November 2nd, PS3 Price Cut.

[Shendare]

I'm pretty usre that '85%' is false, or made up statstics made by some xbot fanboi. :P

 

XBOT!!

 

http://www.cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20040329

[Tenshin_Xo]

Nintendo's early release was well above 1% it was because of a design flaw that kept the GPU running during standby without any cooling running.  Most common result was a "green screen of death" or heavily pixelated video.  It was well over 1% and I'd like to call BS on your claim that wii's initial release was less than 1%.  Something about  "90% of all statistics are made up on the spot, "...

 

What Rev is your PS2?  Not to mention that as I said they had a high fail rate, not that none of them worked.  I had an initial release that made it through 2 moves and a dust storm in AZ when I left my windows open.  'Luck' accounts for quite a bit.  Then again thats after I had to return two to the store for the then infamous 'disc read error' that came up no matter what disc or how clean it was.

 

The cell infrastructure is supposed to run 7 of 8 'cells' at a time, the 8th 'dead' cell being reserved for manufacture failure.  Sony's white sheets say as much, so your info is flat wrong. 

 

You're right kotaku isn't the end ll be all of internet gaming, but when they quote NPD (who IS the end all be all of SKU tracking) in an archived article, I'll believe it.

 

Finally your 1% fail rate for the PS3 is no better than the 3-5% fail rate MSFT claims for the 360.  In case you missed the small print, those numbers came from SCEA directly, and are merely reprinted. 

 

 

"Apparently the PS3 Cell processor is so big and complicated, they're having a hard time making enough to satisfy the demand. An IBM Semiconductor VP says they're "lucky to get 10 or 20 percent" out of a chip like the Cell. The other 80-90 percent aren't fit to be used in PS3s, meaning they either get used in another application or thrown away if they can't be. (Gizmodo)

  This is why the PS3 costs so darn much, well that and the production limitation of adding a blu-ray drive. 

 

Also, if you are in the field at all, you'll know that the Sony claims of having a fail rate of .02% to .2 % are preposterous from a simple manufacturing point of view.  They've been ridiculed heavily (thought not quite as much as MSFT with their 3-5% number) for trying to claim that with a straight face.

 

 

 

[SinisterDeath]

Nintendo's early release was well above 1% it was because of a design flaw that kept the GPU running during standby without any cooling running.  Most common result was a "green screen of death" or heavily pixelated video.  It was well over 1% and I'd like to call BS on your claim that wii's initial release was less than 1%.  Something about  "90% of all statistics are made up on the spot, "...

 

What Rev is your PS2?  Not to mention that as I said they had a high fail rate, not that none of them worked.  I had an initial release that made it through 2 moves and a dust storm in AZ when I left my windows open.  'Luck' accounts for quite a bit.  Then again thats after I had to return two to the store for the then infamous 'disc read error' that came up no matter what disc or how clean it was.

 

The cell infrastructure is supposed to run 7 of 8 'cells' at a time, the 8th 'dead' cell being reserved for manufacture failure.  Sony's white sheets say as much, so your info is flat wrong. 

 

You're right kotaku isn't the end ll be all of internet gaming, but when they quote NPD (who IS the end all be all of SKU tracking) in an archived article, I'll believe it.

 

Finally your 1% fail rate for the PS3 is no better than the 3-5% fail rate MSFT claims for the 360.  In case you missed the small print, those numbers came from SCEA directly, and are merely reprinted. 

 

 

"Apparently the PS3 Cell processor is so big and complicated, they're having a hard time making enough to satisfy the demand. An IBM Semiconductor VP says they're "lucky to get 10 or 20 percent" out of a chip like the Cell. The other 80-90 percent aren't fit to be used in PS3s, meaning they either get used in another application or thrown away if they can't be. (Gizmodo)

  This is why the PS3 costs so darn much, well that and the production limitation of adding a blu-ray drive. 

 

Also, if you are in the field at all, you'll know that the Sony claims of having a fail rate of .02% to .2 % are preposterous from a simple manufacturing point of view.  They've been ridiculed heavily (thought not quite as much as MSFT with their 3-5% number) for trying to claim that with a straight face.

 

 

 

 

The 1% of the Wii and the PS3 was based on an article on CNN? And other website news sources (even gaming ones) That came out about 1-2 months ago. So, no I didn't make that number up, the article did.

 

As for my ps2, The only reason mine works to this day is....

I didn't use it as my main DVD player.

The problem with the ps2 hardware had to deal with the laser, and those orginal 'blue bottomed disks' that they used. A combination of playing to many hours of gaming with that type of disk, and playing DVD movies, caused the disk read error.

Look at it this way, I bought mine about, 2 months or so after the initial release. I knew someone who got it the same day. Fastforward to when I owned it, Went over to there place, with one of my games, and BAM there ps2 couldn't play the game, disk read error. The 'hardware' failure was directly linked to.

A) How long you played.

