more FUD please about the playstation 3

[joeorc]

The Prroblem with Sony
By: Bruce Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:35 AM

# The cell processor, this was a huge mistake in many ways. Firstly it cost a fortune in development and putting into production, which is money that needs to be recovered. Secondly it delayed getting the PS3 to market, giving away huge competitive advantage. Thirdly, whilst very powerful, it is a very long way from being optimised for the job of running a console. Overall they would have been better buying an off the shelf generalised processor as they did for previous models and as their competitors did.

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article...blem_with.html

OMG....

yea the playstation 2's EE was off the shelf parts.. , this person needs to do a little more research..because the PS2's processor was any thing but off the shelf..what a COMPLETE Dumb@ss.

ONCE AGAIN....

By: Bruce Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:35 AM


The graphics processor is a lot less powerful than the one in it’s main competitor’s machine. This effectively limits what the PS3 can do, no matter what the CPU and memory are doing. Fanboys blame the developers for being lazy and not putting enough work into PS3 games when the reality is that it is the machine itself that is holding the games back.

OMG.....

and you call others fanboy.....

here is what Bruce has under his bio:


I'm Bruce Everiss, a veteran games industry marketer.

[Terjyn]

Eh, same story people have been saying for 3 years.

The GPU thing especially is a very compelling argument, because it has become ingrained in people that a GPU is required for everything, and most people don't bother to look below the surface. They see the specs on the cover and go no further.

In a large way the anti-Cell complaint is correct. The PS3 would be *much* more successful if they'd released a more typical processor and sold for a much cheaper price.

[CptGreedle]

This guy is 2 years behind the times.
What a moron.

Maybe the cell is too much, but Sony wants the PS3 to last for 10 years. The cell is perfect for that while anything else would limit the console after 3 years.

[Steelmaker]

Well I do agree with the article in the sense that the 360 GPU is more powerful than the PS3's GPU. However it doesn't have to be. The GPU in the PS3 is not required to do as much of the "heavy lifting" because the CELL processor can do so much of it.

His comments about CELL are completely idiotic. True, developers have yet to fully tap into it's potential, but then again Sony is looking at a 10 year shelf life for the PS3. There's plenty of time for the processor to get utilized.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

In a large way the anti-Cell complaint is correct. The PS3 would be *much* more successful if they'd released a more typical processor and sold for a much cheaper price.

What alternatives were there in late 05 - early 06? PS3 had to be powerful enough for BD playback -- audio as well as video. Something resembling the 360 with a better sound card?

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by Teazle

What alternatives were there in late 05 - early 06? PS3 had to be powerful enough for BD playback -- audio as well as video. Something resembling the 360 with a better sound card?

Pretty much that + an HDMI port.

If they'd have done that it would suck for techies, but the 360 would be a complete non-entity right now, and the Wii phenomenon probably wouldn't have taken off nearly so much either.

[The Big Blue]

I'm very happy with my cell, but thanks for your concern Bruce.

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Well I do agree with the article in the sense that the 360 GPU is more powerful than the PS3's GPU. However it doesn't have to be. The GPU in the PS3 is not required to do as much of the "heavy lifting" because the CELL processor can do so much of it.

His comments about CELL are completely idiotic. True, developers have yet to fully tap into it's potential, but then again Sony is looking at a 10 year shelf life for the PS3. There's plenty of time for the processor to get utilized.

Bruce's Quote:

"The graphics processor is a lot less powerful than the one in it’s main competitor’s machine. "

this is not completely true its not a LOT less.

Its Slightly LESS if you are use the same code on both GPU's since the XBOX360's has UNIFIED shaders AND THE RSX does not,but even with UNIFIED SHADERS THE PLAYSTATION 3's GPU has more RAW PROCESSOR power than the xbox360 GPU even with unified shaders. with other code and since its a moot point anyway because the playstation 3's graphics render is the Cell+GPU= graphics render puts the Playstation 3 ABOVE the xbox360's Graphics+CPU render. THIS HAS BEEN THE TOUT OF THE XBOXFAN to try to make out the xbox360 system haveing the better graphic render system compared to the PLAYSTATION 3 which its not.

