its all about the titles. wherever final fantasy is....im there. i think playstation just has better rpgs. i still play my old final fantasy tactics and kartia on my ps2 along side my newer ones like disgeia, new FFs and the xenosaga games.
I've never understood the folks who rely solely on power - it didn't use to be this way, until video games became the huge market they are now. But I still don't quite look at it as the deciding factor. What good is all that power, if all you have is crap to play on it? This was the big 'advantage' XBOX used over PS2 back when it came out...and I thought it was incredibly simplistic. At that time, all that power was wasted on crap for the system, when I could play lots of good stuff on my PS2 (and Gamecube) just fine. That changed as time went on, thankfully, but that's exactly the reason I had a PS2 and Gamecube long before I had an XBOX. When that shifted, I gladly went over to buy my XBOX. So...power is a waste if you aren't having fun. Video games to me will always be about creativity, good gameplay and a good time. ...though I do wonder if the huge numbers of folks who buy nowadays even know what a good game is...
I chose price because I'm a cheap b*stard... A lot of people I talk to seem to like the idea of Xbox2's headstart. They think another Halo and a Perfect Dark sequel plus Xbox live will clinch it for them. It's very safe to assume that Microsoft won't pull 100 dollar losses like they initially did when the Xbox launched. Sony packs some serious hardware, but the Cell processors look very ugly to program for and first generation titles don't tend to show the system's true strength. Plus it'll launch with a $400+ price tag, so I don't believe that it's the clear dominant winner. Nintendo's speeches at the GDC surprised me because it seems they're going to take a more proactive role with 3rd parties. They also announced that the next system will be Gamecube compatible, so for a cheapass like me, that's great news for prolonging the system with good titles. They haven't even finalized their development kits, so who knows what gadgets they're going to put in and what they're going to shelve for later. The gadgets they have are very interesting. There's one where an Eyetoy-like camera takes your surroundings and you can control a computer generated car around your surroundings on TV. There's virtual golf, photo and motion sensitive controls. I don't usually buy into the gadget hype (too expensive), but Nintendo does have an innovative track record. Another big announcement was that their next system will be wireless ready. Microsoft and Sony owners enjoyed that for years, but Nintendo really knows how to make fun multiplayer games. If their DS service launching in a couple months is free as expected and the Revolution follows, that'll take the wind out of Microsoft's sails. The 3rd party support is actually a mixed blessing. Many loyal Nintendo fans have been dissapointed with the quality of Gamecube games compared to the past. If that downward trend in quality continues, then many more will jump ship. Nintendo is always the dark horse. When Sony's Cell specs were leaked, I thought that their system would end it all. It's potential is enormous, but so was the PS2's Emotion Engine. That uncertainty, the one year delay and its price changes the game dramatically. Having 3 systems on the market is great for gamers. It keeps them on their toes, and the price wars allow cheapos like me to play games a year or two early. For a clear cut winner, though, we probably won't know for sure until a couple years after they're all out.
As I sit in my hotel room at the Landmark Hotel here in London, I can only think of one thing. GIZMONDO !! DD
I pretty much agree with everything you said, which is why I said I was so surprised at the results. I was expecting some votes for power, but not anywhere near as many as the poll shows (although I didn't expect many votes for anything besides the games, power, price, and PC gamer options). While that may be true, some reports from GDC as well as Sony's actions seem to show to me that Cell may not be that bad, from a programming perspective. Considering how much Sony did to help developers for the Emotion Engine/PS2, I could definitely see Cell/PS3 being easier to develop for. As I mentioned earlier, the OpenGL ES API along with help from COLLADA will aid, and programming Cell can be done using C or C++, instead of some new language for developers to learn. With help from IBM and Nvidia, I just think that the PS3 could possibly be even easier, in some regards, to develop for than the PS2. BTW, where did you hear it would launch (in NA I'm assuming) at a $400+ price tag? I would only assume that price if the Xbox 360 did something similar. I think I saw that stuff a little while back, although when I saw it, it was posted on a message board, with the poster saying that the guys were talking with Sony about possibly doing something with the Eyetoy. Not sure how that has worked out, if it was even true. One programmer did mention that it didn't seem to difficult to actually do, despite how cool it looks, so maybe we can get something like that pretty soon. I was amazed at that stuff. I normally agree to this, but someone brought up a good point about a market with only one console. Sure, $300 is cheaper than $400, but that $400 console is a little more appealing once you realize that all the games you want would be on 3 different consoles, totaling $900. Not quite sure if I would agree to all this, or if it would actually work out that way, but a console monopoly may not be as bad as it seems from a price perspective.
