If you haven't already seen it, here's my coverage of Sony's Playstation 3 announcement today. I wrote the story while sitting in Sony's press conference, so it was a bit rushed but I wanted to post some of my additional thoughts that didn't make it into the first article.
Let me start first with the design; to me, the Xbox 360 is very Apple-like while the PS3 is very clearly a Sony product. Personally I prefer the looks of the Xbox 360, but the PS3 doesn't look bad at all in real life.
Although I've yet to use it, the PS3's controller scares me. I'm going to try my hands at it this week, but I really have no idea where that design came from.
The demos on the PS3 were absolutely *amazing*. I wouldn't call them "movie-quality" yet, but the things I saw came very close. Words really can't describe, the demos just looked amazing.
Virtually all of the games/demos on the PS3 had some degree of aliasing, some were unacceptably bad for a console with this sort of power. Don't get me wrong, about 95% of the games looked great, but those that had aliasing looked great...with jaggies. I'm not talking PS2 level of aliasing, but far too much aliasing for this level of hardware.
Without a doubt, ATI and NVIDIA are on very diverging paths with these two consoles. ATI went with a strictly unified memory architecture while NVIDIA used a combination of local graphics memory and GPU addressable system memory. ATI is backing their unified shader architecture, while NVIDIA doesn't appear to have embraced that on the hardware side. I will know more about ATI's GPU later this week, so stay tuned.
The dual HD output feature of the PS3 is very interesting; I'm not sure how many folks will take advantage of the 32:9 aspect ratio mode. I'm wondering whether this feature was put in to support sending different content to separate TVs (e.g. stream video to one display while gaming in another). Then again, I'm not sure how many people have that many HDTVs within close proximity of each other.
Sony clearly wants the PS3 to be much more of a media center style device. The demos weren't only about games, they were about decoding HD streams, navigating through video and picture content, they were about the entire picture. With built in blu-ray, I think the PS3 will have a huge advantage over the Xbox 360 as it should be able to act as a HD-DVD video player as well as a game console.
The 1080p output of the PS3 isn't that big of a deal for me. Given that basically the entire installed base of HDTVs right now only support 1080i, I seriously doubt we'll see a push to 1080p only all that quickly. That being said, I don't doubt that there will be an obvious difference between 1080p and 720p games. Given that it is essentially a resolution change, I see no reason for all developers to offer both 1080p and 720p options in PS3 games unless there are frame rate limitations. I did notice that some demos played much smoother than others, but I think it is far too early to make any calls on performance a full year before the console's release.
I'd say that Sony has the more powerful CPU on paper, but I'm curious to see how much of that gets taken advantage of in the real world. Difficulty of programming aside, the fact of the matter is that console development houses are very much of the write once, compile many mindset. Given the similarity of the Xbox 360's cores to the PS3's PPE, I'm afraid that the array of SPEs may go relatively untapped on the PS3.
From the very start I felt that Sony couldn't possibly bring the Cell to market in the PS3 as a 90nm chip. Disabling one SPE is a particularly interesting move, but one that makes a lot of sense. And the loss of a single SPE isn't a huge deal as I don't foresee the PS3 really being bound by the number of threads its SPE array can execute.
Overall, the PS3 looks to me to be the more complete package. The hardware is a bit more complete than Xbox 360, but at the same time given that it won't launch for another 6+ months after the 360 launches I'm not too surprised. Sony didn't really play up a competitor to Xbox Live, although it is very clear that the PS3 will be a net-enabled box. I have a feeling that Microsoft may bring to the table a much more complete on-line play package, while Sony brings a more powerful, more complete console.
Sony's strength with the PS2 has always been its game library, which I think will continue to be a strength with the PS3 (especially with full backwards compatibility all the way back to PS1). It's just that this time around, Microsoft appears to have a much stronger game library than with the original Xbox - and it's that key difference that will make the 360 and the PS3 worthy competitors.
I will be reporting from the show all week, but for now it's time to enjoy 24 a full 3 hours later than I normally would - how do you west coast folks do it? :)
Take care.
Let me start first with the design; to me, the Xbox 360 is very Apple-like while the PS3 is very clearly a Sony product. Personally I prefer the looks of the Xbox 360, but the PS3 doesn't look bad at all in real life.
Although I've yet to use it, the PS3's controller scares me. I'm going to try my hands at it this week, but I really have no idea where that design came from.
The demos on the PS3 were absolutely *amazing*. I wouldn't call them "movie-quality" yet, but the things I saw came very close. Words really can't describe, the demos just looked amazing.
