I think you only had to play 3 games, and I think you only needed to win 2 out of the 3. But it wasn't like it required any real skill. You didn't have to know what the 3 numbers were and what the second letter meant. By that time you should have had decent cards just by fighting monsters on your way to Treno.
Just think of it as another puzzle. I'd rather have the card game than some of the ridiculous puzzles in other games.
Where did you get this information? They already have a part name (RSX), and various comments by NVIDIA's executives state to the effect that they are making a part. Sony even has their name displayed quite prominently through some of their presentations.
Even if NVIDIA doesn't make the actual part, this is like saying IBM is only consulting Sony on some sort of processing solution. IBM and NVIDIA are doing a majority of the work with Sony and Toshiba contributing to the design (at least for the Cell processor).
GameSpot's quarterly report said PC sales were down, and that they only account for 4% of sales. You could argue that PC sales remained the same and console related sales skyrocketed, but this is the tail end of a console generation when people are usually saving up money for the next console.
Since GameSpot doesn't sell PCs that I know of and console hardware sales are around 20% from that same report, you can venture that roughly 70% of sales are from console games. That's a staggering number from the number one games only retailer.
But really, just look at your Walmart and Best Buy. Console games store space take up at least 2 times as much space as PC game titles. Look at the sheer number of console games too compared to PC games. Ever wonder why companies like Epic are moving to console games and supporting those platforms? It's not a big mystery why console games outsell PC games.
PS3 has Nvidia graphics, and I don't think Nintendo Revolution has decided yet. GameCube did have an ATI graphics chip but who knows if Nintendo is sticking to it.
That's not exactly fair. I don't like MSFT any more than any other company, but you can't force companies to support products forever. There are several applications that only work on certain OSes (even Mac programs sometimes require 10.3 and some Unix software requires at least a certain KDE or Gnome version). Some require certain libraries/DLLs or something like Cocoa Bindings (and in the future CoreData) that just aren't available on earlier OSes.
Personally, if you need to sacrifice compatibility, I would rather have it than hold back any possible forward progress. Several problems exist today solely because of design problems made years earlier.
Steve Ballmer later stated that Microsoft will release when it's ready in response to the Bill Gates quote. I forget the actual article but you can probably Google it. I don't think Halo 3 will ship as soon as the PS3 is shipping. We haven't heard anything about it besides the name, and I don't think we've even seen screenshots which I think is pretty surprising. There was a bunch of stuff released for Halo 2 a year before they shipped. Granted it was delayed, but there was at least something out there.
The 3.2Ghz chips are stripped down PowerPC cores from all reports I've read much like the Intel part in the original Xbox (somewhat specialized for consoles). That's why IBM can get them to 3.2Ghz when they can't get Apple's G5s to 3.0Ghz. Will they be faster than PCs today? I have no doubt.
But 5 years from now? If we aren't at 5.0Ghz or higher by that time or some other processor (like the recent interest in a physics card) doesn't take form, I'd be surprised. I just can't imagine Intel or AMD not doubling their processing power in the next 2 years not to mention 5 years. They'll do something to justify "technological growth".
I'm not saying it'll be all necessary for the PC, but hardware manufacturers aren't going to remain stagnant. If PCs don't surpass consoles, I think it will relegate the PC to word processors and business tools instead of the multimedia centers that the rest of the consumer PC industry are betting on. Apple and the others are betting that consumers want to use PCs to make their DVD videos and the like. That still requires some serious processing power, and someone will provide that.
I think it's just 1 "Cell" that's in the PS3. There's one PowerPC CPU (no word if dual core or not) and 7 SPUs. Whether or not that's equal to 3 dual core CPUs, no one knows for now. Rumors from developers that have been circulating on game sites say the PS3 theoretically blows any other console out of water, but we shall see.
I hope Factor5's move to the PS3 goes well for them. They're a great developer. It's a sore sight tho to see a great GameCube developer leave Nintendo.
