Print

[Martinchris23]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Jun 5 2007, 04:56 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.

I didn't say they'd allocate 512MB to the GPU alone - no offence, but a pretty daft thing to say

It may be close to 50/50, but the point is the devs can choose where the RAM is allocated and grant it to the CPU/GPU where needed. If a particular game is demanding 300MB of GPU RAM they can grab it.

I know what you are saying about the Cell helping out, but surely this is the very reason why devs are having a hell of a time programming for the PS3??? How hard is it to address the SPEs in the first place (in comparison to the GPU)? Not only that, where do you draw the line for code to be calculated by the Cell as opposed to the GPU? So if a game on the PS3 needs 300MB of RAM to process on-screen graphics, something has to tell the Cell to 'muck in' with the processing. Personally, I think you'll find they just limit to 256MB at the moment to make their life easier.

You have to admit, having a UMA is a far easier platform to code than a restrictive memory pool- Sony really do like forcing choices on people (and I thought it was only limited to consumers!).

[throwingks]

^ That is why I was confused by your statement. I know you knew better, and your point was unclear to me.

I 100% agree unified RAM is better. Any time the developers can allocate to their needs the better they will be.

I am just taking guesses, but I think Sony has it setup the way it is to cripple Linux. Leaving only 256MB of RAM and software rendering of the graphics. Sony can still call it a PC for tax purposes, but isn't really selling a PC, it's still selling a game console. Stupid if you ask me.

I still believe you misunderstand how the RAM is allocated on the PS3 (or I do). This is how I understand it, as of right now.
If a texture needs 300MB of RAM on the PS3, there is nothing the Cell can do to help out. The textures need to be lowered so that it fits in the 256MB - everything else = "left over for that texture" range. The Cell helps with the processing, not storage. Either way, we are now getting into the argument, what is more important, processing power or the amount of RAM.

Let's use a PC for example. Would a Pentium 133Mhz with 4GB of RAM be better than a Pentium 4Ghz with 128MB of RAM? Processing power is a very important factor in making everything work. The Cell is powerful enough to handle some extra graphical duties, therefor making the difference between the 360s GPU and PS3 GPU marginal. But, eventually, when devs finally figure it out, the PS3 is capable of more graphically.

So with that said, the 360 can use 300MB for textures, but in doing so, has less for the system. So the PS3 would have 256MB for system RAM when the 360 would only be left with 512MB - 300MB = 212MB

Both systems have 512MB of total RAM, it is just allocation preferences by the developer that make the difference. The real determining factor is the Cells processing power, compared the the 360's CPU. Just straight numbers dictate that the PS3 is going to be better at graphics. It has a higher ceiling.

But, as twistedsymphony pointed out earlier "does any of this really make a game better?" Personally, I prefer R.B.I. Baseball to any baseball game out today. See my avatar.

[twistedsymphony]

I find it infinitely entertaining that when people argue about the PS2 (or most other established consoles really) it's almost always about how great the library is... but when it comes to the PS3 it always degrades into a white sheet comparison.

[throwingks]

^ I think that stems from the same place the article on thoughthead came from. Sony PR pushed specs from before the next-gen became the current gen. Everything was always better on paper when they compared themselves to other consoles.

So now, people use the data Sony publicized so much. It's kinda poetic justice.
A: It isn't that much better hardware-wise after all their claims of superiority, and
B: Since Sony bashed Xbox1 for being better hardware than the PS2 but a bad game catalog, for now it seems roles have reversed.

[Martinchris23]

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Jun 6 2007, 07:56 PM)

I find it infinitely entertaining that when people argue about the PS2 (or most other established consoles really) it's almost always about how great the library is... but when it comes to the PS3 it always degrades into a white sheet comparison.

I believe there is a sense of irony in this situation: People will (and do) choose the 360 over the PS3 because of the library of games available, making the technical superiority of the PS3 an irrelevent statistic.

Martin

[twistedsymphony]

before a console is launched that's really all you have to go by, that and some screenshots

near launch you might get lucky and play a few game demos on a kiosk to seal the deal if you were still on the fence.

Once you've launched the numbers game should go right out the window.

On paper the PS2 is actually more powerful then the Xbox 1 Sony pushed that hard until the Xbox 1 was actually released and lo and behold it was clear that more power doesn't correlate to better graphics or even better games.

At that point it was a non issue because the games sold themselves. And that's the way it should be.

Even MS pushed the tech specs pre-launch... that's all the material they had for PR fodder.

