The main point of this post is to compare the Sony Playstation 3 to the Microsoft Xbox 360. Some of this will be technical, some of this will be pure opinion, all of it will be yelled at by someone at sometime. I am not trying to use marketing terms. If I accidently use some phrase or word that is purely marketing such as "Full Media Center Extender 2.0 experience", please tell me so I can immediately remove and/or reword it. I don't like marketing and I don't like marketing shills. Let's first start out with a sexy table of some basic information. Shills typically review console video games on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to a specific operating system or Information Technology.
Price Xbox 360 PS3
Entry System $299.99 $499
"Top" System $399.99 $599
If you look at the basics of the above table, it makes it seems as if the Xbox 360 is cheaper. However, in order to play any of the original Xbox games (such as Halo 2), you must have a hard drive. The "Core" Model does not have a hard drive. Microsoft has a comparison list that shows the difference between the Core system and the "Xbox 360". The odd thing about this is that you have to spend more money to even save a game on the Core system. Everything you need to play and save games is included on the more expensive unit. The hard drive is available for $99. Since that brings the price up to the more expensive Xbox 360 unit, it's actually wiser to spend the money up front as it gives you more accessories than just the hard drive such as a component cable. If that wasn't enough to convince you that you need a hard drive, Microsoft has an entire page devoted to convincing you to get the hard drive. Every model of the PS3 has a hard drive in it. But more on that later.
The PS3 also plays High Definition movies out of the box in all configurations. The Xbox 360 requires a separate adapter/product in order to play movies in high definition glory. This adapter is $199.99. Anyone who has the goal of playing high definition movies would play roughly the same price as anyone that has a PS3. This makes the prices pretty much equal. Technically, the Xbox 360 method is 98 cents more expensive, but anyone that harps on a measly 98 cents needs to get out of marketing/sales if that's the only difference they can come up with. More on the disc formats later.
Storage Xbox 360 PS3
Hard drive (HDD) 20GB (optional for Core system), 14GB user accessible, non-upgradeable. 20GB or 60GB. 2GB reserved. User upgradeable, officially (Current Maximum 200GB)
Optical Disc1 CD, DVD (and a bunch of subformats) Blu-Ray Disc (BD), DVD, CD (and a bunch of subformats)
"Native" Game Disc Storage Single:4.38GB Dual:7.92GB Single: 23.3GB Dual: 46.6GB
Memory Card Proprietary Xbox 360 Memory Unit (64MB) Memory Stick/SD/CompactFlash Slots for Premium unit. 0 otherwise. Requires hard to find adapter to get data off PS2/PSX memory cards.
Hard Drive
Personally, I love the fact the PS3 comes with the hard drive standard. It's a great decision on Sony's part. It means games can highly compress textures and other resources on disc then stream them to the HD for storage in a cache. This means games can be much faster and fit much, much higher quality textures on a game disc and not worry about the slow seek/loading times optical discs always seems to have. While the Xbox 360 can do this as well with the optional HD, the PS3 differs in the ways game developers can always depend on the HD being there. Xbox 360 developers have to handle cases in which the HD isn't available, which means the performance for loading resources off a game disc always has to be acceptable. PS3 developers can "silently" stream data to the HD cache during idle times. This should make everything a lot faster. Loading times really blow and to keep loading times low in the case of no HD on the Xbox 360, game developers will have to make some sacrifices in quality.
Imagine the HD like a web page cache for a dialup user. Web browsers use caches because loading data off the hard drive is always much faster than loading data off a slow modem. This, in turn, makes navigating within the same site much, much faster than having to download every single resource all over again when all the resources between subpages are the same. Before the days of large hard drives, web page designers would use ugly 8-bit GIFs to keep down size. Now they can use lovely 32-bit PNGs. Caching makes sure the larger full color images are only downloaded once. It's basically the same situation for games. With an HD (and thus a larger cache) you can store higher quality resources on the optical disc, even if they are slower to load initially.
