PDA

View Full Version : Why the PS3 will not be worth getting....



XgustaX
08-31-2004, 02:48 PM
As many of you proablly have seen the trailer or screenshots of "Dark Sector". A lot of us were not happy with its "next gen graphics" and its clear that making the jump to 128 to 256 will not change much of the graphics. I am personally a Sony fan but after reasearching in all the buisness of next gen consoles they really will not be that different or worth getting than lets say PS2. Now i dont mean for people to flame me or Nintendo so please dont but i watched there E3 confrence and was surpised to hear the same thing they said something like ..."todays consoles already offer a fairly realistic expression and simply beefing up graphics and sound will not make most people see a difference...we intend to change the way you play home console games" or something like that no what he said really but u get an idea. Anyways i was also finding out that next gen games will cost a lot more to make and more time to make just because of complicated this and that or w/e. Sony and Microsoft seem to take there new console with just beefing up graphics i dont think this will help very much but since ive what Nintendo speaks of is the truth I have my eye out on there new console more than on the PS3 at the moment. I dont mean for you guys to flame me because I know this is Playstation site but a lot of people seem to expect a bit to much. Basiclly i just wanted to inform u guys in what i found now be nice remember. :D

Illmatic
08-31-2004, 03:40 PM
Dark Sector is not what PS3 graphics will look like, they will be better.

And the graphics will be very noticable, compared to this gen consoles.

The next gen console makers are not just beefing up the graphics, they're beefing up the whole system.

Who knows what Nintendo has up thier sleeves, but they are known for innovation, so it should be interesting.

Great things take time, i'd expect next gen games to take between 2 - 4 years to make (excluding sports games), Sony should provide developers with tools to make great games in a good time frame, it shouldn't really be a problem.They may take a while to make in the early life of PS3, simply because it's new technology, games will look ALOT better and alot bigger, it's up to devlopers to create original games, most games will be multi platform, but Sony has alot of exclusives that should carry onto the PS3, and some good first and second party developers, so there really is no reason for you not to get a PS3.

Ferrismc
08-31-2004, 03:55 PM
At poster. Yes i agree with you. That's why i am going to buy the most powerful console no matter Nintendo , Xbox, Sony.

Illmatic
08-31-2004, 04:07 PM
Then you will be getting a PS3 :wink:

Domination
08-31-2004, 04:39 PM
As many of you proablly have seen the trailer or screenshots of "Dark Sector". A lot of us were not happy with its "next gen graphics" and its clear that making the jump to 128 to 256 will not change much of the graphics. I am personally a Sony fan but after reasearching in all the buisness of next gen consoles they really will not be that different or worth getting than lets say PS2. Now i dont mean for people to flame me or Nintendo so please dont but i watched there E3 confrence and was surpised to hear the same thing they said something like ..."todays consoles already offer a fairly realistic expression and simply beefing up graphics and sound will not make most people see a difference...we intend to change the way you play home console games" or something like that no what he said really but u get an idea. Anyways i was also finding out that next gen games will cost a lot more to make and more time to make just because of complicated this and that or w/e. Sony and Microsoft seem to take there new console with just beefing up graphics i dont think this will help very much but since ive what Nintendo speaks of is the truth I have my eye out on there new console more than on the PS3 at the moment. I dont mean for you guys to flame me because I know this is Playstation site but a lot of people seem to expect a bit to much. Basiclly i just wanted to inform u guys in what i found now be nice remember. :D

This topic has already been posted.Sony is also beefing up more than just the power of the console,but it looks to be the software tools as well.Meaning that games could be developed in two years or less.

Dark Sector was done on this generations hardware,not next-gen and especially the PS3.I'm not sure where you hear that from. :?

cpiasminc
08-31-2004, 04:45 PM
Dark Sector is targeting the same minimum graphics power as UE3... which is actually less than the power you'd have even in Xbox2 (it's somewhere between GeForce 6xxx series and the R500-based chip that MS plans for XBox2). Since they don't have next-gen hardware, the best they can do is guess based on how powerful current hardware is. For that matter, DE didn't reveal whether it would be on PS3, XboxNext, Revolution, or any combination of more than one.

