![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Sony getting arrogant?
- Thread starter djto
- Start date
The King of Pants
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,280
Old news, and you're right but there is just one issue i have with your statement, "getting?"
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,015
HAHAHHAHA "getting" arrogant? They HAVE been for ages as well as being scuzzbuckets with DRM and hidden spyware in their stuff, not to mention talking down to people constantly in anything they say or do.
FOR POSTERITY:
FOR POSTERITY:
TekSomniaK
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,144
All I know is that if I ever met Kutaragi in person I would punch him in the nose.
So they are basically saying that they will sell loads of PS3s based completely on brand recognition. I hate to say it, they may be right. Consumers can be like zombies sometimes, and most of them don't know any tech news other than that a new consol is out. There are also people who blindly equate price to quality.
Domingo
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 24,279
Langford said:
I agree. People know the Sony/PS name. It'll sell quite a few on that alone. Some people also still think the PS3 is 50X more powerful than the 360 and it has magical powers, too.
I don't think a lot of the rumors will truly be cleared up until closer to release when "joe average" see that it REALLY will cost a lot and that it's pretty much the same strength as the 360.
Lord of Shadows
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2004
- Messages
- 3,322
Ceo's at their best, overpaid and underskilled.
Sony may be arrogant, but I believe they have reason to be. The PS3 is superior hardware to the 360 (granted, not 50x faster, but it does have a more powerful GPU, and the Cell is theoretically at little more powerful than the Xeon, plus it does have blu-ray, integrated wi-fi, and a larger HD than the XBox (premium against premium)), Sony has traditionally had better developer support, and will continue to have more support from Japanese developers, and Sony does have a lot more momentum coming in from the PS2 than MS does from the original Xbox.
Honestly, it doesn't piss me off at all, I want to best of the next-gen systems, so I am going to buy a PS3, there is nothing wrong with being proud of what they have accomplished in the past and what the quality of this system is going to be.
I do find it a bit amusing all of the people on this forum who are convinced the PS3 is going to fail and that it will be the downfall of Sony. I'll have a good laugh when they are sold out on launch day.
Honestly, it doesn't piss me off at all, I want to best of the next-gen systems, so I am going to buy a PS3, there is nothing wrong with being proud of what they have accomplished in the past and what the quality of this system is going to be.
I do find it a bit amusing all of the people on this forum who are convinced the PS3 is going to fail and that it will be the downfall of Sony. I'll have a good laugh when they are sold out on launch day.
Saloma Teale
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 391
I hope the PS3 fails, honestly. Then maybe they'll lower the craptastic price they've plastered on it to something more reasonable. 499 and 599 for a console is rediculous.
I think they need to be humbled... badly.
I think they need to be humbled... badly.
Psychotext
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,897
NulloModo said:
Everywere I've read says that the GPU in the 360 is better than the GPU in the PS3. These are comments from developers and analysts that I think bear out when you look at the hardware these GPUs are based on. IBM themselves have said that the cell processor is 17% faster than the chip they use for the 360. You can ignore the technical mumbo jumbo about cell taking over the world / being revolutionary - at the end of the day they are both processors and speed is easy to measure. Point being, these are largely the same beast and I think it's highly unlikely you'll see major differences in games. We shall see, but personally I think it's going to come down to time and developer skill. I think most cross-platform games wont see a lot of optimisation on either platform - leaving !!!!!!s to argue over which exclusive looks best.
http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html for info, there's plenty more out there though.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30197 talks about the GPUs, but to be honest a lot of the comments are way above my level of knowledge.
You're right though, there's no way in hell that Sony wont sell out for the first 6 months of a console... but fanatical gamers don't make a winning platform and the masses may very well be making their decisions right now.
* Usual disclaimer - I'm buying all the systems, but admit that I wont buy a PS3 until the prices drop.