[Mikeblu]

The PS3s cell and GPU were desighned to interact with each other and "speak each others laungauge" so to speak however the 360s CPU and GPU were not, its no diferent than building a computer. The most obviouse example is the fact theres MULTIPLE 360 CPUs, but some people just wont listen

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by Mikeblu

The PS3s cell and GPU were desighned to interact with each other and "speak each others laungauge" so to speak however the 360s CPU and GPU were not, its no diferent than building a computer. The most obviouse example is the fact theres MULTIPLE 360 CPUs, but some people just wont listen

exactly.. it does not mean it cannot its just that its not designed to do so like the playstation 3's design

[FailedEXE]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Eh, same story people have been saying for 3 years.

The GPU thing especially is a very compelling argument, because it has become ingrained in people that a GPU is required for everything, and most people don't bother to look below the surface. They see the specs on the cover and go no further.

In a large way the anti-Cell complaint is correct. The PS3 would be *much* more successful if they'd released a more typical processor and sold for a much cheaper price.

And why exactly would that help the PS3? Why doesn't anybody consider the costs of high profile products that are put in the system? Why is everyone for dumbed down low quality?

Mr B just contradicted himself in his little rant. The Processor should be dumbed down but the GPU should be upgraded? Few people actually know this but the GPU's core is about 50MHZ faster then the competitions ATI solution. Also the total ram for both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 is 512. PS3 uses two 256's that are in conjuction with each other that can be used as two seperate tasks for running a operating system, while the 360 uses a single chip.

I f***ing hate when people pull oxymorons that say "Lower Quality IS Better" bullshit.

[Terjyn]

You truly can't see why a lower price point would have helped the PS3?

[Ippiki Okami]

hey with Microsoft not having blu ray and having to pay everyone off to get games on the system, do you think they will leave gaming eventually?

I Hope by 2010 they go into the game PC rig biz and leave console gaming to the pros

[Mikeblu]

Originally Posted by MEXI_FES

hey with Microsoft not having blu ray and having to pay everyone off to get games on the system, do you think they will leave gaming eventually?

I Hope by 2010 they go into the game PC rig biz and leave console gaming to the pros

there gonna do the same thing again 3 times untill, people are fially not dumb enough to relise heh we keep on getting screwed

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

You truly can't see why a lower price point would have helped the PS3?

IMO: short term yes, LONG TERM NO at a certain point lower price point will only go so far until you cannot lower the cost anymore to maintain any benefit to your bottom line. the playstation 3 has the better hardware out of all three next generation systems, but also it is being targeted toward a 10 year life span for it support structure like all playstation systems. because SONY has found that 10 years support is what they have found that works for their business model

EXAMPLE:

PLAYSTATION 2

(Confidential Portions Omitted)

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA INC.

[PLAYSTATION(R) LOGO]

PLAYSTATION(R)2

CD-ROM/DVD-ROM

LICENSED PUBLISHER AGREEMENT

http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.c...000.04.01.html

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

In a large way the anti-Cell complaint is correct. The PS3 would be *much* more successful if they'd released a more typical processor and sold for a much cheaper price.

I think what people don't understand is that it would only be a short-term solution. In the long run, it would be a terrible idea to put an off the shelf processor from Intel or AMD. Just like the original Xbox continuously loss $150 per unit, it was partly do to that off the shelf processor. Intel will not lower there price per processor because they have plenty of buyers that would purchase that chip at the price they want. There is no reason for them to cut another company a deal. They sell all that they make.

That would make the PS3 the cheaper unit at first (and probably without Blu-ray), but MS would have been able to lower production costs to about the same price or lower over a short amount of time.

Because Sony chose this path they are only $50 more expensive than the closest related X360 model with TONS more ability. If you subtract the $50 for XBL, They are equal in price.

Now, developers' perspective of the PS3 with an off the shelf chip would be greatly improved, but I think some would just say that the X360 is more power. That would be bad. See you just can't win some people over no matter what path you take.

[Terjyn]

I probably would have agreed with you a year ago, but I can't agree with you anymore.

If the PS3 had come out roughly 360 + Blu-Ray + HDMI + Better sound card, cost 400$ upon release (same as 360), the PS3 would have sold like mad. Devil May Cry 4 and GTA4 and the like never would have went cross-platform, continuing the snowball. The Wii probably wouldn't have taken off, because a large part of the reason the Wii did sell so well is it was so much cheaper than the PS3.

The techies would have lost out, and I include myself in that group. Sony certainly would not have.

This probably would have made Blu-Ray so dominant the war would have ended sooner as well, and nobody anywhere would be giving the whole "Blu-Ray is doomed" speech we hear to this day.

As pro-Sony as I am, I wonder if Sony will ever recover from the decision of utilizing such an expensive initial hardware lineup.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

I probably would have agreed with you a year ago, but I can't agree with you anymore.