Besides which, all those tools that both MS and Sony promised don't yet exist. So they can only write based on best estimates, which have to be undestimated -- if they'd overestimated, what would happen? They'd end up realizing after having developed this far : "Oops! We overdid it, and now we'll have to spend all this time cutting back." It'll be delayed and disappointing in the end. The actual theoretical power of next-gen consoles will be light years beyond what you'll get in the very first game. Do you honestly expect what is said to be the first of next-gen console games to be a defining measuring stick for all next-gen games?


and its clear that making the jump to 128 to 256 will not change much of the graphics.
Ummm... what evidence was there that any of the next-gen consoles would be 256-bit? And even otherwise, why would anyone expect the "bitness" to affect graphics quality? First of all, there's no reason in the world why a game engine would ever use 128 or 256-bit numbers, so the registers are that big because they're SIMD registers. And the biggest thing you gain out of having wider SIMD registers is having more number fields -- which in turn means higher performance. A higher-performing CPU is not going to make graphics any higher quality. You'll just get better framerates. It takes more algorithmic improvements to get better graphics, and that's not a safe bet when you don't have a physical unit to gauge the actual power that the machine will have.

THE PS2 INFORMANT
08-31-2004, 05:06 PM
It is awful early to say something so definitive as "The PS3 will not be worth getting" when all you have to go on are screenshots from a concept game running on powerful hardware from "today's" rather then tomorrow's technology.

On the other hand no one really knows for sure what things will ultimatly look like, I wouldn't be surprised if Dark Sector's graphics were fairly close, but even so when did graphics make or break a system?

Dosn't games and the quality, diversity, and quantity of them also influence a purchase?

threepac3
08-31-2004, 05:17 PM
and its clear that making the jump to 128 to 256 will not change much of the graphics.


Ummm... what evidence was there that any of the next-gen consoles would be 256-bit? And even otherwise, why would anyone expect the "bitness" to affect graphics quality? First of all, there's no reason in the world why a game engine would ever use 128 or 256-bit numbers, so the registers are that big because they're SIMD registers. And the biggest thing you gain out of having wider SIMD registers is having more number fields -- which in turn means higher performance. A higher-performing CPU is not going to make graphics any higher quality. You'll just get better framerates. It takes more algorithmic improvements to get better graphics, and that's not a safe bet when you don't have a physical unit to gauge the actual power that the machine will have.

The only problem with ur statment cpiasminc is that the general public does not understand that register size is not the biggist facter in deturmining what graphics will look like. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo will more then likely give us a bit size anyways just to get ppl to upgrade to there new products.

XgustaX do u really think that these companys would commit curmercial suicide by saying there consoles are 256-bit when computers have had 256-bit GPU's 3~4 years prior to there consoles launch. When these next gen. consoles launch computer GPU's will probably be advertized as 512-bits by this time. Console companies have been known to jump 1~ 2 years ahead of computer GPUs in perfomance, so guess what u can expect from this round of consoles.

BTW SOny has stated that they would like there next console to last for 10 yesars, so thats even more of an indication of how far this round of console will jump beyond todays technologies.

Domination
08-31-2004, 07:39 PM
It is awful early to say something so definitive as "The PS3 will not be worth getting" when all you have to go on are screenshots from a concept game running on powerful hardware from "today's" rather then tomorrow's technology.

On the other hand no one really knows for sure what things will ultimatly look like, I wouldn't be surprised if Dark Sector's graphics were fairly close, but even so when did graphics make or break a system?

Dosn't games and the quality, diversity, and quantity of them also influence a purchase?

I so agree with you on this.

Domination
08-31-2004, 07:47 PM
BTW SOny has stated that they would like there next console to last for 10 yesars, so thats even more of an indication of how far this round of console will jump beyond todays technologies.

Or maybe they could have just meant that they would support it like they did with the PS1,but who knows right? :D Anyhow,Sony IS known for its competition in the hardware division.So I won't pass them off just yet.

