PS4 and Xbox720 - when do you want them to come out?

[ZerO]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,microsoft.public.xbox (More info?)

"xTenn" <xTennRemovePart@tds.net> wrote in
news:OpOpaLTYFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:

>
> "Zero" <zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:42947ead$0$86508$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> According to MS they're gonna hit 2 millions at the end of
>> June. I agree, it's a large number by itself, but I just
>> don't find 10% popular if remeining 90% are not
>> interested.
>>
>
> 2 million is extremely popular for a online gaming system
> dedicated to consoles (definitely a niche market). Your
> sample set (xbox owners) is only an inference to the online
> portion. Not unlike some car detailing companies that
> offer service based on a flat fee, not per service.
> Popular for a detailing company , yes, but as compared to
> all the cars sold it is MUCH less than 10% total.

You lost me with this analogy.

> Same for Geico Insurance for MiniVans, for example.
> Popular, yes, but still less than 10% of minivans produced
> have that insurance (AFAIK).

This analogy is flawed. The rest of minivans are still insured
with other companys (at least they should be ). If there are
hundreds of insurance companies you can pick from, then the
percentage of cars/vans/trucks they insure can be a small number
and still be considered a popular choice. In case of XBox
the choices are either Live or nothing, which brings me to my
original point. For the sake of the argument lets assume that
the rest 90% can't get broadband, even if they bought Xbox
thinking that eventually BB will be offered in their areas
they're not just looking at it. There must have been other,
more influential reasons for buying it. So as good as Live is
I don't think it is a major advantage or a deciding factor,
not for majority anyway.

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,microsoft.public.xbox (More info?)

"Bill Cable" <billcable@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1117064087.756817.216690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>* wrote:
>> "Bill Cable" <billcable@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>>
>> > Well, those 1.8 Teraflops from the graphics processor DO count for
>> > SOMETHING.
>>
>> only for vertex/pixel computing
>> this is definitively a different thing, as like potatos and carrots
>
> And your position is that vertex/pixel computing has no effect on
> graphics? ;-)

it has
but you can't add this "flops" to cpu "flops", the cpu is fully programable,
th gpu no, stop
then if you get 3.0 shaders as like rsx, you're limited to shaders 3.0
processing, a cpu is far more elastic, just "potatos and carrots" 😉

sony disloyal, make the fanboys believe that ps3 can add all the flops as
like they are making a vegetable soup
simply it make no sense



>
>> I wouldn't toss them out as "unusable." And PS3's 218
>> > Gflop Cell is still double to flops of the xbox360 processors' 115.
>>
>> false
>> 115 is for the 3 core
>> but every core had a VMX unit (15 Gflop each for a total of 45 GFlops)
>>
>> 115 + 45 = 160 GFlops ok?
>
> Oh come on now... you can no more simply add the VMX Gflops to the core
> flops than you can add the graphic processor flops. Who's talking
> "potatoes and carrots" now?

you're in confusion, brother

the vmx are highly specialized units analogue the spe in cell
if you don't like to add this flops, then you have to detract those of spe
from cell, obtaining a third of the power of a tri-ppe @ 3.2 😉

do you undestand?



>
>> the general purpose power of x360 tricore is almost triple than cell
>> power
>> (cell has only one ppe @ 3.2 Ghz)
>>
>> and cell, with integer and FP in double precision, drops his performance
>> to
>> 1/10 that's bad, very bad for tasks as I.A., emulating, and so on
>
> Well, that's where the game programmers come in. I think they'll be
> able to make a lot more use out of the PS3's cell processor despite
> it's limited "general purpose power" than they will with the 360's
> flacid flops. Remember, this is a gaming console they're
> manufacturing, not a PC.

you're so wrong (and biased, fanboy smell)
the next gen console are multimedia units not simply a console as ps2, the
general purpose power is very useful, and even in the games there's a lot of
GP-computating, x360 can easy fully dedicate one core to IA, another to
procedural synthesis, another to physics and the rest

Cell have 7 spe but only one ppe, and this poor chip attend to all the
normal computing (IA, physics, and so on)
PLUS vertex processing (lol, even if it's less capable the rsx, do you
remember your "flops" of comparison?), 3dd audio processing
it has so much to do and so little bandwitch to exchange data (I laught
thinking of filled bus when ps3 will turn AA filter on)

the structure of the whole machine is inelegant, and rsx is a pc 3d card
plugged in tardy

sony believed to make a console with 2 cell, but last year they drop toshiba
for nvidia, and the time was insufficient to make a customized gpu that fit,
the result is what is today a ps3, an inelegant ensemble of GFlops without
much sense

>
> Besides... I've played hundreds of games, and I have yet to encounter
> an A.I. system that isn't dumb as rocks. You might find some enemies
> with a few gimmicks or tricks based on the environment, but never
> anything all that impressive.

that's the today gen, and I agree
but we're talking about the next gen, ok?


