Its official, PS3 DELAYS Production Cut 50%

[Lensman]

I am not saying that their inhouse games WILL be a detrimental to sales, but to pull in new gamers I think that they will need games that people outside of the Nintendo Circle will be aware of. I had no desire to play Goldeneye because there were hundreds of FPS for the PC (I played at the time) and it really didn't interest me enough to purchase a system. Why do you think it was such a coup that MS is getting GTA 4 the same time as PS3.

For new types of games, the Japanese companies have a significant edge over US developers. Where's Microsoft's answer to DDR or PaRappa the Rapper? How about Brain Age? Does the Xbox have titles like that? I don't think Nintendo (or Sony) will have a problem here. As for the "Nintendo Circle" thing, if you look at the titles announced for the Wii, you'll see it has all the same non-kid oriented categories of games all other systems have.

Is this speculation or do you have documentation on this?

In an interview with IGN, John Schappert, EA's senior VP and group studio general manager, had this to say:

"Well first, it's a separate code base altogether. The great thing is that we have a long-standing heritage of excellent Madden games. We've got great Madden code that plays a great game of football and has a lot of depth. So we can take from that and make sure we're not spending our time saying, "Hey, let's make sure defense is great." We've got a lot to rely on. So our focus has been, how do we make this unique for Wii? How is this game going to be seen as innovative and, if you will, a Wii original? That's what we focused on.

When you first play it, it's completely different. When you go to hike the ball, for instance, as opposed to pressing a button you simply jerk the controller up. Boom, you snap the ball. When you want to pass the ball, you gesture a throwing motion while holding the button down to the intended receiver. When you want to stiff-arm left or right, you juke with the nunchuck controller literally. When you want to kick, you gesture the kick motion.

It's not like we said, "Oh, here's a different controller, how can we kind of finagle Madden on it?" It was, "Hey, here's a completely unique controller that we've never seen before. What's the best way to play Madden on this machine?""

Cough...Cough....do you have documentation on the PS3 VS 360? And the page of the PS3 Cheerleaders handbook you quoted the above from doesn't count. From all other legit readings on the 'net the PS3 has either a small advantage or small disadvantage depending upon the readings. Nowhere has "Significant" been used in describing the advantage/disadvantage of either system. Screen shots from E3 are not to be used as SONY only used PRE-rendered CGI cutscenes, and didn't actually have the PS3 pushing polygons in the demos. Also, no games are to be released, or are currently being programed for the 1080P resolution. So, infact the HD quaility of the 360/PS3 should be about the same. Keep in mind you are paying for the Blu-Ray, not some app killing graphics card in the PS3.

As for demos, since all games so far are written in conventional single-threaded code, neither machine is currently making true use of their multi-core processors. Current comparisons place them about about equal with each other, and games on well equipped PCs are still better than either one. This will change as multi-threaded game engines are predicted to be more widely available by the end of next year. Still, many analysts consider Sony's cell processor with its seven Synergistic Processing Elements to have more potential than the Xbox's three conventional CPU cores, especially in it's ability to accelerate heavy physics calculations - making movement and collision physics much more realistic. That said, the cell processor is also much more difficult to program for. So there's no telling when a PS3 might actually look better than an Xbox game.

But no HD games on the PS3? Not right now, perhaps. But not never. The PS3's Nvidia RSX GPU does support 1080p while the Xbox 360 is hardware limited to 720p. And this is not merely to play Blu-Ray discs and CGI cut scenes. Though the RSX may be little more than an overclocked 7800 GTX, Doom 3 is able to run at 2048x1536 at almost 70fps on the 7800 GTX. At it's clock speed of 550MHz, the RSX GPU should have no problems handling both 720p and 1080p resolutions for games.

Or the controller is smoke and mirrors. Again, if people do not like it, or it doesn't work as proposed, the console will go down the drain.

A gamble on whether the masses will like it? Yes. Smoke and mirrors? I think industry heads like John Schappert disagree with you.

The plans for online gaming go FAR beyond online-head to head competitions. MS and SONY are setting up the consoles to be in-living room entertainment centers. I can pull movies off my basement computer and play them upstairs in HD quality. MS is also working on a deal w/DirectTV for d/l HD movies off the sats. This is not for "Hardcore" games. This is for parents who have kids, but want to use the system for other uses.