The fact that Sony and most PS3 supporters still push the spec issue just reinforces the fact that the PS3 isn't just lacking in the library but that the library is so unremarkable that it's not worth even using it as an argument for buying the console.

The Xbox 360 and Wii arn't without the faults, and they're not even the best consoles in the world. The 360 feels fragile both hardware and software wise, it's missing a lot of very simple features that would be no brainers based on what other stuff they offer and there are more glitches per game then any other console I can remember. but the library offered is solid and diverse and features like XBL and Achievement are getting me four to five times the replay value out of nearly every game I play when compared to last gen consoles.

The Wii feels incredibly unpolished... the graphics are crap, the dashboard is clunky, and the control mechanics are either fantastic (2% of the games) or total garbage (98% of the games) with no middle ground. But it offers a lot of potential with the motion controller and being a dramatic change in the tech that's been stagnant for the last two decades (programmers are at least used to new chips every 5 years) I'm sure the control issues will be squashed. Even for a newly released console there are enough games to hold you over until this holiday where there are a barrage of new AAA titles arriving.

The PS3 feels much more solid then the 360 and infinitely more polished then the Wii but in terms of it's catalog all it's got is a mediocre shooter a mediocre racer and table scraps from the Xbox 360 catalog. It's got potential for great graphics/physics/ai but none of that has really shown in any of the games available. And the time table for the AAA titles to arrive is just far out there... we're talking summer-to-holiday 2008.

It makes a good Blu-Ray player but that's really backwards... Blu-Ray shouldn't be driving PS3 sales... PS3 sales should be driving Blu-Ray.

On a whole it really just feels like Sony hasn't launched the console yet.. they're in purgatory, every announcement is for the next best thing coming "soon" and "soon" keeps getting further away.

At least the advertisements have started showing games now instead of "Cell" and "SIXAXIS"... though I don't think anyone is really running out to buy PS3s for Sony's MLB games.

You know every human is born with potential for great things... most don't do anything all that great... The first few months of a console's life is like adolescence, it's not fully developed it's still finding it's ground but it should have some sense of direction and all of them have a lot of potential... the holiday after launch marks it's passage into adult hood, it's like a college graduation and it sets the tone for the rest of it's short life... Usually by this point you can see the direction it's heading you know what it's gearing up to become when it gets out in to the "real world" (mass market acceptance).

The way I see it... right now the PS3 is gearing up to be the D student that either barely scrapes by or becomes a college lifer that never makes it into the real world.

Talking about PS3 specs now is like a parent talking about their mediocre college student bragging about how great they'll be when they grow up. There is a lot of mother's pride but the history isn't good... The game isn't over yet but the outlook is hazy at best.

That's my interpretation of the whole situation... many will probably disagree and you're entitled to your opinions... though I'd be willing to bet I'm the only one in here with a degree societal acceptance and interpretation of technology.

[mlmadmax]

Actually I couldn't agree more, well said.

[Chancer]

I still maintain that judgement of game types is an individual thing. One persons mediocre game may be another persons dream game. For example, I have read plenty of criticism about RFOM but I think the game is fantastic, despite spending 2 days getting killed all the time at first . Now this may be because seasoned gamers like TS and some of you other guys find this none too challenging, but for someone like me (Shit at shooters) it has taken me forward into something I have really enjoyed for the first time. I think it is all about expectations and I reckon you guys that are game pros are looking for that something extra that is not there yet with the PS3. Perhaps if I had more experience and skill at more varied game types I may be disappointed more with what is available for the PS3.

The fact that some games are replicated in the 360 catalogue only holds any weight if you already own a 360. If you own none of the consoles then these games that are available now will carry as much weight in the decision on which console to purchase. Someone who already has a 360 with most of the games already in their collection is no way going to be attracted at the moment to a PS3. That group of gamers is very likely going to be in the membership here, as it is an Xbox forum after all. The overwhelming opinion is bound to be....Not enough games,.......Not enough exclusives etc. Ask someone coming up from an Xbox 1 or PS2 and the games available seems a bit more attractive. I would love to know how many purchasers of PS3 consoles have no other console beside the earlier Xbox or PS2. These are the people Sony need to target in sales. The average 360 owner with 20 or more games already has his cake so it is very difficult to prove to him/her that they should buy a PS3. The replies will replicate what we see here. Not enough games to interest me, No exclusives. From that perspective I can not blame people for needing something that bit special to persuade them to buy.

