PS3 General Discussion

Some things I found while browsing for "PS3 1080p" stuff. Keep in mind, the first quote is from a MS employee, and the second just a quoted commentary on that statement. But, they don't bag on the PS3, and actually bring up a lot of good points. I think there was a typo, that I highlighted in red. Read on...
Ozymandias
Clarifying Thoughts on High Definition Rendering

I was talking to Bruce Dawson, one of our senior software design engineers here, about some questions I had around 1080i and 1080p. Frankly, I was particularly curious about why Sony has continued harping on 1080p as being "TrueHD", especially since the 360 has enabled 1080p output as well (coming soon to homes near you!) I was trying to figure out if I was just missing something, and his emailed answer was particularly clear and helpful to me, and since there's nothing confidential here I thought I'd share it with you.

The really interesting statistic that popped for me is how much less time a game console has to render a 1920x1080 scene versus a 1280x720 scene. (Remember this is on the same console, whichever one you like. This is not a comparison of different console's rendering capabilities to each other.) Simply put, for a 1080i/p game the console has 55% less time per pixel to render any special effects, anti-aliasing, illumination, etc. than for a 720p game. Yes, even Resistance has fallen off the bandwagon and admitted they can't hit 1080i/p as previously claimed. (It also helps explain why Gran Turismo HD is so underwhelming.)

Anyway, Bruce's text is below. Hope it helps clarify a few things for you!

Many developers, gamers, and journalists are confused by 1080p. They think that 1080p is somehow more challenging for game developers than 1080i, and they forget that 1080 (i or p) requires significant tradeoffs compared to 720p. Some facts to remember:

* 2.25x: that’s how many more pixels there are in 1920x1080 compared to 1280x720
* 55.5%: that’s how much less time you have to spend on each pixel when rendering 1920x1080 compared to 1280x720—the point being that at higher resolutions you have more pixels, but they necessarily can’t look as good
* 1.0x: that’s how much harder it is for a game engine to render a game in 1080p as compared to 1080i—the number of pixels is identical so the cost is identical
There is no such thing as a 1080p frame buffer. (I think they mean 1080i). The frame buffer is 1080 pixels tall (and presumably 1920 wide) regardless of whether it is ultimately sent to the TV as an interlaced or as a progressive signal.
* 1280x720 with 4x AA will generally look better than 1920x1080 with no anti-aliasing (there are more total samples).

A few elaborations:

Any game could be made to run at 1920x1080. However, it is a tradeoff. It means that you can show more detail (although you need larger textures and models to really get this benefit) but it means that you have much less time to run complex pixel shaders. Most games can’t justify running at higher than 1280x720—it would actually make them look worse because of the compromises they will have to make in other areas.

1080p is a higher bandwidth connection from the frame buffer to the TV than 1080i. However the frame buffer itself is identical. 1080p will look better than 1080i—interlaced flicker is not a good thing—but it makes precisely zero difference to the game developer. Just as most Xbox 1 games let users choose 480i or 480p, because it was no extra work, 1080p versus 1080i is no extra work. It’s just different settings on the display chip.

Inevitably somebody will ask about field rendering. Since interlaced formats display the even lines on one refresh pass and then the odd lines on the next refresh pass, can’t games just render half of the lines each time? Probably not, and even if you could you wouldn’t want to. You probably can’t do field rendering because it requires that you maintain a rock solid 60 fps. If you ever miss a frame it will look horrible, as the odd lines are displayed in place of the even, or vice-versa. This is a significant challenge when rendering extremely complex worlds with over 1 million pixels per field (2 million pixels per frame) and is probably not worth it. And, even if you can, you shouldn’t. The biggest problem with interlaced is flicker, and field rendering makes it worse, because it disables the ‘flicker fixer’ hardware that intelligently blends adjacent lines. Field rendering has been done in the past, but it was always a compromise solution.
Click to expand...
http://ozymandias.com/archive/2006/10/21/Clarifying-Thoughts-on-High-Definition-Game-Rendering.aspx
Gizmodo
1080p Gaming Not What it Seems?