B) What disks you used

C) if you used it as your main dvd player. (THey had a warning about this in the INstruction manual saying not to use it as your MAIN dvd player).

D) Not abusing it by playing for obscene lengths of time with out letting it cool down.

 

 

As for the cells, I was not making that up either, I had read yet another 'article' from Sony, stating that 1 of the cells is used for the ps3's "OS", which is 'locked' from developers, another is locked for some other random reason.

The other 6 are unlocked for developers, with the 7th locked that 'could' see to be unlocked in the near future...

IT has NOTHING to do with dead cells, Not that it would matter to much either way, considering games today aren't even using all of the available cells power anyways.

 

(One of the problems with EA games and FPS is they are loading to much processing on individual cells instead of seperating it like they should be. EA devs are lazy. Its not that the ps3 is hard to learn, they just don't 'want' to learn a new system, there are some great games out that look fricken fantastic, and the developers didn't have any more trouble than they did with other systems. Sony also released an updated version of that program developers use to make ps3 games, I can't recall what its called, Tenshin should know since he's a 'know it all'. :P)

[Tenshin_Xo]

I'm not saying you made up the 1% fail rate number, I'm saying Sony did.  If you follow the sources back they all lead to Sony, in an all roads lead to Rome kind of way.

 

The problem with the ps2 hardware had to deal with the laser, and those orginal 'blue bottomed disks' that they used. A combination of playing to many hours of gaming with that type of disk, and playing DVD movies, caused the disk read error.

Right, thats what we call a design flaw, Sony's made that mistake and now Microsoft has made that mistake.  I'm just hellishly impressed with how much Gates shelled out to correct the problem, or at least CYA in a PR way, I don't remember Sony doing that.

 

D) Not abusing it by playing for obscene lengths of time with out letting it cool down.

  I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that theres an Xbox fan boy who cited this as a reason for so many 360's failing.

 

As for the cells, I was not making that up either, I had read yet another 'article' from Sony, stating that 1 of the cells is used for the ps3's "OS", which is 'locked' from developers, another is locked for some other random reason.

 

That random reason is because it doesn't work.  I showed  you a gizmodo article(or quote) from IBM who makes the damn things admitting as much. 

 

I agree that the power of the cell system isn't being used anywhere near its potential, but thats because it's a bitch to program for, and apparently the learning curve will be a long one.  I'm not much for waiting.  Again, making a product that is both expensive and hard to design for is an engineering no-no.

 

One of the problems with EA games and FPS is they are loading to much processing on individual cells instead of seperating it like they should be. EA devs are lazy. Its not that the ps3 is hard to learn, they just don't 'want' to learn a new system, there are some great games out that look fricken fantastic, and the developers didn't have any more trouble than they did with other systems. Sony also released an updated version of that program developers use to make ps3 games, I can't recall what its called, Tenshin should know since he's a 'know it all'.

 

 

This is pure fanboy crap.  The developers aren't 'lazy' at least not in the sense that they don't want to make a decent product.  Its that dev schedules for PS3 games are on the same timeline for a 360.  You tell me why a developer would intentionally make a product poorly, unless the publisher was leaning on them to release it before its ready...  Publisher's don't like holding up a PS3 game for 6months when the 360 version was ready to print 6 weeks ago. 

 

One such man was 3D artist Josh Robinson, who was fired from his position at Sony just weeks after making a public, negative comment about PlayStation 3 development on his Internet blog....

 

Marc Tremblay, chief architect of Sun's rival chip Niagra, told Forbes the Cell's uncooperative design will stifle adoption outside of the gaming world and said "the programming model is a nightmare."

Feb 07, 2006.

 

Its not like these guys are slouches or lazy, or don't know what they are talking about.  They must be part of the anti-PS3/cell conspiracy.

 

If you're talking about the Final PS3 Development Kit, its actually hardware, and was released about 3-5 months before the PS3 went retail.  If you're talking about the $DK, thats been around since June, and thats just when it was leaked to the public.  Thats basically an image of what the Sony OS they install on your PS3.  I should note that unless you are a developer who is contracted by Sony, you could have the pants sued off you six ways to sunday just for looking at that kit, or at least it's code.

 

Finally I'd like to end on this note...

 

February 1,2006 - Gaming web site Joystiq is reporting that the March issue of PlayStation Magazine reveals the first details behind Sony’s answer to Xbox Live.  CVG, another online gaming publication, also posted an article describing a “Seismic Shift to PlayStation Online.”

 

Presumably, Sony plans to launch a multiplayer service alongside the PlayStation 3, not unlike Xbox Live, to compete with Microsoft’s tight online platform.

 

"Cast aside any doubts and start gazing skyward, because that's where Sony is aiming with plans that go far beyond simple leader boards and matchmaking -- or even the PS3, for that matter,” reads a PSM page scan. “[sony is] committed to matching Xbox Live feature for feature and then some."