Luke_Skywalker
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2001
- Messages
- 451
Why is almost every other thread on this forum one bashing sony for every imaginable thing. Nothing is wrong with a little negativity here and there but it's getting out of control and ruining the forums imo. Notice the same people posting all this stuff are the same one spamming the forums with thread after thread of how perfect nintendo is. I'm glad i'm not a !!!!!! and can enjoy games across all the systems and pc.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,015
I'm by no means a nintendo "fan boy", but Sony has deserved the hatred garnered by themselves. DRM, arrogance, high prices, insanely rude attitude toward their consumers, etc. = one bad company that deserves to be hated.
Luke_Skywalker said:
People would be less critical if they didn't do something that can only be summed up as being "completely asinine" every other day. Their E3 showing was pathetic, their price is ridiculously high, they're shoe-horning unnecessary hardware into the PS3, they're blatantly copying from other companies (And doing a poor job of it), and they're the most arrogant/pretentious bastards this side of the industry.
Any hate they get has been earned.
Yup, I think the last two people said it well. People are starting to dislike Sony not because of stuff done overnight, but from things Sony has said over the last few years. Their recent arrogant statements and subpar E3 presentation just happened to finally tip the iceburg over. People expected more out of Sony.
I am a hard core gamer.
I was there for the 360 launch day but was one of the poor bastards that did not get it. I got one finally in jan. I will be there for the Wii launch. I spend an huge and unknow amount for my PC and games. I have had all and I mean all of the consoles since the NES. But... I will not be there for the PS3 launch. I simply do not care one bit about the PS3. It has nothing that interests me at the present time.
BlueRay??? doesn't matter to me until the new format war is over plus I never have used consoles as dvd plavers usually due to the noise they create from the fans.
More power???quality of game is more important. I have more fun with the DS atm.
What else does it have? I can't think of anything else right now
I was there for the 360 launch day but was one of the poor bastards that did not get it. I got one finally in jan. I will be there for the Wii launch. I spend an huge and unknow amount for my PC and games. I have had all and I mean all of the consoles since the NES. But... I will not be there for the PS3 launch. I simply do not care one bit about the PS3. It has nothing that interests me at the present time.
BlueRay??? doesn't matter to me until the new format war is over plus I never have used consoles as dvd plavers usually due to the noise they create from the fans.
More power???quality of game is more important. I have more fun with the DS atm.
What else does it have? I can't think of anything else right now
NulloModo said:
I don't agree with anything in your post. MS made XNA at its own expense to make porting games easier for the 360/pc, thats good developers support. The whole idea behind the xbox was making flexible hardware the way developers wanted it, hence unified memory architecture , hyperthreading and multiple general purpose cores (instead of hard to program for asynchronous spe's that require their own compiler) , 128bit vector units in each core (some developers really liked the ones on the ps2) etc. If you ask me the only thing the ps3 has on the 360 is disc media space, but thats at the expense of the consumer and possibly at the expense of a healthy , sustainable marketshare. Some developers want alot of room for hd FMV (square) while other developers want fast disc media for streaming (epic, rockstar etc) .
Its common knowledge that the 360s gpu is more powerfull than the ps3's off the shelf geforce7 gpu. People seem to ignore fill rate limitations , which will be painfully real when trying to render games at 1920x1080 with FSAA, AF and not to mention HDR lighting. The 360's ati gpu supports tile based rendering (which saves alot of bandwidth on its own) , and has its 10mb cache daughter die for (supposedly) free FSAA and HDR at hdtv resolutions. I bet Sony's first gen ps3 games aren't going to have much FSAA , especially if their going to have high res textures and HDR lighting. Just like at the launch of the ps2 , Krazy Ken will say "The grainy look of the graphics is the playstation look" Yeah, thanks Ken.
The only reason the ps3 is more expensive is the bluray drive. I think the cell processor was designed not to be more powerfull , but to make cross platform development more difficult. If the ps3 is not a runaway success Sony may have a hard time talking developers into making their games ps3 lead titles, especially if the 360 is much easier to develop for , and has a much better insall base.
Just my opinion.
