@MikeB

Quote:

Also a game on the scale of God of War requires about 3 years of development time, so I don't like the idea of upgrading every 3 years. IMO the first 3 years are needed just for developers to fully understand what they could potentially get out of the PS3's hardware capabilities, adjusting their game engines accordingly, then they can plan what kind of game they would like to create to fully capatilize on this potential.

Perhaps, perhaps not - I agree with BrianK in that the software world is obviously changing for consoles as well.

Unlike Amiga games in the 1980s that were hitting the hardware, PC games now run on top of layers of sophisticated middleware and whatnot, the hardware may not be pushed to the limit, but developers still get very good performance and are able to manage ever-more complex software because of the tools...

Hardware changes incrementally, how development is done is no longer changing directly with hardware but separately depending on how the tools, languages and other leves of abstraction are developed. Some may dislike this, but as a computing science person myself I do like the idea of ever-improving, separate software development discipline as opposed to hardware dependency.

Sony has obviously chosen a unique, perhaps somewhat peculiar hardware setup for all PlayStation consoles and thus the learning curve for developers is higher and they need special skills to get the most out of the machine. Microsoft has brought their experience from the computing field to Xbox and developers are able to get more sooner with the tools they have from the beginning - and because the actual development is like development on a PC/Mac would be.

So its a different ball-game, we may not need years for developers since they would develop a next-gen console just like they developed the last-gen one... just a faster system with perhaps some new tricks to learn, but basically development is alike. The system can still be revolutionary and super-fast and whatever with triple-parallel-shading-this-and-that, that doesn't have to change the development process as directly as it has in the past.

Computer games from the Amiga/C64 age to the present-day PC have also gone through this change. Consoles are also going through the same change. Personally I don't think it is necessary to wait six years for people to squeeze every last drop from a system if a system refresh a few years earlier will get even better results on screen, which it likely would no matter how much "untapped potential" there in under the hood of the previous generation.

Last edited by jtsiren on 03-Oct-2007 at 06:05 PM.

@BrianK

Word on the street is that Bungie is going to be sold or go independent but MS is keeping the rights to HALO...

I guess HALO DS is a reality afterall... http://blogs.ign.com/Matt-IGN/

@MikeB

Quote:

Also a game on the scale of God of War requires about 3 years of development time, so I don't like the idea of upgrading every 3 years. IMO the first 3 years are needed just for developers to fully understand what they could potentially get out of the PS3's hardware capabilities, adjusting their game engines accordingly, then they can plan what kind of game they would like to create to fully capatilize on this potential.

As you noted Halo3 isn't 720p native yet the developers obviously were able to capitalize on the platform without pusing it fully. As the future consoles will even be more powerful I think the amount of developers that feel they need to hit the hardware directly will be reduced. Sure there will always be those developers who hit hardware but I think we'll see even more developers rely on 3rd party engines and tools to be optimized so they can instead focus on their game instead of spending cycles creating new engines and subsequently optimizing them. Most developer aren't going to need 3 years of time to understand the hardware because the hardware will be so powerful the # of games reliant on hitting hardware for performance will be reduced.

Take for example making a 2D scroller on today's hardware. A company could use 3rd party tools and get a poorer optimization say 80% CPU usage. Or a company could spend lots of times optimizing and get a much better CPU usage, say 40%. But, in the end that game will play at 1080p at 60fps either way. What would it benefit the company to reduce the CPU usage? It likely won't so they aren't going to do it. Instead they'll use 3rd party tools to optimize time to market and reduce programming time better ensuring profits from the sales of their game.

Again I'm not saying every company will use 3rd party tools and won't need to understand the hardware directly. What I am saying is I think we'll see companys less and less reliant on needing 3 years to hit hardware and instead using middle ware tools.

@jtsiren

Quote:

Anything is possible. It also could be that a faster update pace is a liability for Xbox and slower upgrade cycle gathers more loyalty and momentum for PS3

Agreed.