 

Previously, Sony has refrained from commenting on the success of Xbox Live. They’ve been similarly coy about discussing plans for a PlayStation 3-compatible online network. However, if the following quip from PSM is any indication, Sony has not spent the last four years in idleness:

 

“We can confirm that developers have already begun meetings with Sony’s support teams to make sure their games are compatible with the yet-unnamed PS3 online service. ‘It’s very real,’ one source tells us. ‘They are dead serious about it. They’ve declared, and I quote, a ‘full-on assault’ on the latest version of Xbox Live.’”

 

Reportedly, Sony began work on this online gaming platform shortly after the PlayStation 2 Network Adapter shipped to retail.

 

Amped IGO will investigate this story and provide updates as necessary.

 

So we're a year and a half out from this announcement of a service that "match[es] Xbox Live feature for feature and then some."  Where is it?  Or are you going to say that it took Sony 2 years to implement it as Home?  If thats the case, I don't particularly want to hang my entertainment cash on a company that takes 2 years to deliver a product I am interested in.  If you (reasonably) accept that PSN is the service they are talking about, then I think they missed their benchmark by a bit, seeing as how even Gamestop's magazine editors/writing staff accept that PSN barely holds a candle to Live.

[SinisterDeath]

D) Not abusing it by playing for obscene lengths of time with out letting it cool down.

  I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that theres an Xbox fan boy who cited this as a reason for so many 360's failing.

 

It is still very true though, But more so for the xbox, since most of the xbox users are between the ages of 12 and 19. :P That and most halo fans are jocks... You put 2&2 together and you get a baseball bat to an xbox.... >_>

 

 

That random reason is because it doesn't work.  I showed  you a gizmodo article(or quote) from IBM who makes the damn things admitting as much. 

 

I agree that the power of the cell system isn't being used anywhere near its potential, but thats because it's a bitch to program for, and apparently the learning curve will be a long one.  I'm not much for waiting.  Again, making a product that is both expensive and hard to design for is an engineering no-no.

The Reason I used the word 'random' was because I couldn't recall the exact reason sony said it was locked, but I don't believe it has anything to do with 'dead' cells.

 

 

This is pure fanboy crap.  The developers aren't 'lazy' at least not in the sense that they don't want to make a decent product.  Its that dev schedules for PS3 games are on the same timeline for a 360.  You tell me why a developer would intentionally make a product poorly, unless the publisher was leaning on them to release it before its ready...  Publisher's don't like holding up a PS3 game for 6months when the 360 version was ready to print 6 weeks ago. 

 

Well, considering EA is being run by a former Microsoft/Xbox Division guy, It starts to hold water. :P

IF the ps3 was so hard to program for, why is it games like Heavenly Sword, Lair, Ratchet and Clank, RFOM, were all 'on time'? And all the developers 'loved' developing for the ps3?

It does come down to LAZINESS. Not to mention that Microsoft has CONTRACTS with every multi-platform game that the 360 version MUST be released before or at the same time as the ps3 version. This meaning, dev teams have to pour more of there resources into finishing a 360 version so it is 'finished' before the ps3 version, and is more 'optimized' than the ps3 version...

Quite simply, EA doesn't have any ps3 love, they are treating all ps3 games as 'crappy ports'. There are a few titles on the ps3 right now, that LOOK better than alot of EA games, and RUN BETTER. You can't tell me that isn't laziness on EA's part.

 

 

 

If you're talking about the Final PS3 Development Kit, its actually hardware, and was released about 3-5 months before the PS3 went retail.  If you're talking about the $DK, thats been around since June, and thats just when it was leaked to the public.  Thats basically an image of what the Sony OS they install on your PS3.  I should note that unless you are a developer who is contracted by Sony, you could have the pants sued off you six ways to sunday just for looking at that kit, or at least it's code.

 

Yes, it was the SDK Kit, but their was news that they released a New version of the SDK kit to help developers further, this was sometime in August. I'll have to look up these articles...

 

 

So we're a year and a half out from this announcement of a service that "match[es] Xbox Live feature for feature and then some."  Where is it?  Or are you going to say that it took Sony 2 years to implement it as Home?   If thats the case, I don't particularly want to hang my entertainment cash on a company that takes 2 years to deliver a product I am interested in.  If you (reasonably) accept that PSN is the service they are talking about, then I think they missed their benchmark by a bit, seeing as how even Gamestop's magazine editors/writing staff accept that PSN barely holds a candle to Live.

 

Just becuase they planned it, doesn't mean it went to the 'developers' that same day. The Ps3 was released about a year ago, and if you look at the PSN, it probably didn't take more than 3 months to program. It is basically a 'web page'.

Xbox Live has been around since late in life of the orginal Xbox, And with the 360, things like demos and the whole works came out.

Ps3, being as young as it is, there is no way it can have as many demos/movies/trailers/pictures/ect as xbox live. Its a time issue, Everytime a game developer announces a demo, they put it up on xbox live. Take 2 years of that, and you have Xbox live.

