Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony?

honru

Ah well, this was bound to come up.

Which console (Xbox 360, Revolution, Playstation 3) out of the three gives you the best general impression?

CyberGhost

Which console (Xbox 360, Revolution, Playstation 3) out of the three gives you the best general impression?

Angelina Jolie.

.........

PS3 definitely, then Xbox then Ninti

KdjaCL

Powerwise the Ps3 and Xbox are stunning (both better that my Ultra running Doom3 PC )
Games wise Rev with all those old games...


But pricewise im thinking Rev gonna be a hell fo a lot cheaper and it will ahve Zelda and mario so thats where my money going.

How much are the others gonna cost even at a loss!


kdjac

honru

Yeah, right now I'm most interested in price points. Sony and Microsoft will probably break the bank.

Headshot

f®eak s&#169 wrote: »

Yeah, right now I'm most interested in price points. Sony and Microsoft will probably break the bank.

it will have to be the xbox360

i love my xbox so much ill just have to get the xbox360

anyway ill buy all 3

KdjaCL

Btw Ea are expecting to charge €75 for EVERY next gen game they create.
Im guessing $449 and €499 pricing for both ps3 and xbox and possibly half for Rev.

If thats the case who comes out 1st wins.


kdjac

L5

im going for bxbox360 at the minute, probably as theyre the only ones to have shown in game videos so far (ps3 were all cg videos apparantly)
xbox 360 looks amazing. gears of war, pgr3, need for speep, all look awesome.
i asked in game today were they taking pre-orders, not for another month apparantly
ill try gamestop tomorrow. Eb and gamestop in us taking them already.

Ciaran500

I think its far to early to take sides for a console. E3 hasn't even started.

And I honestly can't see many buying a console at €500. They can GTF with there €75 to.

ShiverinEskimo

I'll go with the Xbox360 although that is slightly biased cosidering I'm an xbox head already.
I will say this though - the cell chip is rumoured to be very difficult to develop for, so I reckon the PS3 will be a year or two old before its potential is fully realised. By then the Xbox360 will have had plenty of development time to max out the hardware.

Mind you, in the land of universally advanced hardware specs - the game developers are kings. The best games will determine the best console because I can see very little between them all in the end in terms of technological advantages.

In terms of the war though - Sony will win (retain the market share). Loyalty plays a major part in these things and their existing customer base will pull through for them.

Tusky

Im gonna wait until the consoles can be chipped and get my games for 5 euro, cheers.

Headshot

Ciaran500 wrote:

I think its far to early to take sides for a console. E3 hasn't even started.

And I honestly can't see many buying a console at €500. They can GTF with there €75 to.

agree

Willymuncher

The PS3 impressed me the most, I imagine i'll be buying it when it comes out.

Ciaran500

Willymuncher wrote:

The PS3 impressed me the most, I imagine i'll be buying it when it comes out.

So what impressed you about it? and like wise for anyone who decided Xbox360 (trying to get propper debate going)

KdjaCL

Ciaran500 wrote:

So what impressed you about it? (trying to get propper debate going)

What impressed me are the stunning specs, both those machines are amazing. They wipe my Pc off the floor and almost everyone else in sheer FPS possibleness.

Xbox at 3 cpus and a 500mhz ATI card, PS3 with a cell chip and nvidia card, both created to run games. They are quite fine machines.

kdjac

Nietzschean

is it not 2TF vs 1TF or did i miss something in some spec sheet?

CyberGhost

KdjaC wrote:

What impressed me are the stunning specs, both those machines are amazing. They wipe my Pc off the floor and almost everyone else in sheer FPS possibleness.

Xbox at 3 cpus and a 500mhz ATI card, PS3 with a cell chip and nvidia card, both created to run games. They are quite fine machines.

kdjac

is each of those 3 cpus 3.2 ghz?

Ciaran500

TBH I don't trust any of those "amazing" specs the companies post. Especially sony

Its 3 cores on the one chip each running at 3.2ghz.

MrPinK

CyberGhost wrote:

is each of those 3 cpus 3.2 ghz?

