Wario64 said:
Phoenix said:ATI says Revolution will outperform Xbox 360. Stock plummets, CEO fired, and employees wonder where there next paycheck will come from.
Does anyone actually expect ATI to even say their hardware will at best perform 'as well' as PS3?
ATI says: Xbox 360 will outperform PS3
MetalAlien said:It better, that's the only thing that saved XB1.
Kleegamefan said:The online mini-phenomenon that has 2 million users??
Is that the one you mean??
Amir0x said:It wasn't the comprehensive online strategy that was actually fulfilled and became a sort of mini-phenomenon of sorts? Or Halo? 'Cause I thought...
MetalAlien said:No, it wasn't that..
and sound...don't forget the soundAmir0x said:So... it was just better visuals?
GhaleonEB said:Couldn't have been the games. Nah. Certainly not that.
Amir0x said:It wasn't the comprehensive online strategy that was actually fulfilled and became a sort of mini-phenomenon of sorts? Or Halo? 'Cause I thought...
atomiswave said:yeah i mean a console can have no power and obviously automatically take you online, giving you the greatest online gaming experience. oh wait.....maybe thats why Gran turismo 4 wasnt ready for online....because ps2 couldn't handle online gaming as well as xbox....
Amir0x said:...
Are you suggesting PS2 wasn't technologically capable of offering a similar if not equal online experience (in terms of lag, infrastructure, etc...)?
GhaleonEB said:Having a HD standard sure helped (the upgrades from Live 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0 required a download to update the system).
atomiswave said:yeah im not saying ps2 wasn't capable of going online, but what i am saying is that while ps2 could handle say 4-6 players online in gt4 (and that would be pushing it) while the xbox could probably handle 8-10 or even more thanks to its superior power = better online experience.
Amir0x said:This is as far from the point as possible. If Sony wanted to, they could choose to have a comprehensive Live-similar system that work even better for those who did have HD, and would provide updates for those people. The technological limitation is none except for the fact that Sony decided just not to.
GhaleonEB said:Denial - not just a river in Egypt.
So, just to recap - Sony could have beat Live, if they "wanted to", but didn't. And Halo is the only good game on XBox.
These trolls got old years ago.
GhaleonEB said:Couldn't have been the games. Nah. Certainly not that.
MetalAlien said:The PS2 had/has many more must have games. XB had/has many as well, but the sheer volume of great games on the PS2 makes that point moot.
The only reason to own a XB instead (one or the other) of a PS2 (with the exception of wanting a game that is only on XB, (you can find people on both sides of that coin) was the power of the machine. People who choose the XB over a PS2 had to live with the fact that their game selection was going to be a fraction of the competition. The only thing to placate your decision would be that each game you buy is going to look better than any of the other machines could produce. You wouldn't slash your selection of playable games without proper motivation.
The GC is unique/immune because it's the sole home of a legendary series of first party games that have a rabid following, it would sell even if it were a generation behind.
not as easy as all that though, sony didnt have the planning and they didnt follow through, MS did have a focused plan. if sony could have implemented a better online environment, they damn well would have.Amir0x said:Are you stupid? Seriously, sometimes I read your posts and wonder "Hey, if I was stupid and tried to make the most stupid post imaginable, how would I make it? I bet Ghaleon has some sort of guide to stupidity."
Because...
a.) Who said anything about it being better than LIVE? I said they could probably get close or match it if they wanted to because they could, there's no real technological limitation here. You might have read "that work even better for those who did have HD" as "work even better than [Xbox Live]", when in reality it just meant "worked even better for those PS2 owners who did own a HD, as opposed to those who do not."
Amir0x said:This, I can't say I agree with all the points. For one, it could just be that you prefer the Xbox exclusive game offerings more than PS2, for whatever reason. For another, why can people prefer Nintendo first party games and not Microsoft's in the same way? I mean, we're talking on an individual level here.
nitewulf said:not as easy as all that though, sony didnt have the planning and they didnt follow through, MS did have a focused plan. if sony could have implemented a better online environment, they damn well would have.
it's like saying anyone can make a zelda killer, a halo killer or a GT killer given time and money.
yeah, those are possible, sure, but not likely.
Rhindle said:I'm not sure what the argument is about here. OF COURSE a new console with an unknown brand name and a no big-name franchises coming to market a year late would not have taken off without a technical edge.
It is a very different situation for Round 2. You now have two strong brand names, each with strong franchises and Xbox with the first to market advantage and a head-start on building its library. I don't think anyone seriously expects that it will need a technical edge in order to be competitive.
nitewulf said:i didn't make it cut and dry at all. in fact i think you are simplifying the nature of things by saying nothing is preventing them from implementing such a complex online infrastructure. i think the fact that they didn't create a similar online system proves exactly that, in fact they COULDN'T create it. As you say, whether they have the capacity to do so is debatable, and if they in fact dont have the capacity, then they very well COULDNT create it, could they?
and technological solutions are certainy a factor, sony didnt have the internet backbone for that sort of a system. no it's not a limitation of the ps2 chipset, given a backbone, all Ti-83's of the world could be hooked up. but it is a technological limitation nevertheless, and that's why they tried to hook up with AOL long time ago. add to that the fact that the HDD wasnt standard, and you have a whole mess of variables to deal with which farther complicates matters. so in conclusion, no they werent ready for it, nor capable of it, nor able to implement it. whether they do it this time around is dependent on their online partners and how much money they are willing to put up for the infrastructure.