Another lovely thing about a hard drive and internet access is that games can download content off the internet. This content could be new maps, new levels, new items, game balance changes, other new content or just bug fixes. Just imagine that if instead of a completely separate international version of a game, all you had to do was download the content updates. Even if the manufacturer charged about the same amount as the separate international version, it'd still be preferable to most people.
As I mentioned many times before, the PS3's HD is user upgradeable. It takes a 2.5" laptop hard drive. Since the largest 2.5" hard drive at this time is "200GB", the maximum capacity of the PS3 is currently 186GBs. Which isn't too shabby. I do not know what you would do with all that space on a game console. Conversely, the Xbox 360 has an optional, non-upgradeable 20GB hard drive. This is extremely interesting as Microsoft just announced TV Shows and Movies are part of the Xbox Live Marketplace. A 20GB hard drive can only hold about 5 hours of high definition content. That's about 6 episodes of an hour long show (42-44 minutes each without commercials) and then you're going to have to start deleting stuff.
All this functionality actually makes a mandatory hard drive a double-edged sword. Game developers may decide to release games with far less quality assurance and testing than would normally be done. The "management" may release the game early with the idea that any bugs/problems that happen to creep up can just be fixed with a downloadable patch. This is actually what seems to have extremely often with PC video games. Games are released early and buggy then fixed with downloadable patches over the year following the release.
Optical Formats
I think it was an incredibly wise yet risky move for Sony to include a Blu-Ray drive in every Playstation 3. Some people (such as Microsoft) try to place the Blu-Ray inclusion as simply a way for people to view high definition movies. And Microsoft responded to this assumption with the HD DVD attachment. Interestingly, the "raw drive" will work on a Mac with no drivers needed. It'll also play back DVDs in DVD Player. However, since no software exists for Mac OS X to play HD DVD yet, it won't play HD DVDs. If you have Windows XP, the drive itself requires drivers to become usable in Windows. How odd is that? Anywho, I'll talk soley about movie playback later.
The truly interesting part about Sony including a Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 is that all the PS3 game media comes on Blu-Ray discs (BD). This allows game developers to create much higher quality resources with far less lossy compression involved. While DVD media game developers (Xbox 360, Playstation 2) could store the exact same textures, sounds, and other resources on DVDs, it requires more than one DVD to store the same files that fit on a single BD. For example, one game that fills up the entirety of a Blu-Ray dual layer disc would require at least 6 DVD discs to hold all the same content. It may require even more discs since there'd have to be a lot of duplicated code and resources on each DVD. Swapping discs sucks. This is a real problem for non-linear games since it requires a substantial amount of data be duplicated between the discs or it requires the game become less linear at the disc swap point. Many games do the latter and restrict the freedom/story (Xenogears, Final Fantasy VII). When data has to be thrown out, the plot of the game may be harmed.
If you give developers more space in which to play in, they will use it. At first, people assumed DVDs had more than enough space to hold a game on one disc. This has proven to be untrue. Just look at Xenosaga Episode II & III for the Playstation 2. Some Microsoft fanboys suggest this is due to the weaker technical prowess of the PS2 compared to the Xbox 360. They'll say that Microsoft has superior codecs for compressing data and that "procedural synthesis" allows Xbox 360 developers to use "less memory on the disk [sic] and still get tons of textures." Unless Samantha Carter or, to a much lesser extent, Rodney McKay designed the codecs for Microsoft, their codecs cannot be as good as some people claim. The problem with the latter statement is the fact procedural synthesis has little to do with disc space. It's partially about reducing the amount of space in main memory and reducing the workload on artists to create slightly differing models. Either way, these kinds of assertions from the Microsoft fans are easily disproved by pointing to Blue Dragon, which comes on 3 DVDs. Blue Dragon would easily fit on a single dual-layer Blu-Ray disc.
On a related note, Blu-ray currently has multiple writers available for computers. Toast 7 supports Blu-ray disc burning. Currently, there are no HD DVD burners on the consumer market. This makes it appear as if Blu-ray is more suited to computers and storing files for backing up/et cetera than HD DVD is.