Sony was the hungry upstart underdog with PS1. However, things have changed and now Microsoft is the hungry upstart underdog. While I was never a big fan of the Xbox, the 360 has made me a believer that Microsoft is a serious contender in console gaming now. PS3 will sell out at launch but the next generation console war will show a massive erosion in market share for Sony. Sony's competition is so much stronger this time around. Sony has always been arrogant, but now they've also become complacent, that is the only thing new here.
7718 said:
There have been plenty of developer interviews stating that the PS3 is not nearly as hard to program for as a lot of people are saying. MS did a great PR campaign about how hard it would be, but almost all of the developers have said that the PS3 is a good bit easier to work with than the PS2. You write your code in C or C++ (I can't remember which) and then the Sony compiler multithreads your code for the Cell.
Again, read some of the interviews, the general consensus is that the RSX is more powerful than the 360s GPU, not worlds more powerful, but it still has an edge.
Slartibartfast
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2004
- Messages
- 7,280
Martyr said:
I believe IBM wrote the compiler. They had a huge technical writeup of it on their site a few months ago. I imagine the PS3 compiler is based off of IBM's work.
Regardless of which is more powerful, what I keep reading is dev.'s saying that the two systems are so similar that you're not going to see a big difference between the two.
Slartibartfast said:
Yep, thats IBM's work, its called the "Octopiler" actually. And no, the RSX has no edge to it over the 360's gpu. The 360's gpu is more effiecient and is not bandwidth castrated like the RSX in the ps3. Before you flame me for hating nvidia , you should know that both my computers have nvidia 6800's in them.
7718 said:
I wouldn't flame you for that, I personally dislike nVidia quite a bit, but I am willing to put that aside because I do like the Playstation series. There was a review a while ago comparing the two chips, and you were right, it did say that the 360 GPU was more effecient, but the RSX had more brute strength, in the end the RSX had a slight edge.
The memory interface is smaller than on PC cards true, but you don't need a 256 bit pathway on a console, it just works different enough inside that Sony will have no problems filling out all the pixels. From the graphical demos we have seen so far, it looks like the truth.
Slartibartfast
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2004
- Messages
- 7,280
7718 said:
I remember it being called the "octopiler" but I thought that was just a nickname or something, because they claim that cell chips can be manufactured with varying amounts of spe's. Which brings up the question, would a cell with 4 spe's require a different compiler? That could make things quite complicated.
"The memory interface is smaller than on PC cards true, but you don't need a 256 bit pathway on a console, it just works different enough inside that Sony will have no problems filling out all the pixels. From the graphical demos we have seen so far, it looks like the truth."
Umm, care to explain how a 22gb/s direct access to 256MB of DDR3 is sufficient because things work "differenly inside"? Bandwith for high-rez texture reads has always been a problem, and now you are dealing with 1280*720 - 1920*1080 progressive resolutions (1600*1200,for reference to PC resolution, has 8% fewer pixels than 1920*1080p), so the constraints that you face on PC's are actually exactly the same as those that you face on next-gen consoles, namely bandwith limitations. Except in the case of consoles you are dealing with about 40% of the available bandwith. So you are extremely limited to that end. There is nothing inherintly different about next-gen console graphic loads and pc ones. There are significant optimizations that can be gained from the closed console hardware, but the bandwith limitations will still exist. Clever LOD routines, upsampling from lower-res buffers, or hdr workarounds like int16 will have to be used to get around the limitations. Polygons generally take little external bandwith, and on the fly gpu tessellation will help eliminate shuttling vertex information to cpu for tessellation.