I have both consoles and the only 2 things I can say really is, at the moment I play the PS3 more than the 360 (Don't know why really as I have 5 times the amount of games for the 360) and Virtua Tennis I have on both and PS3 version is slightly quicker and looks smoother on the PS3 (again not sure why)

New territory...just ordered NBA2K7 for 17.99 for the PS3 is it worth it/any good (360 owners will know this as well as it is on both).
This thread is a good read.....nothing now to do with the original topic but some very interesting and varied viewpoints

[twistedsymphony]

@ Thraxen

Yeah, the Wii's core catalog isn't all that great but I'm considering the larger picture here... The Wii now has over 100 titles on the Virtual Console, and they've sold almost 15 million games through the service... that means each Wii owner has bought an average of 2-3 VC games There are a few other gems in the catalog beyond just TP, wii sports and Paper Mario. Smooth Moves, Mario Party, Monkey Ball, and Trauma Center are all great games. These games offer something that many of the PS3 and 360 games are lacking, and that's replay value through local multiplayer.  Which can go a long way.

Also, and maybe this is a bit of a double standard, but while most people buying a PS3 owned a PS2 before it, most people buying a Wii did NOT own a Gamecube, that to mean that the Wii's GC functionality is a whole lot more valuable the then PS3's PS2 functionality. People going to the Wii from an Xbox or PS2 are getting a whole library of new games. 9 out of 10 gamers last generation had a PS2 so chances are if they're buying a PS3 they've already played out everything that interested them in the PS2 catalog.

I'd agree that the 360 is the only console that has paid for it self in play time, my Wii is particularly dusty, and from a hardcore standpoint the Wii doesn't offer much more of a catalog then the PS3 does. But in terms of mass market game buyers (which is what I'm talking about here) the Wii looks almost as good as the 360 and has it all over the PS3.

As for table scraps, while true that anyone who doesn't own a 360 might not be as effected, the point is that  most of them were released on the 360 months before the PS3, and the PS3 not only received them late but also without features (usually online features get cut). It would also stand to reason that if those titles were something gamers were interested in they would more inclined to buy a 360 because of it's earlier arrival, added features and lower price of entry. "table scraps" is quite literally what I meant... someone else has already had their fill of it, you get it well after the party has started, and it's missing some bits.

If you didn't own either console and you're interested in game X what would compel you to buy console B if console A is getting the game weeks to months earlier (or at a lower price because it's been out longer) and with more features?

Oblivion for example while I'm sure it's just as good on the PS3 as it was on the 360... you can buy it on the discount rack for the 360 while on the PS3 it's a "new" title so you'll be paying full price. Newer games like THP8 and COD3 came out at the same time for both but most of the multiplayer features on the PS3 were axed... this trend continues throughout.

@ Chancer
I can completely respect what you're saying here. I know the feeling of trying out a new genre and loving a game that most of the hardcore fanatics look at and say "meh..."

I think what I was mostly trying to get at here is Racing games and Shooters are Microsoft's domain. the Xbox 1 was THE console to have for Shooter and Racing game fans. the PS2 was the console for just about everything else.

In terms of the mass market shooting games rarely attract anything but hardcore players, Racing games could go either way depending on how it's been marketed. In any case the 360 has already positioned itself as THE console for Shooter fans as well as THE console for hardcore Racing fans.

The decision on Sony's part to make their System selling launch title a Shooter was just a really bad idea IMO. I'm sure RFoM is a fantastic title but most gamers who aren't shooter fans just avoid the genre and in terms of the hardcore audience RFoM doesn't really offer anything that hasn't already been done to death elsewhere.  The Same can be Said about Motorstorm.

While they're both titles worth picking up they're not the kind of titles that people see and say to themselves "I NEED to have that game! I don't CARE what it costs!" RFoM and Motorstorm are the titles you pick up when you get the console because you want something else to play once you're done with that other game you bought the console for.

Track records also play into it... Sony has tried to make shooters before and fallen on their face in the process Killzone was a flop and most shooter fans didn't like it. Similarly Rare has a good track record with shooters and both Golden Eye an the original Perfect Dark were overwhelming successes.

When MS announced Perfect Dark Zero, despite the game actually being pretty damn bad, it sold a whole lot of Xbox 360s. I'm sure RFoM is a much better title then PDZ but not too many people paid it any mind because of how bad Killzone was, also PDZ being bad didn't really matter because COD2 and Quake 4, and soon later GRAW were also available which are all grade A shooters with proven track records.