High Definition Movies
While I'm not fond of promoting the idea that a game console should be used to play movies, it's hard to ignore the fact that the PS2 went a very long way to promote the wide and quick adoption of DVD movies. When DVD players were prohibitively expensive, the PS2 was very cheap in comparison and many people's only DVD player (it was my only DVD player until I got a Mac that could playback DVDs). And since it also played games, it became a popular dual use device. I think Sony is attempting to create a similar situation with Blu-ray. I think it will work. Conversely, Microsoft appears to have released the HD DVD solely to compete with Blu-ray. After all, Microsoft has a vested interest in HD DVD since they "created" iHD. Having not had the pleasure of using either HD DVD or Blu-ray, I couldn't say whether iHD or BD-J is better. However, since BD-J is based on Java and Java is now largely open sourced, the source code for the basic runtime is now available.
The other massively massive problem is the lack of HDMI on the Xbox 360. This will be a problem when/if HD DVD/Blu-Ray content creators ever enforce the Image Constraint Token. If this token is enabled, then a high definition movie that isn't played on an HDCP (over HDMI) connection, it'll decrease the resolution to a quarter of the HD resolution. Luckily, every PS3 has an HDMI connection.
HD DVD and Blu-ray both support the same codecs: MPEG-2, VC-1 (Microsoft's MPEG-4 derivative), and H.264. So any video quality difference is based purely on the codec. For example, some early cross-platform releases used MPEG-2 for Blu-ray and VC-1 for HD DVD. This made Blu-ray look substantially inferior. Luckily, later/current Blu-ray releases use either VC-1 or H.264.
Networking Xbox 360 PS3
Ethernet (RJ-45) 1 port, 10 megabit/second 1 port, 1 gigabit/second
Wireless Requires Optional Adapter (A/B/G), $99.99 60GB model only, B/G
Multiplayer Internet Games Requires Xbox Live Gold, $42/year (MMORPGs are a separate subscription fee) Free (MMORPGs require a separate subscription fee).
Purchasable Content Possible Yes, requires Microsoft Points which are purchased in blocks. Yes, prices are listed in cash.
What's interesting about this is the fact Sony has stated they will not charge users of the PS3 to play multiplayer games over the Internets. Sony already has an internet gaming service called DNAS. Many games use DNAS already on the PS2. In order to play multiplayer games on the Xbox 360, you must have at least an Xbox Live Gold account (a yearly charge). So even if you want to play a game of Tony Hawk with someone in the next room, but over the internet, you need two memberships. This same action is free on both the PS2 and the PS3.
The thing I worry about is "hidden" extra content on a game being unlocked by purchasing it. When the same exact game just has a simple code you enter into the game to unlock the nearly the exact same stuff. The idea of charging extra money for something already in the game is just disgusting to me. I really, really hope this doesn't happen on the PS3.
Backwards Compatibility Xbox 360 PS3
List Type Inclusive List. Assume a game won't work if not on the list. Exception List. Assume a game will work unless explicitly noted.
Compatibility Type Software Emulation Original Hardware
Requirements Hard drive OOBE
The Xbox 360 uses software emulation to play original Xbox games. This requires a hard drive. This also has a benefit in that the graphic quality of Xbox games can be much, much better on the Xbox 360 than they were on the original Xbox. It has the downside in that is requires extensive testing to make sure it won't cause problems with any games since it changes the conditions under which the games are running.
The PS3 uses hardware based compatibility. It actually includes the chip(s) that the PS2 used to render/play games. This allows for basic bug for bug compatibility. However, this also means that PSOne games play at the same horribly horrible resolution that they displayed on the original PSOne. This is odd because the PS3 has more than enough horsepower to emulate the games. I guess with about 8000 titles for the PS2 and the PSOne combined, it could take Sony quite a long time to test all the titles. When is Final Fantasy VII coming out for the PSP, anyways?
