Here is why the PS3 is a failure.

Sony engineered the Cell and blu-ray simultaneously. The Cell was to be a CPU/GPU hybrid just like the Emotion Engine. The RSX didn't come along until Sony realized that the Cell wouldn't work as a GPU. The Cell was built as a video imaging device for blu-ray. The Cell's imaging capabilities are the reason that military and medical organizations have taken a liking to the Cell. Inside the PS3, the Cell runs the blu-ray movies and gaming graphics are run entirely on the RSX. Sony's decision to use the Cell processor had more to do with blu-ray movies than gaming. I imagine the billions of dollars Sony spent engineering it had something to with it also. The point being that the Cell wasn't built with gaming as the primary focus. For proof, simply take a look at feedback from the gaming development community as a whole. All say that it's overly difficult. Also take a look at the extended development cycles that plague the PS3. The truth is that the Cell isn't best suited for gaming applications, why, because it wasn't engineered with gaming as it's main focus. So to all the people that worship the Cell as some kind of gaming god, your worshipping a false idol.

  Most everyone is critical of Sony for the use of blu-ray in the PS3. And with good reason, it obviously made the PS3 far too expensive for a game console. Sony, Sony first party developers, and Sony fanboys would like for everyone to believe that BR is needed for next-gen gaming. The truth is that there has been nothing to support this propaganda. If blu-ray is needed, why do 360 multi-plat titles continually best PS3 multi-plats? Why do PS3 first party titles continue to be inferior or on par graphically to 360 titles?  If blu-ray is needed and Sony is focused on gaming, why did they put a blu-ray player in the PS3 that has such a slow read speed that some games have to be partially installed to the PS3's hard drive? Also why is the extra space on the blu-ray disc being filled with redundant game data, instead of more game content?

Sony's objective with the PS3 wasn't to put  the best next-gen console onto the market. There objective was and still is to get as many blu-ray players into the hands of consumers as possible. Why? Because if blu-ray can go mainstream, Sony's HDTV, sound and motion picture divisions will all grow tremendously. I would dare say that Sony could care less if the PS3 fails as long as blu-ray is accepted by the mainstream as the next big media format.

The PS3 will fail because Sony put gaming in the backseat and their movie format in the front. They are facing down two competitors, one is strictly a game console maker, and the other has a machine that was partially designed by game developers.

You have no idea what your talking aboutwhitetiger3521

what do you people mean when you say ps3 will fail?

U mean not get games?

because it certainly will.

You mean not sell as much as ps2? because we all kno any system that sells below 100 million now is a failure right.

[QUOTE="whitetiger3521"]You have no idea what your talking aboutbluebrad1974

No you try to say you know what the Cell and RSX is all about but yet you dont even have a clue. 

-yawn- You expect us to read your novel this late? Where's those cliffnotes. Short version please!hotdaisy18

You left out the most important reason PS3 won't be a failure: the games.

I can understand why many will want to believe that GT5, GTAIV, MGSIV, FFXIII, GOW3, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, White Knight Story, Tekken 6 etc will do nothing for the PS3 but the reality is that consumers don't ignore good games.

They just need good value for money and PS3 isn't that just yet, but it will be. 

what do you people mean when you say ps3 will fail?

U mean not get games?

because it certainly will.

You mean not sell as much as ps2? because we all kno any system that sells below 100 million now is a failure right.

springz300

Sony engineered the Cell and blu-ray simultaneously. The Cell was to be a CPU/GPU hybrid just like the Emotion Engine. The RSX didn't come along until Sony realized that the Cell wouldn't work as a GPU. The Cell was built as a video imaging device for blu-ray. The Cell's imaging capabilities are the reason that military and medical organizations have taken a liking to the Cell. Inside the PS3, the Cell runs the blu-ray movies and gaming graphics are run entirely on the RSX. Sony's decision to use the Cell processor had more to do with blu-ray movies than gaming. I imagine the billions of dollars Sony spent engineering it had something to with it also. The point being that the Cell wasn't built with gaming as the primary focus. For proof, simply take a look at feedback from the gaming development community as a whole. All say that it's overly difficult. Also take a look at the extended development cycles that plague the PS3. The truth is that the Cell isn't best suited for gaming applications, why, because it wasn't engineered with gaming as it's main focus. So to all the people that worship the Cell as some kind of gaming god, your worshipping a false idol.

  Most everyone is critical of Sony for the use of blu-ray in the PS3. And with good reason, it obviously made the PS3 far too expensive for a game console. Sony, Sony first party developers, and Sony fanboys would like for everyone to believe that BR is needed for next-gen gaming. The truth is that there has been nothing to support this propaganda. If blu-ray is needed, why do 360 multi-plat titles continually best PS3 multi-plats? Why do PS3 first party titles continue to be inferior or on par graphically to 360 titles?  If blu-ray is needed and Sony is focused on gaming, why did they put a blu-ray player in the PS3 that has such a slow read speed that some games have to be partially installed to the PS3's hard drive? Also why is the extra space on the blu-ray disc being filled with redundant game data, instead of more game content?

