If The 360 Was Released On The Same Day As The PS3

[QUOTE="cloudff7tm"]

Well, I think the PS3 would definitely be ahead in sales if that happened.

call_of_duty_10

how do you know? have you ever worked on a console?

ohthemanatee

Yes I built one out of tape and toe nail clippings...lol. What do you guys want, we are talking about hypotheticals so we are using the best knowledge we have available with common sense. Common sense tells me already established technology is easier and more predictable to work with. Not to mention cheaper to buy in large amounts and more readily available. Newer tech has been tested a lot less, could have a variety of bugs so more R&D is needed, costs more and is not as easily obtained with fewer manufacturers making it.

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

how do you know? have you ever worked on a console?

Javy03

Yes I built one out of tape and toe nail clippings...lol. What do you guys want, we are talking about hypotheticals so we are using the best knowledge we have available with common sense. Common sense tells me already established technology is easier and more predictable to work with. Not to mention cheaper to buy in large amounts and more readily available. Newer tech has been tested a lot less, could have a variety of bugs so more R&D is needed, costs more and is not as easily obtained with fewer manufacturers making it.

common sense tell me that either removing or adding new parts into a console is equally difficult

it also tells me that if the 360 were released a year later it would be more powerfull

and considering the fact that you're the only ne disputing this i'd say that the sense you're using might not be so common

Sony is what's wrong with the PS3, not microsoft. The cost was too high, the games weren't next gen enough (if at all), and the hd/blu ray war is what hurt ps3.

it took years for an uncharted quality game to come out, MGS4 has revieved high praise from reviewers but long time fans have been very split about it, little big planet was practically a throw away game in the eyes of sony, it just happened to be great so now they're behind it, but until sony devotes itself to the software they'll never really catch up or leave a lasting impression.

ten years from now people will have stronger memories of the bickering about the systems then they will about the systems themselves. and in that ten year cycle we will see companies promote the feuding more than the games if it keeps up this way.

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] What if you bought your PS3 at launch and had to .... wait.Javy03

I bought a launch PS3 and had plenty of multiplats to play plus some solid exclusive. We only had to "wait" for a AAA GS exclusive. There were plenty of games to enjoy on the PS3 even before MGS4's blessed arrival. AA games and multiplatsmeant "the PS3 has no games" back in 06 and 07 but NOW that the 360 is short on exclusives AA games and multiplats are the bees knees.

Besides everyone had to wait after the launch of a new system. The 360 was running off of plenty of bad PS2 ports it's first year as well.

As primarily a PC gamer in response to the original poster I replied to:

BR player? Can get that on a PC if I wanted

Best looking games? PC

Best exclusives? PC by a mile, been shown over and over again

Free online? Better, far more potent and still free online on the PC? sweet.

And if you want to talk 360, it had some great games early on, along with some steaming piles.

Even your own link has outdated information. The PS3 didnt ship with 2 HDMI ports, or 6 USB ports. The original design was supposed to use 2 Cell chips. Specs change all the time at the last minute dude. Doesnt mean mass production would be pushed back for years. The only rush for finalizing specs is so the devs can properly optimize their games. Perfect example, Kojima said the he felt misled about the power of the PS3 because of the specs sent to him by sony, he felt that it would be a much more capable system. As a result, MGS4 had to be toned down. My point is that often times, electronics specifications can take as long as 6mos until launch to be finalized. Heck, even Kinect has been changed multiple times. Its the way technology works, it changes and evolves so quickly. Doesnt take years man..........though it would be nice if it did. ;)navyguy21

I understand specs change but last minute they usually take things out as opposed to replacing things with newer higher end tech. Taking out an extra 2 USB ports and 1 HDMI port isn't a huge deal. These kind of changes they do later on in the gen anyways with slimer models. However putting in newer more untested tech last minute is not something I have heard of.

