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.

**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

Originally Posted by XgustaX

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.

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

Originally Posted by XgustaX

and its clear that making the jump to 128 to 256 will not change much of the graphics.

Originally Posted by cpiasminc

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

Originally Posted by THE PS2 INFORMANT

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?

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

Originally Posted by THE PS2 INFORMANT

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

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

Originally Posted by XgustaX

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

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

Originally Posted by XgustaX

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?