360 Elite?
- Thread starter Oobeaga
- Start date
Akieo
Active member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PrOdiGy @ Apr 1 2007, 10:54 AM) [snapback]150878[/snapback][/center]
I'm sure the 360 premium prices will drop because of the 360 Elite. The 360 Elite is only worth buying if you need HD space, and with my 360 I'm not even using 25% of my space yet. Also if you have an HDTV which I don't.
I'm sure the 360 premium prices will drop because of the 360 Elite. The 360 Elite is only worth buying if you need HD space, and with my 360 I'm not even using 25% of my space yet. Also if you have an HDTV which I don't.
BananaMan
New member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Akieo @ Apr 1 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]150867[/snapback][/center]
I got to agree in the short term, but the PS3 is a new console, and its abilities are no way being tested right now. Once games start filling up a Blu Ray disc, whilst taking advantage of the cell processor to fullest of its ability then you'll see some crazy games.
I got to agree in the short term, but the PS3 is a new console, and its abilities are no way being tested right now. Once games start filling up a Blu Ray disc, whilst taking advantage of the cell processor to fullest of its ability then you'll see some crazy games.
Lethos
Member
I seriously don't see how you think PS3 will be around as a contender for that long, devs will really only be motivated to keep makings games for a consoles that they can't be assured of the sales to make up there costs of making the game.
This is especially true when other consoles out there have so much better potential number of people to sell to, they will go to the other console instead, production costs of making a game are stupidly high now a days, they need to cover there costs.
3 simply put things make up a successful (console) game;
The market, how many have the console you are making it for.
The fun factor, simply put the enjoyability of the game.
Longevity of the game itself, it's replay value and all.
This is important to the console markers, becauses without games devs making those games, with stiff competition out there, and they start to lose more games devs to other consoles, they will not keep the longevity of the console itself.
This is especially true when other consoles out there have so much better potential number of people to sell to, they will go to the other console instead, production costs of making a game are stupidly high now a days, they need to cover there costs.
3 simply put things make up a successful (console) game;
The market, how many have the console you are making it for.
The fun factor, simply put the enjoyability of the game.
Longevity of the game itself, it's replay value and all.
This is important to the console markers, becauses without games devs making those games, with stiff competition out there, and they start to lose more games devs to other consoles, they will not keep the longevity of the console itself.
Fluffy
Vote Stewart/Colbert in '08!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BananaMan @ Apr 2 2007, 01:44 PM) [snapback]151026[/snapback][/center]
Damn, you said "2 years, max". I could of sworn you said 5. Must of been someone else. I did find a cadre of other quotes from you that made me smile and giggle, but that's for another time. (During your all out assault on Wii fans back in Nov :lol
Okay, I concede the point that you claim 5 and being in line with XBox 3. So, then I only get to play with my Wii for another 18 months before it goes away? I don't know about that...something tells me they have a market staked out already that will last them quite a bit longer.
Damn, you said "2 years, max". I could of sworn you said 5. Must of been someone else. I did find a cadre of other quotes from you that made me smile and giggle, but that's for another time. (During your all out assault on Wii fans back in Nov :lol
Okay, I concede the point that you claim 5 and being in line with XBox 3. So, then I only get to play with my Wii for another 18 months before it goes away? I don't know about that...something tells me they have a market staked out already that will last them quite a bit longer.
BananaMan
New member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fluffy @ Apr 2 2007, 11:02 PM) [snapback]151088[/snapback][/center]
Obviously you'll be able to play on it after 18 months, Remember Marketing is very mathamatical these days, and the 18 months talks about the Wii's profitability.
Damn, you said "2 years, max". I could of sworn you said 5. Must of been someone else. I did find a cadre of other quotes from you that made me smile and giggle, but that's for another time. (During your all out assault on Wii fans back in Nov :lol
Okay, I concede the point that you claim 5 and being in line with XBox 3. So, then I only get to play with my Wii for another 18 months before it goes away? I don't know about that...something tells me they have a market staked out already that will last them quite a bit longer.
[/b]
Obviously you'll be able to play on it after 18 months, Remember Marketing is very mathamatical these days, and the 18 months talks about the Wii's profitability.
BananaMan
New member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lethos @ Apr 2 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]151043[/snapback][/center]
Your first paragraph makes me giggle, in my experience developers want to test the limits, and the PS3 is the fastest and most dynamic console to build for. None of the current PS3 games have used 20% of the cells power, once developers learn to develop effectively for the PS3's architecture games will start flowing thick and fast.