Technicals Xbox 360 PS3
Processor 3.2Ghz PowerPC Cell Derivatives 3.2Ghz Cell Processors
Number of Processor Cores 3 8
I just wanted to mention the above quickly. Basically, the PS3 is significantly more powerful than the Xbox 360. Paul Thurrott even gave the PS3 an uncharacteristic compliment about it. He said, "First generation PS3 games are not graphically superior to [second generation games] on the Xbox 360." This is actually a huge compliment for the PS3 games. First generation games are based off extremely underpowered preproduction developer kits. Game developers optimize for those devkits so they usually pull back significantly on the graphical quality. The current Xbox 360 games are in the second generation (at least). The Xbox 360 has been available for a year now and developers can optimize to the released machines and actually use the hardware to its full potential. In other words, saying that unoptimized games that don't use the hardware look the same as optimized games using the hardware is a huge compliment. Just imagine how much better the PS3 games are going to get graphically if they're this good looking out the gate.
Xbox 360: The One Genre Pony?
Is it just me or does it seem that all of the really popular Xbox 360 games are first-person shooters? We've got F.E.A.R., Halo (1, 2, next year 3), Call of Duty 3, and Gears of War just to name a few recent ones. It just seems like they're all the same basic game. What's also interesting is that every single one of these games are made by American developers. Where's all the dating sims? I don't think a console can truly be popular unless it is popular in Japan and has a good amount of Japanese game developers working on it (Square-Enix, anyone?). I still consider the Xbox 360 be a failure in Japan. If you look at the sales figures for the first week of the PS3's launch in Japan, the Xbox 360 has a very low figure. In my opinion, Microsoft needs to desperately woo Japanese game developers and stop focusing on first-person shooters and sports games.
Posted by rosyna at November 27, 2006 03:34 AM
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.unsanity.org/mt-tb.cgi/399.1438714389
translate.google.com (1)
badmofo.org (1)
www.google.com (1)
Related:
Intel - Sexy On The Outside, Too! - Nov 30, 2006
R.I.P. Tank - Nov 29, 2006
Xbox 360 vs Playstation 3. Another Pointless Opinion. - Nov 27, 2006
WindowShade X 4.1.1 - Nov 21, 2006
Breaking the Perpetual Beta Cycle, By Gum! - Nov 20, 2006
Comments
Good writeup of the differences between the two systems. There's no doubt that Sony is putting a lot of technology in the PS3 for only $500/$600. Microsoft is also giving you a lot for $400. Microsoft chose not to go with HD-DVD built-in because they wanted to launch last year and wanted to keep the cost of the system down. They are also trying to recoup their loss on the system by selling several expensive accessories like proprietary wireless controllers, memory cards, and hard drives (larger than 20GB drives are expected in the future).
Also, one note on the CPU differences. The Xbox 360 CPU has 3 identical cores whereas the PS3 has a core like one of the Xbox 360 cores and 7 simpler vector processing cores. Having 3 identically capable cores on the Xbox 360 makes it easier for developers split the processing of threads across the cores where some tasks may not be suitable to the PS3 vector cores. Eventually, developers will learn to take advantage of the extra PS3 cores, but there may not be the expected difference that the 8 versus 3 cores leads you to believe.
Posted by: Rich on November 27, 2006 5:31 AM
In order to sort of compare apples with apples, you made mention that when you buy the HD-DVD add-on for the Xbox 360 that you end up spending 0.98 USD more than the cost of a PS3. This is true only when you compare the 20GB HDD model Xbox 360 with the 60GB HDD model PS3. To be more fair, you should have compared it to the 20GB HDD model PS3, since their configurations are arguably closer to one another (both have similarly sized HD's and no built in Wi-Fi). In that event, the PS3 comes out around 100 USD cheaper.
But I have to say... I am very glad about your review. It is fair and objective, and not laced with the standard sensationalism or heavy anti-Sony bias which is getting more than tiresome. ("I hope Sony dies! OMG Ponies!" et al.) Kudos to you.
