|
|
| » 138 posts by user Kamus |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10549 |  Kamus (138) Jun 05, 2006 - 01:15 pm
| Can you hear that? yes.. it's the sound of the cluetrain, get on it!
what you have said just shows that you open your mouth with out having even the slightest idea of what the hell you're talking about.
both the PS3 and the 360 run circles around the gamecube hardware, they could have FAR better results on 720p than the Wii does on 480p.
the Wii is so bandwidth limited that even if the games were to be rendered in 1080p on a PS3, they would still look a LOT better than on the Wii. this is a fact.
just think about this for a second, and i'm not even gonna get into the CPU which is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE slower on the Wii than on the cell or the xbox 360 triple core.
the Wii has hardware on it that's comparable to a geforce 4 on it. the 360 and PS3 have more bandwidth than even the fastest graphics cards available as we speak (this will not be the case in 6 months or so).
so just how much is the fillrate difference here? anywhere from 20 to 30 times isn't an exageration here, and this is just on the fillrate side of things, we're not even talking about the lack of modern shader support here. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10549 | Kamus (138) Jun 05, 2006 - 01:11 pm
| Speak for yourself, it may be enough for you.
but for people like us that actually have an HDTV (i got a 30" CRT directview set, and a 720p projector doing 98") 480 is defnitly far from "good enough".
See, nitendo thinks that people won't care about the lack of HDTV support, but they're wrong. i'm not the only one that owns an HDTV, HDTV has become mainstream in the last 2 years, and you can bet that number will just keep growing untill SDTV is out forever.
On a side note.. do we even really need the specs for the ATi chip? we know what we need to know allready, it's a faster version of the gamecube chip, no new features or anything, just the same but faster.
so for those dreaming it's on x800 level wake the hell up, it's not even close! it's just impossible to support so many pipes with a 3 MB framebuffer, plain and simple.
this chip isn't even on a DX9 compliant level, it's the same old DX8 compliant hardware.. except faster. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10514 | Kamus (138) Jun 02, 2006 - 12:46 pm
| | I applied for this weeks ago, haven't gotten any notification though, the support for MCE is kind of crippled, they should add support for codecs that the xbox 360 doesn't have, but your MCE PC does have. the 360 will play any mpeg2 streams (including .ts HD files) and windows media files.. but that's about it. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 30, 2006 - 09:03 am
| "I hope for MS and Nintendo to win this gen. Sony is so cocky, they need to be brought down a few pegs."
WOw, this is hillarious, so you're rooting for the ONE company that's actually FAR BIGGER than Sony, jesus. people have the wierdest resasons for trying to see a company fail.
if you wanted nintendo to win vs Sony i'd understand, but MS? way to go fanboy.
Which monopolistic company are YOU rooting for?
anyway, really. regardless of all the PC fanboys here that somehow got to like the xbox 360 because of it, and in turn got to HATE sony because of this, i'll just say one thing:
IF the PS3 gets good games like the PS2 did (which seems to be going to happen.) then your dreams of this console not succeding are crushed right now.
I know i want the games that are comming out for it, so i'll buy it because of that, THE GAMES!
I bought an xbox 360 because MS apparently now had support from all the same companies Sony did.. and they didn't lie, except they're getting the second rate games only from those companies, so now i have to buy a PS3.
I sure as hell did NOT buy an xbox 360 so i could play Halo 3 on it, i think that franchise is the most overrated one of all time, but hell, i'll still get Halo 3 even if it's as monotonus as the other 2 if they get coop right.
It's a good thing i got MCE 2005, or my xbox would be kinda lonley.
At least i got gears of war to look foward to, but they better include keyboard/mouse support. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 05:23 pm
| "Now its going xbox360, sony has lost a very important franchise"
Yeah, because we all know GTA4 isn't comming out for the PS3... >_>
If MS had made that title an xbox 360 exclusive, they'd have something to worry about. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 01:55 pm
| "C'mon, GT4 wasn't all that, Forza gave it a good run for its money. I think you're being just a _little_ bit one-eyed. Overall the PS2 had/has the better games, but this generation it's looking less likely for Sony."
