TellDaddy's forum posts

Avatar image for TellDaddy
TellDaddy

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 TellDaddy
Member since 2004 • 250 Posts

im getting a ps3 tomorrow with motorstorm RFOM, and oblivion, i cant wait to play it. And i doubt i will be disepointed. Im also looking forward to all the games comeing out in the next months...heavenly sword...lair...graw2...and well, lots of cool games:) Even though many ppl say tha ps3 will fail i just look at that as stupid...there are to many hardcore fans who will buy it...and many not so hardcore fans who will buy it because lots of cool games are comeing out dureing the summer and this fall...loseing DMC4 wont make sony fall to the ground...i dont think that will happen even if they lose the FF and mgs. There are just to many fans for that to happen. And if you liked ps2 and you think some of the games for ps3 look cool...there shouldnt be anything stopping you from buying one:)nc_soldier

There's 600 reasons not to buy one and that is the PS3's major stumbling block. If the PS3 came out with a $400 price tag it would be selling very well even with the lack of games.  A lot of people just won't pay $600 for a system that comes with no games when the 360 ($400) and Wii ($250) are much cheaper, come bundled with a game or games in the 360's case and do not have daily negative press. 

 By this time next year they'll be some good games and a pricedrop and these problems will be a thing of the past, for now they are an issue.

Avatar image for TellDaddy
TellDaddy

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 TellDaddy
Member since 2004 • 250 Posts

Think Again!

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/09/commentary/column_gaming/?postversion=2007030911

One company that says it's not in the running is Microsoft (Charts). Because today's independent publishers are platform agnostic - that is to say, they build games for all major systems - taking over one would result in a massive revenue loss for Microsoft, as all development would be redirected toward the Xbox 360.

"We could never launch an acquisition bid at a third party publisher," said Shane Kim, corporate vice president of Microsoft Game Studios.

gmastersexay

Tell them they could have exclusive rights to GTA and cripple PS3 sales and they'd bite the bullet. There are always exceptions to the rule and this will be one.
Avatar image for TellDaddy
TellDaddy

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 TellDaddy
Member since 2004 • 250 Posts
If history was the deciding factor in the console generations Nintendo would still be on top.The_Game21x


Thank you. It's like saying the Mavs or Suns would never lose again when they were on huge winning streaks. It's naive to believe something will happen over and over and over again just because it did for a while in the past.

The best is going to be when MGS4 comes to the 360 because Konami has no choice considering the small PS3 usebase. You can't make back a $30 million plus budget with a userbase of less the 5 million by new year, 5 million being optomistic.
Avatar image for TellDaddy
TellDaddy

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 TellDaddy
Member since 2004 • 250 Posts

It ain't over till its over 8)

I have noticed that everytime a 360 fans bashes a PS3 in his topic it some how gives them and other 360 fans hope that PS3 will continue this way. I mean if you guys just realise that PS3 has been out for only a few months then all your bashing would stop but unfortunately logic isn't something that 360 fans are known for, while you lot bash PS3, guys at Sony are siting comfortably in their seats knowing that PS3 had a better launch then PS1 and 2 as well as the 360.

Sony will convince you all at E3 !

AB_Uppercut

The fact that such a highly anticipated consoles sales are dropping dramitcally each month is bad news plain and simple. The 360 never sold that poorly in a month and it's been around for 15 months meaning most people that wanted one already have one yet it sells almost 2 to 1 so soon after the PS3 launch. 127,000 units in NA is a financial nightmare for Sony. When those numbers were released I'm sure there was anything but optimism behind closed doors at Sony corp.

Like playing poker you can only evaluate the situation based on the information at hand right now. With the info we have gotten so far Sony is holding a 72 offsuit. If the flop is 772 Sony will most certainly win but the odds are much higer we'll see a different flop.
Avatar image for TellDaddy
TellDaddy

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 TellDaddy
Member since 2004 • 250 Posts
Calling it a failure now would be like trying to collect a Super Bowl bet at 5 minutes into the 1st Quarter.ramey70


Yor forgot to mention the PS3 is down 21-0 five minutes into the first quarter. You may not be able to cash your bet yet but you can start spending money knowing you'll be cashing it in a few hours.
Avatar image for TellDaddy
TellDaddy

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 TellDaddy
Member since 2004 • 250 Posts
If you think CPU and a standard Hard Drive is more important then PS3 wins, if you think GPU and superior RAM configurement is more important then 360 is better.