As a proud owner of both the 360, PS3 and - as of next week when it gets released here in Japan - a Wii, I can say that I wish all three companies success with their consoles, as more out on the market means more competition, which is always better for the consumer. But I must confess that the PS3 is looking crisper graphically than the 360 so far for me. (With RR6 and RR7 sharing many courses, it is VERY easy to make comparisons between the two.)
Anyway, that is my 2 JPY worth...
Posted by: endekks on November 27, 2006 6:01 AM
Ultimately, your review only makes sense if you care about HD movies. Otherwise, you have a huge price discrepancy. Meanwhile, considering XBox Live with DNAS is either ill-informed or disingenuous - the two are not comparable (single sign on, consistent online presence, the whole XBox Marketplace - none of that is provided by DNAS).
The analysis of the hard drive and disc formats as they pertain to games are spot on. The XBox 360 should never have had a non-HDD option. Years of computer history (and even firmer console history) has shown that optional add-ons are not supported by developers. It's in the base (hardware, OS, etc), or it's essentially worthless.
At the same time, Sony's positioning of the PS3 to be more "computer-like" with upgradeable hard drives, supporting booting alternate OS's, standard USB, gigabit ethernet - these are all VERY interesting. Over time, I'll be very interested to see how this evolves.
Posted by: Joshua Ochs on November 27, 2006 7:21 AM
The PS3 can't play HD movies out of the box, because it only comes with composite cables, you'll need to separately purchase component or HDMI cables to watch movies in high definition glory.
Posted by: Duckalope on November 27, 2006 8:04 AM
Also, I have an issue with your take on Paul Thurrott's quote. "First generation PS3 games are not graphically superior to [second generation games] on the Xbox 360." All this is saying is that second generation Xbox 360 games look better than current PS3 games. This isn't saying that they are equal, it isn't in any way complimenting the PS3. If he had said "First generation PS3 games are not graphically inferior to [second generation games] on the Xbox 360," than that would be complimenting the PS3, but since he didn't, I don't think you should use that as a point. For the record, I own two 360's, two Wii's, and hope to get a PS3 as soon as I don't have to camp for days.
Posted by: Duckalope on November 27, 2006 8:17 AM
"Paul Thurrott even gave the PS3 an uncharacteristic compliment about it."
No, he didn't. Your argument is fallacious.
Posted by: Harvey on November 27, 2006 8:39 AM
Fallacious? Its more a wry aside by Rosyna based on how Paul Thurrott tends to see non-MS products (as anyone who has read both Thurrott and Rosyna for a while would get) - lighten up, Harvey. (although I would have used "inadvertent" rather than "uncharacteristic" ;p )
Posted by: totoro on November 27, 2006 9:06 AM
How is it a wry aside if it's wrong? He's not complimenting the PS3 in the slightest, he's only saying that all the supposed benefits of the PS3 aren't yet utilized enough to compare to the second generation Xbox 360 games.
Posted by: Duckalope on November 27, 2006 9:10 AM
"Not graphically superior" isn't the same as saying "Graphically inferior".
For instance, 1+1 is not numerically superior to 2.
Posted by: Rosyna on November 27, 2006 10:09 AM
Joshua Ochs, I'm a little confused. Specifically about two statements. "Ultimately, your review only makes sense if you care about HD movies." and "The analysis of the hard drive and disc formats as they pertain to games are spot on."
High Definition Movies were the least of my concern. I was trying to focus on everything but HD Movies simply because fans of the Xbox 360 use it to dismiss Blu-ray easily when there are many, many other valid reasons to have a Blu-ray disc for games.
As for Xbox Live vs DNAS, I guess I have to go the low route and dismiss the consoles as video game systems. I have iChat for a persistent online presence.