Oh MS would love you to belive that Forza is comparable to GT4, i've played both...
It's not, not by a long shot.
first off it's the steering wheel suport, i'll take the 900 degrees logitech driving force pro over the crapy and overpriced Xbox steering wheel.
secondly.. forza isn't nearly as good in _ANY_ aspect as the GT4, the tracks are a lot more acurate in GT4, and GT4 simply drowns forza content wise, it's not even comparable.
not to mention the polish in the graphics, not just talking about sheer power here, but forza isn't NEARLY as polished as GT4 is.
really, the games aren't in the same league, my proof?
Can you please show me how many titles MS sold with Forza? and can you please look up how many GT4 copies Sony sold?
The two games are in very different leagues, play both and you'll see this for yourself right away.
I think it's cool that MS is trying to come up with a racing sim that is good, but they have a LONG way to go, and obviously their budget isn't nearly as high on forza as it is on Gran Turismo 4.
By the way, for all you racing sim fans out there... if you really like Sim racing there's an even better sim than GT4 on the PS2:
Enthusia racing.
as soon as you start driving in that game you'll notice how much better the car simulation is, of course the game still comes up short in the graphics/tracks/options department which in the end makes it less apealing than GT4 for most people, but the Simulation on it is top notch, and EXTREMLEY addicting,
in that game i took an NSX-R and saved a replay of my best lap on nurburgring (the track is pretty much the same as the real one, just like in GT4, except it seems to be missing a few bumps.), then i took that replay and played it back with a time attack i had from best motoring with the same car, on the same track... i could not belive my eyes, the braking points and shift downs trough out the ENTIRE lap where exactly at the same time!, the upshifts seemed a little different because the gear ratios were a bit different, but i was amazed at:
-How good i got at the track.
-The fact that the SAME braking points and shiftdowns happened at the same time in both the video and the replay i saved.
You really got to give that sim a try if you're into racing sims.
It's a shame the game doesn't have any sort of multiplayer (not even lan, just split screen.)
and it sucks that it only has 2 real tracks.
but it DOES have a togue track that will make you feel as if you're in Intitial D.
awsome game and you can get it for around 20 bucks.
Make sure however that you have a driving force PRO to enjoy it though, this game makes better use of it than GT4, in fact it feels so realistic that you'll wish the wheel was the same size of the one in your car.. because you really have to turn a lot in some situations, specially if you get good at drifting the car. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 01:45 pm
| "Atempts to imitate "western" gaming wont help matters either simply because the 360 has a head start and a price advantage which is key to the western world."
Ok... this is EXACTLY the point of it all!
When i'm talking about japanese exclusives it's just that! japanese developers won't develop for both the 360 and PS3, they just choose one:
the PS3!
what you are saying is simply NOT true! see here's the thing about the PS2 vs Xbox, and how the xbox was "succesful" against the PS2:
It wasn't.
why? because other than VERY few xbox exclusives, the PS2 was the base system for about pretty much evry game worth getting for both the ps2/xbox 360!
this is just the point!
did the GTA series not come out for the ps2?
is GTA4 not comming for the PS3?
are need for speed underground games, EA sports games (madden, fifa, etc) not on the PS2 also?
is burnout an xbox exlcusive?
is splinter cell an xbox exclusive?
is "black" and xbox exclusive?
Is tomb rider an xbox exclusive? (wouldn't miss it if it was though...)
is there really any point of me going on when i more than proved my point?
the xbox had VERY few games that were exclusive to it, you'll be hard pressed trying to find games on the xbox that are worth playing that did not come out on the PS2 before the xbox (GTA series) or at the same time! (evrything else.)
Other than the first party titles on the xbox (and tecmo titles). are there any really nice exclusives for it?
i'll answer that for you:
Nope.
This is why you don't see people comenting on the lack of PS2/PS3 american titles, there isnt any!
The reason i think xbox was moderatly succesful was xbox live, and not their excusive titles. (really, not by a long shot!)
And before people go on about how Sony isn't original because they are "copying" Microsoft with their online service, just stop right now.
all MS has ever done with the original Xbox is pretty much COPY evrything that's been succesful on the PC that wasn't invented by them:
Online service (which in principle is similar to a very old Kali, or gamespy, etc.)