Also a game on the scale of God of War requires about 3 years of development time, so I don't like the idea of upgrading every 3 years. IMO the first 3 years are needed just for developers to fully understand what they could potentially get out of the PS3's hardware capabilities, adjusting their game engines accordingly, then they can plan what kind of game they would like to create to fully capatilize on this potential.

@MikeB

Anything is possible. It also could be that a faster update pace is a liability for Xbox and slower upgrade cycle gathers more loyalty and momentum for PS3.

Just some options to ponder where these things might lead. Who knows.

@jtsiren

Quote:

What if a singnificantly more powerful Xbox III hits the market 3-4 years into PS3's life

That would make sense, especially if the console would be Cell processor based. I wouldn't run out to buy one at launch, but if the console is more open, proven to be reliable and includes a Blu-Ray drive I may get one down the road.

However the PS3 will then probably have the advantage of being available at mass market pricing and tons of games available to show off its potential. Maybe even then there will be enough headroom left for PS3 developers to tap into and have XBox III and PS3 games about on par for a few years down the road.

@MikeB

Quote:

..................................2007............2009...........2011.. Sony Playstation 2.......112.6m.........119.9m........121.4m Sony Playstation 3.......7.7m............38.7m..........67.5m Nintendo Wii................17.1m...........41.9m..........59.4m Microsoft Xbox 360......13.9m...........26.8m..........36.4m Nintendo DS ...............60.5m...........99.3m..........142.9m Sony PSP ...................29.8m...........51.7m..........74.1m

I think one things about these estimations that rings certain to me is that Xbox 360 won't continue to sell significant numbers beyond, say, 2010. The rumblings would seem to be that Microsoft will pursue a more aggressive upgrade cycle than Sony historically has.

This, if it happens, will bode interesting times for the console world. What if a singnificantly more powerful Xbox III hits the market 3-4 years into PS3's life, what would that do - or would it do anything to those PS3 projections? If we assume Xbox III hits the market in by 2010, it would historically mean that PS4 is 2-3 years down the road at that point... and when it comes out, Xbox IV would again be just a few years away.

If Sony sticks to its historical schedule of releasing new consoles every, what, 6-7 years, a major competitor with a schedule of 4-5 years between updates could be a disruptive force. Of course, who knows how the Xbox 360 quality woes and the needed technical expertise there have affected Microsoft's plans. Reading Takahashi's book, the Xbox 360 was a busy, busy project, so I'm sure Microsoft will need time for the next round unless they go for something very quick like Xbox I.

Time will tell what happens and does Microsoft pursue a more aggressive schedule and does Sony change their schedule... the talk about a ten year run doesn't seem to suggest that, but plans can always change.

Now, the above of course assumes technology matters. It does matter to hardcore gamers, but as Wii has so far suggested, and PS2s long run too (although that has more to do IMHO the market position it had gathered earlier in the race than just the longetivity of the box itself - Wii will also have to gather major momentum to keep running with its low-end box for long), it doesn't seem to matter to casual gamers.

If technology doesn't matter, then a competitor updating their system every few years wouldn't matter as much either, unless those upgrades bring in something significantly new like the Wii control mechanism etc... So Sony could well manage with a far slower release cycle than Microsoft. Then again, Sony might fall victim to the same disruptive change that they themselves brought on the Nintendos and Segas of yesteryear in the mid-90s.

Personally I'd be happy to upgrade my consoles every three years or so. PS2 was just getting too old for me, no matter how you slice it. Casual gamers will of course feel differently.

@jtsiren

Quote:

65nm CPUs are already starting to appear in Halo 3 Special Edition Xbox 360's

For those cost trackers out there the original 90nm version was estimated to cost Microsoft $105 but with discounts past a certain level and where they are now it's estimated to be 40% less expensive. The 65nm part is estimated to be 50% less expensive, I'm assuming they mean off the original price.

Changes to the heatsink appear to be a copper pipe removed over the CPU and simplified heat sink design. These should be fine as the RRoD is caused by GPU and the 65nm CPU should be a bit cooler. So likely some $$ savings there. Springs added to the Xclamp should make them tighter but might cost a bit more $.