Duckalope, as far as I am concerned, HDTV cannot be had from an analog signal. To me, HD==Digital. And HDMI cables can be had for $10. Do not be fooled by high priced HDMI cables. HDMI is a digital connection. You can literally use a wet piece of string and still get the same quality connection. With digital it's all or nothing (nothing==a slideshow).
Posted by: Rosyna on November 27, 2006 10:31 AM
Great article. Do agree that $399 xbox is a great buy! I bought the $399 xbox and love it. I have it hooked up to my home theater system and HDTV. Totally rocks! :-)
see my raves
Posted by: Ansiguy on November 27, 2006 11:23 AM
"Does anyone have any suggestions on how to increase the implied veracity of an eBay auction? Both me and my friend are at a loss why his auction gets no bids while others get a lot of bids."
First, place "Unopened", "Receipt," and "Free Shipping" in the title (not the subtext under the title) as people who are not interested in purchasing a used or open unit will look for these keywords. Also, buyers' thresholds are at around $900 to $1,000 at the current time, but as Christmas draws nearer that will increase.
Some of the GarageSale templates would make the site look a bit better and enticing ;)
Here is a good one that goes by the new of Placard (black).
Posted by: on November 27, 2006 1:05 PM
"7 simpler vector processing cores"
Yeah, too bad grahics algorithms don't need a lot of vector calculations.
Posted by: Ej on November 27, 2006 2:17 PM
1. Ignore the 360 core system, there is only one system. This was true from day one for any informed gamer.
2. The PS3 has a better hard drive system. This doesn't improve gaming. There are other uses - but most people won't find them appealing. BTW - I consider installing games to be compensating for a slow disk reading speed or crummy programming (1/2 that of the 360).
3. Take a close look at the file size of installed games on the PC. They are not even close to coming over that of a DVD. If the space is there - yeah they'll be more lazy in coding or have multi-region disks. Personally, I abhor all use of FMV more every generation. It takes me AWAY from the game experience visually so I find in game cut-scenes to be superior. Even with this in mind, who cares if your RPG takes up a few disks.
4. Wrong: Hi-Def is offered without the $200 player. The download service is out - kinda, the tech issues will be fixed in a month. Will most people who even want a PS3 have one in a month? I think not.
5. Wireless is an option. B/G are crummy standards anyways - one day N will poop all over both. So get over it.
6. What's the point of online gameplay if its not easy to use? If you can't bring friends from one game into another? If you can't compare what you play to those on the top of a game's leaderlist? If most people don't have mics, so games don't support voice (like Marvel Alliance) and you can't use strategy with your team (Resistance). For the consistency and options I think the 42 a year is well worth it and part of what makes the 360 better.
7. Backwards compatibility? I have a PS2 and Xbox - when those don't work I'll emulate them to actually have improved graphics. Not really important anyhow - I want to play new stuff not old with ever aging graphics and gameplay.
8. One genre pony? The current 360 games out and those yet to come out don't support your statement. On the prior Xbox I'll say yah, it was primarily FPS and Racers (of exclusives) that made it good. Though the best RPG's weren't on the PS2 in my opinion (Knights of the Old Republic, Morrowind, Fable, & Jade Empire all better than any FF on PS2). In any case, there will be many less exclusives this time around and a good showing of Japanese RPG's will be on the 360.
Favorites on 360 to date: Dead Rising, Oblivion, Gears, COD2, and Need for Speed MW. Most Anticipated: Halo3, Mass Effect, Assasin's Creed, Fable2, and Forza2
9. Most of what I've read from developers has shown that the PS3 and 360 are very similar in capabilities. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. This article's opinion is leaving out many of the details behind their relative powers - so I'd advice to ignore it altogether. Only time will tell. If 360 games STILL look better next year, I'd say that trend will probably continue or balance out by the two systems end life.
10. By the time there are either PS3 systems available or games to play with it - the 360 will probably have had its first price cut (as recent news direct from MS suggests). The two systems are close for games, but the PS3 will for a long time cost more. If the non-game PS3 features mean something to you, all the better to you. For me, they all add up to Zip and I'd rather save my cash for a Wii and extra Wiimotes.
