Sony's going to try and earn it! Yeah right!

[Shin-Ra]

Originally Posted by MrEastSide

The truth is they are both fairly equal. The Cell is amazing and the 360 Triple core can do some amazing things to. Like people have said it's going to come down to how much time the designers take to make a game and if a game is designed from the ground up for a specific system.

Fairly equal with lesser quality cross platform games that aren't highly optimised.

[Shin-Ra]

Originally Posted by BluManta

Name a game that couldn't be done on the 360. thats on PS3 at the mo.

Can I have 5 weeks and say LAIR?

Edit: I don't think Housemarque could have achieved 1080p60 Super Stardust HD on Xbox 360 actually either.

[jubaiweaponx]

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

Can I have 5 weeks and say LAIR?

Edit: I don't think Housemarque could have achieved 1080p60 Super Stardust HD on Xbox 360 actually either.

if your given the 5 weeks i`d have to agree with shin on that one ,lol

[reiella]

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

Can I have 5 weeks and say LAIR?

Edit: I don't think Housemarque could have achieved 1080p60 Super Stardust HD on Xbox 360 actually either.

Here's a fun one that's a bit silly.

Marvel Ultimates... It actually uses the gyro-sensor in the Sixaxis controller .

[ tongue in check humor flag, yes I know Marvel Ultimates came out on nearly every platform :P ]

[Ender]

Originally Posted by BluManta

Name a game that couldn't be done on the 360. thats on PS3 at the mo.

Motorstorm, I remember reading when the game first came out that the physics would have to be dumbed down considerably for it to run on 360.

[darkpoet25]

What about MGS 4 and FF13? As big as these games are going to be, I don't see a way M$ can do these justice. Since those games are still on DVD-Rom it would take more than one disc to make the game. As far as the money issue I see it this way. A lot of next gen games use teams of, what 100 or more? Yes it would be nice for PS3 to get more exclusives, but from the devlopers stand point, doing so would make them lose some of the profit. Games are becoming more and more expensive to develop. The only way to recoup these losses are by going multi platform.

[Sylin]

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

Oblivion proof that the PS3 and 360 are equal? Who are you trying to kid? I don't believe either version of the game is particularly indicative of each consoles ability,

No offense, but you're being terribly rude for no good reason, and you're missing my point, too. The comparison was to show that there's no game you can port from XBOX 360 to PS3 or vice versa that will look, sound, taste or smell better on one console vs the other because, hardware wise, they're too similar. (Unless your X360 overheats... then it might smell different. )

That was his original question... why aren't they BETTER on the PS3? They're not better because they can't be, from one plat to another. Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses... but neither has a big 1up on the other in their hardware.

If you're looking for a more optimized example, I think a true testament to this will be Assassin's Creed, which is being simultaneously developed for both platforms. Go check it out @ E3... playable demos for both platforms.

[BluManta]

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

Can I have 5 weeks and say LAIR?

Edit: I don't think Housemarque could have achieved 1080p60 Super Stardust HD on Xbox 360 actually either.

Lair doesn't look that good. I think Xbox could handle that, apart fropm the motion sencing.

[Shin-Ra]

Originally Posted by ikcizokm

No offense, but you're being terribly rude for no good reason, and you're missing my point, too. The comparison was to show that there's no game you can port from XBOX 360 to PS3 or vice versa that will look, sound, taste or smell better on one console vs the other because, hardware wise, they're too similar. (Unless your X360 overheats... then it might smell different. )

That was his original question... why aren't they BETTER on the PS3? They're not better because they can't be, from one plat to another. Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses... but neither has a big 1up on the other in their hardware.

If you're looking for a more optimized example, I think a true testament to this will be Assassin's Creed, which is being simultaneously developed for both platforms. Go check it out @ E3... playable demos for both platforms.

They're not better on PS3 because the games aren't developed with getting the most out of PS3 in mind. Much like early EA games on the original Xbox weren't much more than PS2 games with a softer less jaggy picture and overscan.

BluManta - you're being silly again, don't exaggerate just because you've seen a bad overcompressed video.

[Azza]

Originally Posted by BluManta

Lair doesn't look that good. I think Xbox could handle that, apart fropm the motion sencing.

It be able handle the graphics but not the gameplay and the size of everything in it, the 360 would overheat and die if it had to do that much prossesing, that was there mistake with gears of war, to much gameplay for the console to handle.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by ikcizokm

No offense, but you're being terribly rude for no good reason, and you're missing my point, too. The comparison was to show that there's no game you can port from XBOX 360 to PS3 or vice versa that will look, sound, taste or smell better on one console vs the other because, hardware wise, they're too similar. (Unless your X360 overheats... then it might smell different. )

That's just not true. It doesn't tell you much about the hardware - it tells you about the software tools used and a host of other issues.