Sony's objective with the PS3 wasn't to put  the best next-gen console onto the market. There objective was and still is to get as many blu-ray players into the hands of consumers as possible. Why? Because if blu-ray can go mainstream, Sony's HDTV, sound and motion picture divisions will all grow tremendously. I would dare say that Sony could care less if the PS3 fails as long as blu-ray is accepted by the mainstream as the next big media format.

The PS3 will fail because Sony put gaming in the backseat and their movie format in the front. They are facing down two competitors, one is strictly a game console maker, and the other has a machine that was partially designed by game developers.

bluebrad1974

ok first, the cell can handle processing graphics to help the GPU, and as far as dificulty of development, didn't sony just release a new development tool set to make it easier. Secondly if Blu-ray isn't needed then please explain why the devs of mass effect have said they can just barely optimize the game to fit DVD9, I've also heard that rockstar was complaining about disc space on GTA4. And now third for the multiplatform games, if PS3 can't run these games properly please explain oblivion and Armored core 4, so far the poor multiplatform games have come from Ubisoft so there is the problem.

[QUOTE="bluebrad1974"]

Sony engineered the Cell and blu-ray simultaneously. The Cell was to be a CPU/GPU hybrid just like the Emotion Engine. The RSX didn't come along until Sony realized that the Cell wouldn't work as a GPU. The Cell was built as a video imaging device for blu-ray. The Cell's imaging capabilities are the reason that military and medical organizations have taken a liking to the Cell. Inside the PS3, the Cell runs the blu-ray movies and gaming graphics are run entirely on the RSX. Sony's decision to use the Cell processor had more to do with blu-ray movies than gaming. I imagine the billions of dollars Sony spent engineering it had something to with it also. The point being that the Cell wasn't built with gaming as the primary focus. For proof, simply take a look at feedback from the gaming development community as a whole. All say that it's overly difficult. Also take a look at the extended development cycles that plague the PS3. The truth is that the Cell isn't best suited for gaming applications, why, because it wasn't engineered with gaming as it's main focus. So to all the people that worship the Cell as some kind of gaming god, your worshipping a false idol.

  Most everyone is critical of Sony for the use of blu-ray in the PS3. And with good reason, it obviously made the PS3 far too expensive for a game console. Sony, Sony first party developers, and Sony fanboys would like for everyone to believe that BR is needed for next-gen gaming. The truth is that there has been nothing to support this propaganda. If blu-ray is needed, why do 360 multi-plat titles continually best PS3 multi-plats? Why do PS3 first party titles continue to be inferior or on par graphically to 360 titles?  If blu-ray is needed and Sony is focused on gaming, why did they put a blu-ray player in the PS3 that has such a slow read speed that some games have to be partially installed to the PS3's hard drive? Also why is the extra space on the blu-ray disc being filled with redundant game data, instead of more game content?

Sony's objective with the PS3 wasn't to put  the best next-gen console onto the market. There objective was and still is to get as many blu-ray players into the hands of consumers as possible. Why? Because if blu-ray can go mainstream, Sony's HDTV, sound and motion picture divisions will all grow tremendously. I would dare say that Sony could care less if the PS3 fails as long as blu-ray is accepted by the mainstream as the next big media format.

The PS3 will fail because Sony put gaming in the backseat and their movie format in the front. They are facing down two competitors, one is strictly a game console maker, and the other has a machine that was partially designed by game developers.

gundamfan80

ok first, the cell can handle processing graphics to help the GPU, and as far as dificulty of development, didn't sony just release a new development tool set to make it easier. Secondly if Blu-ray isn't needed then please explain why the devs of mass effect have said they can just barely optimize the game to fit DVD9, I've also heard that rockstar was complaining about disc space on GTA4. And now third for the multiplatform games, if PS3 can't run these games properly please explain oblivion and Armored core 4, so far the poor multiplatform games have come from Ubisoft so there is the problem.

[QUOTE="springz300"]

what do you people mean when you say ps3 will fail?

U mean not get games?

because it certainly will.

You mean not sell as much as ps2? because we all kno any system that sells below 100 million now is a failure right.

bluebrad1974

Ok you can get away with that statment now, but when it's main games come out and the PS3 looks like a good gameing console, with great games. Your statment will go down the toilet. Like anything worth doing, it takes time.

It's only a matter of time people, before you won't be able to get away with this kind of stuff, so live it up while you can.