Devs also get spec lists early because it takes them years to build a game for a particular system. How far in advance did Kojima get the spec list, who knows?Kinect is also not a great example because it is more of an accessory as opposed to a stand alone console and if I recall correctly they merely removed something as well. The 360 is still doing all the gaming work, Kinects is doing the controlling work.

My main point is that 1 extra year of dev time might not make a big difference. You have to understand that these devs pick specs that will be relevant for 6-9 years, so changing it drastically because of one years new tech is something that won't happen because they foresaw that improvement. This is a long term plan that shouldn't be changing due to short term improvements.

If the 360 launched on the same day as the PS3, I think the installed base would be much closer than it is now. The PS3 could very well be leading in that phase. I mean, it has been outselling the 360 since it's launch, which is evidenced by the initial gap being closed.

If they were to launch during the same time, that means developers would have the dev kits for both systems at the same time, thus eliminating "situational" exclusive games like Dead Rising, GRAW, etc.

The earlier start was a huge advantage for the 360 (and a good move). Not only did it provide the aforementioned exclusives (amongst others), but development familiarity throughout the industry, and no current generation competition for a year, including the first holiday.

There's a ton of hypothetical(s) to go along with answering this question, but given my knowledge of how this all works, I reckon the current results would be very different.

The PS3 would have still been terribly expensive. Sure it might have some more sales but nothing major. Wii still wins. TheColbert

I guess this is the correct answer :P.

common sense tell me that either removing or adding new parts into a console is equally difficult

it also tells me that if the 360 were released a year later it would be more powerfull

and considering the fact that you're the only ne disputing this i'd say that the sense you're using might not be so common

ohthemanatee

So your telling me that adding in a newtech that costs more and hasn't been R&Ded as long is just as difficult as adding in already established tech that most people have available and have experience on?

Look at this gen., the 360 and PS3 had the same launch timeline. The PS3 was delayed later because it uses Blu ray and it's parts were not easily obtained and available in the amount needed to launch properly so the console using already established DVD parts launched on time while the more expensive and advanced piece of equipment launched later.

That is the funny thing about the word "common sense". It implies that the knowledge is obvious but as statistics and experience keep showing me, it's apparently not so common.

[QUOTE="Javy03"]So your telling me that adding in a newtech that costs more and hasn't been R&Ded as long is just as difficult as adding in already established tech that most people have available and have experience on?

Look at this gen., the 360 and PS3 had the same launch timeline. The PS3 was delayed later because it uses Blu ray and it's parts were not easily obtained and available in the amount needed to launch properly so the console using already established DVD parts launched on time while the more expensive and advanced piece of equipment launched later.Javy03

PS3 and 360 have a year diference as a result the PS3 has blu-ray and it's exclusives look better, the way I see it you just shot down your own argument

That is the funny thing about the word "common sense". It implies that the knowledge is obvious but as statistics and experience keep showing me, it's apparently not so common.

Javy03

maybe your sense is anything but common?

[QUOTE="locopatho"]Why not? Stick in a better gfx card or more RAM or something. Tech moves very quickly, they hardly gonna design it then sit on their ass for a year doing nothing?Javy03

There is a lot of R&D that goes into deciding the specs of a console. Deals and specs are done WELL in advance. By the last year before the console is released they are not going to be changing the specs, they are going to be working on getting that sucker mass produced and ready to hit the shelves. It's not as easy as a single PC gamer upping his gfx card and ram, this is a multimillion dollar company selling their product at a LOSS and making deals with production well in advance to meet deadlines promised. Changing specson the last yeardrastically changes a lot of things like production costs, availability and would probably delay a product for another 1-2 years.

At most the 360 could have released less buggy and even then I am not sure seeing as how long it took them to get the RROD under control and acknowledged. My assumption is that RROD was a design issue that probably wouldn't have shown it's head in R&D but after 1 million consoles hit the market.