If the PS3 had come out roughly 360 + Blu-Ray + HDMI + Better sound card, cost 400$ upon release (same as 360), the PS3 would have sold like mad. Devil May Cry 4 and GTA4 and the like never would have went cross-platform, continuing the snowball. The Wii probably wouldn't have taken off, because a large part of the reason the Wii did sell so well is it was so much cheaper than the PS3.

The techies would have lost out, and I include myself in that group. Sony certainly would not have.

This probably would have made Blu-Ray so dominant the war would have ended sooner as well, and nobody anywhere would be giving the whole "Blu-Ray is doomed" speech we hear to this day.

As pro-Sony as I am, I wonder if Sony will ever recover from the decision of utilizing such an expensive initial hardware lineup.

There are no "sound cards" per se in these consoles. It's done via the processors. The output of that audio is a slightly different matter.

The games went cross-platform because of development costs for PS3 AND X360. Therefore, they want more money by having access to both sides. If your theory was correct about the games, MS wouldn't have lost 11 X360 exclusive games to the PS3. See what I mean?

BTW, how much cheaper do you think the PS3 could have been? Hell the Wii costs $250 for slightly better specs than the $120 PS2. Then, it takes a nice amount of power to play high bitrate 1080p and lossless audio. That's going to cost you and not owning the rights to the processors you are using is a very bad thing. Then, they would have to go back on their 9 to 10 year lifecycle promise. There's always something to make certain people say a company should have done things this way or that way.

The truth is...when you are pushing boundaries in whatever you do, there will be lots of people fighting you along the way. That comes from people that can't see the future based on past and present trends, people that can't see that far into the future, and people that see a different future.

In a way, it comes down to being able to make MORE money long-term with a little more initial money. For instance, MS has so far been on a 5 year lifecycle. Then, they ditch the previous effort (no more income from that) and start the next project. They invest a little less money than Sony.

Sony has 9 to 10 year lifecycles. They are still earning lots of profits for about 5 additional years over MS while only spending a little more. When the X360 came out, it was rumored to cost $750 or so to build. When the PS3 came out, it was rumored to cost $830 or so to build. Assuming X360 goes to a 7 year lifecycle this time, Sony gets up to 3 more years of profits from $80 more per console INITIAL investment. The average owner purchases around 5? games a year. Surely you can see the benefits of that. That's not counting the BD movies sold per owner!

The $400 million invested to come up with Cell gives good returns over 20 years. Think about that for a minute. $20 million a year for a unit that will bring you possibly $5 billion +over 20 years (not counting BD drive and the movies).

[air_max]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

Pretty much that + an HDMI port.

If they'd have done that it would suck for techies, but the 360 would be a complete non-entity right now, and the Wii phenomenon probably wouldn't have taken off nearly so much either.

I don't really see how this change would have destroyed the 360. People still would have bought them to play Halo, and XBL, while not free, is still better than PSN (although I'm in no way complaining since we don't have to pay a monthly fee ).

Also, even if they would have made the PS3 cheaper, it would not have been the same opening price as Wii. But lets just say it was, it still doesn't stop the Wii phenomenon. The Wii is super popular now because its a "must have item," but it became a must-have because people wanted to use a completely motion control controller, and because they appealed to a younger, more populous audience. The same people who buy DS's buy Wii's; PS3 being cheaper with less advanced stuff under the hood wouldn't change that. Parents don't want their kids playing GOW, MGS, COD4, etc...

[Terjyn]

I meant better sound in that I would want the PS3 to do 7.1 output rather than 5.1, I realize they don't have a traditional sound card.

The 11 exclusives the 360 has lost? If the PS3 had sold way faster I'd bet a few of those would never have been exclusives to begin with. The rising costs of production only drive your hand towards multi-platform if there are enough other consoles to matter. People aren't going to go Multiplatform to suck up 10 million 360 users if there are 40 million PS3s, it's just not worth it.

There is no reference point for a console as expensive as the PS3. The PS2 and PS1s both had 10 year console cycles and didn't cost nearly as much...it's not like a weaker PS3 couldn't have lasted 10 years as well.

Before I started claiming that this was a good long term investment I'd like to see them actually go positive on their games division post-PS3.

I don't know if it was possible to include Blu-Ray and still make the price I was talking about, even at a loss. I believe they could have, 100$ knocked off a 500$ machine to start seems possible to me, with a cheaper processor.