10k fists

I didn't claim it was an entirely different programing language, but the processors are not the same. They have completely different theories, and you don't "code for eight cores" on Cell. Unless you're a developer with a massive budget and a 5+ year timeframe, you're going to utilize the PPE the best you can (won't be too diffficult - as it's a "standard" core in a sense), and then you're going to try and offload various tasks to some of the SPEs, through the PPE - which is the complicated part and where Cell goes a completely different direction than Xenon. There's nothing symetrical about Cell, so learning to program for Xenon is a lot easier, as you only learn to code for a single core, and you've suddenly "learned" all three. Cell is a completely different beast, and many developers not direcly linked to Sony's wallet have echoed similar comments. They all say the same thing, Xbox 360 has a better GPU and is way easier to code for, PS3 has a better processor, higher theoretical power, and is much more difficult to program for. Hell, Square-Enix just got through complaining about shaders being difficult.... The eight potential cores in Cell, added to the fact that seven of those cores are SPEs do make things difficult to thread, from a video game perspective. Since the SPEs are incredibly weak at branch prediction (ie - utter waste of resources to attempt it) it forces developers to have the PPE process the logic in a games code, which isn't a problem, but when a thread is being used for that, you're only left with one more thread on the PPE, and that's either going to be used to delegate small tasks to the SPEs, or ignoring the SPEs all together, and running the rest of the code through it.

Are you trying to compare Cell to Xenon? The three symetrical cores on Xenon are far easier to code for than the PPE and SPEs on Cell... The entire process of Cell is for the PPE to "conduct" the SPEs, and for all normal purposes, the SPEs will not be run as independant processors, rather slaves to the PPE, which in itself is weaker than a single Xenon core. Claiming that once developers get the hang of Xenon, the transistion to Cell isn't costly is crazy. The only glarring similarity between the two processors is the fact that both happen to be in-order processors.

I stand corrected. Just did a quick google search and apparently a "Chuck Patch" was released in early April for ATi cards that allow you to have both options.

I believe the way Bethesda implemented HDR lighting in Oblivion, neither ATi or Nvidia cards can do both HDR and AA at the same time.

Then try not to make unlear points that you aren't 100% willing to support.

So because not everyone thinks like you, that means they've only got kindergarten level intelligence? So why was it then, if you were only giving a hypothetical arguement, that you continued onwards with that line of thinking? When you brought up that comment (when you linked to gamerankings and talked about the top 20), I responded with a clarification of popular opinion being that of gamers, and not reviewers, and you then responded ending it with "the argument still stands". So if you weren't trying to defend your claim, since it was just a "one might argue" stance, why did you continue to try and prove your point? I realize right after my next response, you shifted your focus on that volorn guy, but I still take insult to your comment that anyone not argreeing with you or thinking like you (essentially what you're eluding to) has a kindergarten level intelligence.

The argument doesn't stand, because he said "game of the generation" and then by "popular opinion". Game of the generation by popular opinion would equate to booming sales, as well as continual praise by the fans (requires both - the Matrix game doesn't apply). The problem with your analysis is that you're not reading the entire post, you're attempting to pick one comment out of a complete thought. Ocarina of Time was beat by Final Fantasy 7, I believe, while Halo 2, and the GTA games on the PS2 beat every gamecube game in exsistance. Isn't the highest selling gamecube game Smash Brothers Melee anyway, or has that changed in the last few months? Regardless, so while all those games are "popular", the true popular opinion for the better game of the "generation" obviously goes to the ones with more sales.

He said popular opinion, not reviewers. For it to be a popular opinion, it must be widely accepted. So your gamerankings comment is rather moot.

If by popular opinion, Nintendo hasn't had a "game of the generation" since the SNES. GTA and Halo both trump any Nintendo console game by "popularity" - sales prove that.

Gamers disagree with you, while you may think their games are the "most fun", the fact that their console sales have been getting lower and lower every generation proves they are on a downward slide. Nintendo no longer holds the attention of the casual gamer, as he's matured way beyond the image that Nintendo portrays. What useless features does the Xbox employ? What's useless about the PS3?