Virtually all of the games/demos on the PS3 had some degree of aliasing, some were unacceptably bad for a console with this sort of power. Don't get me wrong, about 95% of the games looked great, but those that had aliasing looked great...with jaggies. I'm not talking PS2 level of aliasing, but far too much aliasing for this level of hardware.
Without a doubt, ATI and NVIDIA are on very diverging paths with these two consoles. ATI went with a strictly unified memory architecture while NVIDIA used a combination of local graphics memory and GPU addressable system memory. ATI is backing their unified shader architecture, while NVIDIA doesn't appear to have embraced that on the hardware side. I will know more about ATI's GPU later this week, so stay tuned.
The dual HD output feature of the PS3 is very interesting; I'm not sure how many folks will take advantage of the 32:9 aspect ratio mode. I'm wondering whether this feature was put in to support sending different content to separate TVs (e.g. stream video to one display while gaming in another). Then again, I'm not sure how many people have that many HDTVs within close proximity of each other.
Sony clearly wants the PS3 to be much more of a media center style device. The demos weren't only about games, they were about decoding HD streams, navigating through video and picture content, they were about the entire picture. With built in blu-ray, I think the PS3 will have a huge advantage over the Xbox 360 as it should be able to act as a HD-DVD video player as well as a game console.
The 1080p output of the PS3 isn't that big of a deal for me. Given that basically the entire installed base of HDTVs right now only support 1080i, I seriously doubt we'll see a push to 1080p only all that quickly. That being said, I don't doubt that there will be an obvious difference between 1080p and 720p games. Given that it is essentially a resolution change, I see no reason for all developers to offer both 1080p and 720p options in PS3 games unless there are frame rate limitations. I did notice that some demos played much smoother than others, but I think it is far too early to make any calls on performance a full year before the console's release.
I'd say that Sony has the more powerful CPU on paper, but I'm curious to see how much of that gets taken advantage of in the real world. Difficulty of programming aside, the fact of the matter is that console development houses are very much of the write once, compile many mindset. Given the similarity of the Xbox 360's cores to the PS3's PPE, I'm afraid that the array of SPEs may go relatively untapped on the PS3.
From the very start I felt that Sony couldn't possibly bring the Cell to market in the PS3 as a 90nm chip. Disabling one SPE is a particularly interesting move, but one that makes a lot of sense. And the loss of a single SPE isn't a huge deal as I don't foresee the PS3 really being bound by the number of threads its SPE array can execute.
Overall, the PS3 looks to me to be the more complete package. The hardware is a bit more complete than Xbox 360, but at the same time given that it won't launch for another 6+ months after the 360 launches I'm not too surprised. Sony didn't really play up a competitor to Xbox Live, although it is very clear that the PS3 will be a net-enabled box. I have a feeling that Microsoft may bring to the table a much more complete on-line play package, while Sony brings a more powerful, more complete console.
Sony's strength with the PS2 has always been its game library, which I think will continue to be a strength with the PS3 (especially with full backwards compatibility all the way back to PS1). It's just that this time around, Microsoft appears to have a much stronger game library than with the original Xbox - and it's that key difference that will make the 360 and the PS3 worthy competitors.
I will be reporting from the show all week, but for now it's time to enjoy 24 a full 3 hours later than I normally would - how do you west coast folks do it? :)
Take care.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
125 Comments
View All Comments
Jimi - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
I don't think the cost of HDTV's is that much of an issue, PS3 will output to PC monitor/s so a decent quality single (or dual) monitor setup would be a cheaper way of getting quality visuals (has to be better than the old 640x480 PAL crt I'm having to use my PS2 on at the mo).I don't know if I'll have saved enough dosh for both a PS3 & a HDTV set, but the white PS3 would look soooo nice sitting next to my beautiful white BENQ !!!
Minuteman - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
I am interested in this issue of 1080i vs 1080p on the Xbox 360. That is a great point that there are basically no HDTVs on the market that will accept a 1080p input stream. Is Sony going to introduce some new TV sets around the same time as the release of the PS3 that will accept the PS3's 1080p output? Maybe they are hoping to drive purchases of these new 1080p-accepting Sony TV sets with the PS3.On the other hand, Microsoft announced a partnership with Samsung for the Xbox 360. Samsung's new 1080p TV sets are not going to accept 1080p input streams initially. They will only upconvert other signals (720p, 1080i, etc.) before being displayed. Maybe this is why Microsoft did not say anything about 1080p for the XBox 360. The question is whether the Xbox 360 will be able to output 1080p at some time in the future to take advantage of TV sets that will accept 1080p input streams.
john - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
@64 "Well, imo the Doom3 on a PC looks better than the Doom3 on the XBOX. Better quality on PC - Compare the Screenshots ;)"an xbox is $149. how does doom 3 look on a $149 pc?