He didn't say that he believes that it is The Way Things Should Be or whatever else. He said it was not necessarily the ONLY way you achieve security, and you know what, some encryption algorithms aren't made public. Don't get up in arms about nothing IMO. Millions of people rely on systems which they have no clue about. Who knows if there's some new flaw in GMail's algorithm to read other people's messages? But millions of people still rely on Gmail and other free e-mail providers all the time and they rely it on things critical to their lives.
CPU speed and graphics cards are always close during the launch of a console, but are far outpaced by the end of a console's life. Look at it from 5 years ago, or even less. The Xbox only has a 733mhz Intel part and a GeForce3 equivilant. Compared to today's processors, they aren't anything spectacular. Now, you can wonder if we'll advance as fast as we have, but I'm more likely to bet that we will. It's not like Intel, AMD, IBM, or anyone else is going to suddenly give up on their business.
The real big question is will the PC gaming market survive in the next few years? MSFT is heavily encouraging PC developers to join their boat, and when they taste all that money, will they even bother coming back to the PC? Developers like BioWare are releasing console exclusives when they used to be the premier RPG developer for the PC. FPS games are coming on board now that they've seen Halo do really well. The last real PC exclusives are RTS and MMORPGs (except FF11 I think), and that's more of a control issue (which may be solved with keyboard/mouse support). It may be ironic that the thing that kills Windows gaming is MSFT itself.
The PS3 has 512MB of RAM last I checked. 256MB dedicated to "main memory" while 256MB is dedicated to graphics. The Xbox 360 has 512 of "unified" memory. It'll be interesting to see which approach is better. It would be wonderful if all of these diverse choices between consoles (special dedicated processor units versus generic dual core processors) serves as some research for other hardware companies so that improvements can happen across all computers.
I'm sorry but if the Revolution debuts at $100 or even less than $200, I'd be surprised. Nintendo also hasn't been too keen on keeping their classic prices low (look at GBA remakes of their old games). I really root for Nintendo because they are the ones that are focused on the games. They're willing to take some risks. I don't think I will ever see such a madness as Donkey Konga on any other platform. But let's be real. Nintendo does like milking their old games, and it doesn't come cheap.
I think the more likely scenario is that you download "compatibility enhancements" off of Xbox Live. It is far easier to download and probably a lot cheaper than it is to do any physical exchanges. You also have to think that this Christmas the number of original Xbox games sold would plunge if you hear that you must exchange your game to make it play on Xbox 360.
I certainly wouldn't buy any game that I knew I was going to have to exchange. I would buy it if all it required was a download upgrade.
This Christmas will certainly be an interesting learning lesson for MSFT and others in the industry. People will find out if backwards compatibility is such a big deal, if publishers are willing to keep on an old platform when the new platform isn't backwards compatible 100% (PS1 games still were made after PS2 hit), if releasing your console first is such a good idea (Dreamcast vs. PS2), etc. If the Xbox 360 wins over the next few years, it will turn heads.
Hey don't get me wrong. I'm not berating the Xbox 360 because it's just an "evolutionary upgrade". I own all current 3 consoles and have a PSP and have had variations of the Gameboy (no DS tho). The Xbox 360 is hardware wise an evolutionary upgrade, but there's nothing wrong with that for them. The Xbox was a heavyweight for technical achievements (HDD and network) alone. Microsoft's "speciality" is the software side with their Xbox Live, PC connectivity, and their development tools.
However, the PS3 adds in a bunch of things that the PS2 did not have, which admittedly should have been standard (like network capabilities). PS2 owners look at the next generation and they see big changes. Xbox owners look at the Xbox 360 and PS3 and say, "what's changed?" It's just that the PS2 is so old that the upgrade to modern hardware seems like such a blowout win. You need reasons to upgrade, and the PS3 gave many reasons (whether all of it is hype or not remains to be seen).
The Xbox 360 gave some reasons but I think that if a buyer didn't want an Xbox the first time around, they weren't given any reasons to buy an Xbox 360 over a PS3 yet. The Xbox 360 needs the Rare titles to come out, and they need to show Halo 3 (or more Perfect Dark Zero) as soon as they have footage that blows away the Killzone 2 footage, even if it is prerendered.