Umm, care to explain how a 22gb/s direct access to 256MB of DDR3 is sufficient because things work "differenly inside"? Bandwith for high-rez texture reads has always been a problem, and now you are dealing with 1280*720 - 1920*1080 progressive resolutions (1600*1200,for reference to PC resolution, has 8% fewer pixels than 1920*1080p), so the constraints that you face on PC's are actually exactly the same as those that you face on next-gen consoles, namely bandwith limitations. Except in the case of consoles you are dealing with about 40% of the available bandwith. So you are extremely limited to that end. There is nothing inherintly different about next-gen console graphic loads and pc ones. There are significant optimizations that can be gained from the closed console hardware, but the bandwith limitations will still exist. Clever LOD routines, upsampling from lower-res buffers, or hdr workarounds like int16 will have to be used to get around the limitations. Polygons generally take little external bandwith, and on the fly gpu tessellation will help eliminate shuttling vertex information to cpu for tessellation.
phoderpants
Gawd
- Joined
- May 11, 2005
- Messages
- 804
7718 said:
The PS3 will be a runaway success though. All they have to do is keep putting recognizable games out there that look amazing. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear will sell this console by themselves.
Take me for example. I was totally hyped about the PS2 when it first came out. I thought it was a total disappointment and most of the games I played on there were my old PS1 games. I also bought an XBOX and was completely disappointed with that. It's a machine to play Halo 2 online and that's about it IMO. I have a few other games for it, but haven't even played them. I love my Gamecube by the way, which I just bought about six months ago. Lots of original and fun games.
However, there was one game series for which the PS2 was worth buying, Metal Gear. It's the same way this time around. Metal Gear is only on PS3, so I'm buying a PS3. I won't buy at launch, but I will buy it.
phoderpants
Gawd
- Joined
- May 11, 2005
- Messages
- 804
Martyr said:
Well, I'm not gonna pay $600 for the system. I'll wait til the price drops some.
But it will be worth it for some.
Sony will probably lose it's biggest base.
They are really shooting themselves in the foot with the price of the ps3 in my eyes.
I said it before and i'll say it again, more people will buy the ps3 to play movies. Sony won't make much money off of the software because, quite frankly, they will be eaten allive by the much cheaper gaming machines in the 360 and Wii.
Not to mention their PSP was pretty much a failed attempt to hurt nintendo. I see the ps3 being the same thing, except with 2 competitors.The 360 and Wii have this war pretty much won.
If you want a cheap Blu-Ray DVD player get a ps3, if you want a gaming machine go somewhere else. Hell, the only reason i decided to finally get a ps2 was because i needed a dvd player, and it was only 200$.
Oh yeah, and a side note.. But i feel like the ps2 really sucks in term of longevity. I can tell its a matter of time before my disc read errors (already have them once in awhile), and my controllers are shot to shit. It's not like im hardcore playing it all the time either. Sony really needs to make their hardware a lot better. I seriously play the thing maybe like 2 hours a week at most, and the controllers are destroyed already? I never had that problem with ANY system i owned, and i've owned just about every one, and treated them like shit too (specifically n64 and dreamcast).
They are really shooting themselves in the foot with the price of the ps3 in my eyes.
I said it before and i'll say it again, more people will buy the ps3 to play movies. Sony won't make much money off of the software because, quite frankly, they will be eaten allive by the much cheaper gaming machines in the 360 and Wii.
Not to mention their PSP was pretty much a failed attempt to hurt nintendo. I see the ps3 being the same thing, except with 2 competitors.The 360 and Wii have this war pretty much won.
If you want a cheap Blu-Ray DVD player get a ps3, if you want a gaming machine go somewhere else. Hell, the only reason i decided to finally get a ps2 was because i needed a dvd player, and it was only 200$.
Oh yeah, and a side note.. But i feel like the ps2 really sucks in term of longevity. I can tell its a matter of time before my disc read errors (already have them once in awhile), and my controllers are shot to shit. It's not like im hardcore playing it all the time either. Sony really needs to make their hardware a lot better. I seriously play the thing maybe like 2 hours a week at most, and the controllers are destroyed already? I never had that problem with ANY system i owned, and i've owned just about every one, and treated them like shit too (specifically n64 and dreamcast).
The Wii is certainly gaining ground in the next console war, I sell cars and people at work even know about it My wife wants one too And my brother and friends will have something to play when they come over, the ps2 only has 2 controller ports
My wife wants one too And my brother and friends will have something to play when they come over, the ps2 only has 2 controller ports