Sony is what's wrong with the PS3, not microsoft. The cost was too high, the games weren't next gen enough (if at all), and the hd/blu ray war is what hurt ps3.

it took years for an uncharted quality game to come out, MGS4 has revieved high praise from reviewers but long time fans have been very split about it, little big planet was practically a throw away game in the eyes of sony, it just happened to be great so now they're behind it, but until sony devotes itself to the software they'll never really catch up or leave a lasting impression.

ten years from now people will have stronger memories of the bickering about the systems then they will about the systems themselves. and in that ten year cycle we will see companies promote the feuding more than the games if it keeps up this way.

fadersdream

The playstation 3 launched at the end of 06. Uncharted launched at the end of 07. How is that YEARS? And as for MGS4, it's the end of a franchise, obviously your are gonna have fans split because every hardcore fan that has their own fanfiction script is not gonna be pleased with how it ends. That's normal. I am also not sure how LBP was a "throw away title". It is a great game from a small gaming company that Sony fully funded, advertised and supported. They exposed this game all over the place. Sony if anything is on their software game.

The problem with the PS3 was launching late and launching expensive. The HD/Blu ray war didn't hurt the PS3 in the least anymore then it hurting the 360 and it's DVD drive. If anything the PS3 helped Blu ray win the war but I highly doubt any GAMER avoided buying the PS3 because of the format it used.

guys.

$599 USD was why the 360 had a huge lead over the PS3.

Not the release date.

Eh? Why bring the 360 into it?

As primarily a PC gamer in response to the original poster I replied to:

BR player? Can get that on a PC if I wanted

Best looking games? PC

Best exclusives? PC by a mile, been shown over and over again

Free online? Better, far more potent and still free online on the PC? sweet.

And if you want to talk 360, it had some great games early on, along with some steaming piles.

blue_hazy_basic

I brought it up because it is the only other comparable product to get an accurate idea of launch waits. The PC doesn't have a launch, we just randomly pick a date and say the new gen starts from here and continues. The 360 had great games and crap just like the PS3 at launch. It had a couple more AAAE according toGS but they all enjoyed plenty of AA-A-AAA multiplats.

[QUOTE="Javy03"]So your telling me that adding in a newtech that costs more and hasn't been R&Ded as long is just as difficult as adding in already established tech that most people have available and have experience on?

Look at this gen., the 360 and PS3 had the same launch timeline. The PS3 was delayed later because it uses Blu ray and it's parts were not easily obtained and available in the amount needed to launch properly so the console using already established DVD parts launched on time while the more expensive and advanced piece of equipment launched later.ohthemanatee

PS3 and 360 have a year diference as a result the PS3 has blu-ray and it's exclusives look better, the way I see it you just shot down your own argument

I think what Javy is saying is that the PS3 was scheduled to launch in 05 with its current specs (or an iteration of itself, with no additional functionality / power). The BD player development / supply constraints is what delayed it. They didn't delay to add more "power" to the system. And if I'm not mistaken, the BD player was spec'd well before development.

guys.

$599 USD was why the 360 had a huge lead over the PS3.

Not the release date.

LegatoSkyheart

The price is a key factor, but so is the time table. Especially when comparing two systems that have similar identities / purposes, like the 360 and PS3.

Since its launch, the PS3 has outsold the 360 worldwide. Hence, "closed the gap".

As I previously mentioned, the time frame has also affected the development side of things.

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

[QUOTE="Javy03"]So your telling me that adding in a newtech that costs more and hasn't been R&Ded as long is just as difficult as adding in already established tech that most people have available and have experience on?

