If you haven't already seen it, here's my coverage of Sony's Playstation 3 announcement today. I wrote the story while sitting in Sony's press conference, so it was a bit rushed but I wanted to post some of my additional thoughts that didn't make it into the first article.
Let me start first with the design; to me, the Xbox 360 is very Apple-like while the PS3 is very clearly a Sony product. Personally I prefer the looks of the Xbox 360, but the PS3 doesn't look bad at all in real life.
Although I've yet to use it, the PS3's controller scares me. I'm going to try my hands at it this week, but I really have no idea where that design came from.
The demos on the PS3 were absolutely *amazing*. I wouldn't call them "movie-quality" yet, but the things I saw came very close. Words really can't describe, the demos just looked amazing.
Virtually all of the games/demos on the PS3 had some degree of aliasing, some were unacceptably bad for a console with this sort of power. Don't get me wrong, about 95% of the games looked great, but those that had aliasing looked great...with jaggies. I'm not talking PS2 level of aliasing, but far too much aliasing for this level of hardware.
Without a doubt, ATI and NVIDIA are on very diverging paths with these two consoles. ATI went with a strictly unified memory architecture while NVIDIA used a combination of local graphics memory and GPU addressable system memory. ATI is backing their unified shader architecture, while NVIDIA doesn't appear to have embraced that on the hardware side. I will know more about ATI's GPU later this week, so stay tuned.
The dual HD output feature of the PS3 is very interesting; I'm not sure how many folks will take advantage of the 32:9 aspect ratio mode. I'm wondering whether this feature was put in to support sending different content to separate TVs (e.g. stream video to one display while gaming in another). Then again, I'm not sure how many people have that many HDTVs within close proximity of each other.
Sony clearly wants the PS3 to be much more of a media center style device. The demos weren't only about games, they were about decoding HD streams, navigating through video and picture content, they were about the entire picture. With built in blu-ray, I think the PS3 will have a huge advantage over the Xbox 360 as it should be able to act as a HD-DVD video player as well as a game console.
The 1080p output of the PS3 isn't that big of a deal for me. Given that basically the entire installed base of HDTVs right now only support 1080i, I seriously doubt we'll see a push to 1080p only all that quickly. That being said, I don't doubt that there will be an obvious difference between 1080p and 720p games. Given that it is essentially a resolution change, I see no reason for all developers to offer both 1080p and 720p options in PS3 games unless there are frame rate limitations. I did notice that some demos played much smoother than others, but I think it is far too early to make any calls on performance a full year before the console's release.
I'd say that Sony has the more powerful CPU on paper, but I'm curious to see how much of that gets taken advantage of in the real world. Difficulty of programming aside, the fact of the matter is that console development houses are very much of the write once, compile many mindset. Given the similarity of the Xbox 360's cores to the PS3's PPE, I'm afraid that the array of SPEs may go relatively untapped on the PS3.
From the very start I felt that Sony couldn't possibly bring the Cell to market in the PS3 as a 90nm chip. Disabling one SPE is a particularly interesting move, but one that makes a lot of sense. And the loss of a single SPE isn't a huge deal as I don't foresee the PS3 really being bound by the number of threads its SPE array can execute.
Overall, the PS3 looks to me to be the more complete package. The hardware is a bit more complete than Xbox 360, but at the same time given that it won't launch for another 6+ months after the 360 launches I'm not too surprised. Sony didn't really play up a competitor to Xbox Live, although it is very clear that the PS3 will be a net-enabled box. I have a feeling that Microsoft may bring to the table a much more complete on-line play package, while Sony brings a more powerful, more complete console.
Sony's strength with the PS2 has always been its game library, which I think will continue to be a strength with the PS3 (especially with full backwards compatibility all the way back to PS1). It's just that this time around, Microsoft appears to have a much stronger game library than with the original Xbox - and it's that key difference that will make the 360 and the PS3 worthy competitors.
I will be reporting from the show all week, but for now it's time to enjoy 24 a full 3 hours later than I normally would - how do you west coast folks do it? :)
Take care.