Originally Posted by ikcizokm

That was his original question... why aren't they BETTER on the PS3? They're not better because they can't be, from one plat to another. Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses... but neither has a big 1up on the other in their hardware.

Again it's the software tools, the graphics asset sharing, the style being aimed for and politics and not the hardware. Multi-platform games are going to be similar for the reasons I provided not because of the hardware capabilities. Exclusives are the only place you will really see what each platform is capable of..unless something in the industry changes...and I highly doubt that.

Originally Posted by ikcizokm

If you're looking for a more optimized example, I think a true testament to this will be Assassin's Creed, which is being simultaneously developed for both platforms. Go check it out @ E3... playable demos for both platforms.

Again this won't tell people about the hardware differences.

[reiella]

Because, instead of developing for a common denominator, you develop for the individual strengthes with exclusives.

While you can develop for individual strengthes with non-exclusives, the reasoning behind the death of exclusives also precludes that. They did away with exclusives to save money on development. Increasing the development overhead for both platforms doesn't increase the fiscal turnout.

Some developers are able to care enough about the games to facilitate good optimization out of the code. However, Bethesda, hasn't been one of those developers in a long time, unforunately [look at Star Wars Legacy for PC/360 for a pretty decent modern example ]. Love their games, but they are being designed for the console first, but with most of the ideaology that goes into making a pc game.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by BluManta

So why isit said the 'Cell' is amazing. It makes me wonder if this is true.

Because it can do things other CPU architectures struggle with. I'm not on my own system so I can't provide you with links right now...in general it was purpose built to live in a networked, multi-media world with very fast high bandwidth components throughout to process that complexity. When you design in specific capabilities those capabilities will usually exceed something built for a more general purpose nature like the standard PowerPC chips or x86 chips. Or do people really think Toshiba, Sony and IBM spent 5 years and over a billion dollars with some of their top talent for the fun of it? It offers them a unique market advantage as is being seen in the military, medical industry pickup. It is very well suited for real-time image processing.

When people tell you it's not - I'm reminded of what clued me in. Veteran and VERY CONSERVATIVE IBM CPU engineers who have seen the hype come and go over a career of 25 years were simply blown away by it's multi-media prowess - AND THAT WAS WITHOUT THE GPU CONTRIBUTING any of the muscle - JUST THE CELL. And before someone jumps in with the what would you expect from IBM - they lacked the same enthusiasm for the main PowerPC architecture that they were intimately familiar with when it comes to multi-media capabilities.

MS moved their tools to PowerPC and hired the co-founder of Cray computers because something very like the Cell is in their future as well. Why is the hiring of the Cray co-founder significant - the Cell used some of the design principles pioneered by Cray in creating the fastest supercomputer systems on the planet. Like FAST local storage vs caches. Again they had some very specific goals in mind around multi-media processing and built the system to meet them. How far those capabilities can be pushed is still to be seen.

[Nismobeach]

Originally Posted by ps3andlovinit

Because it can do things other CPU architectures struggle with. I'm not on my own system so I can't provide you with links right now...in general it was purpose built to live in a networked, multi-media world with very fast high bandwidth components throughout to process that complexity. When you design in specific capabilities those capabilities will usually exceed something built for a more general purpose nature like the standard PowerPC chips or x86 chips. Or do people really think Toshiba, Sony and IBM spent 5 years and over a billion dollars with some of their top talent for the fun of it? It offers them a unique market advantage as is being seen in the military, medical industry pickup. It is very well suited for real-time image processing.

When people tell you it's not - I'm reminded of what clued me in. Veteran and VERY CONSERVATIVE IBM CPU engineers who have seen the hype come and go over a career of 25 years were simply blown away by it's multi-media prowess - AND THAT WAS WITHOUT THE GPU CONTRIBUTING any of the muscle - JUST THE CELL. And before someone jumps in with the what would you expect from IBM - they lacked the same enthusiasm for the main PowerPC architecture that they were intimately familiar with when it comes to multi-media capabilities.

MS moved their tools to PowerPC and hired the co-founder of Cray computers because something very like the Cell is in their future as well. Why is the hiring of the Cray co-founder significant - the Cell used some of the design principles pioneered by Cray in creating the fastest supercomputer systems on the planet. Like FAST local storage vs caches. Again they had some very specific goals in mind around multi-media processing and built the system to meet them. How far those capabilities can be pushed is still to be seen.

Not to mention the fact that the Cell will supposedly be able to increase its performance by networking with other (unrelated) products that also include Cell chips. I remember Kutaragi mentioning that in one of his interviews a while back.