That said, Every week, on thursday, they update the PSN with more content. And the psn is at this moment, on the ps3, the playstation store. There are no 'achievements' or 'awards' or any of that yet, but you can buy arcade style games, ps1 games, ect.

 

We are expected to see a 'music player' that allows you to play music on your hard drive in games, but they 'sony' still have to come out with patch 2.0, which'll include several new features...

back in mid-august, Sony included a patch that allowed you to change your background on the ps3's main interface, and then they made it possible to eject the disk, from your controller. the next patch, allowed you to use animated backgrounds.

So as of right now the psn doesn't compare to the xbox live 'yet' and its not like sony is putting its full force into doing so, right now they are more worried about meeting there 12 million sales world wide, than the psn.

 

(Honeslty though, they'd be able to sell more units with more exclusivess, the price cuts didn't hurt any. To bad they don't have Microsofts endless budget.)  ;)

[Tenshin_Xo]

The Reason I used the word 'random' was because I couldn't recall the exact reason sony said it was locked, but I don't believe it has anything to do with 'dead' cells.

  IBM, the manufacturer of the cell system has said its because of 'dead' chips.  Why is their word not good enough for you?

 

IF the ps3 was so hard to program for, why is it games like Heavenly Sword, Lair, Ratchet and Clank, RFOM, were all 'on time'?

  This proves my point.  They're all exclusives, and don't have to ship on the 360 timetable, so they can add 6 months to the development time without making the game late.

 

Well, considering EA is being run by a former Microsoft/Xbox Division guy, It starts to hold water. Tongue

IF the ps3 was so hard to program for, why is it games like Heavenly Sword, Lair, Ratchet and Clank, RFOM, were all 'on time'? And all the developers 'loved' developing for the ps3?

It does come down to LAZINESS. Not to mention that Microsoft has CONTRACTS with every multi-platform game that the 360 version MUST be released before or at the same time as the ps3 version. This meaning, dev teams have to pour more of there resources into finishing a 360 version so it is 'finished' before the ps3 version, and is more 'optimized' than the ps3 version...

Quite simply, EA doesn't have any ps3 love, they are treating all ps3 games as 'crappy ports'. There are a few titles on the ps3 right now, that LOOK better than alot of EA games, and RUN BETTER. You can't tell me that isn't laziness on EA's part.

 

When you're ready to drop the conspiracy theory BS lets talk. Seriously you're starting to sound like some upset fanboy living in his mother's basement who hasn't ever set foot in a development setting and is still somehow more of an expert than the people who do this for a living.  I notice you keep pointing at EA as the 'big bad' but really, they aren't the only developer having issues with creating good PS3 games. 

 

just becuase they planned it, doesn't mean it went to the 'developers' that same day. The Ps3 was released about a year ago, and if you look at the PSN, it probably didn't take more than 3 months to program. It is basically a 'web page'.

 

Live had its upgrade into the current version, and expanded it's features the day that 360 was released.  Ever used the old live?  Its drastically different from the new live service.  Its called good planning, and good business.  I'm sorry that sony didn't have the foresight to roll out the features that gamers want, but thats hardly MSFT's fault.  Its exactly because of that, that gamers who aren't tied to a brand (like me) gravitate towards the 360.  Don't believe me? Look at the sales numbers. 

[SinisterDeath]

When you're ready to drop the conspiracy theory BS lets talk. Seriously you're starting to sound like some upset fanboy living in his mother's basement who hasn't ever set foot in a development setting and is still somehow more of an expert than the people who do this for a living.  I notice you keep pointing at EA as the 'big bad' but really, they aren't the only developer having issues with creating good PS3 games. 

 

There is no 'conspiracy', just the facts of a console war.

 

Name one multi-platform game, out NOW that the ps3 version came out first? Then read articles, like the one on Grand Theft Auto. Orginally, It was a PS3 Exlcusive, Microsoft tossed money at them, and BAM it became a multi-platform title. They tossed more money and BAM both versoin are 'behind' as microsoft made it clear, that There title MUST be released at the same time, or before any other version, and it has to be the same quality as other versions, or better. But not worse. Now you say its a conspiracy theory of mine that the devs are being 'paid' not to work as hard on ps3 titles or not, But it IS fact that microsoft IS Throwing money around to get developers to work on there version more, get it finished faster, and better than any other version. I would NOT be suprised, if the 360 teams consist of about 75 people, and ps3/wii of about 25 each. (Proportional at least).

 

What I simplly stated about those other ps3 titles are, regardless of them being Exclusive, they look great, they arrived on TIME, and the developers had Little to No problems developing for the ps3.  All it takes is a little, Motive to work with the system. And we both know EA is a xbox Fanboi corporation. Why put the effort into developing for a game for a system you don't like?  ;)

 

 

As an Aside, I Lost any 'hope' for microsoft not playing dirty tactics,

I mean, remember that nice big ol' law suit sony had not to long ago about dual shock 2?