Re:Well , before we compare videos read this:
on
PS3 vs. Xbox 360
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Give gamers a week or two, and I don't think anyone will have any doubts as to what's prerendered and what's not. However there's a huge stark contrast between the Sony and Microsoft presentations, and I think it's best summed up best in the IGN Xbox editorial reactions. Sony makes you want to have their console while Microsoft tries to make you need their console as one of the editors puts it. I think a lot of people are rooting for Sony (especially on/.) because MSFT for the first time is losing so badly in hype. They finally found someone else that can hype just as much and now they are on the receiving end.
BTW, you still pretty much have to pay for Xbox Live to play against other players anytime you want. I don't expect there to be no fees with PS3 online games (EA will probably start collecting fees as soon as they can). PS3 has built in WiFi (Xbox 360 is only WiFi ready), Xbox has HDD, PS3 does not have HDD built in. PS3 generally has more hardware features but Xbox has more connectivity to Windows and a unified online interface.
Gizmodo said that the DS outsold the PSP 2 to 1 worldwide (without a PSP launch in Europe though). The DS did have a Christmas season by itself in the US and Japan so I think it's still too early to tell. I'd be more interested in the rate of the number of units sold per month.
In any case, I think the thing is that neither the PSP or DS has that many titles out that are "must own". I think there are maybe one or two titles the majority of people would say each handheld is worth. The DS hasn't had any great titles in a long time, and besides the launch, the PSP has hardly had any titles at all.
I wouldn't bet against Sony that they will play every trick in the book to beat MSFT's price. They could just be suggesting a high price so that MSFT slaps a $400 price tag and they sweep in for $350 or so. Sony has done all sorts of pricing and hype games before, and so far, they've won.
It's not just about the graphical power tho (admittedly, that's what will get the most attention). PS3 has better compatibility with memory cards, WiFi built in, bluetooth controllers (so you can have wireless keyboards and not just the USB), HDMI outputs (2 at that), etc. These are all out of the box and immediately noticable even if you don't use them. The only thing missing is the HDD.
It just seems that the Xbox 360 is an evolutionary upgrade, which is perfectly fine since the Xbox still could have had a lot of life left. However, the PS3 seems to have added so many more new features that it has the hype all over it as being a true next generation machine beyond the graphics. The PS3 seems to be the machine that will last 5 years instead of a rushed solution.
You really have to give props to Sony for forward thinking in some sense. They wanted to always have backwards compability so they keep shrinking their consoles and putting more and more of their processor on one chip. Not only does it renew interest in the consoles, they keep using the R&D for their future consoles. I think the PS4 will have a much harder time getting everything backwards compatible but if anyone can do it, Sony is the one.
They already have Final Fantasy's for Nintendo's systems (Gamecube, Gameboy, Revolution and DS). PSP has a game coming out, PS2 has at least 2 (the FFVII spinoff and FFXII), and even cell phones are getting new games. Where is MSFT's new game? FFXI will probably come out for all 3 new consoles too or some variation. SquareEnix really wants to expand their online offerings from recent interviews. MSFT needs DragonQuest/Dragon Warrior to really succeed in Japan. Once they have that, then I'll believe the Japanese are interested in the Xbox.
While it's a great marketing move by MSFT, it personally makes me suspect that the game won't live up to its hype for the third time around. Games are notorious for missing release dates, especially the big titles (Halo 2, Final Fantasys, especially on the PC with Half Life 2, any Blizzard game, etc.). These next generation games are also suppose to have some of the biggest production values ever with an increasing development cycle ("justifying" the supposed $10 increase in game prices). It just seems that the game would be rushed or left a bit lackluster.
Can you qualify the statement about general purpose CPUs being better for AI? Also, considering the pretty abysmal state of AI, I don't think anyone can really claim to be so much better in it. There haven't really been that many great AIs, only scripted sequences IMO.
Let's be realistic, most of those trailers were prerendered, not part of the actual game that you play. The Killzone trailer was spectacular, but many speculate it's only in-game scripted if not just a cutscene. Not to say it wasn't freakin' amazing but face reality.