I'm getting the sense that the programming support won't tap directly under the Cell's hood, so developers won't get the most out of it without tinkering with its microcode. I guess we'll know for sure when all three systems are out to compare with each other. The $400 price range isn't set in stone, but looking at the specs (multiple Cell Processors, Blu-Ray support, Wireless support), it won't launch for 300 like past consoles. I'm pretty sure that it's the early adopter price for the first year. Over a 5 year life span, the PS2 dropped more than half its price and they only dropped the price in response to other price cuts. The Gamecube's drop was more dramatic and was getting at ridiculous levels when it sold for the price of the GBASP. We had a monopoly in the past. The NES stayed at a fairly consistent price throughout its 7+ years, and only did so when Sega had a credible machine. Nintendo also set pricing standards on their cartridges. On the other hand, the Gamecube was the first Nintendo system to have a "Best Hits List" because it did so well on the original Playstation, and because cartridges were so expensive.
In that case, I agree with you, although it may still be easier to get more out of Cell than the EE. I read about some PS2 devs that seemed to be salivating at some of the things Cell offered. Cell isn't really all that expensive for the most part, depending on the configuration. After all, it was designed to give the most FLOPS per $. So CELL shouldn't cost Sony several hundred dollars per console, or something like that. I've also read encouraging things about Blu-ray and the initial price for Blu-ray devices, so that may not cost Sony as much as expected either. When reading about what the PSP would offer, many analysts thought the device itself would cost $400-$500, but Sony shocked the world by selling it for $185-$250 (depending on the package). With how much power Sony has in minimizing costs for the PS3, I could see something similar happening. What could happen though is that Sony would release it in Japan for ~$500, helping ease the losses since the PS3 would sell out at even that price. Depending on how well the can produce the PS3, I guess they could raise the price a little bit on the US PS3, although they should be careful about this. Americans have shown that we don't like paying much more than $300 for a console. Of course, with the state of the dollar, we may have to give in anyways.
For me, exclusive titles. THQ's wrestling lines have been the only third party games I've cared about since the 16-bit era.
see that's a misconception. those wrestling titles usually get ported to every system. exclusive titles are those that you will have to buy a certain system just to get that particular game (halo, final fantasy, zelda, etc) i'm pretty sure you're not the only one that's mistaken a title as an exclusive title though with all the companies that will make an 'exclusive title' for one system and then port it over to another system as a 'director's cut' or some bs like that
Sorry for not clarifying, but I meant that those are the only third party games I care about. Although, they are exclusive in a way. The WWE games aren't ports; each console has its own completely distinct line.
Three things are certain in life. Death. Taxes. Any Clutch BBS Video Game thread will contain many posts by RC and atleast one post by DaDa pushin' the GIZMONDO !!