Well, just before it went to court, Both Microsoft and Sony were being sued by this company for not 'paying' them for there goods.... Microsoft settled it out of court for $2 million, under one stipulation. If they won there case against sony, Microsoft wants there $2 mill back.

 

http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumble-in-the-jungle/microsoft-sues-immersion-269961.php

http://www.qj.net/Microsoft-sues-Immersion-over-Sony-settlement/pg/49/aid/95512

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3160386

 

 

I mean with buisness practices like that, you REALLY question Why I think microsoft is paying developers NOT to develop for the ps3, and to Pay them to say its 'to hard'?

Its a war, And both sides are spewing propaganda.

 

Also, Tenshin_Xo, Sony Also makes there own Cell chips, it IS a joint venture between Sony, IBM, and about 8 other companies.

Infact... Sony just sold one of there chip producing facilities to TOSHIBA, since they happen to outsource better then sony can.. (ie cheaper chips, same quality = cheaper ps3.)

So yes, I'd rather take Sony's word, on Sony's Cell chip, rather than IBM's Chips. You would think if they left room for error so 1-2 chips could be 'dead', how can developers make USE of that, if they don't know which chips 'died'? And 'why' would they put Known dead chips in a product that isn't finished yet?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/18/sony-sells-cell-to-toshiba/

[Tenshin_Xo]

Pay them to say its 'to hard'?

  Can you find one person who has stated this is happening, and preferrably they'd either be paid or doing the paying.

 

Its a war, And both sides are spewing propaganda.

I quite agree, I just find it unfortunate that you seem to not only be in the sony camp, but unwilling to admit sony's shortcomings.

 

What I simplly stated about those other ps3 titles are, regardless of them being Exclusive, they look great, they arrived on TIME, and the developers had Little to No problems developing for the ps3.  All it takes is a little, Motive to work with the system. And we both know EA is a xbox Fanboi corporation. Why put the effort into developing for a game for a system you don't like?

 

Then your assertion is both dishonest and misleading, as it completely dodges my point while only appearing to answer my point.  Xbox Games are 'easier' or more specifically less time consuming to program.  Therefore when you have an IP that is being developed for a publisher, that developer is under contract to release Xbox and PS3 versions by both companies at the same time.  When they start both versions at the same time, the 360 will invariably be done first, and when you have a finished product that isn't making money, publishers get unhappy.  If that publisher pulls out their investment, and scraps that project because the developer can't release both versions, the developer is screwed.  So to prevent that from happening, the developer releases one solid finished product, and one crippled hamstrung product.  You choose to blame it on MSFT, because they want the software they license to be issued at the same time as their competitors, while I choose to blame the publisher for forcing the releasing an unfinished product.  There is some blame due to sony for making a product that is more time consuming than their competition, but that decision has some advantages, especially in its First-party and exclusive IP's, just as there is some blame to MSFT for making a console which is not capable of HD or Blu-ray playback, even though that had the effect of lowering cost. 

[SinisterDeath]

Then your assertion is both dishonest and misleading, as it completely dodges my point while only appearing to answer my point.  Xbox Games are 'easier' or more specifically less time consuming to program.  Therefore when you have an IP that is being developed for a publisher, that developer is under contract to release Xbox and PS3 versions by both companies at the same time.  When they start both versions at the same time, the 360 will invariably be done first, and when you have a finished product that isn't making money, publishers get unhappy.  If that publisher pulls out their investment, and scraps that project because the developer can't release both versions, the developer is screwed.  So to prevent that from happening, the developer releases one solid finished product, and one crippled hamstrung product.  You choose to blame it on MSFT, because they want the software they license to be issued at the same time as their competitors, while I choose to blame the publisher for forcing the releasing an unfinished product.  There is some blame due to sony for making a product that is more time consuming than their competition, but that decision has some advantages, especially in its First-party and exclusive IP's, just as there is some blame to MSFT for making a console which is not capable of HD or Blu-ray playback, even though that had the effect of lowering cost

 

1st, Every multi-platform game so far, either has to

a) be released at the same time as any other console, meaning no other version can be released before it. (the xbox)

b) The xbox version may be released before other versions.

c) xbox version may not be released after it.

 

So its more than just 'must be released at the same time, so obviously its no problem for 95% of EA titles that the xbox version is released about 2 months before any other version.

 

As for Programming PS3 games, I still maintain, that if it were so 'hard' to work with, then why have so many programmers for exclusives, and a few multi-platform titles, say they loved working with it? And that they thought it was relatively as easy as programming for any other console, and that 'each' have there own specific issues...

 

Take Assassins Creed for instance...