That's the fault of the programmers, not
> the hardware.

no that's a limit hardware, cause the IA spent A LOT of general purpose
power of the CPU, the programmes can't do miracles

And with emulating... from what I hear the PS3 will have
> a PS2 chip in it for backward compatability.

link please

 

[Jeremey]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,microsoft.public.xbox (More info?)

You are too funny.
The playstation came out nearly 2 years before the XBox and continued to
sell more units even when the Xbox did come out. History has nothing to do
with market share though. A company's market share is it's current
percentage of $$ that company makes out of total $$ spent in that industry.
So if Sony holds 45% of the market, then that means 45% of all revenue
generated by console games is from Sony sales. The statistic I previously
quoted (Sony has nearly twice the market share as MS) was from an article I
cannot find right now. I found a similar article
(http://insidemicrosoft.blogspot.com/2004/12/xbox-gaining-lots-of-market-share.html)
dated december 15,2004 which stats that PS2 currently holds 45% vs
Microsoft's 37%. I thought MS was a bit lower, like around 33% but oh well.
The point is that the Xbox is superior to PS2 in terms of technical specs,
but that doesn't mean it has more market share. One major reason PS2 is
ahead is that it was released first. This is why I feel that XBox360's 6
month head start may give them the momentum they need to eventually exceed
Sony's market share. The growing popluarity of Xbox live will certainly
help.



"Bill Cable" <billcable@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117062024.667761.154590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Jeremey wrote:
>> The point is, they like to twist the truth a bit and exagerate specs to
>> make
>> it SEEM like it's a better system. In reality, like I said, Xbox360 and
>> PS3
>> will be about the same technically speaking which means features and
>> games
>> (and some loyalty ties) will determine how each does this round. Right
>> now,
>> Sony has about twice the market share as Microsoft in the console game.
>> Obviously there are more people who are loyal to Playstation. The main
>> advantages the new Xbox will have are 1. the 6 month head start, and 2.
>> the
>> popluarity (amounst all online gamers) of the Live network.
>
> Since Sony has sold over 80,000,000 PS2s, while microsoft has sold
> about 20,000,000 xboxs, how do you figure Sony only has twice the
> market share?
>
> --
> Bill Cable - Steelers Fan & Star Wars Collector
> http://CreatureCantina.com <----- funny!
> cable@creaturecantina.com
>

 

[Jeremey]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,microsoft.public.xbox (More info?)

"Zero" <zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4294f7f8$0$13518$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> "Jeremey" <fake@tc3net.com> wrote in
> news:d723500199g@enews2.newsguy.com:
>
>> That percentile is erelavent. Some people have no way of
>> getting broadband. What I intended was that XBox Live is
>> one of the most, if not THE most popular online gaming
>> network. And amoungst console online gaming, certainly the
>> dominating force. PS3 and Revolution may try, but Xbox
>> certainly has the leg up on online console gaming.
>
> What is relevant then ? That opinion has to be based on
> something. Number of users ? Only makes sense if
> you compare it to something.

My statement about Xbox live being a selling point for the next generation
consoles is based on the popularity of Xbox Live currently when compared to
other console gaming networks. You have Sony - free, yet not organized and
no where near up to the standards of Live, and then you have Nintendo and
their non-existant network. My point is, MS is way ahead when it comes to
online console gaming. Even if Sony and Nintendo step it up a notch (Which
they certainly will), it will be dificult to catch up to what MS has already
established.


> that of XL. And don't get me wrong I'm not knocking the service.
> I just don't think that a service that is used only by 10% of


10% = 1.5million. Multiply that by at least $50 a year and the revenue that
MS gets from Live is certainly nothing to think of as small.



> people is a major advantage. After all it was MS that said they
> didn't think it was important to add backward compatibility for
> 10% of people (their estimate of PS2 owners who wanted it).

The Xbox 360 will be backwards compatible. It has been confirmed. This is
old news. Do some research.

> BTW, do you believe that the rest of XB owners can't get
> broadband ?

Certainly not, but to get a proper statistic, you need to find out how many
Xbox owners have broadband, and then find out what percentage of those
owners have Live.



>
>> "Zero" <zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:4294080a$0$1628$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>> "JMoney" <jn@tc3net.com> wrote in
>>> news:d6tq680j9m@enews3.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> Your logic if flawed. The XBox 360 and the PS3 are
>>>> basically the same. Sony claims 2 teraplops because they
>>>> count different. I read an article on it a while back,
>>>> but I don't remember the source. Anyway, from everything
>>>> I have read, the systems will be about the same. Xbox's
>>>> major advantage will of course be it's highly popular
>>>> XBox Live service.
>>>
>>> Not to nitpick, but if less than 10% of XBox users have
>>> signed up how is it highly popular ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

 

[ZerO]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,microsoft.public.xbox (More info?)