Pumster
08-31-2004, 08:15 PM
It is awful early to say something so definitive as "The PS3 will not be worth getting" when all you have to go on are screenshots from a concept game running on powerful hardware from "today's" rather then tomorrow's technology.

On the other hand no one really knows for sure what things will ultimatly look like, I wouldn't be surprised if Dark Sector's graphics were fairly close, but even so when did graphics make or break a system?

Dosn't games and the quality, diversity, and quantity of them also influence a purchase?
PS2i knows. Personally, I think this topic is more for shock value - I could easily go to an X-Box board and type in "Why the X-Box Next will not be worth the money." At this point, we haven't gotten any solid information concerning the PS3; Since the console's due out in 2006, anything is subject to change. It's just too early to make reasonable assumptions. As for Dark Sector, it was an impressive video, but it was not made for a specific 'next-gen' console. In their statement, the developers commented that they calculated the specs manually. Therefore, Dark Sector was not based on any upcoming console, and, therefore, does not represent anything other then what may be capable within the next two years. Obviously, if someone thinks that Dark Sector represents the full power of the PS3, X-Box Next, or "Revolution," then he or she is just jumping to conclusions.

XgustaX
08-31-2004, 10:03 PM
PS3 wont be the most powerful system no one knows so how will you know. I am also look towards the nintendo Revoultion because of change in console platform Nintendo are the companies that invented the analog stick,directional pad,rumble pack, 2 player gaming,4 player gaming which I might add are all standards used on the market today... All i say is dark sector is using the tools PS3 and all next gen console will be using expect XNA of course... lol

RC Cola
08-31-2004, 10:29 PM
Most people, including me, assume that it will be the most powerful, and even without knowing the specs for the next gen consoles, it seems it could be somewhat logical to think that. I mean, the PS2 came out a lot sooner than the GC and Xbox, yet it still putting up similiar graphics, and occasionally putting up things that even the other consoles can't quite do. So, seeing as how it seems as though all 3 consoles will be released in the same year or around then, and the PS3 could even be the last to be released, it is likely that it could be the most powerful. Of course, this may not necessarily be true, but if the Revolution is more concerned about something innovative, and if Microsoft wants to release their console ASAP and possibly without some features that even the Xbox has, then Sony has a good shot at producing the most powerful console.

Of course, I'm not even mentioning Cell, Blu-ray, XDR ram, etc.

I don't really understand what you meant when you said Dark Sector is running on tools for next-gen. I don't know if you meant hardware, which is definitly not true as already mentioned, or software wise, which I also think is not true. I would think that the dev kits are still a ways away, not to mention whatever Sony plans with OpenGL and COLLADA. I doubt they would be using the same tools that developers will be using a little over a year or so from now.

XgustaX
08-31-2004, 10:34 PM
Ya but the PS compared to N64 which had superior graphics?naw its because they are all 128 bit systems PS2 just loads slower and a bit worse but they all look the same becuase they are all 128 system not becuase one came out one before the otherthats why PS2 loads slower. and even PS2 gamers (like my self) no the PS2 aint well know for having the crispiest character models and such even i have to admit so i think that statement is not ver correct to say at all... its just the hardware like i said becfore :D

As for Nintendo Innvation is good for gamers and that will win most people over like it did in previous gens but just because Nintendo is not trying to dilver innvation i have found just as easly they are trying to out proform sony and microsoft. So only time will tell but Sony and Nintendo seem to have the upper hand so far and either so the like i said before and many devolpers say before the next gen consoles will not be much different than the pervious which will convice most PS2ers like me to not buy it Innvation is the next gen console winning factor that will determine who will win not how powerful a console will be because they will all be all the around the same as u said with comparing PS2 Xbox and GC so saying that PS3 will be the most powerful it wont be much different or see a difference for that matter in graphics and etc. like in todays Gen as you said...

kevindenoyette
08-31-2004, 10:44 PM
Ya but the PS compared to N64 which had superior graphics?naw its because they are all 128 bit systems PS2 just loads slower and a bit worse but they all look the same becuase they are all 128 system not becuase one came out one before the otherthats why PS2 loads slower. and even PS2 gamers (like my self) no the PS2 aint well know for having the crispiest character models and such even i have to admit so i think that statement is not ver correct to say at all... its just the hardware like i said becfore :D


I don't know you, but it seems like you don't know anything about consoles.

