that theres a lot of threads whoring over ps3/xbox360 graphics, and its generally the superior console which gets more positive attention(PD ZERO COMES TO MIND). and then you have the mainstream consumers, which probably base all their purchases on graphics. (damn do i know a lot of people like that!)
GhaleonEB said:
Are you stupid? Seriously, sometimes I read your posts and wonder "Hey, if I was stupid and tried to make the most stupid post imaginable, how would I make it? I bet Ghaleon has some sort of guide to stupidity."
Because...
a.) Who said anything about it being better than LIVE? I said they could probably get close or match it if they wanted to because they could, there's no real technological limitation here. You might have read "that work even better for those who did have HD" as "work even better than [Xbox Live]", when in reality it just meant "worked even better for those PS2 owners who did own a HD, as opposed to those who do not."
b.) The reason they didn't get a LIVE capable system that equalled Microsoft is far less suggestive then you're implying here, so much so that I wonder if you're even being serious. The reasons for them not utilizing this software infrastructure solution has been covered possibly hundreds of times. (Note: They don't even know if they're doing it for PS3! Are you saying it'd be a technological hurdle there as well so you could go 0 for 2?)
c.) Who said Halo was the only good game? I said Halo was one of the main "Xbox saviours", as it is the only legitimate phenomenon that they had in terms of market appeal. Don't believe me? Looking at sales, the first non-Halo game to reach 1.5 million was Splinter Cell. Please, learn to seperate things. Additionally, what happened to having me on ignore? You should probably put me back on, it's probably too difficult for you to actually address my posts without looking silly.
MetalAlien
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
The PS2 had/has many more must have games. XB had/has many as well, but the sheer volume of great games on the PS2 makes that point moot.
The only reason to own a XB instead (one or the other) of a PS2 (with the exception of wanting a game that is only on XB, (you can find people on both sides of that coin) was the power of the machine. People who choose the XB over a PS2 had to live with the fact that their game selection was going to be a fraction of the competition. The only thing to placate your decision would be that each game you buy is going to look/perform better than any of the other machines could produce. You wouldn't slash your selection of playable games without proper motivation.
The GC is unique/immune because it's the sole home of a legendary series of first party games that have a rabid following, it would sell even if it were a generation behind.
EDIT: besides performing better online is "outperforming" the competition.. I'd allow that.
MetalAlien said:
This, I can't say I agree with all the points. For one, it could just be that you prefer the Xbox exclusive game offerings more than PS2, for whatever reason. For another, why can people prefer Nintendo first party games and not Microsoft's in the same way? I mean, we're talking on an individual level here.
not as easy as all that though, sony didnt have the planning and they didnt follow through, MS did have a focused plan. if sony could have implemented a better online environment, they damn well would have.Amir0x said:
it's like saying anyone can make a zelda killer, a halo killer or a GT killer given time and money.
yeah, those are possible, sure, but not likely.
MetalAlien
Banned
Amir0x said:
Well everything is relative, we are talking broad sweeping generalizations.
nitewulf said:
The discussion was technological limitations, nothing more nothing less. Sony COULD create a system that equalled LIVE, period. Whether they have the capacity to is another debate. And no, again, it's not as cut and dry as you're trying to make it. There were many factors in the decision to not have a unified structure, and none of them included "Oh, well, PS2 can't handle a LIVE system."
I'm not sure what the argument is about here. OF COURSE a new console with an unknown brand name and a no big-name franchises coming to market a year late would not have taken off without a technical edge.
It is a very different situation for Round 2. You now have two strong brand names, each with strong franchises and Xbox with the first to market advantage and a head-start on building its library. I don't think anyone seriously expects that it will need a technical edge in order to be competitive.
It is a very different situation for Round 2. You now have two strong brand names, each with strong franchises and Xbox with the first to market advantage and a head-start on building its library. I don't think anyone seriously expects that it will need a technical edge in order to be competitive.
i didn't make it cut and dry at all. in fact i think you are simplifying the nature of things by saying nothing is preventing them from implementing such a complex online infrastructure.
i think the fact that they didn't create a similar online system proves exactly that, in fact they COULDN'T create it.
as you say, whether they have the capacity to do so is debatable, and if they in fact dont have the capacity, then they very well COULDNT create it, could they?
and technological limitations are certainy a factor, sony didnt have the internet backbone for that sort of a system. no it's not a limitation of the ps2 chipset, given a backbone, all Ti-83's of the world could be hooked up. but it is a technological limitation nevertheless, and that's why they tried to hook up with AOL long time ago. add to that the fact that the HDD wasnt standard, and you have a whole mess of variables to deal with which farther complicates matters.
so in conclusion, no they werent ready for it, nor capable of it, nor able to implement it.
whether they do it this time around is dependent on their online partners and how much money they are willing to put up for the infrastructure.
i think the fact that they didn't create a similar online system proves exactly that, in fact they COULDN'T create it.
as you say, whether they have the capacity to do so is debatable, and if they in fact dont have the capacity, then they very well COULDNT create it, could they?
and technological limitations are certainy a factor, sony didnt have the internet backbone for that sort of a system. no it's not a limitation of the ps2 chipset, given a backbone, all Ti-83's of the world could be hooked up. but it is a technological limitation nevertheless, and that's why they tried to hook up with AOL long time ago. add to that the fact that the HDD wasnt standard, and you have a whole mess of variables to deal with which farther complicates matters.
so in conclusion, no they werent ready for it, nor capable of it, nor able to implement it.
whether they do it this time around is dependent on their online partners and how much money they are willing to put up for the infrastructure.