Once again people are short sighted, we are selling more PS3 than the XBOX 360 did in first few months, and we have released a lot more titles than what were available for Xbox 360 at this time last year.
Your second paragraph is hilarious, the PS3 has only been out a matter of 5 months, and 1 week in Europe, and Australia, of course units are not as widespread, but again there are more PS3's in homes than Xbox 360's the same time after launch last year. I refute your comment about developers, as it sounds like you’re talking out your ass; Consoles don't sell themselves they need games to do this.
Games sell consoles.
I'd also add a factor to your three factors:
The competitiveness of a game sells it, players must be able to compete with each other for ranks and places.
The last paragraph states losing Dev’s to different consoles, what the fuck? Developers work on a variety of architectures, they don't just sit in a box and build for one system. This really does make me laugh, what evidence of the statement do you have? Employment Market Statistics?
Your first paragraph makes me giggle, in my experience developers want to test the limits, and the PS3 is the fastest and most dynamic console to build for. None of the current PS3 games have used 20% of the cells power, once developers learn to develop effectively for the PS3's architecture games will start flowing thick and fast.
Once again people are short sighted, we are selling more PS3 than the XBOX 360 did in first few months, and we have released a lot more titles than what were available for Xbox 360 at this time last year.
Your second paragraph is hilarious, the PS3 has only been out a matter of 5 months, and 1 week in Europe, and Australia, of course units are not as widespread, but again there are more PS3's in homes than Xbox 360's the same time after launch last year. I refute your comment about developers, as it sounds like you’re talking out your ass; Consoles don't sell themselves they need games to do this.
Games sell consoles.
I'd also add a factor to your three factors:
The competitiveness of a game sells it, players must be able to compete with each other for ranks and places.
The last paragraph states losing Dev’s to different consoles, what the fuck? Developers work on a variety of architectures, they don't just sit in a box and build for one system. This really does make me laugh, what evidence of the statement do you have? Employment Market Statistics?
BananaMan
New member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cahnuuk @ Apr 3 2007, 02:22 PM) [snapback]151155[/snapback][/center]
Covering the R&D costs probally 12 months, but with the massive ad revenues, which will begin to flow from PS3 Home, some of these costs savings will eventually be passed on to the consumer.
I must agree the Wii is making profit now, but I have no doubt in the long way the PS3 will surpass this. I don't have to remind you that Nintendo NEEDS to make money on the Wii as it doesn't have the supported subsiquent products and services Sony, and Microsoft have.
Covering the R&D costs probally 12 months, but with the massive ad revenues, which will begin to flow from PS3 Home, some of these costs savings will eventually be passed on to the consumer.
I must agree the Wii is making profit now, but I have no doubt in the long way the PS3 will surpass this. I don't have to remind you that Nintendo NEEDS to make money on the Wii as it doesn't have the supported subsiquent products and services Sony, and Microsoft have.
Lethos
Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BananaMan @ Apr 3 2007, 02:16 PM) [snapback]151153[/snapback][/center]
Also the PS3 is actually by no means easy to program for, coupled together the cell processing architecture, with not going with the directX route (still!), is making it harder from a programmers point of view.
I have no idea about the accuracy of your 20% figures, but it wouldn't suprise me, because making use of the power of a cell architecture just takes too long, Xbox360 on the other hand is just simply put monster workhouse, with it's Xenon chip, sure it has some limitations, it terms of it's floating point performance, but you have to decide on your definition of power.
http://browren.livejournal.com/370724.html
browren did a short post on this, which says this better than i could.
Talks with guys still working within the games industry says otherwise, they make more money building a game for one console, and being paid to keep it that way, even if they don't, the costs to build them cross platform is rarely one that makes them much more in the way of profit, The console companies would much rather keep that same total profit all for that same console, but it only encourages more people to buy their console.
Just going from what the likes of Mike McShaffry have said, when i've had the chance to talk to them when they've come to our university and done lectures/seminars, and we get to ask them all kind of questions. I have little intention of owning either console, but I know I will be working on consoles in the future without a doubt, I agree with Mike, as Consoles become more like PC's it becomes that bit better to not only program them, but to port between them, with less turn around and costs.
Bananaman, I can tell you are very much stubborn on your views of what you see as fact, I by no means no it all, but I can see that you do have selective judgement on what you want to see as fact, and what is "oh that doesn't matter". Be alittle more open minded...
I think your missing an important ideal, quality over quantity.
Also the PS3 is actually by no means easy to program for, coupled together the cell processing architecture, with not going with the directX route (still!), is making it harder from a programmers point of view.