EA is having a hell of a time fitting all that data on 1 disk, (They are obligated BY microsoft that there game MAY NOT be released after the ps3 version, AND it may NOT look worse than the ps3 version, IT can only be released at the same time, loook the same, or be released before, and look better, but not worse... Thusly, everytime they lower the graphics a bit to fit the disk, the ps3 version loses some of its 'graphics'...

However, the ps3 version they are having 'troubles' getting all that data on the 2 sticks of 256mb ram. (one is XDR that is 4ghz.) And all that really involves trying to split up all that data, create more efficient code, optimization, ect ect.

 

Plain and simple, all 3 'consoles' have issues when programming for. Some more difficult then others, (Fitting all that data on one dvd9), But there IS a factor of dev laziness out there. the ps3 is by all rights, far more powerful then the 360, yet the devs for most companies, just don't want to go for the challange of creating efficent code & make a good game. They want to do the same old same old, use huge bulks of unefficent code, to create a mediacore game, because thats how they do things, on the PC and the Xbox side.... (Think, football/sports games for Ea, they still look like crap and are a resource hog...)

[Tenshin_Xo]

the ps3 is by all rights, far more powerful then the 360

This is only partly true.  The PS3 can run more FLOPS, but its instruction set is DRASTICALLY more limited than the Xbox command set.  This means it takes more instructions to acheive the same result.  Its also why if you participate in folding@home, your processor time earns you less money than your PC would.

 

On balance the two systems are fairly close together, although the PS3 does eek out ahead of Xbox.  The lead certainly isn't enough to say its far more powerful, but it is there.

 

 

Take Assassins Creed for instance...

EA is having a hell of a time fitting all that data on 1 disk, (They are obligated BY microsoft that there game MAY NOT be released after the ps3 version, AND it may NOT look worse than the ps3 version, IT can only be released at the same time, loook the same, or be released before, and look better, but not worse... Thusly, everytime they lower the graphics a bit to fit the disk, the ps3 version loses some of its 'graphics'...

 

Can you back that up with any statements from ubisoft developers or marketing people, or is this pure speculation? I grant that the contractual obligations of ubisoft prevent them from misaligning the ship dates, in this particular case, both versions much ship at the same time.

[SinisterDeath]

the ps3 is by all rights, far more powerful then the 360

This is only partly true.  The PS3 can run more FLOPS, but its instruction set is DRASTICALLY more limited than the Xbox command set.  This means it takes more instructions to acheive the same result.  Its also why if you participate in folding@home, your processor time earns you less money than your PC would.

 

On balance the two systems are fairly close together, although the PS3 does eek out ahead of Xbox.  The lead certainly isn't enough to say its far more powerful, but it is there.

 

 

Take Assassins Creed for instance...

EA is having a hell of a time fitting all that data on 1 disk, (They are obligated BY microsoft that there game MAY NOT be released after the ps3 version, AND it may NOT look worse than the ps3 version, IT can only be released at the same time, loook the same, or be released before, and look better, but not worse... Thusly, everytime they lower the graphics a bit to fit the disk, the ps3 version loses some of its 'graphics'...

 

Can you back that up with any statements from ubisoft developers or marketing people, or is this pure speculation? I grant that the contractual obligations of ubisoft prevent them from misaligning the ship dates, in this particular case, both versions much ship at the same time.

 

Don't you love those obsscure random articles you read, that when you need to find them, you can't?

But if you are specifically asking about the assassins creed, I can find that.

 

http://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/12-10-2007-6670.html

[Tenshin_Xo]

Tangentially related.

 

The game was originally set to be released simultaneously The game was originally set to be released simultaneously on the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and PC in Summer 2007. However, the release date was pushed back to Winter, and it was announced that Sony's E3 2007 press conference that Haze would be exclusive to the PlayStation 3 in 2007, with a view to releasing PC and Xbox 360 versions in 2008.on the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and PC in Summer 2007. However, the release date was pushed back to Winter, and it was announced that Sony's E3 2007 press conference that Haze would be exclusive to the PlayStation 3 in 2007, with a view to releasing PC and Xbox 360 versions in 2008.

Granted its wikipedia, but it is well sourced, and from Sony.

 

This is concerning Haze, also a Ubisoft title, like Assassin's creed.  So much for MSFT being the only one to do things like this.  And so much for Ubisoft being 'anti-PS3' especially since Haze has been getting great hype and preview reviews.

 

 

Finally, Ubisoft is not EA even though EA has something like a 20% stake in Ubisoft.  The guillermo(or however it's spelled) has the controlling interest in the company, and further EA has never even voted a Board member into Ubisoft, even though they could.  Here's an official statement from EA, verified by Ubi's Press Corps.

The size of EA's investment in Ubisoft remains unchanged.

The change in EA's voting rights is a result of Ubisoft's company charter, which favors long-term shareowners (not an uncommon provision in French company charters).

The change in voting rights is not based on a recent action. Two years ago, EA registered its shares with Ubisoft.