MetalAlien
Banned
Rhindle said:
People who (exclusively) bought and enjoyed the XB1 will run out to buy the XB360. People who (exclusively) bought and enjoyed the PS2... will not be motivatied to buy the XB360 if it doesn't give them reason to do so. Looking/performing "as good" is not motivation. Coming out early may help though.
nitewulf said:
They favoured a non-unified structure and it had nothing to do with not being able to create this software based infrastructure. We've discussed this hundreds of times, where have you been? Partially for them it was about developers being able to implement there own systems (like SquareEnix with PLAYONLINE), and partially it was because NOT implementing a Live-like system is cheaper for them.
And no, it's not a technological limitation. They could do it, period, they chose not to, period, and they might still choose not to next-gen. This has nothing to do with not having the technical capabilities to do so. This is Sony, they dropped part of several billion dollars to develop CELL. If it was so difficult to get online in this unified structure they would simply invest the money to make a similar system. Point is, their decision was not based on these limitations.
MetalAlien said:
I think the general concensus is that the 360, if not slightly less powerful will be on par graphically with the PS3, thereby eliminating the graphical edge that the Xbox enjoyed over the PS2. And according to you, the graphics were the only real reason why anyone would buy an Xbox. So by your logic, the 360 will only sell a fraction of what the Xbox did, correct?
MetalAlien
Banned
Any1 said:
Not the only reason, it was the reason to justify buying a machine for one game (pick one) knowing it would have a miniscule selection in comparison.
MetalAlien said:
oh, i don't know, playing a game or reading a book instead? or doing my homework?Amir0x said:
sony isn't a bottomless pit of "teh moneys". they have the R&D of cell, their next gen HDTVs, PSP, BlueRay to pay for. on top of all that they might not want to create an online infrastructure capable of a closed system.
they have samsung, motorola, toshiba, MS and nintendo to fight off, while going full force with next gen optical, entertainment and mobile devices.
on top of all that, they are a hardware company, unlike MS, which is an IT company that already had an internet backbone. sony has to create it from scratch or hook up with somebody. yes, its a technological limitation, as in, they dont have the in house know how. at least they didnt at that point in time.
anyone can do research and look into it, and create a seperate division for new technologies if it's economically feasible. thats what R&D is about, and they chose not to, most likely due to economical reasons. whether they have been learning and doing more research, we will find out this upcoming gen.
MetalAlien said:
Your first problem is you are treating people like machines, and leaving out impluse and randomness. Coming out first is a huge advantage, because next Xmas people wont be comparing 360 to the PS3, they will be comparing it to current systems. Dreamcast had the same advantage, but was hurt because Sega's name was mud by that point in time.
Alot of Sony success came because it was the hot item that everyone had to have. It was the name brand, and it was the system that everyones friends played. Being the number one console is something of a self fullfilling prophecy.. its hard to topple the number one console, because people are more willing to buy the number one console for a number of reasons.
Sony has alot going for it, but MS's argument that the first one to 10 million is the winner isnt completely off base. They seem to think that is the magic number at which the consoles sales will become self perpetuating as the console that everyone has to have because everyone has one. Of course, MS hitting 10 million worldwide while Sony is at 9.5 million wont really do the trick, but if one console can hit 10 million while the other is hovering around 2-3 million it could be enough to "sink" the other one as being little more than a second choice.
nitewulf said:
Oh, you do that thing... what is it called? "Going Outside"? I hear that's awesome.
nitewulf said:
Yes, they're not a bottomless pit of money. Again, we're discussing technological limitations as in PS2 not being able to handle a LIVE-based system. You're going off into these tangental replies, but that's not really what we're discussing. Like I said, one of the main reasons was economic considerations - a non-unified structure is simply cheaper. But if Sony wanted to, which they obviously don't since even now they won't be having as extensive a system as LIVE for PS3, they could provide a system that could equal its competitors (of course, as you said, Microsoft is an IT company so it'd be much cheaper for them to develop this).
MetalAlien
Banned
StoOgE said:
Fair enough, history will tell, and GAF will argue... but imagine the advertising tidal wave Sony will release to make sure people are comparing the XB360 to the PS3... not the PS2.. We shall see...