Have you ever tried http://search.yahoo.com/? I use Google all the time but this should solve at least the first two of your complaints. Also as far as offering anything unique to the web, they were the first to offer a lot of the "innovative" services. Google just has a more techy cool feel to theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you only had to play 3 games, and I think you only needed to win 2 out of the 3. But it wasn't like it required any real skill. You didn't have to know what the 3 numbers were and what the second letter meant. By that time you should have had decent cards just by fighting monsters on your way to Treno.
Just think of it as another puzzle. I'd rather have the card game than some of the ridiculous puzzles in other games.
Where did you get this information? They already have a part name (RSX), and various comments by NVIDIA's executives state to the effect that they are making a part. Sony even has their name displayed quite prominently through some of their presentations.
Even if NVIDIA doesn't make the actual part, this is like saying IBM is only consulting Sony on some sort of processing solution. IBM and NVIDIA are doing a majority of the work with Sony and Toshiba contributing to the design (at least for the Cell processor).
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/26/news_61265 52.html
GameSpot's quarterly report said PC sales were down, and that they only account for 4% of sales. You could argue that PC sales remained the same and console related sales skyrocketed, but this is the tail end of a console generation when people are usually saving up money for the next console.
Since GameSpot doesn't sell PCs that I know of and console hardware sales are around 20% from that same report, you can venture that roughly 70% of sales are from console games. That's a staggering number from the number one games only retailer.
But really, just look at your Walmart and Best Buy. Console games store space take up at least 2 times as much space as PC game titles. Look at the sheer number of console games too compared to PC games. Ever wonder why companies like Epic are moving to console games and supporting those platforms? It's not a big mystery why console games outsell PC games.
PS3 has Nvidia graphics, and I don't think Nintendo Revolution has decided yet. GameCube did have an ATI graphics chip but who knows if Nintendo is sticking to it.
That's not exactly fair. I don't like MSFT any more than any other company, but you can't force companies to support products forever. There are several applications that only work on certain OSes (even Mac programs sometimes require 10.3 and some Unix software requires at least a certain KDE or Gnome version). Some require certain libraries/DLLs or something like Cocoa Bindings (and in the future CoreData) that just aren't available on earlier OSes.
Personally, if you need to sacrifice compatibility, I would rather have it than hold back any possible forward progress. Several problems exist today solely because of design problems made years earlier.
Steve Ballmer later stated that Microsoft will release when it's ready in response to the Bill Gates quote. I forget the actual article but you can probably Google it. I don't think Halo 3 will ship as soon as the PS3 is shipping. We haven't heard anything about it besides the name, and I don't think we've even seen screenshots which I think is pretty surprising. There was a bunch of stuff released for Halo 2 a year before they shipped. Granted it was delayed, but there was at least something out there.
The 3.2Ghz chips are stripped down PowerPC cores from all reports I've read much like the Intel part in the original Xbox (somewhat specialized for consoles). That's why IBM can get them to 3.2Ghz when they can't get Apple's G5s to 3.0Ghz. Will they be faster than PCs today? I have no doubt.
But 5 years from now? If we aren't at 5.0Ghz or higher by that time or some other processor (like the recent interest in a physics card) doesn't take form, I'd be surprised. I just can't imagine Intel or AMD not doubling their processing power in the next 2 years not to mention 5 years. They'll do something to justify "technological growth".
I'm not saying it'll be all necessary for the PC, but hardware manufacturers aren't going to remain stagnant. If PCs don't surpass consoles, I think it will relegate the PC to word processors and business tools instead of the multimedia centers that the rest of the consumer PC industry are betting on. Apple and the others are betting that consumers want to use PCs to make their DVD videos and the like. That still requires some serious processing power, and someone will provide that.
I think it's just 1 "Cell" that's in the PS3. There's one PowerPC CPU (no word if dual core or not) and 7 SPUs. Whether or not that's equal to 3 dual core CPUs, no one knows for now. Rumors from developers that have been circulating on game sites say the PS3 theoretically blows any other console out of water, but we shall see.
