ok so its been....3 months....1/4 of a year....and they only have about 1/5th of the sales taht the 360 had....or is that wrong?eddy_of_york1. PS3 has only been launched in N/A and Japan. European launch is scheduled for March 23rd this year and there is plenty of supply as well as more content available for the European launch. getting Casino Royale on Blu-ray for free doesn't hurt either (man, i wish i got that instead of Talladega Nights =[). I see the N/A and Japan launch as an early launch for us hardcore fanboys to get a taste of the system. i see the European launch as the true launch of the PS3, and obviously, Europeans are very excited about the PS3. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/a42660/playstation-3-enjoys-record-pre-orders.html?rss http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=22810 2. PS3's big titles have yet to be released such as MGS, GT, FF, Tekken, and DMC. these games sold millions of copies on the PS2. then theres the new titles yet to be released, like Heavenly Sword, Lair, Uncharted, Eight Days and Motorstorm. Not to mention the multiplat games, because you know, not everyone owns a 360. right now, Resistance, and i guess you could throw in GT:HD (and VF5 in Japan and soon N/A) are the only games worth getting for the PS3 right now IMO, yet it sold 2m units. just imagine when more games are released. 3. Holiday season. PS3 pretty much missed last years holiday season because of manufacturing problems. they only managed to get something like 197000 units on launch. not until AFTER christmas did they start manufacturing PS3's in a steady rate. 360 got to enjoy 2 holiday seasons in its full year (and 1 entire year with no true competition even available) 4. the 360 did not sell 10m units in a year. 5. theres still another 5+ years left before the NEXT gen consoles are launched, so theres LOTS of time for the PS3 to catch up in sales. i think thats proof enough that the PS3 will do fine. but only time will tell i guess.
rahzel54's forum posts
Well that's what they promised and until they can deliver that in every game, the PS3 is a flop Agreed, I used to want a PS3. But all you get to look forward to is motorstorm, and a tekken rehash. LOL! 360 owns!
are u 8?
probably... there are A LOT of children in these boards.
2 million sold? Now how is Sony gonna convince 10 million more people to spend 600$ on a system that plays the same old rehashes in a higher resolution?carl2tanrehashes in higher resolution? how about heavenly sword, resistance, motorstorm, lair, eight days, uncharted? and who really cares if a lot of the ps3 exclusives are just continuations of previous titles? its those titles that bring a lot of PS fans back to the system... thats gotta be the stupidest thing i've read today. what will convince 10m more people to buy ps3's? the variety in games that made previous PS systems successful and that will come, videophiles who want blu-ray players, and europe once its finally launched. the ps3's big guns have yet to be released and its only a 3 month old machine. regarding europe, obviously a lot of europeans are excited about the ps3. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/a42660/playstation-3-enjoys-record-pre-orders.html?rsshttp://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=22810 and btw, those numbers are most likely units SOLD, because sony announced mid january that they already SHIPPED 2m units worldwide.