In fact Logitech makes a remote for the 360 that is AWESOME. It controls the console as well as every other gadget in the living room. Makes watching server based movies a snap. This goes well beyond gaming. I think that MS will power the way on this section, and leave SONY and Nintendo in the dirt.

Yes, the "subscription-based services" I mentioned earlier. Microsoft has a "let me do it all for you" approach. Nintendo has a less intrusive "I can make a few things convenient for you, if you like." approach. Sony is trying a variation of the Microsoft approach. Again, I think it's an either/or between Sony and Microsoft and I think Microsoft has the edge here. I also think Nintendo's not competing in the same field.

MINOR graphics innovations? Are you kidding? This is not a graphics vs gameplay issue. Go back to the PS1 and now look at a 360/PS3. Minor is not even close to what type of revolution in graphics there has been.

Yes, MINOR. The graphics look better. They do not do anything "revolutionary." Better speed and higher resolution are not innovations. What can the hardware do today that it could not do slower and at lower resolution before? There's not a night-and-day amount of difference between an Xbox (remember the Wii's likely to be about equal to this) and the Xbox 360. Still waiting for you to look at the screenshots I've posted which are much more extreme.

Also, as one poster put up this discussion has been hilarious. Here is a clip that is hilarious. There is no porn, or other bad stuff, but listen to the words....it is FUNNY.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95041&q=tripod

That's definitely funny. Have you seen the Coke commercial spoofing GTA that's circulating through movie theaters nationwide right now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_uEMwDFnOU&eurl=

[Groundbeef]

In an interview with IGN, John Schappert, EA's senior VP and group studio general manager, had this to say:

"Well first, it's a separate code base altogether. The great thing is that we have a long-standing heritage of excellent Madden games. We've got great Madden code that plays a great game of football and has a lot of depth. So we can take from that and make sure we're not spending our time saying, "Hey, let's make sure defense is great." We've got a lot to rely on. So our focus has been, how do we make this unique for Wii? How is this game going to be seen as innovative and, if you will, a Wii original? That's what we focused on.

When you first play it, it's completely different. When you go to hike the ball, for instance, as opposed to pressing a button you simply jerk the controller up. Boom, you snap the ball. When you want to pass the ball, you gesture a throwing motion while holding the button down to the intended receiver. When you want to stiff-arm left or right, you juke with the nunchuck controller literally. When you want to kick, you gesture the kick motion.

It's not like we said, "Oh, here's a different controller, how can we kind of finagle Madden on it?" It was, "Hey, here's a completely unique controller that we've never seen before. What's the best way to play Madden on this machine?""

As to my point earlier w/regards to FN3. You stipulated that it is the same game...its not. Its coded differently, and will no doubt play differently. As far as the controller is concerned for the Wii, I am not sure if that will be an advantage. I DONT want to simulate a full game for 4 quarters, I want to push a button to pass etc. But your milage may vary. But the point is, that games are programmed differently for different consoles. And if consumers are as you stated "non-hardcore" gamers, I think that graphics will TRUMP a control setup.

As for demos, since all games so far are written in conventional single-threaded code, neither machine is currently making true use of their multi-core processors. Current comparisons place them about about equal with each other, and games on well equipped PCs are still better than either one. This will change as multi-threaded game engines are predicted to be more widely available by the end of next year. Still, many analysts consider Sony's cell processor with its seven Synergistic Processing Elements to have more potential than the Xbox's three conventional CPU cores, especially in it's ability to accelerate heavy physics calculations - making movement and collision physics much more realistic. That said, the cell processor is also much more difficult to program for. So there's no telling when a PS3 might actually look better than an Xbox game.

But no HD games on the PS3? Not right now, perhaps. But not never. The PS3's Nvidia RSX GPU does support 1080p while the Xbox 360 is hardware limited to 720p. And this is not merely to play Blu-Ray discs and CGI cut scenes. Though the RSX may be little more than an overclocked 7800 GTX, Doom 3 is able to run at 2048x1536 at almost 70fps on the 7800 GTX. At it's clock speed of 550MHz, the RSX GPU should have no problems handling both 720p and 1080p resolutions for games.