Let me start first with the design; to me, the Xbox 360 is very Apple-like while the PS3 is very clearly a Sony product. Personally I prefer the looks of the Xbox 360, but the PS3 doesn't look bad at all in real life.
Although I've yet to use it, the PS3's controller scares me. I'm going to try my hands at it this week, but I really have no idea where that design came from.
The demos on the PS3 were absolutely *amazing*. I wouldn't call them "movie-quality" yet, but the things I saw came very close. Words really can't describe, the demos just looked amazing.
Virtually all of the games/demos on the PS3 had some degree of aliasing, some were unacceptably bad for a console with this sort of power. Don't get me wrong, about 95% of the games looked great, but those that had aliasing looked great...with jaggies. I'm not talking PS2 level of aliasing, but far too much aliasing for this level of hardware.
Without a doubt, ATI and NVIDIA are on very diverging paths with these two consoles. ATI went with a strictly unified memory architecture while NVIDIA used a combination of local graphics memory and GPU addressable system memory. ATI is backing their unified shader architecture, while NVIDIA doesn't appear to have embraced that on the hardware side. I will know more about ATI's GPU later this week, so stay tuned.
The dual HD output feature of the PS3 is very interesting; I'm not sure how many folks will take advantage of the 32:9 aspect ratio mode. I'm wondering whether this feature was put in to support sending different content to separate TVs (e.g. stream video to one display while gaming in another). Then again, I'm not sure how many people have that many HDTVs within close proximity of each other.
Sony clearly wants the PS3 to be much more of a media center style device. The demos weren't only about games, they were about decoding HD streams, navigating through video and picture content, they were about the entire picture. With built in blu-ray, I think the PS3 will have a huge advantage over the Xbox 360 as it should be able to act as a HD-DVD video player as well as a game console.
The 1080p output of the PS3 isn't that big of a deal for me. Given that basically the entire installed base of HDTVs right now only support 1080i, I seriously doubt we'll see a push to 1080p only all that quickly. That being said, I don't doubt that there will be an obvious difference between 1080p and 720p games. Given that it is essentially a resolution change, I see no reason for all developers to offer both 1080p and 720p options in PS3 games unless there are frame rate limitations. I did notice that some demos played much smoother than others, but I think it is far too early to make any calls on performance a full year before the console's release.
I'd say that Sony has the more powerful CPU on paper, but I'm curious to see how much of that gets taken advantage of in the real world. Difficulty of programming aside, the fact of the matter is that console development houses are very much of the write once, compile many mindset. Given the similarity of the Xbox 360's cores to the PS3's PPE, I'm afraid that the array of SPEs may go relatively untapped on the PS3.
From the very start I felt that Sony couldn't possibly bring the Cell to market in the PS3 as a 90nm chip. Disabling one SPE is a particularly interesting move, but one that makes a lot of sense. And the loss of a single SPE isn't a huge deal as I don't foresee the PS3 really being bound by the number of threads its SPE array can execute.
Overall, the PS3 looks to me to be the more complete package. The hardware is a bit more complete than Xbox 360, but at the same time given that it won't launch for another 6+ months after the 360 launches I'm not too surprised. Sony didn't really play up a competitor to Xbox Live, although it is very clear that the PS3 will be a net-enabled box. I have a feeling that Microsoft may bring to the table a much more complete on-line play package, while Sony brings a more powerful, more complete console.
Sony's strength with the PS2 has always been its game library, which I think will continue to be a strength with the PS3 (especially with full backwards compatibility all the way back to PS1). It's just that this time around, Microsoft appears to have a much stronger game library than with the original Xbox - and it's that key difference that will make the 360 and the PS3 worthy competitors.