Look at this gen., the 360 and PS3 had the same launch timeline. The PS3 was delayed later because it uses Blu ray and it's parts were not easily obtained and available in the amount needed to launch properly so the console using already established DVD parts launched on time while the more expensive and advanced piece of equipment launched later.Episode_Eve

PS3 and 360 have a year diference as a result the PS3 has blu-ray and it's exclusives look better, the way I see it you just shot down your own argument

I think what Javy is saying is that the PS3 was scheduled to launch in 05 with its current specs (or an iteration of itself, with no additional functionality / power). The BD player development / supply constraints is what delayed it. They didn't delay to add more "power" to the system. The BD player was spec'd well before development.

and in the end they couldn't meet the deadline, it ended up being launched at the end of 2006 I'd say that pretty much solidifies my argument

[QUOTE="Episode_Eve"]

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

PS3 and 360 have a year diference as a result the PS3 has blu-ray and it's exclusives look better, the way I see it you just shot down your own argument

ohthemanatee

I think what Javy is saying is that the PS3 was scheduled to launch in 05 with its current specs (or an iteration of itself, with no additional functionality / power). The BD player development / supply constraints is what delayed it. They didn't delay to add more "power" to the system. The BD player was spec'd well before development.

and in the end they couldn't meet the deadline, it ended up being launched at the end of 2006 I'd say that pretty much solidifies my argument

I understand that the PS3 was delayed until the end of 2006. Do you think the PS3 gained an advantage over the 360 with the BD player? I'd say it raised cost, and caused some development issues (loading and streaming game assets). Both negative results. More space is good though, and I love BD movies! I'm just not sure the BD player is the reason PS3 exclusive games are graphically more impressive than 360 games. That's optimization and putting the Cell to proper use.

I wanna make sure we're on the same page. Are we discussing the implications of graphics power, when discussing the BD player? Or development implications?

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

[QUOTE="Episode_Eve"]

I think what Javy is saying is that the PS3 was scheduled to launch in 05 with its current specs (or an iteration of itself, with no additional functionality / power). The BD player development / supply constraints is what delayed it. They didn't delay to add more "power" to the system. The BD player was spec'd well before development.

Episode_Eve

and in the end they couldn't meet the deadline, it ended up being launched at the end of 2006 I'd say that pretty much solidifies my argument

I understand that the PS3 was delayed until the end of 2006. Do you think the PS3 gained an advantage over the 360 with the BD player? I'd say it raised cost, and caused some development issues (loading and streaming game assets). Both negative results. More space is good though, and I love BD movies! I'm just not sure the BD player is the reason PS3 exclusive games are graphically more impressive than 360 games. That's optimization and putting the Cell to proper use.

I wanna make sure we're on the same page. Are we discussing the implications of graphics power, when discussing the BD player? Or development implications?

I'm not mentioned the costs, i'm speaking from a pure tech perspective, i'd say that in the end the PS3 gained from the delay (tecnology wise)

[QUOTE="Javy03"]

[QUOTE="Javy03"]So your telling me that adding in a newtech that costs more and hasn't been R&Ded as long is just as difficult as adding in already established tech that most people have available and have experience on?

Look at this gen., the 360 and PS3 had the same launch timeline. The PS3 was delayed later because it uses Blu ray and it's parts were not easily obtained and available in the amount needed to launch properly so the console using already established DVD parts launched on time while the more expensive and advanced piece of equipment launched later.ohthemanatee

PS3 and 360 have a year diference as a result the PS3 has blu-ray and it's exclusives look better, the way I see it you just shot down your own argument

That is the funny thing about the word "common sense". It implies that the knowledge is obvious but as statistics and experience keep showing me, it's apparently not so common.

Javy03

maybe your sense is anything but common?

How so? Blu ray was not something that was shoved in the PS3 a year before release. It was a long thought out planed release that because of the nature of it being so new caused a delay. How does this hurt my argument? This shows how even well planned in advancenew tech additions can cause delays and you think people will just change important specs drasticallyeven later in the game? Sounds like it totally helps my argument and hurts yours.

And as for exclusives, it's obvious you have been hanging around in SW for tooo long. Games look the way they do because of the MONEY, TIMEand TALENT invested in them. That's why you can see drastic variations in exclusive game quality even if launched at the same time,on the same consoleor in the same year using the same tech. 99% of the reason why PS3 exclusives look so good and are so good is because of the talented devs, not the hardware. The same hardware that plays the PS3 craptastic version of FEAR is the EXACT same hardware used for Uncharted. The difference is the talent. You can have a great dev pulling out all the stops on lesser hardware vs. a dev that is just trying to cash in and does a mediocre or worse job and the game with the better dev will look and play better regardless of hardware. Obviously the hardware can't be SIGNIFICANTLY different for that to happen but the PS3 and 360 are not SIGNIFICANTLY different.