I'll correct your previous post first:

1. dark sector wasn't made with the developtment tools for ps3, or any of the next generation consoles, it was emulated on a pc with estimated minimal specifications in mind. The technology for ps3 doesn't exist yet. Neither does it for xenon, or revolution.

XNA isn't really a significant 'tool' for graphical performance, it's just basic tools for conversion between formats, pc to xenon compatibility and such. It's 100% software, so don't think it's gonna make teh grapphixx prety!1


alright, current post:

1. what are you on about? not all current gen systems are 128 bit.

The playstation 2 is 128-bit i think, gamecube 64, and x box is 32 bits.
Bit registers doesn't have anything to do with loading times, those are only defined by a number of different parametres, processor speed, memory transfer speed, dvd read speed and such.

The only statement that is wrong here, is yours.
How can you already begin to judge the ps3, when hardly anyone knows anything about its new hardware. Cell, XDR ram, everything is unproven gear, yet to be seen. what gives?

XgustaX
08-31-2004, 10:47 PM
LMAO u are mistake as u say i think 64 bit is N64 graphics and 32 bit is Playstation graphics. how can X box be 32 bit system if its the most powerful system out on the market? I dont think u no very much what u are talking about since on all the boxes on the back of the consoles they say 128 bit dude i bet others know right guys LOL? At least thats what they all say on it my pre owned boxes "128 bit system" when i bought X box PS2 and GC

kevindenoyette
08-31-2004, 10:52 PM
Maybe you're thinking of the GPU bits in the x box, which is 256.

number of bits has nothing to do with console processing power.

X-box next will be powered by three 64 bits processors at most, so how about that then?


Oh, the x box does have 32 bit register. gamecube has 32 bit register and 64 bit floating point.

RC Cola
08-31-2004, 10:57 PM
o the like i said before and many devolpers say before the next gen consoles will not be much different than the pervious which will convice most PS2ers like me to not buy it Innvation is the next gen console winning factor that will determine who will win not how powerful a console will be because they will all be all the around the same as u said with comparing PS2 Xbox and GC
Well, actually when I was comparing the PS2, GC, and Xbox, I was mostly knocking Microsoft and Nintendo since their consoles aren't that much more powerful, if at all in some aspects, than the PS2, which was released so much sooner. I didn't mean that they couldn't do anything to make games better; I was just saying that Nintendo and Microsoft had a long time to come up with console that could have buried the PS2 in sheer power, yet they seem similiar in graphics today. Basically, I'm saying Sony does a good job of bringing state-of-the-art tech in their consoles, allowing them to last longer and still keep up with the "best" in the market. IIRC, doesn't the PS2's CPU produce more FLOPS than the Xbox and GC

Now, I don't really understand why you think games won't be much better. How can their be a small difference between a game on a 4.7 GB disk and a 25GB disc? Again, I won't mention that the Cell could bring 1 teraflop, or that the XDR ram in the PS3 will be one of the fastest rams available. I just want to know how a 25GB game will be only be slightly better than a game on a 4.7 GB game.

I'll admit I don't know much about bits, but it seems they don't matter too much according to comments here. Just for frames and stuff it looks like. I know I'd rather get the lastest ATI card than a 64-bit processor though.