[QUOTE="rahzel54"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="rahzel54"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="rahzel54"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="rykaziel"]If Bethesda had a year to focus solely on optimization with the 360, the comparison would be equal. But they didn't, so it's pointless to argue.-GeordiLaForge-Exactly... like i said, they did NOT have a YEAR to focus on optimization.... READ the interview at spong. Pete Hines said he had a TOTAL of 1 year to work on the ps3 version (well, he said he started working on the ps3 version in March 2006). and most of that time was porting it over... and in the video interview at gamesradar, he specifically says theres only 1-2 of the visual enhancements that they can even possibly be bring over to the 360. theres 2 FACTS that i've proven time and time again in this thread, but you lemmings still can't admit it. Sorry, but the compilers make it "work" on the PS3 without optimization. The devs used the year to optimize the game for the PS3's hardware. And they were focusing solely on the PS3 version, not 2 systems at once. And developer interviews state that the hardware is not what makes it better, it's the extra optimization time. They said that there is not one thing that couldn't be done on the 360. The PS3 version lacks AA, which is definitely a hardware limitation, so you really have no basis for an argument that the PS3 is superior... wow... listen to the interview and it will answer all your questions. the interview was as of feb 14th btw. http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/movies/index.jsp?releaseId=20060726163237511007 and again, i didn't say the PS3 is superior FF sakes... don't put words in my mouth. all i'm saying is the ps3 excels at certain things and VICE VERSA. i've said the same thing numerous times, you guys just fail to read my posts correctly and you also fail to read/listen to the articles i post. instead, you keep blabbing on about the SAME things. When did I mention compilers or optimization before? I mentioned them for the first time right there to prove you wrong. The PS3 dev time was not spent porting it over. The base code can be compiled and ran without effort. In that video, they mention the fact that the PS3 version had a year's EXTRA development time, not a year total. And that EXTRA year was spent OPTIMIZING the game for the PS3, not porting it over.... again, you fail to read my articles and posts... i posted this probably 3 times in this thread now.
http://spong.com/detail/editorial.jsp?eid=10109516&cid=&tid=&pid=&plid=&page=1 you do realize how complex the ps3 hardware is? you do realize how different its architecture is from a PC or 360? do you honestly think its EASY to port it to the ps3, especially at this time when the ps3's dev tools are lacking maturity? they obviously had extra dev time for the ps3 version (i didn't say they didn't) but they probably didnt have much time for optimization if they only had a year to work on the ps3 version. You failed to miss the point, that you're wrong once again. The base code is written in a low level language, and is then compiled for each system. The game isn't ported to the PS3. The base code is compiled for the PS3. It is then optimized for the PS3, which they had a full year to do. The year was spent optimizing the game for the PS3, not porting it to the PS3... if you optimize a game for a completely different system because it has a completely different architecture, thats basically porting. because the ps3's architecture is so complex, and the dev tools are not very mature, they were spending most time getting the game to run similar to the 360. thats why it automatically shouldnt just look better just because they had a year to port it to the ps3.SPOnG: Sure. It's nearly a year now after the release of the Xbox 360 and PC versions. How long have the team been working specifically on the PS3 version? Pete Hines: Since last March, since we shipped the PC and 360 versions.
[QUOTE="rahzel54"][QUOTE="aceReborn"][QUOTE="rahzel54"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="rykaziel"]If Bethesda had a year to focus solely on optimization with the 360, the comparison would be equal. But they didn't, so it's pointless to argue.aceRebornExactly... like i said, they did NOT have a YEAR to focus on optimization.... READ the interview at spong. Pete Hines said he had a TOTAL of 1 year to work on the ps3 version (well, he said he started working on the ps3 version in March 2006). and most of that time was porting it over... and in the video interview at gamesradar, he specifically says theres only 1-2 of the visual enhancements that they can even possibly be bring overto the 360. theres 2 FACTS that i've proven time and time again in this thread, but you lemmings still can't admit it. And the Sony fans refuse to admit that the ps3 version lacks anti aliasing (AA), even if it’s dead obvious in 720p native screen shoots and confirmed by 1up. If the ps3 hardware is so great, why did they had to remove the AA? who knows when those shots were taken, but these were taken as of this month. http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38405&page=3 i see no aliasing. also, the image someone posted in page 10 was sized down. if you size down an image, it will show more jaggies. if you don't believe me, do it yourself in ms paint. i admit the ps3 lacks HDR + AA and AA comes at a higher cost than the 360's GPU (because of its edram, but this is only valid if were talking about 720p resolution), but where RSX lacks, it makes up for with the ability to work with Cell. listen, i'm not saying the ps3 is superior to the 360. all i'm saying is there are some things the ps3 excel in and vice versa, but both systems are pretty equal in power. If you downsize an image, IT SHOULD SHOW LESS JAGGIES than the native image, if it does not, the image program used for the downsizing is rubbish or wrongly configured, but I’m aware that those type of downsizing progs do exits. Downsizing, is the same as downscaling, and downscaling is a form of AA since it will blur out the jaggies. Yes, I tried it in MS paint, and even MS paint blurred out the jaggies in the 720p ign ps3 shoots, making them harder to spot. Also, the 360 shoots used for the comparison on beyond3d and here, was obtained with a camera and originally posted on another forum, while the ps3 shoot is a downscaled version of a direct feed native ps3 720p shoot sent out by developers. Not exactly a fair comparison. And to further favour the ps3, the shoots are downscaled to 576p. Downscaling favours the ps3 version, since the 360 version had less jaggies to start with. if you have more bits in an original picture, and downsize it, it makes the picture look messy and not as clean as its original size. unless you use a soft resize method, such as bicubic or bilinear, but honestly, who knows what resize method was used in that image. if you use a sharp resize method, such as lanczos, the image will look more jagged. how do you know?... whatever, think what you want. im obviously not going to change your mind.