Instant Messeging, (AIM, ICQ, etc)
hell, down right to the games! the xbox's biggest problem, (which seems to be repeating itself with the 360) is that it has VERY few original games for it, most of the games (and all you have to do is look at the list of the games to confirm this) are either ports from other consoles, or PC ports, thus not taking advantage of the full potential of the hardware in evry aspect. (and well, the fact that their competition gets those games too doesn't help much.)
Seriously, do you see people bitching in the PS3 camp about the lack of American or European PS3 lack of games? if anything, the PS2 always had a bigger following than the xbox in both the US and europe!
Now as far as the Wii goes, right now there's very few third party exclusives for it.
But this is going to change, and like i commented earlier, this may end up being bad for the future of console gaming, why? because if we're going to stop buying subsidized hardware and in turn just buy obsolete hardware (the Wii has pretty much obsolete harware on it, like it or not... a 3 MB frame buffer just like in the Gamecube is hardly pushing things foward) at a "dirt cheap" price (i use quotes because i was actually expecting the thing to be sold for a lot less... after all, this thing will be cheaper to manufacture than a gamecube, at least as for the console internals, not including the controller here, but that can't be very expensive.)
What we're doing here if we stop buying subsidized hardware and get outdated stuff instead... is that well, console manufacturers are simply going to stop using that bussines model and follow the new nintendo model instead, which is:
Make up a new gimmick, and pretty much stop spending so much on good harware, afterall, people seem more intrested in that.
but see.. this is only because we haven't seen even a third of the potential the 360 and PS3 are actually capable off.
say we were back in early 2005 and some company came up with a new controller for your obsolete Playstation 1 that was pretty much the equivalent of the Wii controller and had a bunch of new games for it too... would you really preffer to play those games as oposed to the third generation PS2 games? such as MGS3/DMC3/SOTC/FF12 just to name a few?
Hopefully the market is big enough for both Nintendo's new bussines plan and the old one, i think it might be, but this will be shown by the third party developers two years from now.
I'll say it again... if consoles like the PS3/Xbox 360 weren't subsidized we'd be paying about 800 bucks for a 360, and about 1200 for a PS3, in other words. they would cease to exist.
Then we have nintendo that's going to be selling their console for profit from day one, and instead of having consumers get awsome hardware at a very cheap price compared to what initianly costs them to make a console, we get a gamecube... in 2006. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 01:16 pm
| "I think that Sony blew the show. Nothing new nothing nothing that great at the show other than a annoucing that it will cost a ton of money. Also remember last year when they showed the opening for Final Fantasy and said the PS3 could do it real time? Doesn't look like that is the case.
The real thing that blew it for Sony is the lack of games for the system. I don't see myself talking about any game coming out for the PS3 that will make me want to buy it. Considering how much the PS3 costs to make they can't really go "Oh we will make it back with the games" since there isn't a PS3 game people are dying to have."
Since when as a system launch been coupled with good games?
If anything this was a reminder of the pre-PS2 launch, not so many good games showed, hell, the 360 had an ever WORST first year, with like... 0 next-gen looking games. and to be honest, it was kind of disapointing to see that the only REALLY second next-gen looking game for the 360 that was showed after a year is gears of war, (looking froward to it, hope they include keyboard/mouse support, otherwise i don't think i'll be as enjoyable.)
Seriously, i was hoping that the 360 would get it's own tekken, final fantasy, or hell any game that's made from the best developers in those japanese companies.. and not just their second tier guys. (i'd love to see a game from the Resident evil or devil may cry developers for instance...)
the REAL test for the PS3 in both price and titles comes next year and in 2008, because:
shortages should be non existent by late 2007, and developers will finally show us what they're working on for both 2007 and 2008 (it'd be nice to see GT5 for the first time and a game from the guys that made shadow of the colossus.) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 06:03 am
| Yes, i'm aware nintendo's focus isn't on the hardware, but the controller. but this still doesn't change the fact that it's going to be the only new console out that isn't subsidized by the company, but quite the oposite, they're gonna be making money out of this from day one. (again, good for them...)
