So how did the PS3 strategy fare?

[micrometers]

It seems to me like the PS3 is faring better than the 360. Flatscreens are so much cheaper than they were five years ago and a PS3 and its blu-ray gives it a leg up on the 360. Since with the PS3 the calculation is if you're going to pay $150 for a blu ray player might as well pay another $100 to get games and other stuff with the PS3.

I am curious how the graphics strategy is working out. Like, given how cross platform games are still better on the 360, it seems like the Cell and its weird architecture (how does it work? clock rate? comparable intel or AMD cpu? It has one main core and 7 mini cores or something like that, right? are those 7 minis being put to good use?) haven't really been more powerful over time.

and the thing about it having an Nvidia graphics chip as a sort of cop-out given that the Cell wasn't really working out. But it looks like such a move probably has been more costly to the company over time than MS's strategy.

 

[RavenSEAL]

The problem is that developers don't seem to be give a shit about the rest of the advantages the PS3's hardware carries with it.

As it's commonly known, 3rd party studios seem to build on 360 first and then port to PS3 (& PC if it's a blue moon, pigs fly and jesus returns from the dead).

If you look at first party games (KZ, UC, LBP, Resistance, GT5), the [graphical] quality between them and the 360 ports is clear. AKA, Black Ops, AC: Brotherhood, Madden & some others.

 

[batmang]

I personally think the PS3 exclusives are MUCH better than what the 360 can offer. There are so many good PS3 exclusives that make it worth buying alone, and then you factor in that it streams many video and audio formats without issues (PS3 Media Server) while the 360 is limited to DviX and proprietary formats.

The PS3 also plays Blu-Ray's, natively has optical audio, and WiFi (this is comparing to older 360's), online play is free, and has a pretty low failure rate (Especially with the new slim models). I've had a couple 360's and a couple PS3's since they came out. The PS3 is the one I enjoy the most.

Uncharted 1/2/3
Killlzone 2/3
Resistance 1/2/3
God of War 3
Little Big Planet 1/2
Gran Turismo 5

Those are just some of the exclusives that come to mind.

As for the 360, the only exclusives that come to mind are the Halo series and the Gears of War series, both of which are boring and stale. The Forza Motorsports series are the only titles that really made me want a 360, which was rectified when Gran Turismo 5 finally came out. Other than that, the exclusives are pretty bare on 360.

Like RaverSeal says, game developers aren't exactly keen on making the best port/experience on the PS3 when working with a multi-platform title. The exclusives however, are really dang awesome.

 

[micrometers]

I personally think the PS3 exclusives are MUCH better than what the 360 can offer. There are so many good PS3 exclusives that make it worth buying alone, and then you factor in that it streams many video and audio formats without issues (PS3 Media Server) while the 360 is limited to DviX and proprietary formarts. The PS3 also plays Blu-Ray's, natively has optical audio, and WiFi (this is comparing to older 360's), online play is free, and has a pretty low failure rate (Especially with the new slim models). I've had a couple 360's and a couple PS3's since they came out. The PS3 is the one I enjoy the most.

Uncharted 1/2/3
Killlzone 2/3
Resistance 1/2/3
God of War 3
Little Big Planet 1/2
Gran Turismo 5

Those are just some of the exclusives that come to mind.

As for the 360, the only exclusives that come to mind are the Halo series and the Gears of War series. Other than that, the exclusives are pretty bare on 360.

Having tried Resistance and Killzone and not really liking them that much, I think Halo/GOW is a lot better in that aspect.

but Uncharted is a real gem. It reminds me a lot of MGS3. And the shooting gameplay is pretty impressive on top of the platforming. I think it's the best game this generation.

 

[micrometers]

The problem is that developers don't seem to be give a shit about the rest of the advantages the PS3's hardware carries with it.

As it's commonly known, 3rd party studios seem to build on 360 first and then port to PS3 (& PC if it's a blue moon, pigs fly and jesus returns from the dead).

If you look at first party games (KZ, UC, LBP, Resistance, GT5), the [graphical] quality between them and the 360 ports is clear. AKA, Black Ops, AC: Brotherhood, Madden & some others.

and both are actually IBM cell anyways. But the 360 has a triple core @3.2 ghz and the PS3 has a dual core + 7 single threaded cores @3.2 ghz.

I don't see why the CPU aspects matter so much, honestly, since they aren't helping with graphics rendering. I wonder if any PS3 developers have found those 7 cores in the PS3 useful

 

[RavenSEAL]

and both are actually IBM cell anyways. But the 360 has a triple core @3.2 ghz and the PS3 has a dual core + 7 single threaded cores @3.2 ghz.

I don't see why the CPU aspects matter so much, honestly, since they aren't helping with graphics rendering. I wonder if any PS3 developers have found those 7 cores in the PS3 useful

There was an interview with someone from either the uncharted or the resistance 2 dev team who spoke about, I'm pretty sure it was in GameInformer. He said all the cores did give clear advantages, but I can't remember what he goes into.