All indications are that games WILL NOT be coded for 1080p resolution. This is one reason that SONY is not putting a HDMI cable in the $599 package. The official statement is that games are not coming out in 1080p and none are in the works. Does this mean NEVER? I cannot say for sure. But in the intrim, graphics are going to be equal between them. As far as clock speed, the 360 runs @ 500mhz, vs 550mhz for the Sony. Developers are complaining about the techinical difficulties for programming for the "Cell" chip as well. I think that MS will have an edge here. 1080p gaming just doesnt seem to be in the cards right now.

Yes, the "subscription-based services" I mentioned earlier. Microsoft has a "let me do it all for you" approach. Nintendo has a less intrusive "I can make a few things convenient for you, if you like." approach. Sony is trying a variation of the Microsoft approach. Again, I think it's an either/or between Sony and Microsoft and I think Microsoft has the edge here. I also think Nintendo's not competing in the same field.

I agree.

Yes, MINOR. The graphics look better. They do not do anything "revolutionary." Better speed and higher resolution are not innovations. What can the hardware do today that it could not do slower and at lower resolution before? There's not a night-and-day amount of difference between an Xbox (remember the Wii's likely to be about equal to this) and the Xbox 360. Still waiting for you to look at the screenshots I've posted which are much more extreme.

Its not just what you see, but what goes on behind the images as well. MOST AI has gotten better due to increase in horsepower, as well as tighter programming.

That's definitely funny. Have you seen the Coke commercial spoofing GTA that's circulating through movie theaters nationwide right now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_uEMwDFnOU&eurl=

Thanks for the link.

Please post your picture link...I cannot find what you were talking about, and I would like to see them. Please post the hyperlink again! Thanks

[Lensman]

As to my point earlier w/regards to FN3. You stipulated that it is the same game...its not. Its coded differently, and will no doubt play differently. As far as the controller is concerned for the Wii, I am not sure if that will be an advantage. I DONT want to simulate a full game for 4 quarters, I want to push a button to pass etc. But your milage may vary. But the point is, that games are programmed differently for different consoles. And if consumers are as you stated "non-hardcore" gamers, I think that graphics will TRUMP a control setup.

You may not like the Wii’s control system, but I don’t think most gamers will subscribe to your view that pressing buttons is the most fun one can have. Controllers have always played a big part in the success of game machines. Missile Command just isn’t the same without the track ball. Sony changed gaming enough with its addition of analog sticks and different way of holding the controller that Microsoft followed in their path. Today, a lot of casual gamers like DDR because they can dance to play it instead of pressing a few buttons.

If I was a guy who liked to get with friends for a little flag football, I’d much more interested in a football game where I could make passing and strong arm motions to play than I would be to press a few buttons. If I was a housewife who liked to bowl, I’d much rather be able to stand up and bowl than I would to sit and press a few buttons. If I was a business executive who loves golf, I’d much rather stand and putt to play a golf game just like I did in my office than I would to press a few buttons. Heck, as a hardcore gamer, I’ve always preferred to hold a steering wheel to drive than press a few buttons, and I’ve always preferred a joystick to fly a plane to pressing a few buttons. So I can’t help but be intrigued by the idea that I could hold the controller like the handle of a sword and thrust and parry instead of pressing a few buttons like I have to now. The Wii's controller allows for all of that.

As for graphics…

All indications are that games WILL NOT be coded for 1080p resolution. This is one reason that SONY is not putting a HDMI cable in the $599 package. The official statement is that games are not coming out in 1080p and none are in the works. Does this mean NEVER? I cannot say for sure. But in the intrim, graphics are going to be equal between them. As far as clock speed, the 360 runs @ 500mhz, vs 550mhz for the Sony. Developers are complaining about the techinical difficulties for programming for the "Cell" chip as well. I think that MS will have an edge here. 1080p gaming just doesnt seem to be in the cards right now.

Reports are that no games currently in development for the PS3 are 1080p – not that games for the system will never be 1080p. That doesn’t change the fact that the hardware can do it. The hardware for the Xbox 360 cannot. Games for the PS3 in 1080p may not be in the cards right now. Games in 1080p for the Xbox 360 will never be.

Sony’s seven dedicated processor core is more capable of handling complex real-world physics and motion calculations than the Xbox 360’s three general PC CPU core. It is also generally considered to be more difficult to program. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done or that game companies won’t do it.