i allready explained this. ^_^ Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 05:58 am
| | Umm, Killzone trailer from E3 2005 was pre-rendered. MGS4 is not. and no cutscenes don't make a good game. but if you played MGS3 (which doesn't appear to be the case or you wouldn't be debating this.) then you KNOW how good it plays allready. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 05:54 am
| Sure in the US.. first off, get over the fact that the US isn't the only country in the world, and do you really think 11 months is nothing in the technology world? it's a LONG time. so again, why the hell is it surprising that Microsoft came up with more powerful hardware about 18 months later after the PS2 launched in japan?
the real surprise would've been if they hadn't released something more powerful in evry way.
the Xbox one was released in November 2001, the PS2 was launched on March 2000, get your facts straight. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 05:44 am » Edited on May 29, 2006 - 06:06 am
| I allready own a 360.
And no i'm not planning on buying ANOTHER last generation console in 2006, i allready own a PS2 thank you. So no Wii for me.
Yes MGS4 trailer showed cutscenes, but they are rendered by the hardware in realtime. (it's become obvious to me now that you never played MGS3, you're missing out man, it's really good.)
Also, what sony hype do i belive? the hardware _IS_ a LOT better than the hardware on the Wii, this is no secret, same goes for the 360 vs Wii, so why would i buy a PS3 if i allready own a 360? the games... E3 2006 was all it took for me.
While MS has support from the same developers (for the most part) that sony has, they are not bringing out their top titles for both platforms.. just one, and it just happens to be the PS3.
so yeah, i want to play next gen Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, Devil may cry, etc. but how can o do this if i don't buy a PS3?
If the 360 had those titles to begin with then i would've had second thoughts about a PS3, afterall the hardware IS comparable...
but turns out, those games are not comming to the 360, so now i want a PS3 too. So have fun with your Wii and 360, but you'll be missing some of the games that made the PS2 as popular as it got in the first place.
At least for the games that have been announced, because like i said earlier.. nitnendo just might get all those developers intrested on their hardware instead if they get their way...
and by the way, who belives the hype here? for god's sake you're nearly quoting Peter Moore! Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 05:25 am
| "Remember graphics dont make good games Kamas. Like GT series, its been the same since GT2, just different (not always more either) cars and better graphics. I believe GT5 will be the same way, just with online play. Something other racing games on other systems have been doing for years."
First off GT HD is GT4 with online play, more cars and HD.. GT5 will be a whole different beast.
Have you played GT2?
Have you played GT4?
I don't think you have, cause if you had there's no way you would've had the courage to say this.
Can you please tell me how the physics in GT2 are in ANY way comparable to the physics in GT4? they are SO different that they make the two games completley different from a gameplay perspective.
Can you please tell me how the PS1 could've made such an accurate version of Nurburgring Nordschelife? (i've gotten SO good at this track because it's so addicting, i can honestly say i'd do pretty damn good after a few laps on the real one.)
This IS a sim we're talking about here, so for a "game" like this it's all about realisim, and you can bet your ass a PS3 will make the sim racing experience a lot better than a PS2 ever could on various levels (or a wii for that matter), most importantly for a title like this: simulation, tyre simulation is key for a title like this, and GT2's tyre simulation is pretty much crap compared to the one on GT4, and even on GT4 there's a LOT of room for improvement on the simulation department.
You BET that a PS3 will change the way the game is played with physics that are simply not possible on a PS2 or a Wii. (at least not with out making the game look like total crap.)
People like you seemed to have been led to belive that the only advantage a PS3 has over the Wii is graphics... sorry to break it to you. you're wrong.
and please.. before you make a comment like "gt4 is just GT2 with better graphics" at least go play the games before you decide to type.
and by the way, this is one game franchise that is totally unafected by the new hype machine.. i'd MUCH rather play with a steering wheel than with a Wii controller thank you.
So whats the potential for GT5, better graphics? SURE!, but lets not forget better EVRYTHING ELSE!
such as:
-Better physics (this is the most important one for this franchise... this reason alone is enough to make the game better by leaps and bounds)
-Better sounds. (more realistic engine, tyre, cabin sounds.. the goal is realism afterall)
-More cars at the same time
-REALISTIC crash physics (Forza's crash "physics" are really, um... unrealistic.)