 

[American Gunner]

While the idea behind the PS3 was great, I don't know if it is doing as well as they had hoped. They have great exclusives, but the games don't seem to sell as well as the Xbox exclusives. And you can't blame it on the fact that there are way for 360's, since Sony has supposedly almost caught up to them on sales.

 

[micrometers]

There was an interview with someone from either the uncharted or the resistance 2 dev team who spoke about, I'm pretty sure it was in GameInformer. He said all the cores did give clear advantages, but I can't remember what he goes into.

the thing is, does it really matter that much? I mean, with PC gaming it's obvious that once you meet a minimum I think that GPU matters more than CPU in getting high frame rates.

Naughty Dog says that they're using about 1/3 of the PS3's Cell processor. Even if they could somehow use up 100% I'm not sure it would matter so much since the main bottleneck for games is always the GPU, thus the NVIDIA part.

 

[micrometers]

also, does anyone know how profitable the PS3 has been vs the 360 vs the wii?

 

[RavenSEAL]

also, does anyone know how profitable the PS3 has been vs the 360 vs the wii?

From my understanding, they were still loosing money 3 years into production. Not sure since...:hmm:

 

[BD2003]

and both are actually IBM cell anyways. But the 360 has a triple core @3.2 ghz and the PS3 has a dual core + 7 single threaded cores @3.2 ghz.

I don't see why the CPU aspects matter so much, honestly, since they aren't helping with graphics rendering. I wonder if any PS3 developers have found those 7 cores in the PS3 useful

They are not both cell. They are incredibly different architectures. The cores aren't even comparable. And the CPU has more to do with graphics than youd think.

The 360 architecture is built for versatility. It's easy to work with and easy to max out.

The PS3 is a LOT more complex. If it was as easy to take advantage of all it's power as the 360, devs would be doing it. It's just not worth it for multiplatform devs to make one version better than the other, so they aim for parity.

Honestly, it's a wonder they're able to make multiplatform games so similar considering the vast differences between these consoles.

 

[micrometers]

From my understanding, they were still loosing money 3 years into production. Not sure since...:hmm:

well, they did get other benefits. I'm certain that the PS3 was the nudge that made blu-ray win. Also it probably helped overall with their television business.

 

[Anarchist420]

well, they did get other benefits. I'm certain that the PS3 was the nudge that made blu-ray win. Also it probably helped overall with their television business.

Why would Blu ray have possibly not won had it not been for the PS3?

I had thought that HDDVD had much less capacity.

 

[mmntech]

They are not both cell. They are incredibly different architectures. The cores aren't even comparable. And the CPU has more to do with graphics than youd think.

Actually, they are both Cell. The Cell contains a single CPU core (Power Processing Element) and eight APU cores (Synergistic Processing Element). The PPE acts as a master which each SPE core handles a single specific thread. Six SPEs are available to games in the PS3, one runs the OS, and the other is a dead core.

The Xenon CPU in the Xbox is based on the Cell PPE, though slightly modified. All three consoles run on PowerPC architecture. The problem with the PS3 was getting the SPE APUs to run efficiently. Nobody had dealt with hex cores at that point, let alone with high specialization tossed in.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Actually, they are both Cell. The Cell contains a single CPU core (Power Processing Element) and eight APU cores (Synergistic Processing Element). The PPE acts as a master which each SPE core handles a single specific thread. Six SPEs are available to games in the PS3, one runs the OS, and the other is a dead core.

The Xenon CPU in the Xbox is based on the Cell PPE, though slightly modified. All three consoles run on PowerPC architecture. The problem with the PS3 was getting the SPE APUs to run efficiently. Nobody had dealt with hex cores at that point, let alone with high specialization tossed in.

I think you might be a bit confused here. The Cell has one general purpose Power core (PPE) and then the SPEs. The unique feature of the Cell is the cluster of SPEs, not the Power core. Xenos is a triple core processor based on the Power architecture, which yes, each core is rather similar to the PPE but so is any any of the giant number of Power based systems. If you are going to make statements like "xxx is based on xxx" it would be more correct to say that both the PS3 and XB360 are based on Power. Saying Xenos is based on Cell is about as logical as saying Watson is based on Cell. While the average person may not realize it, but Power is everywhere.

 

[roguerower]

I have a 360 and a PS3 but haven't touched the 360 in ages. I bought the PS3 for its exclusive titles and thus far haven't been disappointed.

 

[BD2003]

I think you might be a bit confused here. The Cell has one general purpose Power core (PPE) and then the SPEs. The unique feature of the Cell is the cluster of SPEs, not the Power core. Xenos is a triple core processor based on the Power architecture, which yes, each core is rather similar to the PPE but so is any any of the giant number of Power based systems. If you are going to make statements like "xxx is based on xxx" it would be more correct to say that both the PS3 and XB360 are based on Power. Saying Xenos is based on Cell is about as logical as saying Watson is based on Cell. While the average person may not realize it, but Power is everywhere.

Well said.

They share common roots in PowerPC, but cell is radically different.