I have no idea of when something like that will be implemented, but rest assured Sony didn't include Gigabit ethernet on the PS3 for nothing.

[Nismobeach]

Originally Posted by Musashi

I can. Both XBoxes have combined for a net operating loss over $5.5 billion. They care more about forcing XBox on the industry than serving their stockholders. Consoles generally lose money on units, and make it on games; losing money on games shoots down the main source of income. Buying up games is not a sustainable winning strategy, especially given Japan's natural bias. Even now, they haven't exactly set up a dominant console like the first 2 PlayStations were in their days. Come to think of it, the PS2 is still on top saleswise.

You hit the nail on the head. I never wanted to purchase an Xbox because I have always felt that Microsoft was trying to bully itself into the console business and into gamers homes. Fake sincerity would be the best way to describe it.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by BluManta

So why isit said the 'Cell' is amazing. It makes me wonder if this is true.

Right, time for a bit of a technical education here, haven't done this for a while so it may be a bit shoddy, but bear with me for just a bit.

So on one side we have the Cell and on the other side we have the three-core Xenos processor. The Cell comes in eight parts, one PPE and seven SPEs. The PPE is basically the master controller and it will hand out work for the SPEs and carry out certain tasks on its own. The Xenos is basically like a beefed up C2D with a PPC architecture/instruction set rather than x86-64 so it is able to do most tasks with relative ease as it will hand out tasks by itself, and essentially split everything evenly over the three cores.

The problem developers are having is that the PPE is a bit thick and they need to tell it what to do rather than let it work things out on its own, this is where all of the grief for the devs comes in, basically it takes a lot of time to put specific instructions into the game code, say you wanted a boulder in Drake's Fortune to fall a certain way, rather than letting the PPE work how to do it, you basically need to tell it to send the information to a certain SPE and let it do the physics work and send the new information back. I mentioned Drakes Fortune specifically because it is a first party game, lazy development houses such as EA and Activision will take the first approach and let the PPE work out where to send everything or let it do everything itself leaving the mightily powerful SPEs doing nothing, which is why a lot of third party titles don't play as well on the PS3 just yet.

Moving onto the SPEs themselves, they are basically incredible fast small processors with a small SIMD superset so they can handle small repetitive tasks with relative ease...

Right I'll finish this off later got to eat, hungry.

[MrEastSide]

Originally Posted by Nismobeach

You hit the nail on the head. I never wanted to purchase an Xbox because I have always felt that Microsoft was trying to bully itself into the console business and into gamers homes. Fake sincerity would be the best way to describe it.

Microsoft wasn't trying to bully anyone if you ask me. They took on a task that was next to impossible. Trying to overthrow SONY. They likely knew they'd be in for a long, long haul before they actually saw any financial gain. It's unfortunate that the 360s have been having such problems because it started to look like MS was gaining ground. But, as long as they finish out the 360's lifespan properly they'll likely start to see some profit. And by the next round of consoles they'll likely have enough of a foothold on the console industry to start making money right out of the gate. As long as they don't repeat the red ring of death mistake.

I don't know why so many people are mad at MS for entering the console war. It makes everyone work harder and create better games. Just think if SONY and MS had never gotten into it. We'd all be playing really crappy games on the Wii right now and nothing else.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by Nismobeach

Not to mention the fact that the Cell will supposedly be able to increase its performance by networking with other (unrelated) products that also include Cell chips. I remember Kutaragi mentioning that in one of his interviews a while back.

I have no idea of when something like that will be implemented, but rest assured Sony didn't include Gigabit ethernet on the PS3 for nothing.

I actually took that bit out of the previous posting . It was included more for networking Cells not for things like VOD. Correct.

[Azza]

I would love for sony and microsoft to put away the console war and just make a console, that would be the greatest system in history.

[WickyWoo]

"We have a very different approach to exclusives than some of our competitors. We don’t buy exclusivity. We don’t fund development. We don’t, for lack of a better term, bribe somebody to only do a game on our platform. We earn it."

Bull****. They pay for them the same as other people. Whether it's the waiving of royalties, subsidized disc production, direct tech support, custom tool development, oh they do.

Nintendo used to have the BEST setup when their systems were still cartridge-based. They would require game developers to buy blank cartridges through them, thus guaranteeing that regardless of how well the game did, Nintendo still made money on the front-end.

Oh it was more than that. They allocated carts, and created artificial "shortages" just like they're doing now wit hthe Wii. if you crossed them all of assudden there would be a "chip shortage" when your run came up. If they like you, then you get the big placement in Nintendo Power that used to make or break a game.