-More acurate representations for real life tracks. (this one they nailed pretty damn well in GT4, but it can only get better and better, i for one i'm looking foward to not being able to tell if it's the real thing or not.)
-More acurate representations of cars. (same, can't wait to be unable to tell if i'm looking at a videoclip or if it's computer graphics, not just because of the looks, but because of the way the cars behave.)
Damn, you really should've used another example.. (Hell, this example even makes the Wii controller completley irrelevant)
The GT series is ALL about realism, and for realisim the PS3 is going to bring a LOT more to the table than a Wii ever could.
So for people like me that are into simulations a lot, the Wii is simply not an option compared to the potential the PS3 brings.
GT4 is also TONS of more fun than GT2 by the way, for me just because of Nurburgring alone... i've easily got more than 1000 laps on that track, and still going strong, that track is like crack.
And before you even dare to say that realisim doesn't make games more fun, just stop. Because as far as racing sim goes, more realism immediatly translates to more fun, at least if you're a true fan of simulators. (i really could care less about titles like burnout.)
Oh, and then there's the people that say "if you want realisim, just go drive your car!"
Yeah.. cause in my car i can drive like i can in a sports car that i don't have.. or because i can get my car to germany whenever i want to drive in nurburgring.. or because i can find people to race with on the track in real life on demand.. the list goes on, so shut it. (and a most important one.. i don't have to risk my life in Gran turismo, or spend a lot of cash on tyres that would wear out in a day of heavy track use.)
So again.. you REALLY should've picked a different example to try and make your point. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 04:19 am
| You do realize that those cutscenes are realtime right?
Did you play metal gear solid 3? i can honestly say it's one of the best games i've ever played for a console, so i see no reason why mgs4 should dissapoint, MGS2 was *kind of* a dissapointment. the gametrailer for MGS2 showed awsome, actualgame play.. but in the end the game ended up not being as good as people expected because you could get trough the whole game with out having to use any of the awsome gameplay stuff you saw in the trailer. and the fact that the game was kind of "closed", meaning, you didn't get to see the outside of the world much, just the freaking base from the inside for the most part.
With MGS3 this all changed.. and a LOT, awsome enviroments packed with the awsome gameplay that you actually put into use, really made MGS3 stand out. And for MGS4 looks like it's going to be more of that.
If you compare the MGS4 engine to the MGS3 engine it actually kind of looks similar, i guess that when konami made the MGS3 engine they made it so it could work on the PS3..
so instead of having to write a completley new engine for MGS4 they seem to be using a heavily modified MGS3 engine.
this was a smart choice on their part, this way they get to spend more time on content rather than on the engine itself, so what happened in MGS2 won't repeat itself... it just frightens me to think what Kojima productions could do on an engine that's developed for the PS3 from the ground up. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 03:55 am » Edited on May 29, 2006 - 04:51 am
| Well, not really...
See, this is only for the first year or two, afterthat it's all profit even on the hardware.
and if we look at the nintendo Wii, it's not going to be sold at a loss at all.. if anything, nintendo is going to be the only company that's actually kind of ripping people off with it's "cheaper than the competition" machine... see. the Wii is a gamecube with a higher clock.. and if they are using a smaller proscess on the Wii than on the gamecube there's NO reason why it shouldn't be cheaper to produce than a gamecube itself!.
of course there's the controller... but really, how expensive can that thing be to produce? and how much money did nintendo have to spend on R&D for a thing like that?
The answer is not NEARLY as much as sony spent on R&D with the Cell, and the cost shouldn't be nearly as much as a high end video/cpu chip (again, for the first couple of years at least, because of yields and the higher R&D costs.)
Nintendo is actually going to be making money from the Wii as oposed to sony and MS at launch, this is a huge plus for them.(but not a huge plus for us.. keep reading) All because they pretty much got evryone in the same spot sony had their audience with the emotion engine.. only this time it's a controller. except it was actually a lot cheaper for them to make get the hypemachine up and running (again, there's no comparassion in the R&D costs of a controller to a brand new CPU architecture.)