Yes

Well, it's 1 CPU with 3x 3.2Ghz cores

bizmark

Think ill get a revolution and upgrade my pc to ps3 owning spec's in 2006 tbh

Armen Tanzarian

I voted PS3 but want to see this Revolutionary Nintendo
Im going to get all 3

KdjaCL

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=59050

All running at 3.2


In theory they could take the entire processing over from a GPU and only need the GPU to display what IT rather than its own GPU tells it to.


Thats ****ing amazing.


kdjac

Hugh Hefner

Are we taking a poll on which we have the best idea of what we think it's gonna be like (Xbox in my opinion, then PS3) or are we polling on which we think will be the best from what we've seen (undecided but, as ever, I hope it's Nintendo)?

MrPinK

Ciaran500 wrote:

TBH I don't trust any of those "amazing" specs the companies post. Especially sony

You think they scibbled out 2Ghz and just wrote 3Ghz on the chip?

While I'm sure the marketing people will come out with some ridiculous claims of what the consoles can do, I don't think they can get away with lying about what hardware is in the machine.

Headshot

i wonder how fast wil people be able to chip/mod them this time

Ciaran500

But clock speeds don't mean anything towards the performance.

I meant to say: "TBH I don't trust any of those "amazing" performace results these companies post"

steviec

I'm just gonna compare the PS3 and XBox 360, I watched the entire Nintendo press conference and feel like I know about as much about revolution now as I did a week ago so the jury is out there till I actually see some games and these amazing joypads they have planned. Backwards compatability is cool, but PCs, X-Boxes and even PSPs can do nes and snes games.

So, between 'the big two'

The PS3 had more games and better games, as well as being much more powerful. I sat through the full 2 hour press conference and while some of it reminded me of boring computer architecturer lectures nearly every tech demo and every game on show impressed me a heck of a lot.

Some were obviously pre-rendered, some were hard to tell, and some were most definitely real time. The tech demos at the start, the Unreal 3 demo, and the Fight Night demo were all explicitly confirmed as actual real time shots and were all extremely impressive. Knowing that they were real time makes it easy to believe that Killzone and some of the others were too. And if they weren't, it's not far off an accurate depiction of what the console can do. That Ubisoft shooting game looked really impressive and was most probably in-game footage, the desert racing game was impressive too although that looked more like a movie. I liked how they showed a number of big franchises and then followed with a number of equally impressive new titles. In nearly every case it wasn't the graphics so much as the sheer amount of activity on screen that caught my eyes. As showcased by the business of London Getaway demo. Sure the Getaway isn't anybody's favourite franchise, but it makes you see how cool the next GTA is gonna be, along with the potential for many completely new games.

The eyetoy stuff looked cool, the stuff with the cups at the start and then Eyedentity later on. I really hope that works out, its something that could easily be messed up but if they do it right it'll be really interesting. The technology and processing power is there for developers to do very innovative things.

Ok people are gonna say Sony fudged the numbers to make the PS3 look good. 2 terraflops is gonna be a 'best case scenario' and never entirely true. But Microsoft will have fudged their numbers just as much. If Sony's exageration is twice as big as MS's exageration(remembering they are based on something, not just randomly pulled off the top of their heads!), then Sony's true value will be twice as good as Microsofts true value. And as of right now, the game footage speaks for itself. Nothing on X360 excites me and lots of things on PS3 excite me, and I think that sums it up!

i_am_dogboy

I haven't looked at any of the vid's yet, that'll wait till after tomorrows exam. I'm most looking forward to the revolution at this point but that's based on the prospect of playing body harvest again, not on my pc, and the first party releases. But I'll more than likely get one or both of the other consoles, weighing towards the ps3 since microsoft seem to be edging towards online and multi player gaming, and of course the fantastic ICO team-even if there aren't even the slightest details about well.....anything.

I'll probably not be using whatever I get for much other than games to be honest.

KdjaCL

{(-_-)}HeadShoT** wrote:

i wonder how fast wil people be able to chip/mod them this time

Intel have their new "**** with this board and it wont work technology" out now if thats incorporated into the consoles they will be dearer and it will take about 33 minutes longer.