And after being in SW for this long I take it as quite a compliment that my sense is anything but common here.

locopatho

LOL, very true but R&D takes up a lot of money. These companies don't wanna tack on an extra year of testing and investing in a product that is still only taking money and not making it. These consoles are built to be relevant for 6-9 years so I don't think one extra years worth of tech would change their long term plan.

How so? Blu ray was not something that was shoved in the PS3 a year before release. It was a long thought out planed release that because of the nature of it being so new caused a delay. How does this hurt my argument? This shows how even well planned in advancenew tech additions can cause delays and you think people will just change important specs drasticallyeven later in the game? Sounds like it totally helps my argument and hurts yours.

And as for exclusives, it's obvious you have been hanging around in SW for tooo long. Games look the way they do because of the MONEY, TIMEand TALENT invested in them. That's why you can see drastic variations in exclusive game quality even if launched at the same time,on the same consoleor in the same year using the same tech. 99% of the reason why PS3 exclusives look so good and are so good is because of the talented devs, not the hardware. The same hardware that plays the PS3 craptastic version of FEAR is the EXACT same hardware used for Uncharted. The difference is the talent. You can have a great dev pulling out all the stops on lesser hardware vs. a dev that is just trying to cash in and does a mediocre or worse job and the game with the better dev will look and play better regardless of hardware. Obviously the hardware can't be SIGNIFICANTLY different for that to happen but the PS3 and 360 are not SIGNIFICANTLY different.Javy03

and in the end the PS3 was launched a year later with better tech

Show me a console created by a credible game maker, with the purpose of being a high end gaming device that was launched earlier then the competition and ended up having the better hardware

And after being in SW for this long I take it as quite a compliment that my sense is anything but common here.

Javy03

you're the one who went on about common sense, not me, make up your mind either it's a good think or it isn't

I'm not mentioned the costs, i'm speaking from a pure tech perspective, i'd say that in the end the PS3 gained from the delay (tecnology wise)

ohthemanatee

How?? It had the same technology that it was gonna have in 05, they just opted to delay it because they couldn't get enough parts to have a decent launch. It's new tech HURT it because it launched later and more expensive and the new tech was implemented EARLY in the development which is my whole argument.

Did you forget the main argument? You think new tech can just be added on last minute and not significantly delay the product launch. I said new tech has lots of problems and they won't be so rash to put it in so last minute. The PS3 is an example of new tech delaying and hurting a launch and it wasn't even added last minute. Imagine if the Blu ray player was just added to the PS3 in 05. Sony would have to scramble to make deals,redesign the consoles archetecture and get all the parts in one year. We would probably be on our first year of the PS3 if that was the case.

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

I'm not mentioned the costs, i'm speaking from a pure tech perspective, i'd say that in the end the PS3 gained from the delay (tecnology wise)

Javy03

How?? It had the same technology that it was gonna have in 05, they just opted to delay it because they couldn't get enough parts to have a decent launch. It's new tech HURT it because it launched later and more expensive and the new tech was implemented EARLY in the development which is my whole argument.

Did you forget the main argument? You think new tech can just be added on last minute and not significantly delay the product launch. I said new tech has lots of problems and they won't be so rash to put it in so last minute. The PS3 is an example of new tech delaying and hurting a launch and it wasn't even added last minute. Imagine if the Blu ray player was just added to the PS3 in 05. Sony would have to scramble to make deals,redesign the consolesarchetectureand get all the parts in one year. We would probably be on our first year of the PS3 if that was the case.

and they couldn't deliver the hardware in 05, they had to wait until 06 hence prooving my point

and they couldn't deliver the hardware in 05, they had to wait until 06 hence prooving my point

ohthemanatee

????