I think in 2 or 3 years people are finally going to realize that you really do get what you pay for, the Wii controller will do a lot less than truly next-gen hardware in my view.
So in reality from a "price/performance ratio" point of view, the Wii offers the WORST ratio by far... of course this won't matter to the mainstream gamers because 600 is just too much for them (or even 400 for a 360.).
So from that point of view Nintendo made a smart choice, but i think that if Nintendo does somehow hurt sony and MS, it's actually going to slow progress down for consoles, why?
Because in the past early adopters have alaways made sure the consoles that are sold at a loss are bought regardless of price, and the mainstream buyers get in the action years after the console has been realeased, which is good for them because they get to see what developers have cooked up for the past 2 or 3 years and they get the best hardware price, with the best games.
But my question is... what's going to happen if those early adopters go for a Wii instead this time around? after all, the perception is that it IS cheaper because simply because of the cost, but in reality you're getting a lot less hardware, but people won't realize this.
It could very well end up making more powerful, subsidized hardware fail because developers will choose to make games for a Wii instead of a PS3 or xbox 360...
and then 2 years from now when people realize that there are NO second or third generation titles for the Wii because well.. it's a freaking gamecube and the console will be maxed out from day one by developers it's going to suck for them... Because developers that could've been working on far superior hardware to bring out awsome games (that to be fair are going to require more work than a last gen game.) 2 years from now on a PS3 or 360 are going to be working on outdated looking products on the Wii instead.
So by even if 2 years from now the PS3 or 360 are cheaper (read, affordable to the mainstream) it's gonna be all for nothing if the software isn't there... hell, Kojima said it himself, there is no hardware he has more intrest to develop for than a Wii at the moment. And you can bet your sweet as that this is because he saw the intrest people had on the Wii.
So if nitendo gets their way and manages to get the top developers to work for them instead of a PS3 or 360, it's gonna suck in the end for gamers that are looking foward for a true next-gen experience...
So i'm REALLY hoping sony's strategy works, which is:
Sell the PS3 higher than the competition, because early adopters will pay whatever for it. And then the mainstream gamer can buy it when the demand of the hardware is exeeds demand by droping the price.
Their strategy makes sense, early adopters really DO buy it regardless of price, the xbox 360 on ebay is a perfect example of this.
But again.. what worries me this time around is that sony gets left out by developers that would rather be making games for the Wii because it WILL sell more units than the PS3 at first.
I hope consumers realize that in this console race, more than ever, you really DO get what you pay for.
For those that are still wondering what a PS3 can do than a Wii can't.. just look at Metal Gear Solid 4, a game like that will NEVER come out on a Wii because it's simply not technicly possible, and that feeling will be even stronger when second generation titles come out... such as Gran Turismo 5. (NOT GTHD, which should be enough to hold fans of the series busy while PD spends years developing GT5... GT4 was awsome, so just add online play and i'll be the first in line!)
I guess this is one of those times when it's apropiate to say... BUYER BEWARE!
It would relly suck that because has developer support instead of sony or MS, we won't be able to see just what next-gen hardware can do...
i know i haven't seen what my high end PC videocard can do other than use lots of AA/AF and higher resolution on games that aren't using half of the chips potential, so i was kind of hoping these next-gen consoles were going to show me that.
Guess we now have to wait and see.
Nintendo is saying they are using "disruptive technology" which sounds good at first... but they're not really passing on the saving to us. so it's not that great. true disrutpive technology in my view, is one that would benefit the consumer and not the corporation.. such as peer to peer downloads or peer to peer telecomunication such as skype (note that when i'm reffering to downloads i'm talking about the cost of running a server that can handle so much bandwidth, not the content...)
now THAT is truly disruptive technology, cause it benefits us...
but how will the Wii strategy benefit us in the long run? we're sure as hell not seing it in the hardware. so aside from the new hype machine known as the wii controller now.. where's the beef?
If nintendo gets their way they are actually kind of hurting the consumer in the long run, i mean.. how else are consumers on a budget going to get comparable hardware to a PC that enthusiasts get by spending anywhere form 2k to 3k on a PC? remmember, the PS3 will actually exceed current high end PC's (at least when it comes to processing power), the Wii on the other hand can't compete against even a 5 year old PC.
