Smoke and Mirrors from Sony and Microsoft 581
An anonymous reader writes "History tells us: Don't believe what you're hearing about the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3.There was a lot of hype last week about the next generation of game machines. Microsoft said the Xbox 360 will ultimately reach 1 billion consumers worldwide, while Sony gave a laundry list of features for the PlayStation 3, showing some jaw dropping footage along the way. (Nintendo promised a Revolution, but didn't go much further than that.)
I hate to be a wet blanket, but it's time to come back to reality."
Note (Score:1, Informative)
Indeed. And don't forget... (Score:5, Informative)
Seems like they'd have prototypes at least stable enough to demo at the premier gaming and entertainment show of the year for something that's supposed to ship in less than a couple quarters...
In fact, I can't believe that TIME and all of the huge mainstream coverage that Xbox 360 has gotten hasn't mentioned this. All many of the articles say is that the Xbox 360 is using "a processor from IBM", something likely to not raise most anyone's eyebrows.
But to not mention that Microsoft's multi-billion dollar entry into the next generation of console gaming, heavily watched by many investors and financial sectors, uses the processor family that *Macs* have used since 1994, and most closely related to Apple's current computers, so closely, in fact, that their own Xbox 360 development and demos runs directly on Power Macs? I mean, yeah, I realize that Microsoft or anyone using the best processor architecture for a particular application isn't news; but Microsoft using *Macs* to develop AND demo their next generation console isn't worth a mention to anyone but C|Net?
For the benefit... (Score:5, Informative)
Here [games-digest.com] is an article where the chief financial officer of nVidia confirms that the supposedly "in-game" footage from the new PS3 is a load of cobblers, cos the RSX chip isn't finished yet and doesn't exist in a workable form.
Sigh... it's the emotion engine/missile guidance systems all over again.
Re:Indeed. And don't forget... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:This isn't a troll, but... (Score:2, Informative)
With consoles, the specifications of the console are well-known, and good games are optimized to make use of exactly as much power and features as is present. Additionally, unlike PC games, the games can be designed with better assumptions about the controller (although as a plus for the PC, a mouse+keyboard combo is good for FPS games...).
Although I own 8 general purpose computers (half of which have decent performance by current standards), I mostly use consoles for gaming. As much as I like to tinker with computers in general, that isn't something I want to do with games. I prefer not to have to tinker to figure out a compromise between details and fps, think about whether a game is really as crappy as it seems or whether I'm just not playing it the way it was designed to be played etc.
Re:Here's my reality... (Score:3, Informative)
Also, many people look past the name "mario" or the hype of the "mature" look on another system, and look beneath...for gameplay. In my experience many games with "mario" in their name have really fun play mechanics and expand on the existing genre of that type.
Examples : Mario Power Tennis, upcoming Mario Soccer, Super Smash Bros, Mario Golf etc.
Nintendo finds a medium people like...fighting games, sports games, etc, throw in some first party licences to attract fans, and then add in new and inventive gameplay. (crazy power shots, interactive environments, great 4 player action)
It's a formula that has kept me buying their stuff...but has probably made some gamers lose out on fantastic games because they just see "Mario" and are turned off. I don't really know what to say other than "it sucks to be you" i guess...but really, give some of these games a shot.
Some of their development groups (Camelot most specifically) has been making cool new inventive games with new content (only splashing the big names like Mario). They made Mario golf for the gamecube, but the gameboy advance version didn't have any of the mario characters and instead focused on your main guy (whatever you chose to name him) and used graphics similar to their awesome Golden Sun series.
Perhaps it's time to start pushing the old "tried and true" characters a little into the back, and trying their new game mechanics with new characters, but it's pretty easy to see why they use the recognizable ones...they want to sell more copies.
This 30 year old (well not quite, but almost) will still be buying Nintendo Revolution. I'll probably buy the others as well!
Differnet types of games and uses. (Score:3, Informative)
>>
Well personally, I'd never buy a console. One, games are tertiary to me, and were, even when I was a kid. And while I do enjoy the occasional FPS (Halflife and its decendants, especially), my favorite genres of games are 4X and wargames, followed by adventure games (which have lamentably disappeared over the past 10 years.) Civilzation I,II, & III, Master of Orion I&II, Master of Magic, etc, and all the classic Sierra adventure games, for some examples.
I have a high-end PC that I use for everything from programming to 3d modeling which, consequently, I can use as a gaming system. And while many of the titles that I mentioned are now a bit long in the tooth, some aren't. Civ III might not require the latest video card, but man can it suck up CPU time. Try a gigantic map with max opponents...
The PC just fits my user-case better than a console.
Re:ummm... (Score:1, Informative)
is a cartoon strip (i.e. humorous, funny) that panders to the techtv group any different than a website that panders to IT whiners and open-source nazis? i'm not trying to troll, i'm trying to prove a point here.
oh, and if you've ever seen a picture of the two guys who are PA you will notice that they look nothing like the cartoon characters. tycho is in fact bald and not skinny. oh yeah, his name isn't tycho either. you do understand the difference between actors and the characters they portray?