CPU and GPU are still glued on the corners to the motherboard.

Further confirming 65nm process was some missing capaciters and a measured drop in power usage.

The 65nm chipped Halo 3 console was built August 24, 2007 from team "FDOU" and part of lot 734 in case people are looking for them.

@BrianK

Quote:

When I see the industry commenting on the console wars it's always a 7th Gen comparison.

You are probably referring to some of the gaming press. VGChartz is just a community website run by people who work in the field and have an interest in collecting related data, they then share their findings.

PS2 data is often added afterwards, what's exactly the reason I don't know, but usually a couple of days afterwards the data is added.

@MikeB

Quote:

The industry and Sony are counting the PS2 as a modern and relevant gaming platform.

When I see the industry commenting on the console wars it's always a 7th Gen comparison. Nintendo appears to be, in your words, excluding the PS2. Recently when they talked about Japan their points were about how they were beating the other 7th gen consoles. The PS2 #s were on their chart but were completely not talked about. One of your favorite sites to quote http://www.vgchartz.com/ doesn't even include the PS2 on their main page. The recent Japanese equivalent to E3 Sony covered the PS3 with little mention of the PS2. The 7th gen wars do not include the PS2.

Now if you want to drop into an overall comparison the PS2 is likely included but then you pickup things such as GBA, DS and PSP at the same time. And heck even the gamecube is still selling.

Quote:

Microsoft claimed to be leading the gaming industry.

They were in a variety of ways at the time. Many of which have been overshadowed by the newer 7th gen consoles. For example the 360 owned some of the largest launches out of any console ever and since that time the Wii has beat them in those same countries. So on your desire to claim Microsoft claimed some victory that was never true we'd have to look at the quote and the data surrounding it. Because yes they have led the console industry in a variety of ways. I believe most online users, most hardware problems and largest game launch ever are ones they hold.

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Oct-2007 at 04:56 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

You can argue all you want that the PS2 should be included. But until you convince the industry and businesses you're going to be in a very small minority view.

The industry and Sony are counting the PS2 as a modern and relevant gaming platform. Microsoft may want to exclude the PS2 for PR reasons, last year when the XBox 360 was globally greatly outsold by the PS2 and both Nintendo Wii and PS3 were still unavailable, Microsoft claimed to be leading the gaming industry.

Quote:

Do you really see Sony keeping the PS2 in production until 2011?

No. But available stock may still be sold in the years prior to that.

@MikeB

Easy to predict whatever we'll see how the future actually turns out.

Do you really see Sony keeping the PS2 in production until 2011?

Microsoft and Nintendo are undoubtably not counting the PS2 they are comparing 7th gen only. The PS2 is still selling but neither company is comparing their consoles to the 6th gen. I'd question if Sony is even doing your strange comparison if they were they'd see the PS3 as the least selling of the 4 and a money loser to their books so killing it would make Sony more profitable. Obviously they're not going to do that. At least Microsoft and Nintendo are only going to position their console based upon the current gen and, while you disagree, the PS2 is last gen, just last gen that's still selling well. Currently Microsoft sees they own 40% of the market a growth over the Xbox and at this time it's good enough that they've commited to a 8th gen console.

You can feel right in how you view the PS2 and it's market but unfortunately the majority of people don't view it your way and neither do the businesses. Even your favorite site VGChartz has been reducing PS2 reporting. For example http://www.vgchartz.com/news/news.php?id=541 is missing PS2 detailed reporting. They see 'In the Americas, a total of 14,196,081 current generation consoles (Wii, PS3, 360) have been sold. Of those, Xbox 360 accounts for 51.1%, Wii accounts for 34.5%, and PS3 accounts for 14.4%' -- so do Microsoft and Nintendo...

You can argue all you want that the PS2 should be included. But until you convince the industry and businesses you're going to be in a very small minority view.