The original poster has a point. I have read several hardware analysis reports and they always say the same thing: the cell is powerful, but not suited to gaming. Here's one I found:

http://www.itvidya.com/node/1330/print

The impression I have got from reading various articles of this nature is that the cell is technically more powerful than the 360's triple cores, BUT it is hamstrung by the points listed in the above article to the extent where it cannot outperform it while playing games. It may even be outperformed by the 360 in certain areas.

The article makes an interesting point about the true strength of the cell: video playback and waveform analysis. Could the thread starter actually be right about Sony trying to get as many blu-ray players into homes as possible? 

1.there was suppose to be 2 cells in the system, but it wasnt cost effective.

2.cell was started with gaming in mind, in the late 90s i believe, it had gaming in mind the whole time, but they knew it could be used for much more.

3.edge tools have made deving a lot easier, devs have been praising the tools, also cell can render graphics in tandem with RSX, FF13 does this, as well as many other games. edge tools were given to every dev possible at GDC, games that have been using edge tools come fall this year, games like R&C, drakes etc. and third party games.

4. fanboys still believe disc space directly affects graphics :lol: you can fit more textures, but that doesnt take up the most space, audio, and geometry, etc, etc does. a;so HDD caching negates bluray read speed, thats why games use it.

5.blu ray didnt need ps3 to succeed, a lot of companies besides sony are invested in it, including disney one of the biggest companies. sony is already the biggest movie studio on the planet, breaking all records in 2006, they dont need bluray to secure their business but of course it helps.

6.sony still has arguably the best exclusives coming within the next 12-18 months
Mandingo101

1. Devs have spoken out about overly difficult development

2.Development cycles continue to be anywhere from 3-12 monthes longer on the PS3

3. PS3 games have continually been inferior to 360 games, regardless of extended development times.

You left out the most important reason PS3 won't be a failure: the games.

I can understand why many will want to believe that GT5, GTAIV, MGSIV, FFXIII, GOW3, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, White Knight Story, Tekken 6 etc will do nothing for the PS3 but the reality is that consumers don't ignore good games.

They just need good value for money and PS3 isn't that just yet, but it will be. 

the-very-best

[QUOTE="the-very-best"]

You left out the most important reason PS3 won't be a failure: the games.

I can understand why many will want to believe that GT5, GTAIV, MGSIV, FFXIII, GOW3, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, White Knight Story, Tekken 6 etc will do nothing for the PS3 but the reality is that consumers don't ignore good games.

They just need good value for money and PS3 isn't that just yet, but it will be.

deathmasterk

You know, everytime I read this statement I want to pull my ****ing hair out from my scalp.  If "the average consumer is only familar with a couple of those games" how the **** did Sony sell 115 million plus consoles to date?  Please tell me how because all I've learned from SW is that "MGS isn't a system seller, Socom isn't a system seller, R&C isn't a system seller, god of war isn't a system seller" pretty much no game is a system seller. 

[QUOTE="deathmasterk"][QUOTE="the-very-best"]

You left out the most important reason PS3 won't be a failure: the games.

I can understand why many will want to believe that GT5, GTAIV, MGSIV, FFXIII, GOW3, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, White Knight Story, Tekken 6 etc will do nothing for the PS3 but the reality is that consumers don't ignore good games.

They just need good value for money and PS3 isn't that just yet, but it will be.

SergeantSnitch

You know, everytime I read this statement I want to pull my ****ing hair out from my scalp.  If "the average consumer is only familar with a couple of those games" how the **** did Sony sell 115 million plus consoles to date?  Please tell me how because all I've learned from SW is that "MGS isn't a system seller, Socom isn't a system seller, R&C isn't a system seller, god of war isn't a system seller" pretty much no game is a system seller. 

I came into this thread knowing I would be "enlightened" with bluebrad's complete negative perspective on Sony and the PS3.  I'm not leaving dissapointed. :D  SergeantSnitch

[QUOTE="Mandingo101"]1.there was suppose to be 2 cells in the system, but it wasnt cost effective.

2.cell was started with gaming in mind, in the late 90s i believe, it had gaming in mind the whole time, but they knew it could be used for much more.

3.edge tools have made deving a lot easier, devs have been praising the tools, also cell can render graphics in tandem with RSX, FF13 does this, as well as many other games. edge tools were given to every dev possible at GDC, games that have been using edge tools come fall this year, games like R&C, drakes etc. and third party games.

4. fanboys still believe disc space directly affects graphics :lol: you can fit more textures, but that doesnt take up the most space, audio, and geometry, etc, etc does. a;so HDD caching negates bluray read speed, thats why games use it.

5.blu ray didnt need ps3 to succeed, a lot of companies besides sony are invested in it, including disney one of the biggest companies. sony is already the biggest movie studio on the planet, breaking all records in 2006, they dont need bluray to secure their business but of course it helps.

