This story is industry analysis of what Microsoft's actions mean and where they are going. The rumours are just used to give structure to this analysis.
pwnsause you obviously did not understand the Sony marketing article. It was not an attack on Sony. It was an explanation of what actually happened. The fanboys didn't like seeing the facts. But those who understand business agreed with the article. I suggest you read it again and if you still don't understand then get a grown up to explain it to you.
Here we have a serious issue of gaming being attacked. How would you like it if some stupid government believed Greenpeace and stuck 100% tax on game consoles? Don't laugh because things just like that have happened in the past.
I do not "like" or "dislike" Nintedo, Microsoft or Sony. I just write it how it is. Different fanboys see it differently, but that is what you expect from fanboys.
You put it so much more eloquently than me.
As gaming becomes more profile more people attack it. Either because they are ignorant or because they have their own axe to grind. The British Prime Minister blamed gaming for knife crime, as has The Edge from U2. Idiots.
Greenpeace are just using the popularity of gaming to get publicity and funds for themselves. The Wii actually uses far less electricity than most other consoles so has a smaller carbon footprint. Greenpeace didn't t...
A Greenpeace supporter that doesn't like criticism perhaps?
Or maybe anti Nintendo gamers who like the Greenpeace criticism?
For me any unelected body that attacks gaming without cause needs defending against. Surely we are all gamers together, and Greenpeace are attacking all of us.
Why don't you try writing a blog article every single day with original content that people want to read? Because you can't. And your envy shows.
Your whole rant contains no facts or examples. It is just a collection of generalised claims and insults. Presumably you disagree with something I have said but are unable to argue coherently on the subject and so are resorting to a tirade of abuse from a position of anononymity. How big and brave of you.
My blog is rea...
Without any form of marketing the game wouldn't be in a shop or online to be picked. So no matter how many people were infinitely curious the sales would still be zero.
Even a developer telling his friends and family what he is working on is marketing, the most powerful kind - word of mouth.
I agree, they didn't ruin gaming.
But now, with 20/20 hindsight and the example of Nintendo, we can see that they failed to reach the broader market that was just sitting there waiting to be reached. So they screwed up the market, which is what I am saying. They were the dominant player in the market and they failed to convert that dominance into a broad appeal for gaming.
If gaming had been driven to mass market ten years ago it would now be vastly bigger, instead Sony sat in t...
If you read the article it says "By the standards of anything that had gone before it was a massive success."
Where Sony went wrong was in their limited ambition. They did not try to go after the broader audiences like television, the cinema and books do. Sony largely confined themselves to a niche. So PS2 was not massively more successful than PS1 and PS3 will do well to match either of these earlier machines. But this need not have been, Sony could have expanded out of thei...
The games you listed appealed to a niche audience (a big niche but still a niche), they had no broad based attraction as entertainment for the wider population. So whilst you and your friends liked them it was not enough.
Television, movies and books are more mature entertainment industries and they have learned to appeal to everyone. As an industry we did not learn how to do this soon enough. It is mainly Nintendo in the last couple of years who have shown us how.
Gaming has th...
Sony fanboys on here certainly don't like to see any criticism. Especially when it is the truth. If Sony had managed to get their offering right to reach mass markets sooner then the gaming industry would now be much bigger. This is irrefutable. It took Nintendo to show them how to do it.
The BBC article about the Darling honours was on here on Friday. It concerned itself with the facts.
This new article is complimentary to the BBC article but puts those facts into games industry context.
One event can lead to a lot of different articles on here. Just look at the launch of GTA IV.
The xenos has a claimed 240GFlops possible in the shaders. Given that it takes 4 ops to perform a transformation to screen space we can say its theoretical maximum poly throughput is 60,000,000,000 polys/sec.
The RSX has 8 vertex shaders each capable of 10 Flops per cycle. So .. well ... thats 40GFLOPS @ 500MHz. Max poly through put is 10,000,000,000 polys/sec.
A number of posters on here have said that the 360 uses PC architecture.
They are wrong, it doesn't. The original Xbox did.
The 360 uses a compltely different sort of CPU (from IBM) optimised for gaming instead of the Intel family CPUs used in PCs.
Likewise the system architecture is a clean sheet design owing zero to PC architecture. It was optimised from day one to get the most out of it's two processors and memory and is a very elegant design indeed, possibly the nices...
"I am a software developer with a master’s degree in CS, so I can confirm PS3 is vastly inferior to Xbox 360 as a game console.
During its inception, CELL’s architecture was mainly guided by Toshiba, who previously engineered and supplied infamous(formerly the most difficult console to program for prior to PS3) Emotion Engine to PS2, for its own audio/video processing requirement and CELL is excellent for streaming audio/video processing, but is almost useless for general ...
It is a big pity that this article failed approval because some people who don't know what they are talking about didn't like it. The truth about these machines should reach a wider audience.
What I posted is not lame and not spam. It is fact as any developer who has worked on both machines will tell you.
I am sorry that Sony fanboys cannot face up to the facts.
I am not a fanboy for any machine, just an industry professional reporting the facts as I find them.
...
If you click the links in the article you will see that everything in it is supported by facts. Some people may not like these facts but they are there and they are open knowledge.
1) The PS3 GPU is a PC part optimised for that job. The 360 GPU was a co design between ATI and Microsoft that is optimised for the console role.
2) The on paper performance statistics of the 360 GPU are far higher than the PS3 GPU.
3) The PS3 GPU was a last minute fix so the architecture of th...
I am not a fanboy for anything and thought you may find the following of interest:
http://www.rllmukforum.com/...
and
http://forum.pcvsconsole.co...
Especially the inflated PS3 GPU number.
The Microsoft project for this is called "Media Galaxy" and last year they spent 94 million Yuan buying a stake in a Chinese TV manufacturer as part of it.
There are server based games other than Bingo and Poker. There are lots of very sophisticated 3D Flash games. And browser based MMOs like Runescape and Ikariam, both of which are excellent.
Many in the industry think that we have no option but to go to server based gaming. With increasing bandwidth a...