I have no idea about the accuracy of your 20% figures, but it wouldn't suprise me, because making use of the power of a cell architecture just takes too long, Xbox360 on the other hand is just simply put monster workhouse, with it's Xenon chip, sure it has some limitations, it terms of it's floating point performance, but you have to decide on your definition of power.
http://browren.livejournal.com/370724.html
browren did a short post on this, which says this better than i could.
Talks with guys still working within the games industry says otherwise, they make more money building a game for one console, and being paid to keep it that way, even if they don't, the costs to build them cross platform is rarely one that makes them much more in the way of profit, The console companies would much rather keep that same total profit all for that same console, but it only encourages more people to buy their console.
Just going from what the likes of Mike McShaffry have said, when i've had the chance to talk to them when they've come to our university and done lectures/seminars, and we get to ask them all kind of questions. I have little intention of owning either console, but I know I will be working on consoles in the future without a doubt, I agree with Mike, as Consoles become more like PC's it becomes that bit better to not only program them, but to port between them, with less turn around and costs.
Bananaman, I can tell you are very much stubborn on your views of what you see as fact, I by no means no it all, but I can see that you do have selective judgement on what you want to see as fact, and what is "oh that doesn't matter". Be alittle more open minded...
BananaMan
New member
In my time in GI I have worked with the Xbox 360, and talked to Developers about it, and yes I admit that they say it is easier to develop for. But, what do you expect Sony to do, they are not going integrate DirectX into their development architecture, ever, you know and I know it.
I know for a fact the Dev Boys at Sony are continuously making strides in making Dev Kits, easier, and clearer to use, ensuring the documentation is correct. The documentation is also aided by the amount of workshops Sony is setting up for developers to come to, and learn about the PS3. All I can say is that when the Next generation hits developers are going to be hit with these technological problems, but we could blame the monopoly of Microsoft’s DirectX on these problems as stated by you above. In the GI we don’t need lassie-faire developers; we need more self motivated ones.
I must admit the roll outs, documentation, and workshops related to the Cell Architecture of the PS3 could have been done better by Sony, but everyone’s human, so it is inevitable mistakes would be made.
This is for god sake the most advance piece of gaming technology available right now.
I know for a fact the Dev Boys at Sony are continuously making strides in making Dev Kits, easier, and clearer to use, ensuring the documentation is correct. The documentation is also aided by the amount of workshops Sony is setting up for developers to come to, and learn about the PS3. All I can say is that when the Next generation hits developers are going to be hit with these technological problems, but we could blame the monopoly of Microsoft’s DirectX on these problems as stated by you above. In the GI we don’t need lassie-faire developers; we need more self motivated ones.
I must admit the roll outs, documentation, and workshops related to the Cell Architecture of the PS3 could have been done better by Sony, but everyone’s human, so it is inevitable mistakes would be made.
This is for god sake the most advance piece of gaming technology available right now.
Fluffy
Vote Stewart/Colbert in '08!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BananaMan @ Apr 3 2007, 09:00 AM) [snapback]151148[/snapback][/center]
So, you are saying the Wii will stop being profitable after 18 months because there will not be games made for it, correct? (I don't know any other way for a console to become non-profitable after release except for lack of games), and that is why my comment was "goes away", because the games as well as the profit will "go away" after 18 months according to you.
I still say there will be a ton of games a ton of people buying Wii consoles up and beyond 18 months to keep the Wii being profitable because they are tapping into new markets (new people entering console market and new style of gameplay).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BananaMan @ Apr 3 2007, 10:31 AM) [snapback]151170[/snapback][/center]
Saturn? Dreamcast? NeoGeo? Jaguar? The PS3 has a lot of advantages, but demanding it to be a success because it is the most advanced piece of gaming technology is not always correct.
So, you are saying the Wii will stop being profitable after 18 months because there will not be games made for it, correct? (I don't know any other way for a console to become non-profitable after release except for lack of games), and that is why my comment was "goes away", because the games as well as the profit will "go away" after 18 months according to you.
I still say there will be a ton of games a ton of people buying Wii consoles up and beyond 18 months to keep the Wii being profitable because they are tapping into new markets (new people entering console market and new style of gameplay).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BananaMan @ Apr 3 2007, 10:31 AM) [snapback]151170[/snapback][/center]
Saturn? Dreamcast? NeoGeo? Jaguar? The PS3 has a lot of advantages, but demanding it to be a success because it is the most advanced piece of gaming technology is not always correct.