@BrianK

I don't think the XBox 360 will get a significant bigger piece of the pie for the long run than they did with the original XBox. Of course the Pie is getting bigger, but the PS2 / PS3 and Wii will likely eat up the bulk of the pie, leaving the XBox 360 with leftovers.

mcvuk.com's current prediction based on Screen Digest data:

WORLD: INSTALLED BASE BY PLATFORM.......................

..................................2007............2009...........2011..
Sony Playstation 2.......112.6m.........119.9m........121.4m
Sony Playstation 3.......7.7m............38.7m..........67.5m
Nintendo Wii................17.1m...........41.9m..........59.4m
Microsoft Xbox 360......13.9m...........26.8m..........36.4m
Nintendo DS ...............60.5m...........99.3m..........142.9m
Sony PSP ...................29.8m...........51.7m..........74.1m

Source: Screen Digest....................................................
http://www.mcvuk.com/opinion/83/Screen-Digest-next-gen-analysis

Personally I think Nintendo will release an upscaling capable HD version of the Wii well before 2011, which could be considered to be a new platform (better CPU/GPU/more RAM/ etc). To me at least that would make sense.

Last edited by MikeB on 02-Oct-2007 at 02:20 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 02-Oct-2007 at 02:19 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Perhaps the 360 isn't as dead as some were predicting.

What a silly prediction that was. None of the three consoles are dead or dying, it is still early days yet.

Xbox 360 seems to be getting a bit of PS2 effect too, people replacing all those broken consoles with seconds. (And no, of course the PS2 quality issues weren't as severe two years into service.)

@jtsiren

VGChartz shows for the US
92,500 Wii down 1%
27,120 PS3 down 10%
103,530 360 UP 17%
PS2 outsold PS3 2:1

This means combine Sony's PS2 and PS3 were below the 360 in the US. So at least in the US we see the 360 gaining the week before Halo3. Surely they'll be up even more on launch week. It'll be interesting to see worldwide how this is stacking up. Perhaps the 360 isn't as dead as some were predicting.

@BrianK

Quote:

What some people don't get is Microsoft's job this generation was not to be #1. Their job was to own a greater % of the marketshare and get out of the distant third place into a more secure position. That position could be 3rd but at a much larger marketshare and Microsoft will count this as a victory. But coming in a 2nd would indeed be impressive.

Agreed. I finally had the time during summer to read the whole Dean Takahashi's book The Xbox 360 Uncloacked. An interesting story for sure, about the actual design and implementation of course, but also of the goals and challenges Microsoft faced (and still faces) with their console successor. Other than the quality issue, Microsoft has done well and I commend them for it. A fun box, as I said, it far succeeded my requirements of a fill-in-box-while-waiting-for-PS3. It still sees more action today. Actually, the PS3 hasn't seen any action other than firmware updates since spring I guess.

A sadder story for sure was my other summer book, Brian Bagnall's On the Edge - The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore. What a great read, but I was really bummed out after reading it. The last silly years in the Amiga land really had let me forget what a great force Commodore was compared to this we have here now... time to revisit the Deathbed Vigil one of these days, I guess, just to depress myself a little more...

Off-topic P.S.

Relatively nice speculation and reasoning for a $399 PS3:

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=7826&start=0#end

Last edited by jtsiren on 01-Oct-2007 at 11:50 PM.

@jtsiren

I too and others I know have launch 360s going strong. The spring on my USB door won't spring anymore but obviously not anything stopping the show. I gave MikeB permission to count mine as broken

Quote:

All of the three need the software and the exclusives. Clearly the technology isn't dictating this round. Xbox 360 is doing strong because it has the software, not because it is inherently better (it is that software that allows it to get away with the quality disaster too).

Not only do consoles need exclusive they need attractive exclusives. The 360 and PS3 are so close I think this generation we'll see more cross platform titles and those players interested in both may default to the 360 due to pricing concerns. I think as the warranty was increased and as newer models appear to be more reliable it'll persuade a few others to go to the 360 camp over the PS3 camp.