XgustaX
08-31-2004, 11:03 PM
The fact that PS2 was released one year ealier and GC and X box are a bit better graphically and loading times wise than PS2 its all because PS2 had the best of the time and X box if they signed on with ATI would have been much more powerful than todays X box but since they were new the console buiessness they chose nvidia to sign on too this will not be the case with X box 2 as they have announced they have sign with ATI and IMB. so it really all depends on what company they picked for graphics. Sony had a a disadanage because they could have signed on with the leader in graphics today ATI. And u cant say they arent because u dont see sony cards on the market lol...

kevindenoyette
08-31-2004, 11:07 PM
The fact that PS2 was released one year ealier and GC and X box are a bit better graphically and loading times wise than PS2 its all because PS2 had the best of the time and X box if they signed on with ATI would have been much more powerful than todays X box but since they were new the console buiessness they chose nvidia to sign on too this will not be the case with X box 2 as they have announced they have sign with ATI and IMB. so it really all depends on what company they picked for graphics. Sony had a a disadanage because they could have signed on with the leader in graphics today ATI. And u cant say they arent because u dont see sony cards on the market lol...


Yeah, you must be right. It's always better to pay other firms for their products instead of using an in-house solution [/sarcasm]

The difference between geforce and ati graphics cards is marginally small, what are you talking about? Maybe I need to speak in your language: the benchmarks for doom are the best on the geforce card, not ATI.

Fact of the matter is, ps2 was released a year earlier and still held its own against x box and gamecube, and crushed them sales-wise. Now the tables are turned and ps3 will probably be released the latest, with exciting new in-house hardware and better developer support. Which console do you think has the upper hand?

brownbeaner2
08-31-2004, 11:13 PM
your just like this one guy who was here a couple months back who everyone is trying to forget, except you dont know the facts. but if your going to downplay Sony about their consoles at least have the knowlege to back it up.
and about your last post:
its not about what they could have done, the fact is that M$ had almost 2 years worth of time to make the X-Box better then the Ps2 and all they gave was a optimized pc with no upgradable feature except for that of having a bigger harddrive. im not saying that the games dont look good because they do except saying that the Ps2 cant keep up is just wouldnt make sense.

XgustaX
08-31-2004, 11:15 PM
thats not part of the eqaution tho u also have to add to the fact that is has more games and different generes people didnt buy it just because it has the most superior system because X box power wise outproform all and thats all the fact they have 8 gig discs lol

kevindenoyette
08-31-2004, 11:19 PM
first off, learn proper english or just shut up. reading your posts is very,very difficult.


X-box has a smaller games library than ps2. So, again, WHAT is your point?

brownbeaner2
08-31-2004, 11:27 PM
well i havent really seen any a good RPG's for XBOX. Shooters is mostly what XBOX has. like i said i have no beef with XBOX its a good console just not good enough seeing that the sales of the ps2 are around about 3/4 more consoles then XBOX has out in the market. about "Dark sector" this is just one way so they can advertise their game saying that there game will be on the Next-Gen.
but just think about this if Sony can get the power of there home console on a handheld well you know that this isnt going to be childsplay sony is looking to shut down M$ as well they say Bill gates is a smart man so im pretty sure that he will realize at one point that he's been loosing money since the release of XBOX.

Domination
08-31-2004, 11:31 PM
I have got to add that this is one of the funniest threads in a long time. :lol: Good stuff,people....very good stuff. :D

brownbeaner2
08-31-2004, 11:33 PM
at least you realize that this thread shoud be locked.

XgustaX
08-31-2004, 11:34 PM
thats why it sold more? lol Sony said at their E3 Confrence they believe their selling point is because more games to appeal to people that is the top reason why PS2 sold so much. And saying X box should have prepared more or something like w/e that is not the point the point. The pont is it still outproforms no matter u like it or not. Maybe not by much but it still does ,but think about this way everyone here seems to agree the PS2 "equal". DO u really think Sony's competetion will allow sony to outproform them humm no? they spend millions and millions devloping for these consoles so they do not want to be the worse this just proves my point even more tho innvation will be the key to winning the "console wars" All the companies say they will and said so when this gen was coming out and what happened they all pretty equal in graphics and so on...

Pistolero
08-31-2004, 11:45 PM
I would advise you to devote some extra efforts as to make your interventions more readable. :wink:

brownbeaner2
08-31-2004, 11:45 PM
and you still havent gave a good enough answer for why the Ps3 will not be worth getting.
about the Innovation well sony has much. Bluray,Cell,broadband engine, and their OpenGL development tools.