 

[micrometers]

Why would Blu ray have possibly not won had it not been for the PS3?

I had thought that HDDVD had much less capacity.

IIRC, HDDVD was far cheaper by design than blu-ray. It required minimal retooling for an existing dvd plant to pump out hd dvds, while blu ray required entirely new equipment.

 

[RobDickinson]

http://majornelson.com/2011/11/29/x...paign=Feed:+MajorNelson+(Major+Nelson+(Xbox))

"Entering the seventh year of its lifecycle, Xbox 360 just closed the biggest sales week in the history of Xbox, selling more than 960,000 consoles in the U.S. during the week of Black Friday."

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/ps3-sees-strong-demand-during-black-friday-weekend-says-sony/

Sony sees 'Strong demand' whatever that means. Nintendo sold 500,000 - can we assume its less than that?

On a purely financial outlook I think sony is still in the hole on the PS3, whilst microsofts cy11Q3 results show $352mil profit for ED&D , Nintendo just posted a recurring loss (though they have a bank full of cash).

From sony's latest financial information (y11q2):
'a decline in sales of the game business, reflecting a strategic price reduction of PlayStation®3 hardware in advance of the year-end
holiday season'
They lost $449 million dollars in the quarter (consumer products & services).
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/11q2_sony.pdf

Sony Pictures division made $268million mostly due to selling spider man merchandising rights.

No sure which division bluray comes under and if it has overall helped or hindered Sony. had the PS3 launched $100 cheaper and at the same time as the 360 but without bluray where would sony be now?

I would say the real truth will be with the PS4, if they are sensible they will make it simpler to work with and cheaper to produce, no one wants to 'get another job' to own a console game.

Frankly irrespective of its capabilities it launched too late and too expensive to achieve what sony wanted it to. yes they won the HD disk war but that is (IMO) a side battle worth a few peanuts as streaming/download will win that one (ultimately).

 

[micrometers]

Meh, initially I was impressed by Netflix's streaming, but that's only when viewed on relatively small PC's and monitors.

On a truly good screen, streaming is noticeably inferior to blu ray. I don't watch that movies anyways.

 

[zerocool84]

Meh, initially I was impressed by Netflix's streaming, but that's only when viewed on relatively small PC's and monitors.

On a truly good screen, streaming is noticeably inferior to blu ray. I don't watch that movies anyways.

Of course streaming doesn't look as good as a good Bly-ray transfer. If they streamed that high of abitrate, you'd wait forever to watch a movie. It's ridiculous to think they'd even be close.

 

[micrometers]

Of course streaming doesn't look as good as a good Bly-ray transfer. If they streamed that high of abitrate, you'd wait forever to watch a movie. It's ridiculous to think they'd even be close.

and thus there will always be a place for blu ray.

 

[BD2003]

and thus there will always be a place for blu ray.

Their clock is ticking. Broadband and streaming quality keeps getting better. My downstream can already handle two blu-ray quality (30mbps) streams at once. No one is offering that yet...but they will soon.

 

[BergeLSU]

Their clock is ticking. Broadband and streaming quality keeps getting better. My downstream can already handle two blu-ray quality (30mbps) streams at once. No one is offering that yet...but they will soon.

Don't underestimate the power of ISPs. Data caps are becoming much more common. You are talking about true HD movies being 10 GB or bigger, with data caps around 200GB/month.

 

[Sonikku]

As far as the PS3 strategy is concerned, it has not been the most successful generation for Sony by half, but not all of it is their fault. Some of it is just shifting trends and better prepared competition. It sure has been a miserable generation for them though, profit wise. It seems likes they rolled their gaming division into the tv/electronics division just to be able to say the whole pot wasn't taking a loss, Sony themselves is shaping up to post their fourth year of consecutive over all losses. With the PS2 in contrast, they were making money hand over fist.

As for why the 360 games seem to hold up so well to the "superior" Playstation, to me it seems like Microsoft is able to flaunt over the edge sony had the benefit of last generation. Namely, as far as multiplatform games are concerned developers always seem to want to develop on the lowest common denominator (last gen the PS2) then port it over from there with few or no enhancements (last gen the more powerful Xbox, who's higher specs counted for almost nothing in such cases). So the PS3 may technically be the more powerful console, but due to the skyrocketing costs of development it's just not a viable business strategy to re-engineer a games entire engine just to squeeze more juice out of one of their platforms. Microsoft is doubtlessly not minding this trend in the least and laughing all the way to the bank.

I thought Microsoft was out of their mind not slashing the price of their system when Sony did, I thought they had to to remain competitive. yet, despite all odds, their system still seems to continue to outsell Sony each month after outselling them 13 of the previous 14 months before hand. I guess they know something we don't... Higher prices kind of suck for us consumers, but I guess the business strategy is apparently working. Sony outsold Xbox by a factor of 7 to 1 last time and in a single generation Microsoft closed that gap to a 1:1 ratio, so they must be doing something right having the oldest hardware, at the highest price point, still outselling the cheaper, younger, sometimes even more powerful competition.