 I personally think the 360 is always going to be better graphically but by such a small margin it's not important.
Avatar image for TellDaddy
TellDaddy

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 TellDaddy
Member since 2004 • 250 Posts
[QUOTE="supermechakirby"]what does he know, the company he ran just made Movie games :|ninjiijitsu
He's a game developer.


and more established developers have said they exact opposite, Gabe Newell anyone?
Avatar image for TellDaddy
TellDaddy

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 TellDaddy
Member since 2004 • 250 Posts
[QUOTE="TellDaddy"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="TellDaddy"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="TellDaddy"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="TellDaddy"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"]

[QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"]Only the PS3's system RAM runs at 3.2 GHz. Its VRAM runs at 700MHz like the 360's.

Once again you lose. We don't need the world's fastest calculator, we need the most amount of VRAM with the least amount of latency.
rocklegacy2

Jeez...

Vram is suited for the GPU, not the CPU. I'm sure if the 360 used XDR, it'd help the CPU which then aids the GPU for graphics processing.

I know what you said. I'm saying even if your XDR runs at 3.2 GHz it's useless because it has to be primed for use as VRAM before you can use it as VRAM and that means extra code and extra latency. in other words you'll never get that speed out of XDR used as VRAM.

The 360 will just use however much RAM it likes as VRAM without any overhead.

Okay I didn't really get that....

XDR isn't meant to be used as Vram.... the PS3 has Gddr3 for that

That's right. In order to go beyond that 256MB of GDDR3 developers have to execute code to emulate more VRAM using XDR. They also have to homebrew all the things you said the 360s EDRAM takes care of and it all has to go through your 550MHz RSX.

/THREAD

What if the PS3 doesn't need more Vram? What if it really needs something more supportive for the CPU? Like Xdr? XDR is not meant to emulate Vram.... wtf?

The 360 needs edram. One could only imagine how watered down the games for the 360 would be without it.


But it does have EdRam which is a huge advantage. What you said is comprable to saying " a Ferrari is only fast because it has a V8 with 528 horsepower, without that it just be a samll pretty Civic" Thanks for the insight Einstein.

I'm saying that the 360 needed edram, unlike the PS3.


Some could argue the PS3 does need EdRam. Your arguement is flawed.

I don't enjoy 360 games because I know something it needed was incorporated in its design???

Keep up the good work!

Right now I see the 360 and PS3 as the same on a technical level when it comes to games. One has edram, the other doesn't. It's pretty obvious what would happen if we took away the edram of the 360.


What would happen if we took away the Cell. The PS3 is equal to the 360 imagine it without the Cell. Whats the diffrence? Your made a dumb arguement, let it go.

What is a console without it's CPU? :|


They used a good idea to dramatically improve the GPU performance and your trying to put a nagative spin on it because past consoles were not smart enough to include such a feature. Edram will be standard in the near future.

Actually... the PS2 had it and the XBOX didn't...


We all know how it killed the PS2. Two very different embedded rams but you are right none the less.
Avatar image for TellDaddy
TellDaddy

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 TellDaddy
Member since 2004 • 250 Posts
[QUOTE="TellDaddy"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="TellDaddy"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="TellDaddy"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"]

[QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"]Only the PS3's system RAM runs at 3.2 GHz. Its VRAM runs at 700MHz like the 360's.

Once again you lose. We don't need the world's fastest calculator, we need the most amount of VRAM with the least amount of latency.
rocklegacy2

Jeez...

Vram is suited for the GPU, not the CPU. I'm sure if the 360 used XDR, it'd help the CPU which then aids the GPU for graphics processing.

