Cell and RSX will probably end up sharing the same die too. Sony did this in the later slim PS2s where GE + EE were cobbled together. The reason it might take PS3 a little longer is because 360's CPU + GPU (minus EDRAM + logic) has considerably fewer transistors than what CELL(234 million) and RSX(300m) would make up. This is because CELL is quite a bit bigger than Xenon, and RSX is not a seperated processor like Xenos- 360's unique design.
Packaging both would be a...
You say they wont move to a new platform but i think they will and retain kinect compatability of course.
As sony moved onto PS2 from PS1, the older console was swamped with casual titles and kiddy titles. More hardcore titles arrived on the more expensive newer machine. This happened with the PS2 to PS3 transition as well. The older console continued to live for much longer as a result and still sold in good quantities.
I suspect microsoft will look to i...
Microsoft tighly controls all content on xbox live. They control all the servers (bar EA's) and they say what goes and what doesnt when it comes to publishers content.
Sony's model has less restrictions. This has allowed valve to port steamworks and run it on PSN, offering it to PS3 users. This also extends to publishers looking to create MMOs and charge subscriptions for them, you have to tangle with a bunch of red tape to get them on XBL because it means microsoft...
As if that damn dog wasnt annoying enough in Fable 2 yapping at everything and getting stuck in scenery....Now he wants a parrot?
Only if you can teach it to repeat obscenities
The problem No.1 being this is not by monolith like the first two games, its by day 1, a contracted studio who only ported over the other FEAR games to console.
Problem 2 being that lithtech jupiter EX runs horribly on PS3 so both games are by far the worst versions, looking and running far worse than on PC/360. Will this be any different? I would bet money not. FEAR 2 was a POS on PS3 (see what i did there? :-) and 3 will probably be too
Unique selling point? Do you mean gimmick?
F.E.A.R has been around since 2005 now. Its unique selling point was that it was overall, a quality shooter. There are lots of shooters out there but FEAR was around before the console shooter craze really caught on. It managed to be a slick looking, jumpy little horror shooter with nice online (at least on PC)
The key thing with FEAR was that the AI was stupendous and still is. Sick of playing knocked out shoote...
Actually Mrcash, you could do with knowing a little more, I have firsthand experience with machines like that. Do you? Something like an athlon X2 250 which is a budget dual core and a 4670 will dish out perfectly playable 'gamer' (Gamer being the setting below maximum) settings 1280 x 720 because thats such a low resolution relatively for Pc gaming. Take it up to 1280 x 1024 (which is 30 percent more pixels than the consoles) and you can mix and match mainstream/gamer settings to get...
Although in an ideal situation PS3 recieves both mass effect games, Having ME2 is obviously a great deal better for the consumer and for sony than not having the franchise at all. It was certainly a big console exclusive for microsoft that sold many 360s. No longer.
Mass effect 3 will undoubtably end up on PS3 and this is just as important too. Microsoft had taken away many games that historically had been hosted only on sony's machines, so this is a reversal of fortune...
A 3ghz athlon X2 and radeon 4850 will make mincemeat of this on 360 or PS3. Not sure why you would choose the console version when your Pc has more than enough performance to beat them hands down. A 4850 is more than twice as fast as RSX or xenos which is what matters.
Your machine should already be capable of running the original titles on 'Gamer' settings at resolutions far above what this will run on console when it drops. As such, i expect the conversion to cons...
If you have a decent dual core and a £50/$60 Geforce 9600/Radeon 4670 or better than your Pc should run this better than the consoles can. Expect the pc version to support the 360 controller too like the first/warhead. So if you have a machine of that calibre then Pc will obviously be the version to get.
Otherwise you will just have to see how the console versions stack up
What did they expect when you go from the PC version on a half decent machine to the console version...its the same case with Mafia 2 and this will be an even bigger gap.
What matters is whether the console versions can stand by themselves with other console games surely rather than trying to compete against a good PC. That time has long since passed
Generally video standards and resolutions havent advanced as far as internet speeds have in the past ten years. As such the current HD generation has a good uptake but the point here ChronoJoe really is that onlive already matches the standard CONSOLE resolution (1280 x 720) the question being asked can it replace CONSOLE gaming, not Pc gamers which generally use considerably higher resolutions. Console gamers fully accept lower resolutions, lesser graphic capability than Pc gamers.
...
It'll work better, the better the world's internet performance gets. In ten years obviously the internet performance for most countries and more developed countries will routinely exceed 50mb/s down stably i would say with superior latencies from widespread fibre optic infrastructures.
Whether Onlive itself will still be around to take advantage some company will in the end. It might yet be a case of a good idea, let down by the technology being too immature just ye...
What? Metal Gear Rex seems perfectly sensible when you look at other programs the military has invested in...:-o
Winged tanks? Flying aircraft carriers? Tsar tank? Cannon scooter? Hamsterball tanks? etc etc heh
He finds a Mclaren MP4-12C...if he cant keep up in that then all hope is lost lol
Concerns over performance on PS3 can be addressed immediately with the knowledge that mass effect is an unreal engine 3 game and Dragon age is not, its a custom bioware engine.
Unreal engine 3 is already very well known and reasonably well optimised on PS3
Why is this article here? Where is the one about japanese people and the yakuza playstation games?
Nowhere of course. Cos its all nonsense
Classic. Someone else who thinks every game on Pc has to be set to max to look/run better than it does on console.
There isnt a console game out there that looks as good as Crysis on 'Gamer' across the board and there wont be until the next generation machines. Gamer being the setting below top and perfectly achievable by modest video cards, if you didnt know...
Its 2010 and everyone who has bought a gaming pc in the past three years can run crysi...
Gawd can you really play this on console? It looks nasty on both. I cant stand all that horrid artifacting it looks like an SD game massively upscaled or a badly shot amateur video on worn out tape.
http://images.eurogamer.net...
http://images.eurogamer.net...
When sony opted to go with a 128 bit bus for RSX they really locked themselves into 256mb of video memory/256 system. The next stop up would have been 512/512. Plus XDR memory is not cheap, it gave CELL really huge read/write memory bandwidth for a CPU. Only the latest consumer Core i7 and AMD phenom 2 processors can match this memory bandwidth performance with DDR3...
Realistically the only way sony could have increased the amount of memory in PS3 usefully without costing ...