More On PS3 and Xbox 2

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by michael on Tuesday January 25, 2005 @07:49AM from the controllers-now-twice-the-size dept.

News for nerds writes "The BBC has news about the next-generation game consoles, with comments from various third parties. According to Rory Armes, studio general manager of EA in Europe, they have already received the development kits from Microsoft, but not yet from Sony and Nintendo. He assumes Sony's PlayStation 3 will have a little more under the hood and be more cost-efficient than Microsoft's Xbox 2. Gerhard Florin, head of EA in Europe, remarks 'PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.' Spider-Man 2 or Toy Story 2, that's the problem."

6 of 541 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Physics? by chris09876 · 2005-01-25 07:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

In the article they mention that a big thing they'll be able to do with the improved processing power is more realistic physics. ??? Does anyone else find that a bit weird? I remember like 20 years ago I played a game with monkeys on buildings throwing bananas at each other. That thing had gravity you could adjust :) The screenshot does look amazing though... it's going to be really interesting to see where this technology (games) goes not only in the next 18 months, but 5-10 years down the road. Maybe we'll have holodecks after all :)

--
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
Re:Movie animation by Omnicrola · 2005-01-25 07:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, your computer would only have to generate a maximum of say, 1600x1200 resolution frames. To put something on a film, which is projected on a 40-100ft (diagonal) screen, you need something on the order of 4000dpi images. (not sure what that works out to in pixels, as the aspect ratio is different between computer and film) Either way that's a heck of a lot more pixels. Plus, a lot of advancement has been made in 'shortcutting' to better-looking graphics. Jurassic Park probably used a lot more polygons than they would take to do the same job nowadays. You have pixel shaders, normal mapping, and a slew of other things that can be done in real-time now. Granted, there will probably be a disernable(sp?) difference to the trained eye, but that's just a fallacy of being educated in the art of the polygon. :)
Re:i remember... by pbranes · 2005-01-25 07:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

We have heard all of this before. PS3 marketing is doing what marketing does best - lying. Only believe it when you have the hardware in hand. We have never been given any evidence that the PS, Xbox, or gamecube marketing departments ever tell anything close to the truth.
Case in point. Read this time article from before PS2 came out:
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/0320/j apan.sony.html
Don't believe it till you are holding it in your hands.
Yeah, right,?? by Jarlsberg · 2005-01-25 08:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

And Playstation 2 can presumably render the original Toy Story in real time, right? Just like Sony claimed before PS2 was released ( http://www.dvdfuture.com/features.php?id=2)?
Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Golias · 2005-01-25 08:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

The Pippin, like the Performa and the Newton, was a product of the Dark Times, between when Jobs had control of the company stolen from him, and when he stole it back.

Let us not speak of the Pippin any further.

If a critical mass of Mac mini systems end up in TV rooms across America, a few game developpers will probably gravitate towards exploiting that market, and Apple may find themselves selling a popular game console entirely by accident.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
What I wnat to know is... by Raunch · 2005-01-25 08:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

Where the hell did that beautiful picture come from?
It's definately rendered - but from what?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40753000/jpg /_40753511_ea_screenshot203.jpg

--
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.