I will be reporting from the show all week, but for now it's time to enjoy 24 a full 3 hours later than I normally would - how do you west coast folks do it? :)
Take care.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
125 Comments
View All Comments
Alv - Friday, July 15, 2005 - link
I need to point out most of the demos Sony gave out were CG's (Pre-rendered, you arent getting that in the real game) while most of the xbox ones were actully what the gameplay would be like in the game (ex, gears of war, godlike)Some of the xbox games shown were unimpressive, imo. Its still early in development, and the same can be said for ps3's games. However, ps3 is not yet capable of the killzone graphics: it has been confirmed to be only a "what we hope to be able to achieve" from the company that made the game.
This next comment may make me sound like a xbox fanboy, but I was actully saying to myself "im getting a freaken PS next time", when sega killed my dreamcast.
Sony has a record of promising great magical things, and giving you less (still good, just.. not the godly magical unicorn of doom it puts itself out to be)
[from http://forums.g4tv.com/messageview.cfm?catid=8&...]
"Their original competitor, Sega, withered in the face of a blitz of fancy imagery and “more power” claims laid out on impressive-looking spec sheets. The truth was that Sony launch titles looked barely better - or in some cases worse - than Dreamcast titles, in spite of what was supposed to be a significant power edge, but Sony had successfully sold “more power”, and gamers bought into it. Sega, practically broke and with no third-party support, couldn’t afford any significant advertising to counter the Sony hype machine. Much later, it was found that the 75 million polygons per second that Sony had claimed for the PS2 on their original spec sheet was actually closer to 7 million in actual applications, but by then, everyone already had a PS2 and no one cared they had stretched the truth."
If you want to read more about that, to either rip it apart, or know more about it, the link was provided for you. I have to say: with the hard drive not standard, and the once-promised router ability gone... I can really see more going as time passes by.
Although I was orginally going to get PS... hell, I waited from sega's bankruptcy notice to egm's xbox360 edition for it... xbox seems more appealing to me this time around. Before anyone starts attacking me on this, let me explain:
1) The games - Yes, I admit, playstation has a track record of games. Not JUST games, quality games. These are often produced by 3rd parties, they actully move around from console time to time (these include franchaises like GTA, Final Fantasy (already developing for xbox360), and hell, not that they are moving, but even the developers of killzone COULD move, if microsoft were to offer them a huge wad of cash.
So Ive just said "woohoo, ps has more games!" that being said, this time around, xbox has grasped a large developer base, and will be comparable to the ps3. Backwards compatability isnt a concern to me, it may be for some people, but personally, I wouldnt buy a new system to play old games. Novelty, at best, imo. For example, my cousin, a big sony fanboy, has not touched a single ps1 disc since getting ps2.
ONLINE PLAY. Thats the real selling point to me in terms of games. I understand that playstation will be able to have online games as well, but it will not be implemented as well. Im sorry I dont have the exact interview on hand, but sony said online play wasnt a big factor in this generation for them basically. Xbox live isnt really a big investment: prehaps to people who play pirated games, 50 dollars a year is a bit hard to swallow: HOWEVER, most real online games come with a 1 or 2 month suscription to xbox live... you shouldnt really be paying alot :) [that was based on my own experiance with stickers on bestbuy stuff]
Xbox live will let you play with the type of people you want. For example, Im a more "play for fun and to unwind" kinda guy, so I wont get paired up with your typical "lolololol I was with your mom" people, and I wont be paried with the people with godlike skill... unless of course, I set that I want to. Stuff like that is important to me - if its important to you too, you may want to consider looking at the xbox a little bit. You'll be trading off a bit of games, but youll have online play for most games, as well as a centralized place to have a community: kinda like if Steam worked with every single game, had video confrencing, phone calls, HDtv, and stat monitering. Gamewise, itll lack the huge japanese support, but take a look guys: it wont hurt you to be more informed, whether it means you may convert over to xbox, or you have new things to talk bad about the system with.
2)Price - Xbox is predicted to be 300 at launch: half a year later, you can expect 30-50$ price drops. Reasonable, history has shown that. PS3 on the other hand, will be much more expensive: in responce to predictions of 499, sony said they wanted people to say "ill work harder, ill put in more hours for it" Which is a strong indication it may be true... or even more.