6.sony still has arguably the best exclusives coming within the next 12-18 months
bluebrad1974

1. Devs have spoken out about overly difficult development

2.Development cycles continue to be anywhere from 3-12 monthes longer on the PS3

3. PS3 games have continually been inferior to 360 games, regardless of extended development times.

Sony engineered the Cell and blu-ray simultaneously. The Cell was to be a CPU/GPU hybrid just like the Emotion Engine. The RSX didn't come along until Sony realized that the Cell wouldn't work as a GPU. The Cell was built as a video imaging device for blu-ray. The Cell's imaging capabilities are the reason that military and medical organizations have taken a liking to the Cell. Inside the PS3, the Cell runs the blu-ray movies and gaming graphics are run entirely on the RSX. Sony's decision to use the Cell processor had more to do with blu-ray movies than gaming. I imagine the billions of dollars Sony spent engineering it had something to with it also. The point being that the Cell wasn't built with gaming as the primary focus. For proof, simply take a look at feedback from the gaming development community as a whole. All say that it's overly difficult. Also take a look at the extended development cycles that plague the PS3. The truth is that the Cell isn't best suited for gaming applications, why, because it wasn't engineered with gaming as it's main focus. So to all the people that worship the Cell as some kind of gaming god, your worshipping a false idol.

Most everyone is critical of Sony for the use of blu-ray in the PS3. And with good reason, it obviously made the PS3 far too expensive for a game console. Sony, Sony first party developers, and Sony fanboys would like for everyone to believe that BR is needed for next-gen gaming. The truth is that there has been nothing to support this propaganda. If blu-ray is needed, why do 360 multi-plat titles continually best PS3 multi-plats? Why do PS3 first party titles continue to be inferior or on par graphically to 360 titles? If blu-ray is needed and Sony is focused on gaming, why did they put a blu-ray player in the PS3 that has such a slow read speed that some games have to be partially installed to the PS3's hard drive? Also why is the extra space on the blu-ray disc being filled with redundant game data, instead of more game content?

Sony's objective with the PS3 wasn't to put the best next-gen console onto the market. There objective was and still is to get as many blu-ray players into the hands of consumers as possible. Why? Because if blu-ray can go mainstream, Sony's HDTV, sound and motion picture divisions will all grow tremendously. I would dare say that Sony could care less if the PS3 fails as long as blu-ray is accepted by the mainstream as the next big media format.

The PS3 will fail because Sony put gaming in the backseat and their movie format in the front. They are facing down two competitors, one is strictly a game console maker, and the other has a machine that was partially designed by game developers.

bluebrad1974

You make many valid points, specifically about PS3's BD drive being slower than frozen vaseline. I've read exactly what you mentioned on many forums, including B3YOND3D:)

BD's 72 Mbit/s read speed is to slow to do all the streaming from the disc itself, therefor it partiall unloads to the HDD.



DVD drives 12x is able to pull about 150Mbs of data off of the disc while current BD drives are able to pull about 75Mbs off the disc at 2x.

Theres no doubt that once BD drives get faster(3x,4x,5x etc;) they will be able to out peform DVD's at the same rate of speed. For streaming DVD greater than BD for now. 

yeah dvd hardly ever reads fast, and its not constant, dvd reads faster on the (outside) of the disc if i remember correctly, and reads faster on the 2nd layer, maybe its the other way around, but yea it in no way blows away bluray, and a constant read is also less straining on the system, we all know about 360's "strain problems"

[QUOTE="bluebrad1974"]

[QUOTE="Mandingo101"]1.there was suppose to be 2 cells in the system, but it wasnt cost effective.

2.cell was started with gaming in mind, in the late 90s i believe, it had gaming in mind the whole time, but they knew it could be used for much more.

3.edge tools have made deving a lot easier, devs have been praising the tools, also cell can render graphics in tandem with RSX, FF13 does this, as well as many other games. edge tools were given to every dev possible at GDC, games that have been using edge tools come fall this year, games like R&C, drakes etc. and third party games.

4. fanboys still believe disc space directly affects graphics :lol: you can fit more textures, but that doesnt take up the most space, audio, and geometry, etc, etc does. a;so HDD caching negates bluray read speed, thats why games use it.

5.blu ray didnt need ps3 to succeed, a lot of companies besides sony are invested in it, including disney one of the biggest companies. sony is already the biggest movie studio on the planet, breaking all records in 2006, they dont need bluray to secure their business but of course it helps.

6.sony still has arguably the best exclusives coming within the next 12-18 months
Mandingo101

1. Devs have spoken out about overly difficult development

2.Development cycles continue to be anywhere from 3-12 monthes longer on the PS3

3. PS3 games have continually been inferior to 360 games, regardless of extended development times.

yeah dvd hardly ever reads fast, and its not constant, dvd reads faster on the (outside) of the disc if i remember correctly, and reads faster on the 2nd layer, maybe its the other way around, but yea it in no way blows away bluray, and a constant read is also less straining on the system, we all know about 360's "strain problems"

Mandingo101

[QUOTE="deathmasterk"][QUOTE="the-very-best"]

You left out the most important reason PS3 won't be a failure: the games.