There is no doubt that 1080p is the holy grail of high definition, which is exactly why Sony has pursued that benchmark with such enthusiasm. But exactly how hard is 1080p to render for video game consoles? Here are some telling stats straight from senior software design Bruce Dawson:

* 2.25x: that's how many more pixels there are in 1920x1080 compared to 1280x720
* 55.5%: that's how much less time you have to spend on each pixel when rendering 1920x1080 compared to 1280x720--the point being that at higher resolutions you have more pixels, but they necessarily can't look as good
* 1.0x: that's how much harder it is for a game engine to render a game in 1080p as compared to 1080i--the number of pixels is identical so the cost is identical
* 1280x720 with 4x AA will generally look better than 1920x1080 with no anti-aliasing (there are more total samples).

Resolution is no longer the sole indicator of image quality because of technological advancements that improve graphics at the pixel level, like shaders. If the PS3 is a stronger computing platform that can run 1080p well, I'd like to see them scale the resolution down, max the shaders and give me a mind-blowing image I'm actually capable of displaying on my 720p TV. - Mark Wilson
Click to expand...
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/1080p-gaming-not-what-it-seems-209311.php

They both bring up some good points, and real open your eyes to the reality of 1080p with regards to gaming. It is very much a pinnacle of current media, and is a nothing to scoff at. But, like what Mark said in the very last paragraph I quoted, how about just giving us 720p with all the features turned up.

We all love 1080p, it is bad ass. But, 720p is very nice as well. And, if we could just get games at that res, with all the bells and whistles maxed out, it might, and probably would, actually look better. But, who knows. If all the hype is true, and the PS3 can do 1080p, and WITH the goodies turned up, I'm all for it.

CT
 
Circle T
But, how is it that you aren't just telling me opinion, loosely based on facts?? Once more, might I ask where you got this "factual" info?? I've asked a few times, but no one seems to be able to give me a link to anything confirming any of this. Like I said before, if there are launch games out there currently 1080p rendered, then I'm all for it. I'll gladly say I was wrong with my skeptical stance on this. But, a random person in a random internet forum, no offense, doesn't flow with loads of credibility.

And, I'm not "turning my cheek" to anything, because no one has yet to give me any hard facts to turn away from. Just tell me where you read this, what podcast you heard it on, or whatever, so I can see it myself. Thats all I'm asking, and all I've BEEN asking for the whole time. I can't read everything myself, because I'd be sitting here for days trying to keep up with everything concerning the PS3 launch. Just hook me up with a link or two to something, ANYTHING, and I'll be happy.

And, just to preempt any comments to the contrary, I don't mean for any of this to come across as stubborn indifference. Think of it like a school paper. Quote your sources. I want to believe that the PS3 has launch games rendered in 1080p. Because, like you said, if they can do it now, think of what they can accomplish down the road. But, I've just not personally read anything confirming it. You apparently have, so share the knowledge man.
.
.
.
.
.
Back more on topic, I had a thought earlier today. If we are to theoretically be able to upgrade the HDD on the PS3, how is it we are going to get the data on the current one onto the new one?? I know this is a bit premature, given the console isn't even out. I just didn't know if anyone had any ideas on how that might work.

Because of my lack of need for wifi or the flash card reader, I'm more inclined to just buy the $500 PS3. And, if I can just upgrade the HDD later on, that would be just fine by me. I would end up with a PS3 with just the features I want and need, and a bigger drive than the $600 unit comes with, for roughly the same cost. Anyone know how that process might work??

CT
Click to expand...

Quite possibly the reason you do not acknowledge this information, is because you do not keep current with it.

Every developer for the said games coming out at launch spoke about 1080p functionality either at the Tokyo Game Show, or the PlayStation Gamers Day. All of them referred to their games as "running in native 1080p". There is absolutely NO room for debate when the word NATIVE comes into play. None. That *IS* fact. That HOLDS water. Native 1080p means 1080p. Period, not upscaled, just pure rendered at 1080p goodness.

You want the info, spend five minutes and look it up, but I'm not the Sony Defense Team, and I have no business teaching you the hard facts, I'll tell them to you, but I"m not going to be your lackey and look it up because you are too lazy to prove YOURSELF wrong.


As for transferring information. It uses a standard SATA HDD (Solid, that's Serial ATA, break it down it's SATA). I initially thought it was SATAII, but it's actually SATA150, the 150 standing for a transfer rate of 150MB/s (That's megabytes, not Mb/s).