All PS3 games will be released on Blu-Ray discs, giving game developers 50 gigs of space to work with. This allows much more room for high-quality pre-rendered CGI for cut scenes, backgrounds, etc. than is available for the Xbox 360. Programmers may not use it, but the space is available on the PS3. It is not on the Xbox 360.

All point to the PS3 having the potential to be the superior graphics platform. Whether the PS3 achieves any of it doesn’t change the fact that the Xbox 360 does not have the same potential, period. Will this make the PS3 the superior platform? Only if you believe graphics TRUMPS gameplay.

I'm not part of that camp. So when you tell me:

Its not just what you see, but what goes on behind the images as well. MOST AI has gotten better due to increase in horsepower, as well as tighter programming.

I'll say that's what I’ve been telling you over and over again. People are going to buy the system they think is the most fun to play – not the one with the best graphics. The Xbox had graphics that were superior to the PS2. The PS2 sold 106 million units. The Xbox sold 24 million. If graphics was so overwhelmingly important, the Xbox should have done much better. The PS2 did better because it was perceived as being the system that was the most fun. This had a good bit more to do with the variety of games available for it than it did with how the games looked on it. The steep price of the Xbox didn’t help things either.

This, not the graphics, is why I think the Xbox 360 has a good chance of dong well. It's also why I think can Wii will do well too.

Please post your picture link...I cannot find what you were talking about, and I would like to see them. Please post the hyperlink again! Thanks

I’ll post links when I get home.

[Groundbeef]

Reports are that no games currently in development for the PS3 are 1080p – not that games for the system will never be 1080p. That doesn’t change the fact that the hardware can do it. The hardware for the Xbox 360 cannot. Games for the PS3 in 1080p may not be in the cards right now. Games in 1080p for the Xbox 360 will never be.

Sony’s seven dedicated processor core is more capable of handling complex real-world physics and motion calculations than the Xbox 360’s three general PC CPU core. It is also generally considered to be more difficult to program. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done or that game companies won’t do it.

All PS3 games will be released on Blu-Ray discs, giving game developers 50 gigs of space to work with. This allows much more room for high-quality pre-rendered CGI for cut scenes, backgrounds, etc. than is available for the Xbox 360. Programmers may not use it, but the space is available on the PS3. It is not on the Xbox 360.

All point to the PS3 having the potential to be the superior graphics platform. Whether the PS3 achieves any of it doesn’t change the fact that the Xbox 360 does not have the same potential, period. Will this make the PS3 the superior platform? Only if you believe graphics TRUMPS gameplay.

Actually, there may never be games 1080p for the PS3. It appears that the budget system doesn't have the HDMI out (and it cannot be added later). I suppose that they could release the games for both systems. However, just because the PS3 has the space to use, it remains to be seen if they can use it, or will it just be a repeat of when CDroms came out. Remember how much crap developers put on the disc just because they had room?

Also, don't forget that the blu-ray drive is ONLY a 2X drive. Can't be having gamers sit for 2 minutes while the next scene loads up.

As far as capacity goes, yes the PS3 can hold more. Currently games are not hitting capacity of the DVD platform. When and if they do, then I guess multiple discs may be in order. As you state, if the gameplay is superior, it really shouldn't matter if you need to switch discs once during play right?

I'm not part of that camp. So when you tell me:

?

I'll say that's what I’ve been telling you over and over again. People are going to buy the system they think is the most fun to play – not the one with the best graphics. The Xbox had graphics that were superior to the PS2. The PS2 sold 106 million units. The Xbox sold 24 million. If graphics was so overwhelmingly important, the Xbox should have done much better. The PS2 did better because it was perceived as being the system that was the most fun. This had a good bit more to do with the variety of games available for it than it did with how the games looked on it. The steep price of the Xbox didn’t help things either.

This, not the graphics, is why I think the Xbox 360 has a good chance of dong well. It's also why I think can Wii will do well too.



I’ll post links when I get home.

Well, if steep price doesn't help, then the PS3 has got an uphill climb. Just for grins, last week CompUSA was running fully loaded 360's for $350 (had a $50 rebate). I can only think that MS may consider a price drop right before Nov 17. That would be beautiful!

[Lensman]

Actually, there may never be games 1080p for the PS3. It appears that the budget system doesn't have the HDMI out (and it cannot be added later). I suppose that they could release the games for both systems. However, just because the PS3 has the space to use, it remains to be seen if they can use it, or will it just be a repeat of when CDroms came out. Remember how much crap developers put on the disc just because they had room?