I can understand why many will want to believe that GT5, GTAIV, MGSIV, FFXIII, GOW3, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, White Knight Story, Tekken 6 etc will do nothing for the PS3 but the reality is that consumers don't ignore good games.

They just need good value for money and PS3 isn't that just yet, but it will be.

SergeantSnitch

You know, everytime I read this statement I want to pull my ****ing hair out from my scalp.  If "the average consumer is only familar with a couple of those games" how the **** did Sony sell 115 million plus consoles to date?  Please tell me how because all I've learned from SW is that "MGS isn't a system seller, Socom isn't a system seller, R&C isn't a system seller, god of war isn't a system seller" pretty much no game is a system seller. 

Sony engineered the Cell and blu-ray simultaneously. The Cell was to be a CPU/GPU hybrid just like the Emotion Engine. The RSX didn't come along until Sony realized that the Cell wouldn't work as a GPU. The Cell was built as a video imaging device for blu-ray. The Cell's imaging capabilities are the reason that military and medical organizations have taken a liking to the Cell. Inside the PS3, the Cell runs the blu-ray movies and gaming graphics are run entirely on the RSX. Sony's decision to use the Cell processor had more to do with blu-ray movies than gaming. I imagine the billions of dollars Sony spent engineering it had something to with it also. The point being that the Cell wasn't built with gaming as the primary focus. For proof, simply take a look at feedback from the gaming development community as a whole. All say that it's overly difficult. Also take a look at the extended development cycles that plague the PS3. The truth is that the Cell isn't best suited for gaming applications, why, because it wasn't engineered with gaming as it's main focus. So to all the people that worship the Cell as some kind of gaming god, your worshipping a false idol.

  Most everyone is critical of Sony for the use of blu-ray in the PS3. And with good reason, it obviously made the PS3 far too expensive for a game console. Sony, Sony first party developers, and Sony fanboys would like for everyone to believe that BR is needed for next-gen gaming. The truth is that there has been nothing to support this propaganda. If blu-ray is needed, why do 360 multi-plat titles continually best PS3 multi-plats? Why do PS3 first party titles continue to be inferior or on par graphically to 360 titles?  If blu-ray is needed and Sony is focused on gaming, why did they put a blu-ray player in the PS3 that has such a slow read speed that some games have to be partially installed to the PS3's hard drive? Also why is the extra space on the blu-ray disc being filled with redundant game data, instead of more game content?

Sony's objective with the PS3 wasn't to put  the best next-gen console onto the market. There objective was and still is to get as many blu-ray players into the hands of consumers as possible. Why? Because if blu-ray can go mainstream, Sony's HDTV, sound and motion picture divisions will all grow tremendously. I would dare say that Sony could care less if the PS3 fails as long as blu-ray is accepted by the mainstream as the next big media format.

The PS3 will fail because Sony put gaming in the backseat and their movie format in the front. They are facing down two competitors, one is strictly a game console maker, and the other has a machine that was partially designed by game developers.

bluebrad1974

Wow I am wondering or should I believe u or ask u how much u get paid by MS?

[QUOTE="Mandingo101"][QUOTE="bluebrad1974"]

[QUOTE="Mandingo101"]1.there was suppose to be 2 cells in the system, but it wasnt cost effective.

2.cell was started with gaming in mind, in the late 90s i believe, it had gaming in mind the whole time, but they knew it could be used for much more.

3.edge tools have made deving a lot easier, devs have been praising the tools, also cell can render graphics in tandem with RSX, FF13 does this, as well as many other games. edge tools were given to every dev possible at GDC, games that have been using edge tools come fall this year, games like R&C, drakes etc. and third party games.

4. fanboys still believe disc space directly affects graphics :lol: you can fit more textures, but that doesnt take up the most space, audio, and geometry, etc, etc does. a;so HDD caching negates bluray read speed, thats why games use it.

5.blu ray didnt need ps3 to succeed, a lot of companies besides sony are invested in it, including disney one of the biggest companies. sony is already the biggest movie studio on the planet, breaking all records in 2006, they dont need bluray to secure their business but of course it helps.

6.sony still has arguably the best exclusives coming within the next 12-18 months
bluebrad1974

1. Devs have spoken out about overly difficult development

2.Development cycles continue to be anywhere from 3-12 monthes longer on the PS3

3. PS3 games have continually been inferior to 360 games, regardless of extended development times.

[QUOTE="bluebrad1974"]

[QUOTE="Mandingo101"]1.there was suppose to be 2 cells in the system, but it wasnt cost effective.