5ysT3m cR45h3r
08-31-2004, 11:48 PM
As many of you proablly have seen the trailer or screenshots of "Dark Sector". A lot of us were not happy with its "next gen graphics" and its clear that making the jump to 128 to 256 will not change much of the graphics. I am personally a Sony fan but after reasearching in all the buisness of next gen consoles they really will not be that different or worth getting than lets say PS2. Now i dont mean for people to flame me or Nintendo so please dont but i watched there E3 confrence and was surpised to hear the same thing they said something like ..."todays consoles already offer a fairly realistic expression and simply beefing up graphics and sound will not make most people see a difference...we intend to change the way you play home console games" or something like that no what he said really but u get an idea. Anyways i was also finding out that next gen games will cost a lot more to make and more time to make just because of complicated this and that or w/e. Sony and Microsoft seem to take there new console with just beefing up graphics i dont think this will help very much but since ive what Nintendo speaks of is the truth I have my eye out on there new console more than on the PS3 at the moment. I dont mean for you guys to flame me because I know this is Playstation site but a lot of people seem to expect a bit to much. Basiclly i just wanted to inform u guys in what i found now be nice remember. :D

PS3 will murder those Dark Sector graphics. You need to wake up.

XgustaX
08-31-2004, 11:53 PM
oo ya those innvations are ones everyone knows about and make the games 100 precent better to play i mean think were Sony PS2 would be without a directional pad lol analog stick... those are true better innovations people acutally realize them expect only computer nerds like us lol

The reason i say the PS3 wont be worth getting as much as lets say Revoultion because revoultion is acutally going change more than just graphics.Not only will it have great graphics but more to it as well

OPEN GL has been out for a long time my friend Video cards have had them before PS2 lol...my Old Radeon has Open GL

RC Cola
09-01-2004, 12:19 AM
I really shouldn't post since it looks like this thread is going the wrong direction, but I just feel like I have to.


And saying X box should have prepared more or something like w/e that is not the point the point. The pont is it still outproforms no matter u like it or not.
I already posted that I'm pretty sure that the PS2 CPU can perform more flops than the Xbox, so that right there shows that it doesn't out perform the PS2 in that aspect. The Xbox has a lot of other things that makes it a little better graphically, although the PS2 does occasionally have a game that the Xbox can't quite improve on or can't even run the same way as the PS2 can. I believe MGS 2 and GTA are some games that show this. Basically, the PS2 can do some things much better than the Xbox can. The Xbox generally has better graphics, although, like I said, it is a little too close to the PS2 in graphics, which isn't very good considering the circumstances. However, this is gettting off-topic. I just brought it in to show that Sony's consoles have a good shot at doing better than some ATI card or a Pentium chip or whatever that's just customised for a console.


DO u really think Sony's competetion will allow sony to outproform them humm no? they spend millions and millions devloping for these consoles so they do not want to be the worse this just proves my point even more tho innvation will be the key to winning the "console wars"All the companies say they will and said so when this gen was coming out and what happened they all pretty equal in graphics and so on...

Well, they may be spending millions to catch Sony, but Sony is also spending millions as well trying to stay at top. Considering the huge gap in sales this gen, they also probably have more money to spend. Then add that they specialize in hardware, unlike Nintendo and Microsoft, and then you have a good base for state-of-the-art technology when it comes to the next-gen.

I still don't understand your argument about graphics for next-gen, which should be much better with everything already mentioned. I will say that you should check out the Unreal 3.0 engine. That should be a good idea of what the minimum graphics of next-gen will be like, and they are certainly much better than anything we have now. And of course, their are CGI rendering that are beginning to look indistinguishable from real-life, and with more power, the closer graphics in games will get to that. I also believe that Sony said they were confident in playing some type of CGI scenes today in gameplay scenes for the PS3, or something like that.