Posted by: Eggo on November 27, 2006 4:23 PM
One other correction... It is a single-layer BD that can store the equiv. of 6 DVDs. The dual-layer at 50Gb will hold 12.
All in all, thanks for the post, it's one of the best side-by-side comparisons that I've read. It also illustrates well, how Microsoft nickel n dimes you to death.
Posted by: KitDoc on November 27, 2006 7:51 PM
Great article! I just wanted to comment on the games issue. I think the fact that the XBox has fewer, successful games, other than FPS, will be a big deal, over the long run. Microsoft has the money to compete against Sony for however long it takes, and shows no signs of ever giving up. Hopefully, the competition will be healthy, and all us gamers will benefit.
Me, personally...I've bought my Wii, and I'm having a blast. I'll wait for the PS3 price to come down a little, and wait for any quality issues to iron themselves out.
Posted by: Charles on November 27, 2006 8:01 PM
KitDoc, I was doing Dual layer BD Max size divided by Dual layer DVD max size, rounded up since you cannot have a partial disc. How did you calculate 12 when using dual-layer formats of both?
Posted by: Rosyna on November 27, 2006 8:34 PM
*sigh* Some inaccuracies in the article.
DNAS is not Sony's online gaming service, which is even apparent from the Wikipedia article you linked to. DNAS is merely Sony's anti-piracy/anti-cheat title verification system.
Sony may not be charging users for their system, but they do not have a comprehensive system in place ala Xbox Live. This means the PS3 onlne world will remain fragmented like the PS2 was, for at least the first year or two of the PS3's life. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Publishers will continue to have to pay GameSpy, Quazal, or Sony to run their online infrastructure. You can bet they'll want to pass the costs along, either directly, or indirectly via in-lobby in-game advertising.
Your technicals section at the end of painfully technically inaccurate. Both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 should be described as PowerPC Derivatives. Their PowerPC core units are nearly identical. The 360 does have 3 cores. The PS3, however, only has 1. The Cell, in addition to the main PowerPC processor core has eight vector processing units. However, one of these is reserved to be bad, one is reserved for the OS, and the other six are available to gaming applications.
The reality is that the PS3 does not end up being significantly more powerful than the 360. It's an apples and oranges thing where some of the advantages of the PS3 architecture are offset by limitations in other areas where the 360 is superior. Two years from now, 360 and PS3 games will be virtually indistinguishable, all the more so since market forces will dictate multi-platform development.
Posted by: Nate on November 29, 2006 8:39 AM
"This means the PS3 onlne world will remain fragmented like the PS2 was, for at least the first year or two of the PS3's life."
Which also means I won't have to pay $30-$40/month to play online multiplayer games. Much like the Wii.
I didn't say the Xbox 360 was a PowerPC derivative, I said it was a Cell derivative. The PS3 has one processor core reserved for the OS, which means the Xbox 360 has one shared with the OS.
Posted by: Rosyna on November 29, 2006 8:45 AM
Oops, forgot something.
"You can bet they'll want to pass the costs along, either directly, or indirectly via in-lobby in-game advertising."
Much like EA does on the Xbox 360 by charging microsoft points for things that are free in the same game on other platforms? This just shows that game developers will do anything to make a buck.
Posted by: Rosyna on November 29, 2006 8:47 AM
"Which also means I won't have to pay $30-$40/month to play online multiplayer games. Much like the Wii."
This reeks on being uninformed. Live is 50 dollars a YEAR. And the online experience completely and utterly trumps anything else out there. Not giving the edge to the xbox for online gaming is being foolish.
Posted by: samuel on November 29, 2006 10:36 AM
And a few more things. Your processor comparison is inaccurate, I recommend you read the wikipedia pages for each chip. They set out to accomplish different goals and you cannot just say 8 > 3.