In honesty Sony would have been better served to release Resistance on the PS2 and God of War II on the PS3...  The kind of "pretty good, but not a system seller" titles work well on the winding down, gearing up to be replaced consoles. It gives people something to buy that they can enjoy on the console they already own. Meanwhile God of War was one of Sony's best titles period and God of War II in HD on the PS3 not only would have really shown of the console's capabilities but it would have an enormous fanbase of people who would have looked it and said "I NEED to buy that game, I don't CARE what it costs."

I'm sure the PS3 is good enough to fill your gaming needs once you own one but they didn't have any titles that got their foot in the door to even get to that point.

Understand I'm not talking about what's good for the gamer, I'm talking about what's good for Sony's marketing strategy which aren't always the same.

Sony seemed to have this in mind for their strategy
-Expect the PS3 to sell itself the first year and make a few A/B grade titles to fill out the line up
-Put all the AAA franchises on the PS2 and PSP to keep sales of those consoles/titles strong and profitable due to the large install base.
-Once the PS3 install base is strong shift efforts for AAA franchises to the PS3 where there will be enough of a install base for those franchses to be profitable.

Unfortunately the mass market hasn't picked up the PS3 based on it's merits alone and instead decided to just stick with the PS2 or go elsewhere, there was no real incentive for gamers to upgrade. At this point by the time Sony moves their AAA titles over to the new platform many of their former 3rd party exclusives will have gone elsewhere to where the money is (360 and Wii). And while Sony has some great 1st party titles, they aren't as strong or diverse as the first parties on other consoles. Meaning that once we see God of War III, or Shadow of Colossus II (ICO 3), etc. it will likely come off as too little, too late.

Again, that's not to say that there aren't titles worth playing on the PS3 but what is there isn't appealing enough to drive Joe gamer to dig deep in his pockets and march to the store for one.

You yourself only bought one because of your console fetish and didn't fully realize the merits of it until you  had one in hand, did you not?

If you were the kind of gamer that only buys 1 console a generation, probably the kind of gamer that waits for their friends to convince them which console to buy and or wait for the first price drop... which console do you think would get your money? Consider it from the outside looking in.... which console is getting the most positive media buzz? which console is getting the games that are all a buzz in the media? when you walk into a game store which console looks like it's going to grow into it's own exclusive isle like the PS2 did?

The mass market gamers are the ones who make or break a console in the long run, and those are the things that make or break the purchase decisions of the mass market... actual console and library quality be damned; reality is defined by how it's perceived.

[throwingks]

QUOTE

Track records also play into it... Sony has tried to make shooters before and fallen on their face in the process Killzone was a flop and most shooter fans didn't like it. Similarly Rare has a good track record with shooter and both Golden Eye an the original Perfect Dark were overwhelming successes.

Sony just dropped the ball here, in my opinion. Free Radical Design (Originally made from Ex-Rare employees that worked on GoldenEye and Perfect Dark) is my personal favorite FPS developer. I have said this more than once. Timesplitters/Second Sight is where it is at for me. Sony should have sealed them up when they had Timesplitters exclusive. Then, they could have marketed like M$ did with Halo. Hindsight is always 20/20 though. They had no idea FPS were the future of gaming. It was a niche market back then.

Now, I really want to play some Haze after thinking about this.

Sorry about cherry picking. You whole last post is spot on.
I just went off-topic again.

[Chancer]

QUOTE

You yourself only bought one because of your console fetish

That is a spot on analysis. It must be because I have now decided I am going to buy a Wii as well (Yes I find the sports thing appealing)
The wife will restrict my Nookie for a while but what the hell, I will have the Wii to play with

[Mr Invader]

QUOTE(Thraxen @ Jun 8 2007, 08:59 PM)

To sum it up, I really don't understand why the PS3 gets so much crap and Wii gets so much love.  

The PS3, though I bash it alot, does have alot of potential and it appeals to me more than the Wii does. Many Wii owners who use to consider themselves -moderate-to-hardcore- gamers now don't see whats fun about going online with your friends in an MMO or in an FPS just because its something they don't get with the Wii; while PS3(and 360) owners are more open to different styles/genres of games. Wii owners don't consider graphics relevant to a game just because the Wii doesn't offer quality graphics like the 360/PS3/PC; PS3 owners play gorgeous looking games like Resistance and Motorstorm along with playing simple games like FL0w and blast factor.

The PS3 seems like it is/will be a well rounded system when it finally starts getting a fair amount of good titles. The Wii seems like it will be fairly stagnant throughout its lifetime.