In a case like Oblivion's, no, they wouldn't be given a chance. Localizing a game like that would require too much of the time and money you mentioned.

"Next-gen" doesn't sell consoles in Japan, the games do. It's a fact that the Xbox 360 has more games that Japan gamers would enjoy than the previous console, and far more games in development and due out this year and in 2007 than the Xbox ever really had. That's why there are more 360's being sold in Japan right now. They aren't a HDTV era region, and the proverbial "graphics whore" isn't a common type there, they want games, and those games in general are different than the types of games most of the rest of the world enjoys. Microsoft is doing what they need to do, while not blowing their wad on the region. They've invested in a few titles and development houses, are allowing those developers to do their own thing, and are just sitting back and playing a 'waiting game'. To wish them to pack up their bags, or just ignore the region is silly and a horrible business practice. Won't happen. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The only reason it won't happen is if people are buying it, which is a win for Sony. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They can't afford to drop the price, whether the console is selling like hotcakes or not. Too much money has been spent on Cell and Blu-Ray, and they need to use the PS3 as the launching platform, while still trying to minimize their loses. Their only hope is that Blu-Ray takes off - which doesn't have a chance at happening for a few years - and people choose to buy the PS3 as a cheap Blu-Ray player. It's too expensive for a console, and there's simply too much money invested in its hardware to sell it like a console. That's why Sony execs have been so verbal about it being more than just a "gaming machine". It's a way for a justification of the price to the hardcore gamer/electronics wiz. Until Blu-Ray proves to be the clear cut winner, buying a PS3 for anything other than gaming is rather moot in my opinion.

So what do you think they should do? Remove the console all together from the market? MS has two rather large titles in the works that will appeal to that market, one of which has been in the top 15 most anticipated since it was announced, Blue Dragon. The Xbox 360 is doing better than the Xbox did, and it's still selling decently for what was expected, especially since there aren't that many games that appeal to most of the market. Enchant Arms and N3 being the two main titles, one of which had several bugs, and the other did a small bit for console sales.

Won't happen.

If it couldn't play back HD from the blu-ray discs without HDMI how would it be able to display HD at all since all the games will be on blu-ray discs? EDIT: So far what I've gathered, is that Blu-Ray is playable without HDMI, just not at 1080p, which most HDTVs don't even support. You can still play it at 720p or 1080i. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sony has said things regarding this console and previous consoles that haven't come true. The simple fact of the matter is without a HDMI/DVI-D connection, Blu Ray movie playback is strickly limited to standard resolution (480), or perhaps even no playback at all (the rarest of condidtions). To my understanding, the core PS3 model includes neither of those, since the only AV outputs on the machine are composite, S-Video, component and HDMI ("premium" only).

Do some research on Blu-Ray, you'll notice it requires a HDMI connection for HD playback.

Well, I guess I should have figured someone would cry about the minimum speed being zero (not reading the disc)... I really thought there would be more common sense here. Link to a graph showing read speeds for Blu-Ray and DVD ROMs. In reality a 2x Blu-Ray drive falls in the lower portion of a 12x DVD ROMs read speed, and in that same reality, a 12x DVD ROM will access the disc quicker than a 2x Blu-Ray drive will the vast majority of the time. The core PS3 version does not even have a HDMI connection that's required for Blu-Ray playback. link "Kutaragi also said that PS3 games would be released only on Blu-ray discs..." Sony needs to push Blu-Ray as quickly as possible for any chance to beat out HD-DVD. So while the majority of games on the console will never need Blu-Ray discs, they will all be released on them. Proceedural synthesis does what it needs to do, and lowers the requirements for storage capacity. So yes, it "only takes you so far", but it does the job it's required to do. The art assets for 1080i and 1080p are identical. So the games resolution will not be "creeping upward", as many games for the Xbox 360 support 1080i natively. As I said previously, only developers that try to fill the disc will do so, such as those that put in an insane amount of CGI sequences. Amazingly enough, that's only a few developers that only release handful of games per generation. With engines being the way they are now, more "in-game" cinematics will be used, by choice, across all three consoles. I'm not really going to write down everything the UE3 has done to streamline development and storage space. So you can either believe me or not, it doesn't really matter.