Seemingly any modifcation to the mainboard renders the board useless. But for every lock there is a key and online key checking is the way to go, if your req to login regularly and cant access the online service will you chip your console to play pirates ? online key checking works whether they use it unknown.

kdjac

CyberGhost

MrPinK wrote:

Yes

Well, it's 1 CPU with 3x 3.2Ghz cores

Thanks for info!

heh, sony and ms, basically did the same thing, doesn't cell consist of mutiple cores?


btw, I see someone hacking those machines soon to install linux or maybe even windows, 20 gig HD, powerful vid, cpu, mutiple usb ports.... for around 300, sounds like a good deal.

Ciaran500

steviec wrote:

The PS3 had more games and better games, as well as being much more powerful.

There have been more games for the Xbox360 shown, and actual gameplay vids for alot of them. Everything shown for the PS3 has been FMV or specialy set up demos.

steviec wrote:

Some were obviously pre-rendered, some were hard to tell, and some were most definitely real time. The tech demos at the start, the Unreal 3 demo, and the Fight Night demo were all explicitly confirmed as actual real time shots and were all extremely impressive. Knowing that they were real time makes it easy to believe that Killzone and some of the others were too. And if they weren't, it's not far off an accurate depiction of what the console can do.

Saying that they are real time doesn't mean games will looks like that. In these vids there are no physics calculations, no ai, nothing more than pure rendering.

steviec wrote:

In nearly every case it wasn't the graphics so much as the sheer amount of activity on screen that caught my eyes. As showcased by the business of London Getaway demo. Sure the Getaway isn't anybody's favourite franchise, but it makes you see how cool the next GTA is gonna be, along with the potential for many completely new games.

If GTA is that detailed I'll eat my hat. The amount of time to create a full city of that detail would cost millions.

steviec wrote:

Ok people are gonna say Sony fudged the numbers to make the PS3 look good. 2 terraflops is gonna be a 'best case scenario' and never entirely true. But Microsoft will have fudged their numbers just as much. If Sony's exageration is twice as big as MS's exageration(remembering they are based on something, not just randomly pulled off the top of their heads!), then Sony's true value will be twice as good as Microsofts true value.

From what I undertand about the cell (not a huge amount TBH) the processor can be coded so the whole processor does one particular job toghter, in this case lost of complicated maths. The 360 cpu is a much more general processor that can't be coded to a particular task so would give lower result in benchs like the ones shown.

steviec wrote:

And as of right now, the game footage speaks for itself. Nothing on X360 excites me and lots of things on PS3 excite me, and I think that sums it up!

What game footage? They were all just special scenes set up and rendered on the PS3. i.e. tech demos.

monument

At the moment - PS3, Rev, 360.

RobertFoster

monument wrote:

At the moment - PS3, Rev, 360.

The poll, or your preference?

ShiverinEskimo

CyberGhost wrote:

heh, sony and ms, basically did the same thing, doesn't cell consist of mutiple cores?

My best effort at explaining cell chip: Cell chips dont have multiplae cores, but a cell chip is a collective of independant chips each charged with different sorts of threads. Therefore - too much of one type of thread will just cause on of the chips (out of 9 i think) to be flat out while the rest will be idle. The key to maximising cell chip technology is in the development of the code to run on it. The better spread the tasks are the more benefit will be achieved through the use of cell.

People who think they know better most likely do so feel free to correct me...politely.

steviec

Ciaran500 wrote:

There have been more games for the Xbox360 shown, and actual gameplay vids for alot of them. Everything shown for the PS3 has been FMV or specialy set up demos.



Saying that they are real time doesn't mean games will looks like that. In these vids there are no physics calculations, no ai, nothing more than pure rendering.



If GTA is that detailed I'll eat my hat. The amount of time to create a full city of that detail would cost millions.



From what I undertand about the cell (not a huge amount TBH) the processor can be coded so the whole processor does one particular job toghter, in this case lost of complicated maths. The 360 cpu is a much more general processor that can't be coded to a particular task so would give lower result in benchs like the ones shown.