I hope Factor5's move to the PS3 goes well for them. They're a great developer. It's a sore sight tho to see a great GameCube developer leave Nintendo.
Thanks for the informative post.
He didn't say that he believes that it is The Way Things Should Be or whatever else. He said it was not necessarily the ONLY way you achieve security, and you know what, some encryption algorithms aren't made public. Don't get up in arms about nothing IMO. Millions of people rely on systems which they have no clue about. Who knows if there's some new flaw in GMail's algorithm to read other people's messages? But millions of people still rely on Gmail and other free e-mail providers all the time and they rely it on things critical to their lives.
CPU speed and graphics cards are always close during the launch of a console, but are far outpaced by the end of a console's life. Look at it from 5 years ago, or even less. The Xbox only has a 733mhz Intel part and a GeForce3 equivilant. Compared to today's processors, they aren't anything spectacular. Now, you can wonder if we'll advance as fast as we have, but I'm more likely to bet that we will. It's not like Intel, AMD, IBM, or anyone else is going to suddenly give up on their business.
The real big question is will the PC gaming market survive in the next few years? MSFT is heavily encouraging PC developers to join their boat, and when they taste all that money, will they even bother coming back to the PC? Developers like BioWare are releasing console exclusives when they used to be the premier RPG developer for the PC. FPS games are coming on board now that they've seen Halo do really well. The last real PC exclusives are RTS and MMORPGs (except FF11 I think), and that's more of a control issue (which may be solved with keyboard/mouse support). It may be ironic that the thing that kills Windows gaming is MSFT itself.
The PS3 has 512MB of RAM last I checked. 256MB dedicated to "main memory" while 256MB is dedicated to graphics. The Xbox 360 has 512 of "unified" memory. It'll be interesting to see which approach is better. It would be wonderful if all of these diverse choices between consoles (special dedicated processor units versus generic dual core processors) serves as some research for other hardware companies so that improvements can happen across all computers.
I'm sorry but if the Revolution debuts at $100 or even less than $200, I'd be surprised. Nintendo also hasn't been too keen on keeping their classic prices low (look at GBA remakes of their old games). I really root for Nintendo because they are the ones that are focused on the games. They're willing to take some risks. I don't think I will ever see such a madness as Donkey Konga on any other platform. But let's be real. Nintendo does like milking their old games, and it doesn't come cheap.
I think the more likely scenario is that you download "compatibility enhancements" off of Xbox Live. It is far easier to download and probably a lot cheaper than it is to do any physical exchanges. You also have to think that this Christmas the number of original Xbox games sold would plunge if you hear that you must exchange your game to make it play on Xbox 360.
I certainly wouldn't buy any game that I knew I was going to have to exchange. I would buy it if all it required was a download upgrade.
This Christmas will certainly be an interesting learning lesson for MSFT and others in the industry. People will find out if backwards compatibility is such a big deal, if publishers are willing to keep on an old platform when the new platform isn't backwards compatible 100% (PS1 games still were made after PS2 hit), if releasing your console first is such a good idea (Dreamcast vs. PS2), etc. If the Xbox 360 wins over the next few years, it will turn heads.
Hey don't get me wrong. I'm not berating the Xbox 360 because it's just an "evolutionary upgrade". I own all current 3 consoles and have a PSP and have had variations of the Gameboy (no DS tho). The Xbox 360 is hardware wise an evolutionary upgrade, but there's nothing wrong with that for them. The Xbox was a heavyweight for technical achievements (HDD and network) alone. Microsoft's "speciality" is the software side with their Xbox Live, PC connectivity, and their development tools.
However, the PS3 adds in a bunch of things that the PS2 did not have, which admittedly should have been standard (like network capabilities). PS2 owners look at the next generation and they see big changes. Xbox owners look at the Xbox 360 and PS3 and say, "what's changed?" It's just that the PS2 is so old that the upgrade to modern hardware seems like such a blowout win. You need reasons to upgrade, and the PS3 gave many reasons (whether all of it is hype or not remains to be seen).
