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
Anonymous - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
"But from a person that has owned a number of consoles over the years (more than I would like to admit) At this point and time you can't beat the graphics on a PC."Sorry to bust ure bubble but things are changing. When the XBox is released, hardware power alone, it will be better than 95% of the PC's that people buy. Now if you factor in the efficiency of the console it will be better for games than 99% or any system you can buy. If you could buy a system to reproduce what a console could do it would cost you 10x as much.
A good vid card will cost you 300. In two years you will have to buy another vid card for a PC to keep up with a console. After that you will most definitely have to upgrade other hardware such as cpu, ram, mobo... In the end, the PC will cost you a lot more, don't fool ureself. And why the harsh battle between the two. Its about the games fools. I like PC games better than console games so chose that more expensive route, big deal.
Brynn - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
"the fact of the matter is that console development houses are very much of the write once, compile many mindset"That's simply not true. Many development houses are devoted primarily to one platform.
Some are completely exclusive to one platform (Gran Turismo, Ratchet & Clank), others have the port work done by a completely separate development group (Halo), and others focus on one platform and handle porting after the fact (GTA, Silent Hill, Final Fantasy, ...).
Look mate, out of all of the games out for consoles right now, maybe about 5% (prolly less)of the games are console specific. Infact, I think you listed almost all of them. Developers do have a "Write Once/Complie Many" mentality and the proof is in the games that are out right now. Look at GTA3 & Vice City! They could have looked soooo much better on the Xbox but it didn't really.
It's the games that really matter and most of them are going to look exactly the same on both consoles as developers will always code for the console with the lesser specs. Since the games are going to be the same, the 360 wins it for me cos it's coming out 6 months earlier and Xbox Live kicks ass.
Well, that's my 2 cents anyway...
TrueTrue - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
From what i can see, and what i have experienced in the past, to sell a product you have to create hype, and put one over your competitor. We dont know for sure if playstation 3's power is more than that of xbox360's, neither do we know the opposite. Only time will tell which is more powerful, but at this level does the slight difference in power even matter. Im not sure it does. Anyway all i can say is, cant wait till they are both released, and we get to see games we dreamed about.Anonymous - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
Wow the ignorance in this thread is astounding.Lets face facts please:
The PS3 and Xbox360 will be the FIRST consoles in history to have equal or slightly better graphics then the PC at launch. Which will quickly vanish by the time these consoles are out after their first year, which will have very few next generation games as next gen games take much more development time and cost to develop. Remember every increase in graphics is usually costing gamers decrease in game originality and replay value of games. If you dont believe that, witness the amount of sequels and retreads of existing franchises for next-generation. As a long time gamer at heart next gen doesn't look as great to me for someone who's been gaming since 87 from his first 8-bit NES and seen countless games, from Nintendo, Sega, MS, and Sony and all the other third party developers over the years.
The fact is, other then graphics, gaming is stagnating in a big way. Very few games are truly innovative today, gameplay depth and game mechanics have taken a back seat to graphics and shorter games, or copious amounts of filler as in RPG's.
The only games I've been remotely blown away by as a longtime gamer were MGS3 and God of war and the original GTA3. Almost everything else has been retreading old paths, ad infinitum, how many fucking racing games do you need, how many shallow hack and slash RPG's? How many JAFPS (just another FPS?) like halo do we need? I mean really the level of HYPE coming out of the game industry compared to what it is delivering is growing. Graphics alone does not equate to a fun game.
But as long as new people are born who have no gaming history, there will always be new people to be enchanted an enraptured by what they have never experienced in prior video game history.
Z - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
#77 No, sorry, Killzone 2 is more Quake 2-era graphics, and can't hold a candle to FarCry. There is a world of difference between low-res TV graphics of consoles and what a PC can deliver. Sure there is a price difference, but the quality difference is even greater.Shinji - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
lol ..personal opinion people
don't argue over the freakin internet just coz u don't like some1 else's opinion.
Technologically, i think that Ps3 is gonna be better, although i don't knw nething about the stuff they talk about .. lol
yerh , my pC's kinda crappy .. out dated for 5 yrs or so ... similar to my PS2!! haha
i'd get a console over a PC neday .. i'd prefer it coz you don't have to mess around figuring out what's wrong with your computer, in the end it's a virus then u delete the virus which stuffs up ur computer
than it'll stuff up then u gotta format everything
.. too much things involved for playing games .. and it costs lest then a new computer!!!!!