Let's recap. You agree with the TC that if the 360 had an extra year it would somehow be drastically more powerful and it's exclusives would be better looking.

I think that ONE year is not a significant amount of time to make drastic additions with new tech. I think it would delay a console longer then just 1 year to make it more powerful. I then use the example of the PS3 and 360. You agree the PS3 is more powerful then the 360. Well the PS3 was planned with these specs in advance just like the 360, well before launch. The PS3 was delayed because of the already implemented Blu ray and released a year later with the SAME specs. It gained nothing power wise from the year wait. Sony could have easily released even a few prepared PS3s in 05 with the 360 or even two to three months later in early 06. They waited a year most likely because they wanted a strong launch during the holidays.

So as I said, for the 360 to be more powerful then it is without having a worse problem then the RROD or making negative money like the Xbox they would have to delay the system more then just a year.

I don't know if it would make it drastically more powerfull... but yeah it would have made it more powerfullohthemanatee

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]I don't know if it would make it drastically more powerfull... but yeah it would have made it more powerfullJavy03

lol if you say so. I still think otherwise

*sighs* stop using what if's to justify your ps3 purchase.

WilliamRLBaker

The wheel could be spun both ways

[QUOTE="fadersdream"]

Sony is what's wrong with the PS3, not microsoft. The cost was too high, the games weren't next gen enough (if at all), and the hd/blu ray war is what hurt ps3.

it took years for an uncharted quality game to come out, MGS4 has revieved high praise from reviewers but long time fans have been very split about it, little big planet was practically a throw away game in the eyes of sony, it just happened to be great so now they're behind it, but until sony devotes itself to the software they'll never really catch up or leave a lasting impression.

ten years from now people will have stronger memories of the bickering about the systems then they will about the systems themselves. and in that ten year cycle we will see companies promote the feuding more than the games if it keeps up this way.

Javy03

The playstation 3 launched at the end of 06. Uncharted launched at the end of 07. How is that YEARS? And as for MGS4, it's the end of a franchise, obviously your are gonna have fans split because every hardcore fan that has their own fanfiction script is not gonna be pleased with how it ends. That's normal. I am also not sure how LBP was a "throw away title". It is a great game from a small gaming company that Sony fully funded, advertised and supported. They exposed this game all over the place. Sony if anything is on their software game.

The problem with the PS3 was launching late and launching expensive. The HD/Blu ray war didn't hurt the PS3 in the least anymore then it hurting the 360 and it's DVD drive. If anything the PS3 helped Blu ray win the war but I highly doubt any GAMER avoided buying the PS3 because of the format it used.

I hate hypothetical questions.

Javy03

Javy for someone who hates hypotheticals you sure are battling in this one :P

Quality wiseI think it would have done better. If anything being last has made SONY step up their game (much like Tottenham!) I can only hope MS wouldnt hagve turned off so soon, and would be doing a lot more then securing timed exclusive content.

As for sales SONY would be destroying them

nothing would've changed

360 is terrible...I just watched black ops interview on gamtrailer...lol they have to spend a lot of time to compress it into a dvd disc...lol that's sad.

I am sure they will do the samething on ps3 version even though blue-ray disc has much more storage, cuz they dont want ps3 version looks bettter than 360. After all, they sell more copies on 360 than PS3, and it's not fine to make 360 users unhappy when they find out their version is worse than PS3.

For god's sake, they should require mandatory install (unzip) for 360 version since its dvd disc is too small for current games now. MS shouldnt sell 360 without HDD. It actually kills gameplay quality. lol you cant find a pc games that only requires 8GB space for installation these days. Man, even L4D2 needs more than 8GB...no wonder 360's L4D2 is so inferior comparing to PC's (not only graphics but other things too, cuz valve just cant put so many stuffs into a disc and no free dlc on 360)

back to topic, if they are selling at the same price with the same release date, 360 is gonna be owned.