What game footage? They were all just special scenes set up and rendered on the PS3. i.e. tech demos.

A number of the demos were doing real time physics, such as the ducks, the leaves and the gas station blowing up as was stated. And there was a lot going on in those demos. Plus things like the Unreal Engine, do you think people from epic are going to flat out lie about their engine running on a PS3 in order to make Sony look good? The physics may have been precalculated, but the processor could have handled those calculations at the same time as the GPU was rendering.

And my point about the Getaway wasn't the graphics(by business of London I meant Busy-ness), it was the amount of cars and people on screen at once. And every demo was like that. That doesn't take up extra development time, a game like San Andreas already has dozens of models done, getting the machine to display lots of them at once if its powerful enough isn't going to hurt developers. Like I said, I'm more interested in the amount of action going on on screen than what it looks like, the games pretty much universally impressed from that point of view.

And there's no reason to dismiss every single demo as fake without reason, considering many of them are by third party developers. There's nothing in it for Ubisoft to spend ages rendering lots of scenes to make a PS3 look good when they're nothing like the game that they're developing for it. People from numerous developers backed up everything Sony said, the games press who saw it first hand have given a unanimous thumbs up, the numbers all add up, there's no point automatically dismissing everything without any evidence.

In the case of the X360, I'm not just dismissing everything they've shown, I'm just saying not much of it was very interesting to me. Gears of War is the only thing I can think of that I liked. I'm sure there'll be other games but as of right now the PS3 is looking better to me.

Ciaran500

steviec wrote:

A number of the demos were doing real time physics, such as the ducks, the leaves and the gas station blowing up as was stated. And there was a lot going on in those demos. Plus things like the Unreal Engine, do you think people from epic are going to flat out lie about their engine running on a PS3 in order to make Sony look good? The physics may have been precalculated, but the processor could have handled those calculations at the same time as the GPU was rendering.

There just tech demos. Nearly every console release has impressive demos they show to get hype going. Remember the room with thousands of pinpong balls mounted on mouse traps that appeared before Xbox release. Doesn't show anything towards what they can do in a gaming enviroment TBH.

steviec wrote:

And there's no reason to dismiss every single demo as fake without reason, considering many of them are by third party developers. There's nothing in it for Ubisoft to spend ages rendering lots of scenes to make a PS3 look good when they're nothing like the game that they're developing for it. People from numerous developers backed up everything Sony said, the games press who saw it first hand have given a unanimous thumbs up, the numbers all add up, there's no point automatically dismissing everything without any evidence.

I'm not saying that they are fakes, just that like every console release the amazing detailed and orignial shots that appear, rarely if ever materalise on the actual game releases.

And since when do good graphics make good games.

MrPinK

The real winner though, seems to be IBM. They're supplying the chips for all three consoles.

Ciaran500

Yet they still let off a large amount of employees recently

evad_lhorg

less employees to pay means more money in the pocket.

Willymuncher

Ciaran500 wrote:

So what impressed you about it? and like wise for anyone who decided Xbox360 (trying to get propper debate going)

The specs, the demos, the bull**** that they talked, it just pulled me in, its been a long time since i've been excited about a console, but i cannot wait for these to come onto the market, the graphical demos looked brilliant, when the nvidia guy said that it was twice as powerful as two 6800 Ultras...i pooed myself a tiny bit

BloodBath

btw, I see someone hacking those machines soon to install linux or maybe even windows, 20 gig HD, powerful vid, cpu, mutiple usb ports.... for around 300, sounds like a good deal.

I think the price will be closer to 500e tbh.

If GTA is that detailed I'll eat my hat. The amount of time to create a full city of that detail would cost millions.

Games already cost millions. HL2 cost about $50 million to make.

There just tech demos. Nearly every console release has impressive demos they show to get hype going. Remember the room with thousands of pinpong balls mounted on mouse traps that appeared before Xbox release. Doesn't show anything towards what they can do in a gaming enviroment TBH.