As for having only one genre, I agree this is partially true. However, Rare just released Viva Pinata which is getting rave reviews and Microsoft is working with the maker of the Final Fantasy series to release a whole slew of japanese RPGs. The first of these, Blue Dragon, is to be released December 7th in Japan so we'll see whether than influence the market over there. In addition to all of this, there is also the Live Arcade which has dozens of fun non FPS games. True, they aren't big production jobs, but they are enjoyable none the less.
Posted by: on November 29, 2006 10:52 AM
samuel, err, yeah, I meant $30-$40/year, not month. Since xbox live is a retail product, it can usually be had for less than the $50/year MSRP.
Isn't Live Arcade a bunch of games from the 80s and 90s?
To clarify your Blue Dragon statement, it's being done by the *person* that created FInal Fantasy and other people associated with it and Chrono Trigger. It's not actually being done by Square-Enix. Oddly, it seems the company doing it was financially backed by Microsoft which is kind of odd.
Posted by: Rosyna on November 29, 2006 11:02 AM
"Isn't Live Arcade a bunch of games from the 80s and 90s?"
The arcade has both some classics and a bunch of new games, along with a selection of board games. You can check out the list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Live_Arcade#Xbox_Live_Arcade_games_for_the_Xbox_360
"it's being done by the *person* that created FInal Fantasy"
Right, that's what I meant. It's being created by Mist Walker Studios.
Posted by: on November 29, 2006 11:20 AM
PS3 bias at its finest. Apparently, the 360 doesn't have advantages, only disadvantages. Very one-sided.
Posted by: prodyg on November 30, 2006 3:35 AM
You mentioned:
20GB (optional for Core system), 14GB user accessible, non-upgradeable.
Uhm, the 360 hard drive snaps right off (it has a button) and can be upgraded. You can even take it to a friend's house and play your movies/arcade games there.
It's funny how your bias was glaring when you made the DNAS comment. You don't even have a clue of what DNAS is...and to compare it to Xbox Live is quite ignorant.
Posted by: Chris on December 1, 2006 1:12 PM
You also made a point about iHD vs. BD-J and how now that Java is open-source it is a win for BD-J. If you knew what you were talking about, you would understand that iHD is written in ECMAScript (Javascript), XML and CSS. ECMAScript is an open standard (ECMA-262 http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm) and there are several open source implementations.
Posted by: Chris on December 1, 2006 1:16 PM
Chris, uhm... Can you get a 200GB HD for the Xbox 360 now? If the answer is no, then it isn't upgradeable. Just because you can buy a new Xbox 360 HD from Microsoft designed for the Xbox 360, doesn't make it upgradeable. Conversely, with the PS3, you can take any off the shelf 2.5" HD from any retailer (newegg, Fry's, Best Buy) and put it in the PS3. That's the definition of upgradeable.
Furthermore, you're iHD analogy is flawed. The runtime itself for java is open source. iHD works off a series of specs, but the runtime itself isn't opensource. For example, the C++ has a specification, but every single compiler handles it differently. Same goes for CSS, every single implementation has quirks. There's a huge difference between a common runtime that is open source and everyone uses and some specs that leave out stuff that the implementors of the specs are free to "interpret". The latter is what makes the web so fragmented.
Posted by: Rosyna on December 1, 2006 2:01 PM
Rosyna,
It was because you wrote:
“…For example, one game that fills up the entirety of a Blu-Ray dual layer disc would require at least 6 DVD discs to hold all the same content…”
Sorry, but it would have been clearer to me if you had specified the size of the DVD in that sentence.
Posted by: KitDoc on December 3, 2006 10:20 PM
Yes, it is true that ECMAscript is open-source, but if you examine Microsoft’s programming guide for iHD, you will find that you can only use it to create and manipulate screens, menus, buttons and starting video clips via XML. The BD-J platform is a much more robust programming environment. It can actually connect, not only link to other sources on the internet, use web services, and download additional functionality. Future specifications allow for picture-in-picture and more.
Posted by: KitDoc on December 3, 2006 11:44 PM