Print

[scottmuller28]

They did not expect to sell any Ps3 and they sold 3 within the month which blew out sales expectations across all HMV stores.  However they were later exchanged for a wii and a two 360s when they were opened up and discovered they only had 4 games to play with until next year.  

[Chancer]

QUOTE(scottmuller28 @ Jun 2 2007, 04:10 AM)

They did not expect to sell any Ps3 and they sold 3 within the month which blew out sales expectations across all HMV stores.  However they were later exchanged for a wii and a two 360s when they were opened up and discovered they only had 4 games to play with until next year.  

I see you are one of the many who doesn't have the console, doesn't like it or even really know what is available or not for it but thinks it is Trendy to bash it.

[Chancer]

I bet if you ask your friend about the Wii, he will say he bought it for the sports game.
Most owners of the Wii seem to have bought on this game. I realise their is a price difference but if you weigh it up £179 is still a chunk for a single game.
I have every console bar the Wii but I will probably get one for the sports game.
The PS3 despite what you hear here (It is an Xbox forum after all) is a good machine. I have now 6 games and have imense fun playing them.
I think the European sales will eventually be strong but it is still early days

[tonloc79]

The PS3 will start selling as soon as the exclusives start rolling out. I think they still have a few dont they...........just kidding i like mine but the game selection is slim to none. If the PS3 is outselling excpectations then someone needs to get some higher excpectations!

[Martinchris23]

Whether you were joking or not, scottmuller28, you are probably closer to the truth than you thought.

The author of the article decided to state the PS3 is 'exceeding sales targets', with this not ever being mentioned in the article itself. Tim Ellis of HMV actually said 'sales remain in line with expectations' - he was very careful not to say 'target', because he knows it's nowhere near their targets. He(they) never expected to sell many PS3 due to the price point - this doesn't mean their own sales targets weren't aggressive.

Whether you're pro-PS3 or not, there's no denying that it's selling poorly. Aside from the launch, sales are grim. The local Gamestation had a pre-owned PS3 in their shop window a month after launch and AFAIK, it's still there. I saw RFoM for the first time the other day, expecting to be blown away. I was disappointed that I wasn't. This was the game most people were raving about and now looking at it, I know why some are disappointed with it.

I have a 360 and Wii with no intention of buying a PS3 at £425. A lot of people will already have either a 360 or Wii, with their gaming requirements satisfied by the two.

A price drop £100 may increase sales, but only to those wanting a cheap BluRay player. It's all about the games and Sony are not getting them out nowhere near quick enough.

QUOTE

I have every console bar the Wii but I will probably get one for the sports game.

Chancer, I guarantee that you'll have a ton of fun with Wii Sports. It may not have 'next gen' graphics, but the gameplay sure is.

[MartinC]

I am a XBOX 1 owner I don't know which console I will buy in the future but these are the reasons I'm tilting towards XBOX 360,

* PS3/Cell Cores aren't general purpose, for maximum performance a gamed would have to be coded especially for the console
* Only 256MB of system memory (360 has 512MB shared)
* PS3 GPU is a generation behind the Xbox 360
* Much more expensive than the Xbox 360


Also from what I have read Microsoft has been much more willing to provide help if/when the console breaks down.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(MartinC @ Jun 4 2007, 07:15 AM)

I am a XBOX 1 owner I don't know which console I will buy in the future but these are the reasons I'm tilting towards XBOX 360,

* PS3/Cell Cores aren't general purpose, for maximum performance a gamed would have to be coded especially for the console
* Only 256MB of system memory (360 has 512MB shared)
* PS3 GPU is a generation behind the Xbox 360
* Much more expensive than the Xbox 360
Also from what I have read Microsoft has been much more willing to provide help if/when the console breaks down.

1 Devs will have a harder time at 1st while learning how to code. But, they will figure it out.
2 Both PS3 and Xbox360 have 512MB of RAM. The 360s is unified, meaning devs can allocate a bit better. But, both have 512. The PS3 OS uses a little more RAM than the 360 OS, leaving the 360 a smidgen ahead in the in-game available RAM department. But, only a smidgen.
3 The PS3 GPU is on par with the 360. With the addition of the Cell to help out, within the next couple generations of games, PS3 games will start to look better than the Xbox360s. The PS3 has a higher cap in the graphics dept. it just needs to be figured out.
4 Very true.

[Martinchris23]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Jun 4 2007, 12:57 PM)

1 Devs will have a harder time at 1st while learning how to code. But, they will figure it out.
2 Both PS3 and Xbox360 have 512MB of RAM. The 360s is unified, meaning devs can allocate a bit better. But, both have 512. The PS3 OS uses a little more RAM than the 360 OS, leaving the 360 a smidgen ahead in the in-game available RAM department. But, only a smidgen.
3 The PS3 GPU is on par with the 360. With the addition of the Cell to help out, within the next couple generations of games, PS3 games will start to look better than the Xbox360s. The PS3 has a higher cap in the graphics dept. it just needs to be figured out.
4 Very true.