You see that's where your wrong. They aren't tech demos, they are game demos. Games that are actually in production and previewed. It's nothing like the old x-box tech demo or any other tech demo for that matter unless stated by the developer as an idea of what they can do on the console.

You have to remember that these consoles, at least in sony's and microsofts case are 2-3 times more powerful that a top end pc. Think of a top pc game like HL2, Far cry, BF2. Very impressive graphics. These consoles can achieve 2-3 times that though. I have no doubt that the pics are geuine and an actual representation of what the final games will look like. Be prepared to eat your hat.

If the likes of this fail to impress you, nothing will.



Anyway back on topic. So far the ps3 has impressed me the most. Amazing specs and previews of games. It's quite good looking when it's on it's side too. Second would have to be the 360. Very impressive also and it should be able to give the ps3 a run for it's money. The best looking of the 3 consoles so far. Last would definitely be the rev. 2-3 times the power of a cube, the worst looking of the 3 and no game previews as of yet. Teres still a lot of details to be released though so that could change.

I seriously can't beleive the amount of votes Nintendo has so far based on the info that's been released so far. Serious amounts of fanboyism in this forum.

1huge1

revolution for me

BloodBath

revolution for me

Why?

KdjaCL

BloodBath wrote:

I seriously can't beleive the amount of votes Nintendo has so far based on the info that's been released so far. Serious amounts of fanboyism in this forum.

Bloodbath yah think the GAMES name for the forum meaning video games may be why Ninty is winning this poll.

Dont matter what the specs are its the games that people who play games want.

kdjac

Retr0gamer

Gamecube just for Zelda

Seriously for me it's the xbox 360 because they actually showed games for it and it looks like its well on schedule to launch with plenty of titles. Then would be the PS3 since the hardware seems amazing but we still haven't seen anything from it in terms of games. As for the revolution I'm still not sure what nintendo are doing with it, they really gave away nothing. The old downloadable games is interesting but I suspect nintendo will charge a fortune for them. We also haven't seen any decent footage of its capabilities.

I have one really niggling probelm with the new generation of consoles. Every game that was shown could easily be done on the current hardware but with less glitter paint. No game has any new ideas or pushes the boundaries at all. The fact that I'm more excited about the current generation games that were shown is testiment to this.

BloodBath

Bloodbath yah think the GAMES name for the forum meaning video games may be why Ninty is winning this poll.

Dont matter what the specs are its the games that people who play games want.

Ah well, this was bound to come up.

Which console (Xbox 360, Revolution, Playstation 3) out of the three gives you the best general impression?

Sounds like a hardware question as much as a software one to me. The games forum covers everything from hardware to software. You know that as well as I do. Based on what the 3 companies have released so far I really don't see how anyone could choose Nintendo. Your choosing Nintendo based on what games? What have they released so far in terms of pictures or specs that made you choose Nintendo?

Retr0gamer

BloodBath wrote:

I really don't see how anyone could choose Nintendo. Your choosing Nintendo based on what games? What have they released so far in terms of pictures or specs that made you choose Nintendo?

The revolution will have ocarina of time

evad_lhorg

i said revolution too even though atm there isnt too much revolutionary about it but i just love my zelda! metroid aint too shabby either . ill probably end up with all of them at some stage but ps3 is at the bottom of my list. although i am lookin forwarfd to a nice pretty blur free devil may cry.

BloodBath

The revolution will have ocarina of time

Remake? One of my fave games of all time. I wish square would get up off their arses and remake ff7 as well and stop teasing us with clips.

RobertFoster

BloodBath wrote:

Remake? One of my fave games of all time. I wish square would get up off their arses and remake ff7 as well and stop teasing us with clips.

As an emulation - though, most already have it for N64 and GC...

Retr0gamer

BloodBath wrote:

Remake? One of my fave games of all time. I wish square would get up off their arses and remake ff7 as well and stop teasing us with clips.

Bah, I wish. I only said that to be sarcastic when you were talking about the lack of games shown for the revolution (which I agree is a little distressing).

rainbow kirby

...and Retr0 wishes that Sega had done this emulation thing before...