nicholas - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
To post #77 - As a Porsche owner and part of the Gold Coast Porsche Club of America (PCA) it's so rare that I come across other Porsche owners with such conceitedness as yours. If you really own a Porsche, you don't need to brag or boast owning one and that it cost much more than a Ford Focus. All cars are for all types of people with varying financial standings. I drive a Honda Accord and also a Minivan. The next time you are ragging on someone's car, you may not realize that he/she may have something in the garage, at home, that will blow yours away.And by the way, real gamers play on both PCs and Consoles. Evidently you don't play on both hence you can't figure that on PCs you have a full keyboard and mouse for complete control. I like my console (PS2) as much as my PC but the PC definitely has the upper hand in overall performance while the PS2 is fun since you flick on the switch and just play. Two different things serving not two types of players but two types of moods...
nicholas - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
Hey I have a feeling that these two machines are going to be HOT. Meaning temperature wise. In the PC world, we have cases with water cooling and fans that sound like a jet trying to cool the existing Athlon/Pentium processors and Nvidia/ATI gpus. Damn the Nvidia chip is going to have 300million transistors alone with more power than two 6800 ultras. How are they going to keep these suckers cool. Passively or actively? And what's my electric bill going to look like? My current gaming PC system is sucking 390 watts at max (my power supply is 550watts). If I were to build something like these two beasts for the PC, I'm thinking close to 600-700 watts. So how many watts are we looking at Anand? And what about long-term reliability due to the possible excessive heat and power requirement? I have a feeling that we are going to see a lot of toasted consoles on both sides. Maybe they will only suck 100 watts or so... and if so, how can this apply to the PC world??? I'm sick of the power requirements these days!!!About HD and my personal choice: I have a feeling that most people writing about the HD formats don't even own a HD tuner for their HiDef TV and even worse, the folks who are yapping about it and don't own anything HD. Let's get it clear - from a qualatative stand-point (meaning what you actually see). My HD set and separate HD tuner will produce from 480p to 1080i. I can't solidly say one is better than the other considering that "i" or interlaced tends to be sharper but harder while "p" or progressive tends to be smoother and silkier. I personally think 720p looks the best since it has the smoothness (since we viewing the frames at full rate) while having enough resolution for big screens. 1080i is great if you have a large screen that requires space to filled. I'll take 1080p if it's offered since it would be the ultimate experience in both line resolution and the smoothness of progressive. Someone said the 360 can do 1080p internally but that means nothing since the output stage is one of the very most demanding and taxing processes. Even at this present moment there are $400 HD tuners and $4,000 HD tuners. The $400 HD tuner is fine but the $4,000 will give the best quality re-production and best image processing (ie. when you are watching a fast action scene or a fast camera pan, on higher-end HD boxes you will see less jaggies and pixelation - antialiasing).
Both boxes are going to be good for todays HD sets. But the Sony is going to have the edge to newer formats and 1080p is going to be a major format. I'm looking forward to it.
Ok so here's why I will buy the PS3: Reliability, more quality games, and known to be tested and tested and tested.
I won't buy an XBOX because: I had two friends with XBOXes and while each both work today, they run into occasional glitches which require powerup and down. Hmmm... sounds like Windows. It's a mini PC with serious mods. Duh! While I know that the 360 is a new breed, it would have to be really good and much better than the PS3 to win me over.
I've thought about buying one of the current XBOXes since they are pretty cheap nowadays but then I'd rather take $150 bucks and buy more PS2 games.
Dom is dumb - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link
#67 has got to be the biggest moron on the face of this planet... This quote is complete bullshit:"budget gaming machine together for like 500 bucks and the graphics eat the console alive"
Um... What about memory? What about the monitor? What a dumbass.
To number #74 the cost of the XBox was $349.00 when it debut. Not $500.00. I wish people would learn some facts before launching anything out here.
To #72... You obviously don't care about price. "FarCry is the greatest looking game". Um... Do you know how much you have to spend to make it look like the greatest game? Plus the fact you need a fast ass computer just to run it smooth? So your point is moot. Sorry but FarCry doesn't even compare to KillZone 2 in the graphics department.
Seriously folks. Don't say this game looks better or PC has better graphics. Get past the "hardware" and the games are what it matters. I can count on two hands the number of games that rule on PC. On a console I can count a ton of games that are awesome. I'm so sick and tired of people comparing PC to Consoles. They are marketed toward different audiences.
You know what I'm going to start bragging that my porsche beats your sorry ass focus. What? My porsche costs a ton more? Who cares. Because it seems like price doesn't matter at all when it comes to having good games. Pfffft.
Clauzii - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link
AND - just look at the salesnumbers for consoles compared to PCs - interesting stuff....I remember that the PC game industry is in a little low at the moment, as they actually don´t sell that many games???
TOO MANY PIRATES?????
I don´t know, but a PCs normal main workload is NOT games.
So both Sony and Macrosoft will get their peace of the big cake....again...