Anonymous - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
#88Well put. We're going to see more and more digital convergence in the living room. I think that's great because it is a more comfortable place to share technology with friends and family.
The inclusion of high def (FINALLY!) in nearly all future titles gives console gamers what PC gamers have had for a long time. The XBOX has done some good things but there just aren't enough 720p games out there.
Wilson - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
Hardware info comparision for the uninformed.Late 2001 when XBox was released:
XBox - 733 Mhz Pentium III (128kb L2 Cache), 64 MB Ram, GeForce 3 video
Good PC - 2000 Mhz Pentium IV (256kb L2 Cache), 256 Mb Ram, GeForce 3 video
As can be seen, the PC was already far ahead of the XBox hardware wise upon release.
Late 2005:
Xbox 360 - Triple core 3.2 Ghz PowerPC CPU, 512 MB Ram, Future video
Good PC - Dual core 4 Ghz Pentium?, 1024 Mb ram, Future Video
Now u should be able to see that Xbox 360 should stand toe to toe with the best hardware out there. But with its efficiency as a console, it will dominate the PC graphics wise for a while.
Guess what too. The best video card out when the Xbox 360 is released will cost MORE than the Xbox itself. The same goes for the CPU as well. That should dispell any myths about the PC being more cost efficient hardware wise. As well, it should enlighten people to the true capabilities of the new consoles. The developers just need time to harness this hardware and get effienct at using it. If the PS3 actually does turn out to be much more powerful than the Xbox 360... WOW... prepare for some even more AMAZING games.
The orginal XBox had some impressive hardware considering that it was a console. The next gen consoles have impressive hardware period.
Anonymous - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
#82Well put. I agree with all u said basically. Developers are relying on technology instead of gameplay. But it is also like the movies, it gets harder and harder to come up with new and innovative ideas when there are so many out there. Its like some kid starting to watch movies today, they aint seen all the old stuff so even though this new stuff is basically the same, its just as cool cuz they new to THEM.
Wilson - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
to #79: NicolasHe wasn't ragging on the guy, only making a point. He wasnt bragging either, just stating a fact of a difference. He didnt say for sure that he had a Porsche unlike you who is part of the "Gold" club. Ure the one who looks like a snob trying to come down to the everyday person's level by stating that u also own some "common" cars. Ure the one ragging and now im ragging on u. Get lost and keep ure "gold club porsche" comments to ure porsche car forums. Get lost.
Me - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
#81Kill Zone 2 looks like pre quake 2 graphics? From the presentation it doesn't look like Quake 2 graphics it looks more like Battlefield 2 graphics.
I'm curious to those folks who say FarCry looks fricken awesome. I agree the game looks awesome, but the question is how much did you have to spend on your PC to make it look awesome? Seriously. Spill the cost of your PC. It's amazing the bashing of consoles and supremecy for PC's. They are two different price markets. Why even bother comparing the two?
#79 WoW! I think you mis-read what #77 was conveying. From what I read it is he was making a point that the people down playing consoles and glorifying PC's are people who will spend an arm and a leg to make PC games look stellar. Hence his Porsche vs Focus rant. I think you didn't read what he said and took it too literaly and didn't read between the lines of his rant.
Personally for me, I own a HD TV and have HD viewing via DirecTV. If the games can utilize 1080i and run extremely well. I'll take that over PC gaming anyday. Who wouldn't want to relax on the sofa with a wireless controller relaxing playing games? Sitting a foot from a monitor couped up in a chair... Well to each his own.
Jon - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
Great commentary. 24 is Awesome! Thanks for the coverage on E3.Wilson - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
To #78:What percentage of people have HDTV sets right now? Definitely not the majority. How many manufactuers are pumping out 1080p tv;s? Not many. 720p and 1080i will be the big sellers until the 1080p can be produced and then sold cheap enough. Trust me, that wont happen for another 2 to 4 years. And when they do start selling them, it will take a while before they make up a decent percent of the market. So with all that said, 1080p will take a MINIMUM of 4 years to even gain 20% of the market. U know what happens in that time? The X-Box 720 with 1080p resolution. 1080p has been thrown out by sony for marketing hype only. Don't be another sheep please.