Also, don't forget that the blu-ray drive is ONLY a 2X drive. Can't be having gamers sit for 2 minutes while the next scene loads up.

As far as capacity goes, yes the PS3 can hold more. Currently games are not hitting capacity of the DVD platform. When and if they do, then I guess multiple discs may be in order. As you state, if the gameplay is superior, it really shouldn't matter if you need to switch discs once during play right?

The lack of HDMI port on the $500 PS3 is indeed troubling – but only for watching Blu-Ray movies in HD because of the loss of HDCP. The unit still has a component video connection can do the full HD spec. Personally, I think it’s a poor sales tactic on the part of Sony, but it won’t affect how developers create games.

As for the drive, load times have always been an issue with any console since they moved away from carts. Game developers will certainly have to be careful with how they use it, but the capacity is still there. As far as whether the extra space will be filled up with crap, that’s in the hands of the game developers – just as it’s always been. Microsoft is no less prone to this.

And yes, I’d gladly switch out discs if the game was compelling just as did with Final Fantasy. If someone comes out with a killer app for the Xbox 360, no one’s going to make an issue of swapping discs.

?

I don’t think graphics are the end-all be-all of gaming. Processors have gotten faster, Graphics has gotten better. And games? Well, games are about the same. For example, there are cool-looking new driving games. But I’ve played driving games before. Many, many times. On many different systems. And I’ve played flight sims, and fighting games, and platformers, and RPGs, and first-person shooters, etc., etc, ad infinitum.

Oh I’m sure Halo 3 will look great. But I played the first FPS, Wolfenstein, when it came out. I played Doom and Duke Nukem and marveled at how they perfected the concept. I enjoyed how Quake’s multiplayer added a fun new way to play. I loved FPS games, and I kept playing them. But everything else that’s ever been released has been little more than some a variation of these. I still play them and they kill time acceptably well, but they don’t excite me anymore.

I may not have played some of the exact same games you have. But I’ve had every experience. I’m done with playing the same stuff over and over again. This is more the fault of software developers than hardware manufacturers. But I want something new. I want something different. That’s why I’m so interested in the Wii’s control system. Nintendo’s got something that’ll push game developers to do different things. Plus the Wii’s control system is intuitive: use the same motions you would in real life. That’s why I think it’ll resonate with the masses. Because the method of game control isn’t like any that’s come before it, I think people will be excited by it.

So the graphics are a bit worse? So what? Since you can’t see the images I included previously, click on this to see Madden 99:

http://www.xbox-modchips.com/img/son...enshot-big.jpg

Now take a look at Madden 07:

http://www.cheatcc.com/imageswii/madden07_00.jpg

Eight years of graphics development has gone by. Think 07 with a standard controller’s going to give me a football experience like nothing I’ve ever experienced before?

Well, if steep price doesn't help, then the PS3 has got an uphill climb. Just for grins, last week CompUSA was running fully loaded 360's for $350 (had a $50 rebate). I can only think that MS may consider a price drop right before Nov 17. That would be beautiful!

Six hundred dollars is a lot of money for a product relying on mass market sales. It’ll still sell, but getting it to sell in the quantities needed is the biggest hurdle Sony faces. According to Merrill Lynch figures, every PS3 sold at launch will be costing Sony $900. This comes on the heels of the $2 billion they paid for development of the cell processor. As you gleefully point out, a price drop by Microsoft before launch of the PS3 could cost Sony dearly. But the chances of Microsoft doing it is remote because they are in the same boat. In addition to the staggering $4 billion loss from their first Xbox, Microsoft continues to lose money on the Xbox 360. Microsoft’s Home and Entertainment division lost $414 million just last quarter. Microsoft has gone so far as to officially state they won’t do a price drop in advance of Sony’s launch (although they don’t rule out doing some kind of special holiday bundle).

Still, this compares starkly with Nintendo, who has consistently turned a profit on their gaming hardware because they’ve never made a decision to lose money selling high-powered units below cost in order to make it back with game sales and third-party license fees. While it may be easy to dismiss them as a has-been kiddie gaming company, it’s important to remember they’re the only console game company from the old guard that’s still around. Former powerhouses Coleco, Atari and Sega are gone.