When it comes down to it, you can argue the price is becasue the ps3 is a stronger system. You need to think about the facts right now. For this, I urge everyone to ignore all demos they saw, both xbox and ps3. The xbox ones are pre-release, its not fair that they are compared to "what the developers of the game HOPE to do"
3) Controllers - Im not here to ramble about the ps3 controller. There are enough people who throw that argument. Im just here to talk about how some people precieve bluetooth controllers to be better than microsoft's own technology. Honestly, the two are pretty much the same: bluetooth is just a name when it comes down to it. Microsoft's technology may even be more impressive, considering the frequency jumping they can do to keep a signal in case of problems or something. Battery life was reported to be bad for the bluetooth controllers, but I sure as hell am not going to be basing a decision on something like that: let alone the fact microsoft's could be just as bad. Guys, no real advantage here, seriously.
Ps3 can handle 7 controllers. May be good for some party games, but I havent seen a cool party game for ps as of yet. Nintendo seems to be the kickass party game maker. In any case, its an advantage over xbox. How often will you REALLY need 7 controllers is beyond me... but if you frequently do... and in those situations, no one can bring another PS in as well =/ Seems unlikley to me, but hey, its your life, not mine. Do what suits your life the most. I just have no use for it, doesnt mean its not handy
4) Fresh (promising) titles - Xbox is coming up with a whole list of new games (not *gamename* *version 2/3/4/5*) and many of them look promising. I sure will appreciate this: the same old brands are getting old... and I only have a dreamcast as my current gen console... even the amount of those games at friend's houses make them old. Of course, sequels are cool too. Ps will have its killzone and gundam battle assult that lure me... but i really am not swayed by this enough. Mircrosoft is putting out lots of good games, has a great rpg lineup (hehe, gotta dig deep to find em though) and their traditional strong points.
4) "But mircrosoft is an evil corporate giant!"
The xbox is developed in some out of nowhere suburbs in a crappy location. They are not like the traditional microsoft offices. the xbox is hardly the evil giant that bullies others: read developer comments, they have nothing but praise for the amount of support microsoft is giving them. The xbox is supporting 3rd party devices into the design: even the ipod (if you work in microsoft WMP sectors and are seen at work with an ipod, you are fired, apperently.) Thats some real commitment to work nicely with everyone, and not just microsoft friendly things, isnt it? :)
Snoogit(.com) - Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - link
Just looking at it from a purely marketing and hostorical standpoint (summary is at the bottom for those unwilling to real all I have to say):One thing to note; rarely have console makers lasted 3 console generations.
Sega had the Genesis, the Saturn (which hardly sold), and Dreamcast was a joke for sales.
Nintendo for all intents and purposes is the only console creator that has lasted longer then any other console producer, although their ability to stay in the set-top box console market is suspect. I would expect that Nintendo will move exclusively to the DS, which means all your mario and zelda games wont be set-top box console releases anymore.
In the case of Sega, they promised the moon, and delayed the DC for almost a year, and that killed the Dreamcast. Sony is promising the moon (much more exotic technology), and could possibly delay the release of the PS3, or strip it down for a US release, like it did with the PS2. (since there is only a vague date for its release, its more likely then Microsoft delaying the 360, since its tech is pretty much finished)
Microsoft on the other hand has had a brilliant, although bizaarre marketing strategy, and they should last one maybe two console generations.
I'm going ot make a bold statement, just looking at history, the PS3 will be the last major console put out by Sony and if history is right, the PS4 will be a huge disaster.
Now before you call me a MS fan, Microsoft wont be in the game much longer either. I can see them exiting the console market soon after sony. What will follow will be fully integrated systems, where there wont be just one or two manufacturers of consoles, but hundreds; all built on one standard.