[QUOTE="rahzel54"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="rahzel54"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="rykaziel"]If Bethesda had a year to focus solely on optimization with the 360, the comparison would be equal. But they didn't, so it's pointless to argue.-GeordiLaForge-Exactly... like i said, they did NOT have a YEAR to focus on optimization.... READ the interview at spong. Pete Hines said he had a TOTAL of 1 year to work on the ps3 version (well, he said he started working on the ps3 version in March 2006). and most of that time was porting it over... and in the video interview at gamesradar, he specifically says theres only 1-2 of the visual enhancements that they can even possibly be bring over to the 360. theres 2 FACTS that i've proven time and time again in this thread, but you lemmings still can't admit it. Sorry, but the compilers make it "work" on the PS3 without optimization. The devs used the year to optimize the game for the PS3's hardware. And they were focusing solely on the PS3 version, not 2 systems at once. And developer interviews state that the hardware is not what makes it better, it's the extra optimization time. They said that there is not one thing that couldn't be done on the 360. The PS3 version lacks AA, which is definitely a hardware limitation, so you really have no basis for an argument that the PS3 is superior... wow... listen to the interview and it will answer all your questions. the interview was as of feb 14th btw. http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/movies/index.jsp?releaseId=20060726163237511007 and again, i didn't say the PS3 is superior FF sakes... don't put words in my mouth. all i'm saying is the ps3 excels at certain things and VICE VERSA. i've said the same thing numerous times, you guys just fail to read my posts correctly and you also fail to read/listen to the articles i post. instead, you keep blabbing on about the SAME things. When did I mention compilers or optimization before? I mentioned them for the first time right there to prove you wrong. The PS3 dev time was not spent porting it over. The base code can be compiled and ran without effort. In that video, they mention the fact that the PS3 version had a year's EXTRA development time, not a year total. And that EXTRA year was spent OPTIMIZING the game for the PS3, not porting it over.... again, you fail to read my articles and posts... i posted this probably 3 times in this thread now. and no, pete hines did not say they had an extra year of dev time for the ps3, they said they had "extra time".
http://spong.com/detail/editorial.jsp?eid=10109516&cid=&tid=&pid=&plid=&page=1 you do realize how complex the ps3 hardware is? you do realize how different its architecture is from a PC or 360? do you honestly think its EASY to port it to the ps3, especially at this time when the ps3's dev tools are lacking maturity? why do you think were getting all these delays? i know you know quite a bit about hardware, so you should know how complex the ps3's hardware is, and how it takes more time to get the same result. however, developing games for the ps3 WILL be made easier when the dev tools mature. they obviously had extra dev time for the ps3 version (i didn't say they didn't) but they probably didnt have much time for optimization if they only had a year to work on the ps3 version.SPOnG: Sure. It's nearly a year now after the release of the Xbox 360 and PC versions. How long have the team been working specifically on the PS3 version? Pete Hines: Since last March, since we shipped the PC and 360 versions.
Log in to comment