However, also don't assume everything else besides graphics will remain the same in the next-gen consoles. AI, audio, and gameplay should all improve vastly with more space on games as well as the processing power that next-gen consoles will provide. Also, innovations don't have to be something hardware based. Things that were impossible to do this gen due to disc space, processing power, or whatever, can now be done with all those improving in the next-gen. For example, I would think you could say GTA is pretty innovative. Imagine what more they could do with more power. Graphics will improve, but that won't be the only thing, especially if Rockstar plans on continuing the success of the GTA series.

I will say that I am very curious about Revolution since they seem to want to do something different as opposed to just sticking more power into it. (of course, you could say that they are doing that since they have no chance of beating Sony when it comes to power...fanboy in my speaking) Whatever they end up with, it could really be something that everyone could want. Of course, it could also be a piece of crap. I will say that I am also worried about Nintendo's stance on online gaming. Last I saw, they did not care so much for it, and given the success that online gaming has had recently, this could be a huge mistake in the next-gen if they don't focus on it. The Revolution could be really cool, but if I can't play a Halo/FF online/Killzone/GT/etc type game online with some buddies, then I'd like to play that type of game on another console that does focus on online gaming.


OPEN GL has been out for a long time my friend Video cards have had them before PS2 lol...my Old Radeon has Open GL
Ok.... :?

I'm just going to say that the new type of OpenGL that Sony seems to want to work with should be similiar to XNA, basically Sony's version of it. This basically will allow developers to make their games easier than those that were made on the PS2, which was a complaint from developers.

stanDarsh
09-01-2004, 12:35 AM
Hehe what a silly thread, this kinda reminds of the thread that talked about "Taping DVDs". XgustaX be honest, are you NickSCFC playing a prank on everyone? :P

Pistolero
09-01-2004, 02:32 AM
yeah...I seriously doubt the fact of this guy being serious... :P

kevindenoyette
09-01-2004, 03:32 AM
thats why it sold more? lol Sony said at their E3 Confrence they believe their selling point is because more games to appeal to people that is the top reason why PS2 sold so much. And saying X box should have prepared more or something like w/e that is not the point the point. The pont is it still outproforms no matter u like it or not. Maybe not by much but it still does ,but think about this way everyone here seems to agree the PS2 "equal". DO u really think Sony's competetion will allow sony to outproform them humm no? they spend millions and millions devloping for these consoles so they do not want to be the worse this just proves my point even more tho innvation will be the key to winning the "console wars" All the companies say they will and said so when this gen was coming out and what happened they all pretty equal in graphics and so on...


of course they don't want to be outperformed by sony you runt, what kind of business would want to? They will probably be outperformed any way because they're all resorting to using pc hardware (modified though) which will become obsolete in three years' time. The ps3 is all new in-house gear, cell, xdr ram, collada/open GL tools, etc.

Who cares if microsoft spent millions researching and developing? Sony already spent 5 billion dollars on ps3 development.

SunDevil
09-01-2004, 03:34 AM
Good Bye

axia777
09-01-2004, 06:30 AM
Why PS3 will be so worth getting. GAMES! Lots and lots and lots of games. Just like PS2 and PS1. I enjoy the games. The stuff on the inside just runs them and makes them look pretty for me. Nothing else. Games. Like PONG, when it was just little dots and crap. But people played for hours, cause it was fun. Like PS2, fun and tons of it. Betch all that the next generation GTA come out first on PS3, even if XBN is first out of the starting gates. :P PS3 will equal tons of FUN, again, like PS2. Sounds redundant, but to be honest, games are what this is all about......that and f*ck loads o cash! :shock:

threepac3
09-01-2004, 07:21 AM
Am i the only one thats realizes that this guy is an "ignorant bastard". Spitting out stupid dribble, that sounds like utter nonsence.

Nintendo well be using XNA? Where prey tell did this info come from?

Open GL is older then Direct X? U do realize that Open GL is upgraded just like Direct X, i really hope u realize that.

"lol Sony said at their E3 Confrence they believe their selling point is because more games to appeal to people that is the top reason why PS2 sold so much." , and ur point would be?

"how can X box be 32 bit system if its the most powerful system out on the market?", becuase when it come down to it really is not necessary to have one big 128 bit cpu.