I feel you've missed the boat on #2.

The 360's UMA means that whatever's not being used for system purposes, the GPU can address. This is simply not the case with the PS3 which only has 256MB allocated to the GPU.

This is not 'a smidgen' or 'a bit' - this could be as much as another 50% of RAM allocated to the GPU. Regardless of how much (or how little) RAM is allocated to the OS on the PS3, it is still restricted to 256MB for the GPU.

MartinC - get the 360. If it's not for the huge library of games, get it for the best online multiplayer experience you'll find on any console.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(MartinC @ Jun 4 2007, 07:15 AM)

I am a XBOX 1 owner I don't know which console I will buy in the future but these are the reasons I'm tilting towards XBOX 360,

Well lets look at this point by point

QUOTE(MartinC @ Jun 4 2007, 07:15 AM)

* PS3/Cell Cores aren't general purpose, for maximum performance a gamed would have to be coded especially for the console

--Who cares?

QUOTE(MartinC @ Jun 4 2007, 07:15 AM)

* Only 256MB of system memory (360 has 512MB shared)

--Who cares?

QUOTE(MartinC @ Jun 4 2007, 07:15 AM)

* PS3 GPU is a generation behind the Xbox 360

--Who cares?

QUOTE(MartinC @ Jun 4 2007, 07:15 AM)

* Much more expensive than the Xbox 360

--Does that really matter in the long run?

QUOTE(MartinC @ Jun 4 2007, 07:15 AM)

Also from what I have read Microsoft has been much more willing to provide help if/when the console breaks down.

--Who cares?


It seems to me you're buying the consoles for all the wrong reasons.

you might want to play games on this thing you know

Here's what you do... Make three lists: 360, PS3, and Wii

For each console put a hash mark under each one for every game the console offers that you really want, also put hashmarks under each one that has a feature you really like

So Xbox 360 might get
+1 point for Halo
+1 point for Blue Dragon
+1 point for Xbox Live service
+1 point for being cheaper then the PS3
+1 point for...

The Wii would get
+1 point for Wii Sports
+1 point for the Wii Remote
+1 point for being cheaper then the PS3
+1 point for being cheaper then the Xbox 360
+1 point for...

The PS3 would get
+1 point for Resistance
+1 point for free online gaming
+1 point for ...

etc.

And if there are cross platform games you want... add +1 point for each of the consoles it appears on. So lets say you really want Oblivion... give a point to the 360 and a point to the PS3.. etc.

Only +1 points for features YOU care about. so if you care about Blueray give a point to the PS3... if you DONT care about it DONT give a point to the PS3...

Don't give points to non-tangable features like "Cell" or "Sixaxis" DO give points for things like "+1 I like the graphic better" or "+1 most comfortable controller". Don't take any points away for anything... this is a positive points system... if say you don't like the graphics on the Wii... then give a +1 to both the PS3 and 360 for good graphics and don't even make mention of it on the Wii.

you'll figure out which console most appeals to you soon, this method can be quite revealing... spend a few days on this list too, you're sure to think of things to add to it hours after you start while you're doing something else or reading something online.

I often use this method at the beginning of every generation to determine which console will get my money first.

[death trap]

Its all about the games, my ps3 is sat here gathering dust while i wait for new games while my 360 is always on and i get a new game each month.

To all the people who are holding on to the hope that ps3 will someday be better than the 360. give up now, if sony cant pull it of before crimbo their fucked, it will be too late.  Any interest in the ps3 will fizzle out due to a lack of good games.
Ps3 has untill crimbo to impress me, if it don't its going on ebay.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(Martinchris23 @ Jun 5 2007, 08:26 AM)

I feel you've missed the boat on #2.

The 360's UMA means that whatever's not being used for system purposes, the GPU can address. This is simply not the case with the PS3 which only has 256MB allocated to the GPU.

This is not 'a smidgen' or 'a bit' - this could be as much as another 50% of RAM allocated to the GPU. Regardless of how much (or how little) RAM is allocated to the OS on the PS3, it is still restricted to 256MB for the GPU.

MartinC - get the 360. If it's not for the huge library of games, get it for the best online multiplayer experience you'll find on any console.