That's the gamble though. HD-DVD players are much cheaper and offer (to the average consumer) identical content. While still having the "DVD" name for familiarity. Don't really need to watch the GT demo, a 2X Blu-Ray player is only as fast as a 12x DVD ROMs minimum read speed. A 3x Blu-Ray player would be a little more on par, and there's no way Sony can afford to put that in the PS3, I also have my own personal doubts that a 2x drive will even be put into the console. They're already having to make up for Cell and the Blu-Ray tech to begin with, slapping a $600+ disc drive in the console just won't happen in my opinion. Also, all games on the PS3 will be on Blu-Ray discs, Sony is mandating it to all developers even though they won't need the extra space. It's a way for Sony, in my opinion, to help decrease manufacturing costs for the Blu-Ray discs. I think they're counting on the PS3 to help them get costs low enough to try and compete with HD-DVD. Don't think it'll happen though, the cost difference is just too dramatic. The thing is, I am looking at the future, and it doesn't have Blu-Ray as the media format of choice. The average consumer just isn't going to drop two times the price for a player that offers no noticeable playback quality. Nor is the average consumer going to drop two times the cash for a player to play movies on something that doesn't actually say "DVD". Name recognition will be key to HD-DVD winning the upcoming format battle. People buying the PS3 (aside from the few hardcore early adopters) are going to buy the console to play video games, especially the casual gamer. The fact that Sony is shoveling their new format down the consumers throat from the start is just a bad choice. The games don't need all the extra storage space, and only developers that are actually trying to fill the disc will actually do so. Developers that just make games will have little to no problems working with DVD-9. The better choice would have been to copy Mircosoft's model, and just release an optional Blu-Ray player for those few people that actually want to watch the movies. Having any kind of "next gen" media format in your console is stupid right now, as one of them is going to lose, and in doing so, you just forced what consumer base you have to shell out a load of cash for something that won't be utilized. While I didn't say this comment, I do have a response. Technology has advanced, from 2 gig DVD discs to the current DVD-9 format. On top of that, newer compression technology has been created to add even more information onto the format while still maintaining the clarity people require. So yes, "DVD" has been here for six years on consoles, but it has been evolving on a regular basis, and is more than capable of sustaining another generation of console gaming. The game engines have become more stream line, newer technology has been created on that front especially with the UE3, also proceedural synthesis is being used on a regular basis now which saves disc space, but requires better access time (a benefit for DVD-9).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are several documented cases (especially on the PS2), where developers that made several sequels or several games on the same engine showed a decrese in disc capacity for each release.

Blu-Ray will be taking Sony nowhere, and the PS3 is not the ideal launching platform for the new format. DVD-9 is perfectly fit for this following generation of console games. Proceedural Synthesis and faster load times on DVD-9 (vs the Blu-Ray player that will most likely be used in the PS3) will more than make up for the additional storage capacity. On top of that, only hardcore early adopters will buy the PS3 just for Blu-Ray, the casual market won't care. There's already been enough "doom and gloom" talk regarding games for the 360 that were already filling up the disc, and would have to be on multiple discs, yet they all ended up being developers freaking out too soon or overly pessimistic people complaining about Microsoft not going with a HD-DVD player. Games also tend to get smaller as developers spend more time with the hardware.

Do you mean the Cube that outsold the Box 4 to 1, or the one that managed to make a profit out of every sell? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The gamecube at no point outsold the xbox 4 to 1...

Microsoft

It wasn't a trailer in the traditional sense. It's the "announcement trailer". Since, until the point of the trailer being debuted, there was no official confirmation that Halo 3 was in the works, this was their way of showing the fans that the game is coming. A trailer is a trailer, yes, but it's a teaser, and did what it was meant to do... Publicly announce the game, create a buzz, and show off the power of the Halo 3 engine.

Nope, running 4X FSAA at 640x480 isn't the same as 4X FSAA at 1280x720 or 1920x1080.