2.cell was started with gaming in mind, in the late 90s i believe, it had gaming in mind the whole time, but they knew it could be used for much more.

3.edge tools have made deving a lot easier, devs have been praising the tools, also cell can render graphics in tandem with RSX, FF13 does this, as well as many other games. edge tools were given to every dev possible at GDC, games that have been using edge tools come fall this year, games like R&C, drakes etc. and third party games.

4. fanboys still believe disc space directly affects graphics :lol: you can fit more textures, but that doesnt take up the most space, audio, and geometry, etc, etc does. a;so HDD caching negates bluray read speed, thats why games use it.

5.blu ray didnt need ps3 to succeed, a lot of companies besides sony are invested in it, including disney one of the biggest companies. sony is already the biggest movie studio on the planet, breaking all records in 2006, they dont need bluray to secure their business but of course it helps.

6.sony still has arguably the best exclusives coming within the next 12-18 months
Mandingo101

1. Devs have spoken out about overly difficult development

2.Development cycles continue to be anywhere from 3-12 monthes longer on the PS3

3. PS3 games have continually been inferior to 360 games, regardless of extended development times.

:lol: WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! This is the same trash that has been posted in my blog Hahahaha!

[QUOTE="bluebrad1974"]

Sony engineered the Cell and blu-ray simultaneously. The Cell was to be a CPU/GPU hybrid just like the Emotion Engine. The RSX didn't come along until Sony realized that the Cell wouldn't work as a GPU. The Cell was built as a video imaging device for blu-ray. The Cell's imaging capabilities are the reason that military and medical organizations have taken a liking to the Cell. Inside the PS3, the Cell runs the blu-ray movies and gaming graphics are run entirely on the RSX. Sony's decision to use the Cell processor had more to do with blu-ray movies than gaming. I imagine the billions of dollars Sony spent engineering it had something to with it also. The point being that the Cell wasn't built with gaming as the primary focus. For proof, simply take a look at feedback from the gaming development community as a whole. All say that it's overly difficult. Also take a look at the extended development cycles that plague the PS3. The truth is that the Cell isn't best suited for gaming applications, why, because it wasn't engineered with gaming as it's main focus. So to all the people that worship the Cell as some kind of gaming god, your worshipping a false idol.

  Most everyone is critical of Sony for the use of blu-ray in the PS3. And with good reason, it obviously made the PS3 far too expensive for a game console. Sony, Sony first party developers, and Sony fanboys would like for everyone to believe that BR is needed for next-gen gaming. The truth is that there has been nothing to support this propaganda. If blu-ray is needed, why do 360 multi-plat titles continually best PS3 multi-plats? Why do PS3 first party titles continue to be inferior or on par graphically to 360 titles?  If blu-ray is needed and Sony is focused on gaming, why did they put a blu-ray player in the PS3 that has such a slow read speed that some games have to be partially installed to the PS3's hard drive? Also why is the extra space on the blu-ray disc being filled with redundant game data, instead of more game content?

Sony's objective with the PS3 wasn't to put  the best next-gen console onto the market. There objective was and still is to get as many blu-ray players into the hands of consumers as possible. Why? Because if blu-ray can go mainstream, Sony's HDTV, sound and motion picture divisions will all grow tremendously. I would dare say that Sony could care less if the PS3 fails as long as blu-ray is accepted by the mainstream as the next big media format.

The PS3 will fail because Sony put gaming in the backseat and their movie format in the front. They are facing down two competitors, one is strictly a game console maker, and the other has a machine that was partially designed by game developers.

squallff8_fan

Wow I am wondering or should I believe u or ask u how much u get paid by MS?

You sound like a broken record. Always insisting that the PS3 is mainly a movie player and not a gaming console.

Hey, i'm playing PS3 games on it, whatching Blu-ray movies and now also playing upscaled PS1 and PS2 games and upscaled DVDs.

I'm an happy man.:)

You sound like a broken record. Always insisting that the PS3 is mainly a movie player and not a gaming console.

Hey, i'm playing PS3 games on it, whatching Blu-ray movies and now also playing upscaled PS1 and PS2 games and upscaled DVDs.

I'm an happy man.:)

lusitanogamer

[QUOTE="lusitanogamer"]

You sound like a broken record. Always insisting that the PS3 is mainly a movie player and not a gaming console.

Hey, i'm playing PS3 games on it, whatching Blu-ray movies and now also playing upscaled PS1 and PS2 games and upscaled DVDs.