MetalAlien said:The PS2 had/has many more must have games. XB had/has many as well, but the sheer volume of great games on the PS2 makes that point moot.
The only reason to own a XB instead (one or the other) of a PS2 (with the exception of wanting a game that is only on XB, (you can find people on both sides of that coin) was the power of the machine. People who choose the XB over a PS2 had to live with the fact that their game selection was going to be a fraction of the competition. The only thing to placate your decision would be that each game you buy is going to look/perform better than any of the other machines could produce. You wouldn't slash your selection of playable games without proper motivation.
The GC is unique/immune because it's the sole home of a legendary series of first party games that have a rabid following, it would sell even if it were a generation behind.
EDIT: besides performing better online is "outperforming" the competition.. I'd allow that.
Any1 said:I think the general concensus is that the 360, if not slightly less powerful will be on par graphically with the PS3, thereby eliminating the graphical edge that the Xbox enjoyed over the PS2. And according to you, the graphics were the only real reason why anyone would buy an Xbox. So by your logic, the 360 will only sell a fraction of what the Xbox did, correct?
MetalAlien said:People who (exclusively) bought and enjoyed the XB1 will run out to buy the XB360. People who (exclusively) bought and enjoyed the PS2... will not be motivatied to buy the XB360 if it doesn't give them reason to do so. Looking/performing "as good" is not motivation. Coming out early may help though.
oh, i don't know, playing a game or reading a book instead? or doing my homework?Amir0x said:They favoured a non-unified structure and it had nothing to do with not being able to create this software based infrastructure. We've discussed this hundreds of times, where have you been?
sony isn't a bottomless pit of "teh moneys". they have the R&D of cell, their next gen HDTVs, PSP, BlueRay to pay for. on top of all that they might not want to create an online infrastructure capable of a closed system.And no, it's not a technological limitation. They could do it, period, they chose not to, period, and they might still choose not to next-gen. This has nothing to do with not having the technical capabilities to do so. This is Sony, they dropped part of several billion dollars to develop CELL. If it was so difficult to get online in this unified structure they would simply invest the money to make a similar system. Point is, their decision was not based on these limitations.
MetalAlien said:People who (exclusively) bought and enjoyed the XB1 will run out to buy the XB360. People who (exclusively) bought and enjoyed the PS2... will not be motivatied to buy the XB360 if it doesn't give them reason to do so. Looking/performing "as good" is not motivation. Coming out early may help though.
Any1 said:I think the general concensus is that the 360, if not slightly less powerful will be on par graphically with the PS3, thereby eliminating the graphical edge that the Xbox enjoyed over the PS2. And according to you, the graphics were the only real reason why anyone would buy an Xbox. So by your logic, the 360 will only sell a fraction of what the Xbox did, correct?
nitewulf said:oh, i don't know, playing a game or reading a book instead? or doing my homework?
nitewulf said:most likely due to economical reasons. whether they have been learning and doing more research, we will find out this upcoming gen.
StoOgE said:Your first problem is you are treating people like machines, and leaving out impluse and randomness. Coming out first is a huge advantage, because next Xmas people wont be comparing 360 to the PS3, they will be comparing it to current systems. Dreamcast had the same advantage, but was hurt because Sega's name was mud by that point in time.
Alot of Sony success came because it was the hot item that everyone had to have. It was the name brand, and it was the system that everyones friends played. Being the number one console is something of a self fullfilling prophecy.. its hard to topple the number one console, because people are more willing to buy the number one console for a number of reasons.
Sony has alot going for it, but MS's argument that the first one to 10 million is the winner isnt completely off base. They seem to think that is the magic number at which the consoles sales will become self perpetuating as the console that everyone has to have because everyone has one. Of course, MS hitting 10 million worldwide while Sony is at 9.5 million wont really do the trick, but if one console can hit 10 million while the other is hovering around 2-3 million it could be enough to "sink" the other one as being little more than a second choice.
Amir0x said:Again, we're discussing technological limitations as in PS2 not being able to handle a LIVE-based system. You're going off into these tangental replies, but that's not really what we're discussing.
and technological limitations are certainy a factor, sony didnt have the internet backbone for that sort of a system. no it's not a limitation of the ps2 chipset, given a backbone, all Ti-83's of the world could be hooked up.
nitewulf said:you're a smart guy amirox, and i dont want to accuse you of not reading and come off as a prick, but i dont understand what's going on here.