I know what you said. I'm saying even if your XDR runs at 3.2 GHz it's useless because it has to be primed for use as VRAM before you can use it as VRAM and that means extra code and extra latency. in other words you'll never get that speed out of XDR used as VRAM.

The 360 will just use however much RAM it likes as VRAM without any overhead.

Okay I didn't really get that....

XDR isn't meant to be used as Vram.... the PS3 has Gddr3 for that

That's right. In order to go beyond that 256MB of GDDR3 developers have to execute code to emulate more VRAM using XDR. They also have to homebrew all the things you said the 360s EDRAM takes care of and it all has to go through your 550MHz RSX.

/THREAD

What if the PS3 doesn't need more Vram? What if it really needs something more supportive for the CPU? Like Xdr? XDR is not meant to emulate Vram.... wtf?

The 360 needs edram. One could only imagine how watered down the games for the 360 would be without it.


But it does have EdRam which is a huge advantage. What you said is comprable to saying " a Ferrari is only fast because it has a V8 with 528 horsepower, without that it just be a samll pretty Civic" Thanks for the insight Einstein.

I'm saying that the 360 needed edram, unlike the PS3.


Some could argue the PS3 does need EdRam. Your arguement is flawed.

I don't enjoy 360 games because I know something it needed was incorporated in its design???

Keep up the good work!

Right now I see the 360 and PS3 as the same on a technical level when it comes to games. One has edram, the other doesn't. It's pretty obvious what would happen if we took away the edram of the 360.


What would happen if we took away the Cell. The PS3 is equal to the 360 imagine it without the Cell. Whats the diffrence? Your made a dumb arguement, let it go.

What is a console without it's CPU? :|


They used a good idea to dramatically improve the GPU performance and your trying to put a nagative spin on it because past consoles were not smart enough to include such a feature. Edram will be standard in the near future.
Avatar image for TellDaddy
TellDaddy

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 TellDaddy
Member since 2004 • 250 Posts
[QUOTE="TellDaddy"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="TellDaddy"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"][QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"][QUOTE="rocklegacy2"]

[QUOTE="CarlosPontinas"]Only the PS3's system RAM runs at 3.2 GHz. Its VRAM runs at 700MHz like the 360's.

Once again you lose. We don't need the world's fastest calculator, we need the most amount of VRAM with the least amount of latency.
rocklegacy2

Jeez...

Vram is suited for the GPU, not the CPU. I'm sure if the 360 used XDR, it'd help the CPU which then aids the GPU for graphics processing.

I know what you said. I'm saying even if your XDR runs at 3.2 GHz it's useless because it has to be primed for use as VRAM before you can use it as VRAM and that means extra code and extra latency. in other words you'll never get that speed out of XDR used as VRAM.

The 360 will just use however much RAM it likes as VRAM without any overhead.

Okay I didn't really get that....

XDR isn't meant to be used as Vram.... the PS3 has Gddr3 for that

That's right. In order to go beyond that 256MB of GDDR3 developers have to execute code to emulate more VRAM using XDR. They also have to homebrew all the things you said the 360s EDRAM takes care of and it all has to go through your 550MHz RSX.

/THREAD

What if the PS3 doesn't need more Vram? What if it really needs something more supportive for the CPU? Like Xdr? XDR is not meant to emulate Vram.... wtf?

The 360 needs edram. One could only imagine how watered down the games for the 360 would be without it.


But it does have EdRam which is a huge advantage. What you said is comprable to saying " a Ferrari is only fast because it has a V8 with 528 horsepower, without that it just be a samll pretty Civic" Thanks for the insight Einstein.

I'm saying that the 360 needed edram, unlike the PS3.


Some could argue the PS3 does need EdRam. Your arguement is flawed.

I don't enjoy 360 games because I know something it needed was incorporated in its design???

Keep up the good work!

Right now I see the 360 and PS3 as the same on a technical level when it comes to games. One has edram, the other doesn't. It's pretty obvious what would happen if we took away the edram of the 360.


What would happen if we took away the Cell. The PS3 is equal to the 360 imagine it without the Cell. Whats the diffrence? Your made a dumb arguement, let it go.