In the end, consoles will be more like HTPCs, and less like consoles. What we are seeing is the convergence of the two mediums. Overall when Microsoft decided to enter the console market, it wasnt entering to make money off of video games, theres not enough profit. What its doing is growing its market base for Windows. I think with the Ps3 your seeing that microsoft for whats its worth, has dragged Sony right where they want them, onto Microsoft's own turf. Its really uite interesting to take a look and see how its all shaping out. If consoles become more like HTPCs, microsoft can get increasingly more profit from selling its OS to people like sony, and other PC makers and could abandon the console market entirely, which it wont until Xbox 4 anyway.
The PC will pull out the unlikely win for entertainment dollars, not by technology, but by being so similar to consoles that the idea of a seperate gaming machine is obsolete, the only problem is that PCs will have a unified structure with little to no deviation. So you wont be upgrading parts of your PC nearly as much, and all hardware will be stagnant for years at a time with no real innovation or change. This will result in games that will be more polished, and be made more efficient.
To summarize:
Sony has one more console after PS3
Microsoft has two after 360
Nintendo is likely done after the Revolution
Sega lived for 3 console generations (semi-4, if you include the lackluster master system)
Microsoft is putting Sony right where they want them, not to kill the PS3, but to elevate the HTPC as a unified center of entertainment and productivity for the home, which is one of the PS3's main goals.
Im not a big fan of any console, I just am looking at history here, and some interesting marketing strategies.
Anonymous - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
ps3 gfx already look movie quality...visually,imoAnonymous - Thursday, June 2, 2005 - link
I'm pnearly positive that the Cell processor has 7 SPE's with the 8th not "disabled" but used strictly for "redundancy".Anonymous - Thursday, June 2, 2005 - link
"Instead of having a bunch of homogeneous processors (like the Xbox360)"Don't be a homo! Get a PS3!!!
*If you don't realize I'm joking, you need help.
addit - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link
First off I must admit I'm an xbox360 supporter, mainly because I've had countless bad experiences with sonys support. Like others, I too hate sonys proprietory stuff and have a general dislike to their shobby business practice.Now onto #108, You can't just go around saying that "WITHOUT DOUBT the PS3 has the bigger/faster engine overall. FACT!".
FACT! It's impossible to physically compare both systems at this stage so therefore it's no fact, it's you're opinion now isn't it? Also since you brought up the whole the ps3 has 2 teraflops and the xbox only has 1 myth...
Nvidia uses separate Vertex and Pixel Shaders, ATI uses a Unified Shader which does both Vertex and Pixel Shading using the same Shader. When Nvidia calculates performance, it totals both Vertex and Pixel Shaders running at peak efficiency. When ATI calculates performance, it totals the performance of the single unified shader (composed of both Pixel and Vertex shaders) at peak efficiency. So this means that in order to compare ATI's performance to Nvidia's, you would double the rated performance.
PS3:
CPU=0.25 TFlops
GPU=1.80 TFlops for both Pixel and Vertex Shaders
XBOX360:
CPU=0.18 TFlops
GPU=0.88 TFlops for Unified Shaders=1.75 TFlops for combined Pixel and Vertex Shaders
So the PS3 has a total theoretical of about 2 TFlops and XBox 360 has about 1.9 TFlops (counting Pixel and Vertex shaders separately, as the PS3 does).
I hope this clears things up a bit, the PS3 really isn't all that and xbox360 is basically neck and neck. To be honest in some ways the xbox360 has the potential to be more powerful than the PS3 in terms of gaming experience, but lets not get onto that shall we!
Adam
Gemini - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
Glad some people are just stating the obvious reason why they support which console. Even though only the MS ones have spoken up, it's still refreshing to see that the techno babble has wound down now....Anonymous - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
#117That is correct, and both Sony and MS are doing that. Why do you think there is no child labor laws in China, and the South East Asian Countries??.....Good ole Cheap Child Labor.....
Children and their families benefit by getting food on their tables with their meager salary of $1.00 an hour while we enjoy the products of their relentless labor. What a WORLD we live in!!!
Clauzii - Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - link
#115: Outsourcing and superceeding is two different things.Outsourcing is about "invent home - produce in cheap country - earn more - supercede the others"
royskie - Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - link
i think that sony will still beat microsoft in this next gen console wars.