"Sony had a a disadanage because they could have signed on with the leader in graphics today ATI", hmm explaine to me why SOny would be better off with GPU that supports a set number of features when Sony can develope one that can be programmed to support new and old features?

"thats not part of the eqaution tho u also have to add to the fact that is has more games and different generes people didnt buy it just because it has the most superior system...", What do u base this on?

BTW XgustaX u can't possibly be a seriuse poster becuase u can't possibly be that stupid to try explain something u obviousely know nothing about.

games_ fan
09-01-2004, 11:06 AM
XgustaX sounds like deadmeat only going on about nintendo instead of m$ :lol: And if you like nintendo so much why not go on a nintendo forum intead of a playstion one :roll:

Domination
09-01-2004, 01:02 PM
Just a second to interrupt. You do know that OpenGL is an API like DirectX, yes? And you do know that the spec of that software and what it makes privisions for changes, right?

Not too much this fella has said over the last three pages had made too much sense to be honest. Biggest tip-off so far has been argument over bit depth = image quality level... It makes no sense.


Later

Iridius Dio

That's why I didn't bother. :lol: I think he's doing that on purpose.

Pumster
09-01-2004, 04:38 PM
Hahaha, this thread is a horrible display. XgustaX, learn to read. :P

imported_The_One
09-01-2004, 05:14 PM
Okay, I didn't read everything, so don't blame me if I say something that's already said.
1: Getting a console is personal preference, there's loads of people getting a "weak" PS2 even though a "stronger" console such as XBox/Gcube is out there.
2: Not worth getting? When was getting a GAMING system not worth getting? If you're a hardcore gamer, the last thing you'd want to start thinking is a gaming system being "Not worth getting". Consoles are ALWAYS ahead of PC technology upon release, so no matter what, just for the sheer power, it'd be worth getting.
3: Dark Sector will not be a benchmark for the final specs of the next-gen consoles. It's simply an example run on a CURRENT gen hardware.
4: Even if graphics looked like Dark Sector, that'd ONLY be the launch title games, just like PS2 graphics, it improved over time; so will PS3, XBox, and N Rev's graphics improve over time.

With that said, any next-gen console is worth getting if you're a true hardcore gamer... Afterall, why settle for crappy this-gen tech when you can get your grubby little hands on next-gen tech when it comes out?

rev>thanu
09-01-2004, 05:41 PM
this thread is pointless. Dark Sector is a demo using current PC technology. Developers of Dark Sector basically used an estimation of what they expect from the next Generation of consoles. To tell you the truth their expectations of next gen graphics are way off even for the first gen of games. To tell you guys the truth xbox2, ps3 and N revolution should at least have unreal 3.0 graphics for their first gen of games.

5ysT3m cR45h3r
09-03-2004, 09:42 PM
this thread is pointless. Dark Sector is a demo using current PC technology. Developers of Dark Sector basically used an estimation of what they expect from the next Generation of consoles. To tell you the truth their expectations of next gen graphics are way off even for the first gen of games. To tell you guys the truth xbox2, ps3 and N revolution should at least have unreal 3.0 graphics for their first gen of games.

Yeah, this is a pretty wasted subject...

High Lander
09-06-2004, 03:02 PM
XgustaX, one of these is true:

1. You know NOTHING about games, consoles, PCs and bits&bytes technology.
2. You are just kidding, trying to piss some people off.
3. You are a total dumb.

I go for number 1, because you made SO MUCH mistakes in a few statements, the all we can do is laugh.

And those Dark Sector images are CRAP.
A poorly programmed game, using just 15% of PS3 power, could beat that. Even the next Cube will beat that, and Nintendo is NOT aiming to Ultra Power shit like Sony is actually doing. Next Cube will be like a today PC, while PS3 will be 100 times faster.... XBOX next will be like twice as fast as a today PC. (See, PS3 will be 50 times faster than XBOX Next, and will emulate it)

kevindenoyette
09-06-2004, 11:11 PM
High Lander, you shouldn't mock him for posting fallacious statements and then add random speculation to your post, it doesn't make you seem quite credible.