The Xbox 360 gave some reasons but I think that if a buyer didn't want an Xbox the first time around, they weren't given any reasons to buy an Xbox 360 over a PS3 yet. The Xbox 360 needs the Rare titles to come out, and they need to show Halo 3 (or more Perfect Dark Zero) as soon as they have footage that blows away the Killzone 2 footage, even if it is prerendered.
BTW, you still pretty much have to pay for Xbox Live to play against other players anytime you want. I don't expect there to be no fees with PS3 online games (EA will probably start collecting fees as soon as they can). PS3 has built in WiFi (Xbox 360 is only WiFi ready), Xbox has HDD, PS3 does not have HDD built in. PS3 generally has more hardware features but Xbox has more connectivity to Windows and a unified online interface.
Gizmodo said that the DS outsold the PSP 2 to 1 worldwide (without a PSP launch in Europe though). The DS did have a Christmas season by itself in the US and Japan so I think it's still too early to tell. I'd be more interested in the rate of the number of units sold per month.
In any case, I think the thing is that neither the PSP or DS has that many titles out that are "must own". I think there are maybe one or two titles the majority of people would say each handheld is worth. The DS hasn't had any great titles in a long time, and besides the launch, the PSP has hardly had any titles at all.
I wouldn't bet against Sony that they will play every trick in the book to beat MSFT's price. They could just be suggesting a high price so that MSFT slaps a $400 price tag and they sweep in for $350 or so. Sony has done all sorts of pricing and hype games before, and so far, they've won.
It's not just about the graphical power tho (admittedly, that's what will get the most attention). PS3 has better compatibility with memory cards, WiFi built in, bluetooth controllers (so you can have wireless keyboards and not just the USB), HDMI outputs (2 at that), etc. These are all out of the box and immediately noticable even if you don't use them. The only thing missing is the HDD.
It just seems that the Xbox 360 is an evolutionary upgrade, which is perfectly fine since the Xbox still could have had a lot of life left. However, the PS3 seems to have added so many more new features that it has the hype all over it as being a true next generation machine beyond the graphics. The PS3 seems to be the machine that will last 5 years instead of a rushed solution.
You really have to give props to Sony for forward thinking in some sense. They wanted to always have backwards compability so they keep shrinking their consoles and putting more and more of their processor on one chip. Not only does it renew interest in the consoles, they keep using the R&D for their future consoles. I think the PS4 will have a much harder time getting everything backwards compatible but if anyone can do it, Sony is the one.
They already have Final Fantasy's for Nintendo's systems (Gamecube, Gameboy, Revolution and DS). PSP has a game coming out, PS2 has at least 2 (the FFVII spinoff and FFXII), and even cell phones are getting new games. Where is MSFT's new game? FFXI will probably come out for all 3 new consoles too or some variation. SquareEnix really wants to expand their online offerings from recent interviews. MSFT needs DragonQuest/Dragon Warrior to really succeed in Japan. Once they have that, then I'll believe the Japanese are interested in the Xbox.
While it's a great marketing move by MSFT, it personally makes me suspect that the game won't live up to its hype for the third time around. Games are notorious for missing release dates, especially the big titles (Halo 2, Final Fantasys, especially on the PC with Half Life 2, any Blizzard game, etc.). These next generation games are also suppose to have some of the biggest production values ever with an increasing development cycle ("justifying" the supposed $10 increase in game prices). It just seems that the game would be rushed or left a bit lackluster.
Can you qualify the statement about general purpose CPUs being better for AI? Also, considering the pretty abysmal state of AI, I don't think anyone can really claim to be so much better in it. There haven't really been that many great AIs, only scripted sequences IMO.
Let's be realistic, most of those trailers were prerendered, not part of the actual game that you play. The Killzone trailer was spectacular, but many speculate it's only in-game scripted if not just a cutscene. Not to say it wasn't freakin' amazing but face reality.
And no one has laid down their pricing schemes.
Have you ever tried http://search.yahoo.com/? I use Google all the time but this should solve at least the first two of your complaints. Also as far as offering anything unique to the web, they were the first to offer a lot of the "innovative" services. Google just has a more techy cool feel to theirs.