Once we see some of the big named Sony titles return - MGS4 / Gran Turismo / Final Fanatasy likely those fans will be picking up the PS3. With the coming of Ninja Gaiden 2/ Fable 2/ Lost Odyssey/ Halo Wars/ Splinter Cell 5 the 360 will not be resting in 2008 either. I predicted Chrismas of 2008 is when the PS3 will finally pull ahead of the 360 we'll see if it can.

What some people don't get is Microsoft's job this generation was not to be #1. Their job was to own a greater % of the marketshare and get out of the distant third place into a more secure position. That position could be 3rd but at a much larger marketshare and Microsoft will count this as a victory. But coming in a 2nd would indeed be impressive.

When one comes from dead last it's easy to gain there's lots of head room. When coming from a highly secure first it's easy to room there's lots of room to fall to. That's exactly what has happened. We already know Microsoft is seeing the 360 as a win in the direction they wanted. They have already stated they will be making a 3rd console. Halo will be back as there are rumblings of Halo4, which looks to be a prequel. With having the top more selling game in 1 day Bungie would be stupid to not make a Halo4 that's like printing free money.

@MikeB

Quote:

As much as you claim the PS3 needs exclusively MGS4, the Wii really needs Mario Galaxy, Wii sales have dropped at a constant rate for many weeks now.

All of the three need the software and the exclusives. Clearly the technology isn't dictating this round. Xbox 360 is doing strong because it has the software, not because it is inherently better (it is that software that allows it to get away with the quality disaster too).

I guess what really remains to be seen is what the technological difference between PS3 and Xbox 360 really amounts to be. I am hesitant to use Halo 3 is a benchmark, any number of reasons could have affected that, but I certainly agree PS3 is showing improvement over launch as predicted.

As always, awaiting for the results with open mind and two consoles waiting for content. May the best system win.

@Lou

Quote:

So your 360 was manufactured in the future?

Sorry, my mistake - now fixed, my month and year had swapped 7s and 8s... The RRoD'd machine according to images was built 18.8.2007 and the date from which onwards 65nm seems to be used is 24.8.2007.

And no it wasn't my Xbox, it was the one which RRoDd. As everyone knows, my launch-day Xbox 360 is still running strong. (Knock, knock...)

@Lou

Quote:

The launch hype in Europe for the PS3 has come and gone, but the software has always lagged.

It was just announced the PS3 is selling faster at a higher entry price in France than the PS2 did. Not bad!

Quote:

Heavenly Sword can only move so many units... Lair fell flat on it's face.

Impressive conclusion, considering Lair hasn't even been released in Europe yet and according to VGChartz its first week sales in the US have outperfomed both Heavenly Sword and Warhawk, although the latter one is also being sold cheaper but without a Bluetooth headset through the PSN.

I guess people wanted to experienve something fresh and dragons are kind of in, maybe due to movies like Eragon and Lords of the Ring.

Quote:

Hope remains for MSG4. My prediction is that 1 month after MSG4 launches, a 360 version will be announced. It might be on 4 discs...but who cares about that really

Not just MG4, for the short run people are awaiting PS3 exclusives like Ratchet and Clank Future, Singstar, Uncharted. Haze, UT3 and various PlayStation Eye games. Personally I am also looking forward to a cute PSN game called Snakeball and WipeOut HD, which both look like good fun.

For next year there are just too many high profile PS3 games to name them all here, but obviously Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy XIII, Killzone 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 will be some of the PS3's most important exclusives next year. And it will be interesting to see how people will react to Home and LittleBigPlanet.

I think PS3 sales in Japan will skyrocket in 2008. With heavy hitting games like Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy XIII (& Versus XIII), Monster Hunter 3, White Knight Story, Metal Gear Solid 4 as well as other popular games like Biohazard 5 (Resident Evil 5), The Last Remnant, Shin Sangoku Musou 5 (Dynasty Warriors 6) and Devil May Cry 4 all becoming available, I think my positive longterm outlook for Japan is justified.

As much as you claim the PS3 needs exclusively MGS4, the Wii really needs Mario Galaxy, Wii sales have dropped at a constant rate for many weeks now.

Last edited by MikeB on 01-Oct-2007 at 06:03 PM.