Re:Here's my reality... (Score:2, Informative)
In the early to mid 90's, the Mega modem was first, before Sega TV and Edge 16 modems. The Mega Modem that was only released in Japan. This plugged into the EXT port at the back of
the original Megadrive. A Sega game net was set up to use the system but was not a success. The Mega modem was due for release in America under
the name "Tele-Genesis Modem". Three games were launched with the Mega modem Cyberball by Tengen and the two other games were a version of Mar
Jong and a Baseball game. The instruction books for these games included the Mega modem manual in the back section.
I dabbled with online play on my Dreamcast.
I think wireless remotes were optional for it as well?
Of course I played online on my PS2 a lot, it came out long before Xbox aye?
Anyways, there is your 'online' console history lesson.
CNN money guy needs to do his research (Score:2, Informative)
Most titles offering advanced graphics stick with 480p resolution, which is lower than high definition. And PCs had nVidia's GeForce 3 (which featured a graphics chip comparable to that found in the Xbox) months before the console launched.
The resolution that a developer creates their game at is based on development cycle, financing, and genre. If it's just not financially prudent to make a game in HD, because most gamers don't have an HDTV - no studio is going to waste cycles on. That is no the console developers fault. If the console makers wanted to enforce some ridiculously high graphics standard to pass their approval process, 3rd party game developers will jump ship. As far as the graphics processor goes - designing a NON-Plug and Play piece of hardware like a game console requires you to make some decisions and stick with them. If you choose a graphics chipset, you have to stick with it - or risk missing release date due to redesigns. A PC card maker only has to make sure that it fits and has ample software that utilizes it. PC makers didn't ramp up the graphics of PC's, third party hardware developers did.
Bill Gates, meanwhile, spoke of "incredible, persistent, online worlds" that would be created because of what the Xbox hard drive could do. Only one - "True Fantasy Live Online" - was started, and it never materialized.
Once again, 3rd party developers and the market. The console market didn't have enough demand for these persistent worlds to make it financially viable. EQ for the PS2 lost money, and it was a huge success on the PC. Why is this viewed as hype by the console makers? The market couldn't support the projects, so the projects didn't get done.
Let's not forget online, either. Sony, back before the PS2's launch, said gamers would be able to download titles from existing PlayStation and PS2 libraries via broadband. Harrison (sounding a lot like Microsoft's J. Allard did earlier this year) encouraged developers to think of episodic games, which could be downloaded chapter by chapter.Phil Harrison, an executive vice president at Sony, talked highly of software that would incorporate visual imaging, saying it would enable users to import photographs from a digital camera, then "animate these in 3D, add sounds, and email them to their family or friends, just like a greeting card."
Can you say picture phone? This made doing this with a console obsolete.
Gates, meanwhile, told gamers they would be able to download trial versions of games to their Xbox's hard drive to help them decide whether to buy a retail copy. The same promise is being made with Xbox 360.
Jeez, I feel like a broken record! SOCOM released levels. Time Splitters 3 allows you to make maps and share them. This only began happening recently because the PS2's hard drive penetration became large enough to justify doing it.
Xbox on the other hand already had a hard drive, so why didn' they all do it? Well cause this was a first release system from Microsoft, and no one in their right mind would plan to develop such an aspiring game for an untested system. Now that Xbox has proven it's here to stay, you will see much more of it.
If your going to criticise an Industry, know what your talking about. Jackass.
Re:Can get better later (Score:3, Informative)
Precisely Not (Score:3, Informative)
No, the specific quote from the article is "Burkett has commented that the visuals had been created on current nVidia hardware of roughly the same power as the RSX." That is, they don't have the RSX done, but they have hardware that's more or less equivalent to the specification in some form (maybe not on a single chip or card).
I hope so, because after some investigation, it appears Sony delivered on their promises.
For instance, one current myth is the FF8 tech demo [mephle.org] was faked. Anyone who has played a modern PS2 game will not be impressed by those screenshots: the FFX engine was more impressive years ago (more colors, more textures, more geometry).
Another myth is Sony claiming that the PS2 can produce Toy Story level graphics. The original claim was the ability to render Toy Story in realtime, without shaders/T&L, and at a lower resolution. This is mostly a measure of the raw polycount the PS2 can push, not doing realtime Renderman in hardware. If you don't believe this, I suggest you go find a quote that claims anything more and is straight from the horse's mouth (a Sony press release or Sony spokesman). You won't. Everyone claiming anything else are either news media misunderstanding, or people in forums misquoting.
The PS2 has delivered quite a bit. Compare what it's been capable of over the past few years to what was available at the time (PS1, N64), and it was a pretty big leap. It's not hard to imagine people seeing original demos and overglamourizing, remembering things being a bit more than they were. We'll probably look at the PS3 demos someday and realize they're not all that great, when compared to the PS4 and other next-next-gen consoles. That's technological advance for you.
Give someone something unbelievable, and the first thing they'll do is not believe it. ;-)