Best evaluation of Cell I've seen so far: Anandtech Summary Concluding anything about Cell requires a multifaceted look at the architecture and the platform as a whole. First from the perspective of the game industry, more specifically Playstation 3: Cell’s architecture is similar to the next version of Microsoft’s Xbox and upcoming PC microprocessors in that it is heavily multithreaded. The next Xbox will execute between 3 and 6 threads simultaneously, while desktop PC microprocessors will execute between 2 - 4. The problem is that while Xbox 2/360/Next and the PC will be using multiple general purpose cores, Cell relies on more specialized hardware to achieve its peak performance. Cell’s SPEs being Altivec/VMX derived is a benefit, which should mean that the ISA is more familiar to developers working on any POWER based architecture, but the approach to development on Cell vs. development on the PC will literally be on opposite ends of the spectrum, with the new Xbox somewhere in between. The problem here is that big game development houses often develop and optimize for the least common denominator when it comes to hardware, and offer ports with minor improvements to other platforms. Given Cell’s architecture, it hardly looks like a suitable “base” platform to develop for. We’d venture to say that a game developed for and ported from the PC or Xbox Next would be under-utilizing Cell’s performance potential unless significant code re-write time was spent. Console-only development houses, especially those with close ties to Sony, may find themselves able to harness the power of Cell much more efficiently than developers who ascribe to the write-once, port-many process of cross-platform development. Given EA’s recent acquisition and licensing-spree, this is a very valid concern. With Cell, Sony has effectively traded hardware complexity for programmer burden, but if anyone is willing to bear the burden of a complicated architecture, it is a game developer. The problem grows in complexity once you start factoring in porting to multiple platforms in a timely manner while still attempting to achieve maximum performance. As a potential contender in the PC market, Cell has a very tall ladder to climb before even remotely appearing on the AMD/Intel radars. The biggest strength that the x86 market has is backwards compatibility, which is the main thing that has kept alternative ISAs out of the PC business. Regardless of how much hype is drummed up around Cell, the processor is not immune to the same laws of other contenders in the x86 market - a compatible ISA is a must. And as Intel’s Justin Rattner put it, “if there are good ideas in that architecture, PC architecture is very valuable and it will move to incorporate those ideas.” Once again, what’s most intriguing is the similarity, at a high level, of Intel’s far future multi-core designs to Cell today. The main difference is that while Intel’s Cell-like designs will be built on 32nm or smaller processes, Cell is being introduced at 90nm - meaning that Intel is envisioning many more complex cores on a single die than Cell. Intel can make that kind of migration to a Cell-like design because their microprocessors already have a very large user base. IBM, Sony and Toshiba can’t however - Cell must achieve a very large user base initially in order to be competitive down the road. Unfortunately, seeing a future for Cell far outside of Playstation 3 and Sony/Toshiba CE devices is difficult at best. The first thing you have to keep in mind is that Cell’s architecture is nothing revolutionary, it’s been done before. TI’s MVP 320C8X is a multi-processor DSP that sounds a lot like Cell: http://focus.ti.com/docs/military/c...ta/cm/milgeneral/data/dsp_320c80&familyId=44. So, while Cell is the best mass-market attempt at a design approach that has been tried before, it doesn’t have history on its side for success beyond a limited number of applications. Regardless of what gaming platform you’re talking about, Cell’s ability to offer an array of cores to handle sophisticated physics and AI processing is the future. AGEIA’s announcement of the PhysX PPU (and the fact that it’s been given the “thumbs up” by Ubisoft and Epic Games) lends further credibility to Cell’s feasibility as a high performance gaming CPU. The need for more realistic physics environments and AI in games is no illusion; the question is will Intel’s forthcoming dual and multi-core CPUs (with further optimized SIMD units) offer enough parallelism and performance for game developers, or will the PPU bring Cell-like architecture to the desktop PC well ahead of schedule? The answer to that question could very well shape the future of desktop PCs even more so than the advent of the GPU.
1. next-gen halo 2. next-gen halo 3. next-gen halo i'd put sports games too but they're pretty much all the same for every system and i'll assume continue to be amongst the newer systems.
My order goes Games: not necessarily exclusives, just the sheer amount of good games in the library. I can be very picky, so variety is a good thing. Price: This isn't really too much of an issue anymore due to greatest hits, player's choice, etc. There aren't too many games that I can't just wait out for the prices to drop. But I don't really feel like spending 50 bucks a pop anymore. Power: I do want to be wowed. But I don't really see a big difference between the big 3 consoles of this generation. I saw a big diff from PS to DC, which made me buy one. Saw a big diff from DC to PS2. Still waiting for that next big jump that wows me, and it'll probly be sometime after the next gen comes out.