I really am confused by your point right now. How can you discredit 256MB of system RAM. It is there and being used for gaming. It's not like the 360 devs allocate 512MB of RAM to the GPU. It is probably real close to 256/256.
On the PS3 there is 256MB for the GPU and 256MB for the system. That is 512 total. (Linux cannot access RSX, that is why it is left with 256MB only)
Xbox 360 has 512 total combined for both, but not exact numbers for either. It can be allocated as the dev sees fit.
The PS3 uses <100MB for its OS, and Xbox360 <40MB for its OS.

It is a marginal difference of around 60MB, not 50%. And, I seem to remember reading the PS3 OS doesn't even take up that much anymore.

[death trap]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Jun 5 2007, 05:56 PM)

I really am confused by your point right now. How can you discredit 256MB of system RAM. It is there and being used for gaming. It's not like the 360 devs allocate 512MB of RAM to the GPU. It is probably real close to 256/256.
On the PS3 there is 256MB for the GPU and 256MB for the system. That is 512 total. (Linux cannot access RSX, that is why it is left with 256MB only)
Xbox 360 has 512 total combined for both, but not exact numbers for either. It can be allocated as the dev sees fit.
The PS3 uses <100MB for its OS, and Xbox360 <40MB for its OS.

It is a marginal difference of around 60MB, not 50%. And, I seem to remember reading the PS3 OS doesn't even take up that much anymore.

on ps3 what does the 256mb system ram do? why is it locked to the system? and how is it utlized for games?

what would a dev do if something did fit in the gpu ram? can the system ram be used to pick up the slack?

your saying splitting the ram like that doesn't hurt performance but i cant see how it wouldn't.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(death trap @ Jun 5 2007, 01:06 PM)

on ps3 what does the 256mb system ram do? why is it locked to the system? and how is it utlized for games?

what would a dev do if something did fit in the gpu ram? can the system ram be used to pick up the slack?

your saying splitting the ram like that doesn't hurt performance but i cant see how it wouldn't.

RAM can be considered a holding cell for information. It is all the information the the processor calls upon. Harddrives and CDs/DVDs are really slow in digital terms. So the more information that you have in RAM and not on Harddrive or CD/DVD the faster the processor can call upon it. That is the reason more RAM is better. When RAM gets full, the CPU has to then go back and ask for data from the Harddisk or DVD and that slows everything down. Processors would prefer to not wait for a slow spinning drive to read and transfer. RAM is already digital and right next door to the processor.

In the case of the PS3, 256MB of RAM are dedicated to the RSX a.k.a. GPU, graphic processing unit. As well as 256MB of RAM dedicated to the CELL a.k.a CPU, central processing unit. All of the calculations the CPU needs to do, can call from its dedicated system RAM, which is storage for the game data from the Blu-Ray disk or cached on the harddrive.

On the Xbox 360 the developer can state how much both processors can get. So, a very graphic intensive game can get a little more RAM for its GPU which means less is available for the CPU, meaning longer load times, less enemies and smaller maps, etc. Or, the other way, a simple graphics game can have more in the system RAM than in the video RAM meaning more complex AI, bigger maps, more enemies, more calculations happening at the same time.

So basically, Xbox360 gives a little more freedom to the developer in RAM control, but there is still the same amount on both machines. Additionally, the Cell is powerful enough to aid in the GPUs calculations giving more horsepower to the GPU. So even though the 360 GPU may be better, the PS3s total graphic power is greater.

What I think is being suggested is that GPU RAM is more important than system RAM and that is not correct at all. If that was the case, then your PC would still be the same one from 1990, with 64MB of RAM and the newest and best video card in there. As you know, there are many PCs built now with 2048MB = 2GB of RAM or even more now with 64-bit OSes. There are no video cards that offer that much on board RAM. It isn't needed. The System Processor is more important than the Graphics Processor.

[MartinC]

QUOTE(hardcoreware.net)

The GPU is more powerful (XBOX 360). It has more powerful fillrate, and far more pixel and vertex processing horsepower. Part of the reason is their choice of memory, and architecture of pixel and vertex procesing. I can’t get into details but the same vertex shader will run much slower on the PS3 than the XBOX 360. The 360 also has a clever new way rendering high definition anti aliased back buffers. To accomplish the same effect on PS3 is prohibitively expensive.

Hardware wise if I was to pay about double the price of the 360 for the PS3 I would expect a superior system yet this doesn't seem to be the case.

We can't say which console will have the best games a year from now but taking into account the issues illustrated in this thread it doesn't look good for the PS3.

[throwingks]

^ The Cell CPU aids in the graphic dept. There are some shortcomings with the PS3 GPU itself compared to the 360 GPU, but the Cell make the PS3 GPU stronger. The PS3 is graphically more powerful than the Xbox360.

http://forums.xbox-s...howtopic=598326
Good read and much better explaination than I could give. Pay particular attention to m_hael's posts.
Ignore my 1st post (post #4) it was ignorant.