I'm an happy man.:)

bluebrad1974

Now how can you say that? Does everyone think the same way? How about have the same tastes? Keep your opinions, let others have theirs.Ibacai

The DVD dirve in the 360 has double the read speed of the PS3's blu-ray player through half the disc, and 1/3 faster through the other half. So I don't understand what point you are trying to make.bluebrad1974

Yes the DVD drive reads faster than the BR drive, but to do so it has to spin very fast. The results are; it's louder and produces more heat. And I think everyone knows what heat can make to a X360... it can turn it into a red-eyed Triclops ;)

Your attempts at trying to soften the undeniable truth about what's behind the PS3 and Sony's plans is commendable. But people are going to believe what they see and what they have already seen (atleast intelligient people). The fact remains that 360 is outperforming the PS3, and no amount of damage control can change that. bluebrad1974

You're not very bright are you?

You try to start a thread that makes claims without the incorporation of evidence. Then, when someone disputes the claims, you hand them kneejerk "denial" statements.

We're not in Egypt you know. 

[QUOTE="Ibacai"] Now how can you say that? Does everyone think the same way? How about have the same tastes? Keep your opinions, let others have theirs.SergeantSnitch

When did the PS3 fail?! from what i remember its only been out for 7 months!!!

Maybe you and other lemmings might want to wait till this gen is over to decide which consol failed! 

Sony engineered the Cell and blu-ray simultaneously. The Cell was to be a CPU/GPU hybrid just like the Emotion Engine. The RSX didn't come along until Sony realized that the Cell wouldn't work as a GPU. The Cell was built as a video imaging device for blu-ray. The Cell's imaging capabilities are the reason that military and medical organizations have taken a liking to the Cell. Inside the PS3, the Cell runs the blu-ray movies and gaming graphics are run entirely on the RSX. Sony's decision to use the Cell processor had more to do with blu-ray movies than gaming. I imagine the billions of dollars Sony spent engineering it had something to with it also. The point being that the Cell wasn't built with gaming as the primary focus. For proof, simply take a look at feedback from the gaming development community as a whole. All say that it's overly difficult. Also take a look at the extended development cycles that plague the PS3. The truth is that the Cell isn't best suited for gaming applications, why, because it wasn't engineered with gaming as it's main focus. So to all the people that worship the Cell as some kind of gaming god, your worshipping a false idol.

  Most everyone is critical of Sony for the use of blu-ray in the PS3. And with good reason, it obviously made the PS3 far too expensive for a game console. Sony, Sony first party developers, and Sony fanboys would like for everyone to believe that BR is needed for next-gen gaming. The truth is that there has been nothing to support this propaganda. If blu-ray is needed, why do 360 multi-plat titles continually best PS3 multi-plats? Why do PS3 first party titles continue to be inferior or on par graphically to 360 titles?  If blu-ray is needed and Sony is focused on gaming, why did they put a blu-ray player in the PS3 that has such a slow read speed that some games have to be partially installed to the PS3's hard drive? Also why is the extra space on the blu-ray disc being filled with redundant game data, instead of more game content?

Sony's objective with the PS3 wasn't to put  the best next-gen console onto the market. There objective was and still is to get as many blu-ray players into the hands of consumers as possible. Why? Because if blu-ray can go mainstream, Sony's HDTV, sound and motion picture divisions will all grow tremendously. I would dare say that Sony could care less if the PS3 fails as long as blu-ray is accepted by the mainstream as the next big media format.

The PS3 will fail because Sony put gaming in the backseat and their movie format in the front. They are facing down two competitors, one is strictly a game console maker, and the other has a machine that was partially designed by game developers.

bluebrad1974

Whatever...

*goes back to playing Resistance*

When did the PS3 fail?! from what i remember its only been out for 7 months!!!

Maybe you and other lemmings might want to wait till this gen is over to decide which consol failed! 

insomnia37

[QUOTE="squallff8_fan"][QUOTE="bluebrad1974"]

Sony engineered the Cell and blu-ray simultaneously. The Cell was to be a CPU/GPU hybrid just like the Emotion Engine. The RSX didn't come along until Sony realized that the Cell wouldn't work as a GPU. The Cell was built as a video imaging device for blu-ray. The Cell's imaging capabilities are the reason that military and medical organizations have taken a liking to the Cell. Inside the PS3, the Cell runs the blu-ray movies and gaming graphics are run entirely on the RSX. Sony's decision to use the Cell processor had more to do with blu-ray movies than gaming. I imagine the billions of dollars Sony spent engineering it had something to with it also. The point being that the Cell wasn't built with gaming as the primary focus. For proof, simply take a look at feedback from the gaming development community as a whole. All say that it's overly difficult. Also take a look at the extended development cycles that plague the PS3. The truth is that the Cell isn't best suited for gaming applications, why, because it wasn't engineered with gaming as it's main focus. So to all the people that worship the Cell as some kind of gaming god, your worshipping a false idol.