So in a nutshell, if you buy a Wii you're getting a lot less price / performance ratio, and if you buy a 360/PS3 you're actually getting an awsome deal regardless of the fact that, well.. they're expensive.
Of course i'm reffering to the hardware here, cause we all now that in the end it's the games that make all this worth it in the first place, so again, lets wait and see. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10458 | Kamus (138) May 29, 2006 - 01:11 am
| "This ties back to the PlayStation 2’s failure to not only not beat the Xbox, but even the GameCube, which had been derided in preview press as underpowered."
Both of which came out a LONG time after the PS2 was out, what's the surprise here, really?
here's the thing about the PS2, if you wanted good games on it, you needed good developers on it, and guess what? it delviered, not at launch sure.
Here's the thing about developers that bitch about hardware that's hard to program:
they are unable to make a really high quality engine(note i said engine, doesn't mean they will also make a bad game, though for most companies this is also the case) on even an easy to develop machine, Square enix, Capcom, Konami and other japanese top companies proved this.
Where's a racing game that looks as refined as Gran Turismo 4 on both the xbox and the gamecube?
Where's a game that brings out the full potential of the system like shadow of the colosus on the Xbox?
why does splinter cell look so unrefined compared to a metal gear solid game?
the gamecube did get one title that took evry bit out of the gamecube, but that's just one... (resident evil 4)
So. maybe you should refresh my memory here, because i don't recall sony not beating the xbox or the gamecube even on considerably older hardware, and i'm not just talking about the fact that it has a LOT better games than it's competition, but because of godlike programmers that acutally made games that look better on an inferior PS2 when it comes to specs compared to xbox or gamecube.
I will agree though, that sony's hype machine is really what made the PS2 so succesful, and people realize this now. So i don't think it was the right aproach for them this time around.
Even if they DO have the best hardware, it's not gonna be a huge difference, the huge difference again though.. might be the games. MGS4 is a perfect example of this, it's just a first gen title and it looks better than pretty much... well, ANYTHING out on any console that's comming out soon, yep. looks far better than second next-gen xbox 360 games.. but it's just that one game for now.
I think sony made a mistake ever since they came out with the PS2, the PS2 was pretty much a completley sony developed product when it cames to graphic chips and the "emotion engine" (which was codeveloped with toshiba). which i think was kind of a mistake, at least on the graphics side of things..
there's no way sony can compete with the likes of nvidia or ATi who are in fierce competition and have made their companies succesful by droping tons of cash on development of their graphic chips.
the PC graphic chips are pretty much the reason why the dreamcast was the FIRST SEGA console that wasn't underpowered, it was the first sega console that was actually pretty damn good, and a lot of this had to do with their powervr videochip.
from that point sony should've realized it was no longer needed to spend so much money developing graphic chips for consoles, and instead just licsence technology from the people that allready do that.
you'd think they'd learn from that mistake with the PS3, and to be fair they kinda did by finally bending and not using the cell instead of an Nvidia chip for the graphics...
but spending such an obscene amount of cash on the cell was just a terrible idea IMO, sure it's gonna be faster than anything the competition has right now, but the 360's triple core is not gonna exactly be made obsolete by the cell either... it can hold it's own, and MS didn't really spend anything compared to Sony here, ditto for blu-ray, that while it's cool that it's gonna have it, they really could've done with out it... afterall, the future is not discs, but content from the net.
but even after making two huge R&D mistakes that cost them millions, it's still gonna be pretty good, though it won't pay off big for them, or the consumers (i mean, seriously, the cell is nice, but it's not going to make the 360 look like pong vs virtua tennis.)
so the hardware will defnitly be good, but they could've spent that money on other stuff and just license technology from other companies for things that well, other companies allready spend more than them to begin with.
so, when all it's said and done yeah, sony made some very risky choices that might bite them in the ass, but as long as the games that made the PS2 what it is come out for the PS3 it will be ok, i know i'm buying one just because of those games are eventually going to come out. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