"Jeremey" <fake@tc3net.com> wrote in
news:d75dif012t@enews3.newsguy.com:

> "Zero" <zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4294f7f8$0$13518$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> "Jeremey" <fake@tc3net.com> wrote in
>> news:d723500199g@enews2.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> That percentile is erelavent. Some people have no way of
>>> getting broadband. What I intended was that XBox Live is
>>> one of the most, if not THE most popular online gaming
>>> network. And amoungst console online gaming, certainly
>>> the dominating force. PS3 and Revolution may try, but
>>> Xbox certainly has the leg up on online console gaming.
>>
>> What is relevant then ? That opinion has to be based on
>> something. Number of users ? Only makes sense if
>> you compare it to something.
>
> My statement about Xbox live being a selling point for the
> next generation consoles is based on the popularity of Xbox
> Live currently when compared to other console gaming
> networks. You have Sony - free, yet not organized and no
> where near up to the standards of Live, and then you have
> Nintendo and their non-existant network. My point is, MS
> is way ahead when it comes to online console gaming. Even
> if Sony and Nintendo step it up a notch (Which they
> certainly will), it will be dificult to catch up to what MS
> has already established.
>
>
>> that of XL. And don't get me wrong I'm not knocking the
>> service. I just don't think that a service that is used
>> only by 10% of
>
>
> 10% = 1.5million. Multiply that by at least $50 a year and
> the revenue that MS gets from Live is certainly nothing to
> think of as small.

I never questioned that, although you have to factor in their
expences, running such a monster can't be cheap.

>> people is a major advantage. After all it was MS that said
>> they didn't think it was important to add backward
>> compatibility for 10% of people (their estimate of PS2
>> owners who wanted it).
>
> The Xbox 360 will be backwards compatible. It has been
> confirmed. This is old news. Do some research.

That's not what I meant. My point was that MS themselves
claimed that a feature that's used/wanted by only 10% of owners
is not an advantage. Secondly, I don't know what to believe when
it comes to backward compatibility of 360. Some sites claim
that only top selling games will be compatible meaning that they
will have to be recompiled, other sites claim that no
recompiling will be necessary. I'll believe it when I see it.


>> BTW, do you believe that the rest of XB owners can't get
>> broadband ?
>
> Certainly not, but to get a proper statistic, you need to
> find out how many Xbox owners have broadband, and then find
> out what percentage of those owners have Live.
>

 

[jmoney]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox,microsoft.public.xbox (More info?)

My point still was and is that XBox live is more popular than any other
online CONSOLE gaming networks. Online gaming is what the next generation
will be all about. More and more people are getting broadband and wanting
to game online. My point is simply that MS has an advantage in that they
have already built a very large online community that has a pretty good
reputation amounst gamers. Sony will certainly step it up as will Nintendo,
and I welcome it. Comepetition only makes things better for us consumers.


"Zero" <zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:42964778$0$18189$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> "Jeremey" <fake@tc3net.com> wrote in
> news:d75dif012t@enews3.newsguy.com:
>
>> "Zero" <zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:4294f7f8$0$13518$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>> "Jeremey" <fake@tc3net.com> wrote in
>>> news:d723500199g@enews2.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> That percentile is erelavent. Some people have no way of
>>>> getting broadband. What I intended was that XBox Live is
>>>> one of the most, if not THE most popular online gaming
>>>> network. And amoungst console online gaming, certainly
>>>> the dominating force. PS3 and Revolution may try, but
>>>> Xbox certainly has the leg up on online console gaming.
>>>
>>> What is relevant then ? That opinion has to be based on
>>> something. Number of users ? Only makes sense if
>>> you compare it to something.
>>
>> My statement about Xbox live being a selling point for the
>> next generation consoles is based on the popularity of Xbox
>> Live currently when compared to other console gaming
>> networks. You have Sony - free, yet not organized and no
>> where near up to the standards of Live, and then you have
>> Nintendo and their non-existant network. My point is, MS
>> is way ahead when it comes to online console gaming. Even
>> if Sony and Nintendo step it up a notch (Which they
>> certainly will), it will be dificult to catch up to what MS
>> has already established.
>>
>>
>>> that of XL. And don't get me wrong I'm not knocking the
>>> service. I just don't think that a service that is used
>>> only by 10% of
>>
>>
>> 10% = 1.5million. Multiply that by at least $50 a year and
>> the revenue that MS gets from Live is certainly nothing to
>> think of as small.
>
> I never questioned that, although you have to factor in their
> expences, running such a monster can't be cheap.
>
>>> people is a major advantage. After all it was MS that said
>>> they didn't think it was important to add backward
>>> compatibility for 10% of people (their estimate of PS2
>>> owners who wanted it).
>>
>> The Xbox 360 will be backwards compatible. It has been
>> confirmed. This is old news. Do some research.
>
> That's not what I meant. My point was that MS themselves
> claimed that a feature that's used/wanted by only 10% of owners
> is not an advantage. Secondly, I don't know what to believe when
> it comes to backward compatibility of 360. Some sites claim
> that only top selling games will be compatible meaning that they
> will have to be recompiled, other sites claim that no
> recompiling will be necessary. I'll believe it when I see it.
>
>
>>> BTW, do you believe that the rest of XB owners can't get
>>> broadband ?
>>
>> Certainly not, but to get a proper statistic, you need to
>> find out how many Xbox owners have broadband, and then find
>> out what percentage of those owners have Live.
>>