  Most everyone is critical of Sony for the use of blu-ray in the PS3. And with good reason, it obviously made the PS3 far too expensive for a game console. Sony, Sony first party developers, and Sony fanboys would like for everyone to believe that BR is needed for next-gen gaming. The truth is that there has been nothing to support this propaganda. If blu-ray is needed, why do 360 multi-plat titles continually best PS3 multi-plats? Why do PS3 first party titles continue to be inferior or on par graphically to 360 titles?  If blu-ray is needed and Sony is focused on gaming, why did they put a blu-ray player in the PS3 that has such a slow read speed that some games have to be partially installed to the PS3's hard drive? Also why is the extra space on the blu-ray disc being filled with redundant game data, instead of more game content?

Sony's objective with the PS3 wasn't to put  the best next-gen console onto the market. There objective was and still is to get as many blu-ray players into the hands of consumers as possible. Why? Because if blu-ray can go mainstream, Sony's HDTV, sound and motion picture divisions will all grow tremendously. I would dare say that Sony could care less if the PS3 fails as long as blu-ray is accepted by the mainstream as the next big media format.

The PS3 will fail because Sony put gaming in the backseat and their movie format in the front. They are facing down two competitors, one is strictly a game console maker, and the other has a machine that was partially designed by game developers.

bluebrad1974

Wow I am wondering or should I believe u or ask u how much u get paid by MS?

If gaming is your hobby, I think u need to get a new hobby because saying the ps3 is a failure when it has only been out 7 months is just nonesense. The ps3 will be ok, and u will see this holiday season, it will be the hottest console and will sell the best out of the three. Remember sony does all the damage down the line in its life cycle and does it better then any company, so to call the ps3 a failure this early, is just setting yourself up for ownage.

[QUOTE="bluebrad1974"][QUOTE="squallff8_fan"][QUOTE="bluebrad1974"]

Sony engineered the Cell and blu-ray simultaneously. The Cell was to be a CPU/GPU hybrid just like the Emotion Engine. The RSX didn't come along until Sony realized that the Cell wouldn't work as a GPU. The Cell was built as a video imaging device for blu-ray. The Cell's imaging capabilities are the reason that military and medical organizations have taken a liking to the Cell. Inside the PS3, the Cell runs the blu-ray movies and gaming graphics are run entirely on the RSX. Sony's decision to use the Cell processor had more to do with blu-ray movies than gaming. I imagine the billions of dollars Sony spent engineering it had something to with it also. The point being that the Cell wasn't built with gaming as the primary focus. For proof, simply take a look at feedback from the gaming development community as a whole. All say that it's overly difficult. Also take a look at the extended development cycles that plague the PS3. The truth is that the Cell isn't best suited for gaming applications, why, because it wasn't engineered with gaming as it's main focus. So to all the people that worship the Cell as some kind of gaming god, your worshipping a false idol.

  Most everyone is critical of Sony for the use of blu-ray in the PS3. And with good reason, it obviously made the PS3 far too expensive for a game console. Sony, Sony first party developers, and Sony fanboys would like for everyone to believe that BR is needed for next-gen gaming. The truth is that there has been nothing to support this propaganda. If blu-ray is needed, why do 360 multi-plat titles continually best PS3 multi-plats? Why do PS3 first party titles continue to be inferior or on par graphically to 360 titles?  If blu-ray is needed and Sony is focused on gaming, why did they put a blu-ray player in the PS3 that has such a slow read speed that some games have to be partially installed to the PS3's hard drive? Also why is the extra space on the blu-ray disc being filled with redundant game data, instead of more game content?

Sony's objective with the PS3 wasn't to put  the best next-gen console onto the market. There objective was and still is to get as many blu-ray players into the hands of consumers as possible. Why? Because if blu-ray can go mainstream, Sony's HDTV, sound and motion picture divisions will all grow tremendously. I would dare say that Sony could care less if the PS3 fails as long as blu-ray is accepted by the mainstream as the next big media format.

The PS3 will fail because Sony put gaming in the backseat and their movie format in the front. They are facing down two competitors, one is strictly a game console maker, and the other has a machine that was partially designed by game developers.

squallff8_fan

Wow I am wondering or should I believe u or ask u how much u get paid by MS?

If gaming is your hobby, I think u need to get a new hobby because saying the ps3 is a failure when it has only been out 7 months is just nonesense. The ps3 will be ok, and u will see this holiday season, it will be the hottest console and will sell the best out of the three. Remember sony does all the damage down the line in its life cycle and does it better then any company, so to call the ps3 a failure this early, is just setting yourself up for ownage.

Omg I feel bad for you. So MGS, FF13, FFvs13, GT5, Tekken 6, R&C, Uncharted, Heavinly Sword, will all suck becasue the cell is meant for movies, and the console is a failure before sony plays it´s first card? =o You do realise sony hasn´t played a single major card yet right? They still have everything up their sleeve, and amazingly the console is still selling just on it´s name. Only an idiot would think the ps3 would fail.Eddie-Vedder