When registered shares are not de-registered or transferred for a two-year period, Ubisoft's charter automatically awards a multiple to the voting rights assigned to those shares.

As we've said before, we are very happy with our investment in Ubisoft and with the performance of the company's management team.

This is concerning the expansion of their voting block in July '07.

[SinisterDeath]

Tangentially related.

 

The game was originally set to be released simultaneously The game was originally set to be released simultaneously on the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and PC in Summer 2007. However, the release date was pushed back to Winter, and it was announced that Sony's E3 2007 press conference that Haze would be exclusive to the PlayStation 3 in 2007, with a view to releasing PC and Xbox 360 versions in 2008.on the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and PC in Summer 2007. However, the release date was pushed back to Winter, and it was announced that Sony's E3 2007 press conference that Haze would be exclusive to the PlayStation 3 in 2007, with a view to releasing PC and Xbox 360 versions in 2008.

Granted its wikipedia, but it is well sourced, and from Sony.

 

This is concerning Haze, also a Ubisoft title, like Assassin's creed.  So much for MSFT being the only one to do things like this.  And so much for Ubisoft being 'anti-PS3' especially since Haze has been getting great hype and preview reviews.

 

 

Finally, Ubisoft is not EA even though EA has something like a 20% stake in Ubisoft.  The guillermo(or however it's spelled) has the controlling interest in the company, and further EA has never even voted a Board member into Ubisoft, even though they could.  Here's an official statement from EA, verified by Ubi's Press Corps.

The size of EA's investment in Ubisoft remains unchanged.

The change in EA's voting rights is a result of Ubisoft's company charter, which favors long-term shareowners (not an uncommon provision in French company charters).

The change in voting rights is not based on a recent action. Two years ago, EA registered its shares with Ubisoft.

When registered shares are not de-registered or transferred for a two-year period, Ubisoft's charter automatically awards a multiple to the voting rights assigned to those shares.

As we've said before, we are very happy with our investment in Ubisoft and with the performance of the company's management team.

This is concerning the expansion of their voting block in July '07.

 

2 points.

1) I always mistake EA for Ubisoft, Both have a habit of releasing crap games, and every now and again a 'good' game.

2) I didn't say Ubisoft was Anti-Ps3, I said EA was...

 

Also, I did say, did I not, that there are issues when it comes to programming for both consoles? With which, I refrences assassins creed, and I saw no mention from ubisoft claiming ps3 was 'omg impossible' program for, no more then the 360 or the wii is. >_>

[Tenshin_Xo]

Key quotes from your source.

 

Ubisoft Montreal, had drafted in help from both Microsoft and Sony to make sure the game has "the same quality on both systems".

 SO its not really MSFT demanding the Sony version get scaled down to compete with 360, its that they each have their own problems, and are getting involved to maximize the quality of the software.

As demonstrated here too.

"Both have their own challenges. Right now we have a big challenge on the 360 to make it fit on a DVD, to put five languages, to put all the data on eight gigs. On the Blu-ray side we're really good, but then the memory is quite different. How we handle memory is really different between the two machines and we're struggling right now on the PS3. But we have people who are really dedicated and we're having help from Microsoft on one side and Sony on the other side to have the same quality on both systems.

 

 

The fact is PS3 is newer, so the learning curve is at a much earlier point for ps3 compared to 360, thats the actual explaination for poor quality ports, rather than some sinister and over-arching conspiracy by EA, MSFT, Nintendo, and Ubisoft to make Sony look bad.  (I typed this bit before your last post.)

 

As far as there being development issues for both consoles, yes of course there are, unfortunately the development issues for Sony have been crippling their games at least so far.  As developers get more experience with the system, you'll see the problems lessen.  I'm not patient enough to wait though.

 

I thought you were referring to Ubi as EA because of their share, particularly when you refered to Assassin's Creed as being developed/published by EA as opposed to Ubi.  I misunderstood you.  I don't play many sports games so I'm only marginally interested in what EA does.  I do though follow Ubi because I think a number of their games have been exceptional.

 

 

[SinisterDeath]

The only games that ubisoft have really made good are there 'spy' games, and a hand full of others. Else they are in the same boat as EA, ruin everything they touch. :P

"Did I mention that I don't particualilly care for EA regardless of console format?"

[Tenshin_Xo]

Good Games from Ubisoft(including upcoming titles with good previews);  (I'm also interested in their Lost and Heroes games even if they are a year away)

 

Haze, Assassin's Creed, Naruto; Rise of the Ninja, America's Army,  Brothers in Arms, Rayman, GRAW and GRAW 2 and really the whole Ghost Recon series, Rainbow Six series, Splinter Cell, No More Heroes, Dark Messiah, Enchanted Arms, Prince of Persia, and XIII.

 

To be fair though, some of these games/series had minimal involvement from Ubisoft, as they were just the publisher.

[SinisterDeath]

just a random article.

http://www.ps3vault.com/how-to-kill-a-ps3-console-1975

"I don't believe the orginal one came from ps3vault, it 'may' have been from some gaming news website orginally, regardless its still fun."

:P

[Samuraiflip05]

An iteresting bit of trivia for you.  Did you know that the original Playstation was originally a cd attachment intended for the Supernintendo. 

 

  I have never really latched onto Xbox.  I grew up from Commodore 64-Super Nintendo.  When PS1 came out I did't get one (Nintendo 64).  I was given a PS2 as a gift before the first price drop.  Still have it still works.  I never got an Xbox.  All of my "Computer geek" friends swear by the Xbox's hardware over the PS3's.  Xbox has the backing of Microsoft so I would expect the online to be better developed.  I will probably stay with PS when I finally decide Nest Gen's are affordable.  And while I don't follow these things really close.  It seems that there are always more stories about Xbox problems then there are PS ones.  Just some observation.

[SinisterDeath]

http://escaflowne12345.gametrailers.com/gamepad/?action=viewblog&id=146484

Was linked to me today.

 

As for the ps1, yes, I knew about that.

Did you know that the PSX was a DVR created by the playstation division of Sony? With the same interface as the PS3?

 

And that the working title of the ps1 was playstation expiremental. Which is why to this day those of us who are 'old school' still call it the psx, and the 'slim' psx, the psone/ps1?

 

:P

[Samuraiflip05]

I did not,  and I never owned a PSX so I always called it Playstation until PS2 came out...of course then it was tagged as PS1 (at least to me).  Of course now I have nearly as many PSX/1 games as PS2.  I have the special re-releases of the Final Fantasy series (1, 2, Chronotrigger, 4, 5, 6) and I have FF7.  FF7 is probably one of my top favs.  Is it true that they remade the game for PS3?

[SinisterDeath]

I did not,  and I never owned a PSX so I always called it Playstation until PS2 came out...of course then it was tagged as PS1 (at least to me).  Of course now I have nearly as many PSX/1 games as PS2.  I have the special re-releases of the Final Fantasy series (1, 2, Chronotrigger, 4, 5, 6) and I have FF7.  FF7 is probably one of my top favs.  Is it true that they remade the game for PS3?

No, thats nothing more then a rumor....

HOWEVER, back before the ps3 was released, Square Enix was showing off a 'tech demo', and used Midgar as the tech demo. It was mouth droppingly CG FF nerd wet the pants graphics.

People were going 'omfg! FF7 remake!' then at the end they said, it was just a tech demo, and they have no plans on remaking it. Then half the crowd commited hari kare.

(Well, thats the comedic versoin my friend Emir, told me in high school.) :P

 

Anyways, I own, FF7-12 for ps1-ps2. (except 11, got that for pc. I disowned it).

I also had FF3 for nintendo, and got Origins, and Anthologies. (1&2, and 5&6), Still don't have 3 or 4. (the real ones)

However, I do have FF1&2 for the gameboy.

NO, not the advanced/or ds versions, I  mean, the GAMEBOY big gray monster machine version.

As well as Final Fantasy Legends.

Final Fantasy Tactis...

A few off spin versions, can't think what they were called.

 

So yea, Ps3 and FF13 is a must have for me. :D

I would have got the FF12, 20 year? annivesry edition, that included a huge book, a game? and the classic health potion/energy drink. :P

I would have bought 2 copies, just so I can be a mega nerd in the scenerio of gettin g'beat up' and pull otu a health potion saying "You'll never beat me! muahahaha 'gulp'. *SMACK*" then hum the ff7 you lose game music. :P

[Samuraiflip05]

I have the one with 4 and chrono trigger...I think it was called Chronicles, but of course most people in the states remember 4 as being FF2 on supernintendo. 

 

I played through tactics butdon't think I have ever played Legends. 

 

The only one I have played since FF7 is X-2.  I have been slowing getting them from 1 up and beating them all over again. 

 

That's a shame about the tech demo.  That would have been an unbelievable sell (Even-Especially if they made it a scene for scene remake.  Do you have Advent Children it has all the FF7 cinematic sequences.

[SinisterDeath]

I have the one with 4 and chrono trigger...I think it was called Chronicles, but of course most people in the states remember 4 as being FF2 on supernintendo. 

 

I played through tactics butdon't think I have ever played Legends. 

 

The only one I have played since FF7 is X-2.  I have been slowing getting them from 1 up and beating them all over again. 

 

That's a shame about the tech demo.  That would have been an unbelievable sell (Even-Especially if they made it a scene for scene remake.  Do you have Advent Children it has all the FF7 cinematic sequences.

 

 

Yep

[Silver]

i've never actually played all the way through a FF game :P is it all 1 continuing story line?

[SinisterDeath]

i've never actually played all the way through a FF game :P is it all 1 continuing story line?

 

nope, every single game (with the exception of 10,11,12, and the offshoots of 7, are all completely differnet universes. Different stories, everything.