Anyway, a transfer would be pretty easy if you purchased linux, as you could simply find a PC through the Linux OS and transfer it via ethernet.

ANYWAY, I'd like to point and laugh that people are even bringing this up, esp since it's the people who have been saying for quite some time "Oh, I won't be using my PS3 for anything but gaming"...which would imply all thier music and vids / pictures would already be on their PC, so the need for transferring would be pointless...why use your PS3 as a primary storage device? Don't contridict yourselves here people....
 
Circle T
I very much hope you are right, but damn, thats a bold statement.

CT
Click to expand...

Considering the Demo version, which was running full 1080p with HDR enabled, and was running at a near constant 60fps (with very very very few areas where slowdown was experienced)...I don't see it as being a problem.

It also depends on which version you are talking about.

GT: HD Classic had NO slowdown at all, running in 1080p, with about 12 cars on track, and a lot more stuff on tracks.

GT: HD Premium, however, had a few issues at 1080p every once in a blue moon, but not so much for people to say it was serious, and considering the game has around 4-6 months left in development, I'd say it's not an issue.

Especially since it will almost certainly be a hard-drive install with patches available in the future.


Also, GT: HD Premium is just a "demo" for GT5 essentially, which has about 1-2 more years of development time. Seriously, that's enough time for ME to help get it running in 1080p, let alone people who do it for a living.
 
1080p v. i might not matter so much (it sure does if you're going to film your TV!), but I seriously doubt a 640x480 picture with all the pixel shading the world can look as good as a raw 1280x1024 image.
 
Jeremy Ricci
Quite possibly the reason you do not acknowledge this information, is because you do not keep current with it.

Every developer for the said games coming out at launch spoke about 1080p functionality either at the Tokyo Game Show, or the PlayStation Gamers Day. All of them referred to their games as "running in native 1080p". There is absolutely NO room for debate when the word NATIVE comes into play. None. That *IS* fact. That HOLDS water. Native 1080p means 1080p. Period, not upscaled, just pure rendered at 1080p goodness.

You want the info, spend five minutes and look it up, but I'm not the Sony Defense Team, and I have no business teaching you the hard facts, I'll tell them to you, but I"m not going to be your lackey and look it up because you are too lazy to prove YOURSELF wrong.
Click to expand...

Dude, just don't bother, anymore. It aint worth it.


As for transferring information. It uses a standard SATA HDD (Solid, that's Serial ATA, break it down it's SATA). I initially thought it was SATAII, but it's actually SATA150, the 150 standing for a transfer rate of 150MB/s (That's megabytes, not Mb/s).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand Serial is the S in SATA. My thoughts were on the II and the 150. So, the PS3 is SATA150 and it has no relation to SATAII. Good. That's what I planned on getting for it. I thought maybe SATAII was another way to say SATA150.

ANYWAY, I'd like to point and laugh that people are even bringing this up, esp since it's the people who have been saying for quite some time "Oh, I won't be using my PS3 for anything but gaming"...which would imply all thier music and vids / pictures would already be on their PC, so the need for transferring would be pointless...why use your PS3 as a primary storage device? Don't contridict yourselves here people....
Click to expand...

I plan to move my entire music MP3 collection from my PC to the PS3, if it's possible via a simple connector. I would like to store movie clips and video clips on PS3, if possible, too.

I don't plan to do any of this until I get the larger HDD.
 
Jeremy Ricci
Quite possibly the reason you do not acknowledge this information, is because you do not keep current with it.
Click to expand...
Thus why I'm asking you, someone who proclaims to keep current, for said info. Its like pulling teeth though, apparently. I read as much as I can, but I can't read everything out there. But I get it. You don't want to help, thats cool.
Jeremy Ricci
You want the info, spend five minutes and look it up, but I'm not the Sony Defense Team, and I have no business teaching you the hard facts, I'll tell them to you, but I"m not going to be your lackey and look it up because you are too lazy to prove YOURSELF wrong.
Click to expand...
Oh, if only college were that easy back in my day. "What references for my thesis professor?? You want them, look em up yourself." Man, that would have been a piece of cake.
Jeremy Ricci
ANYWAY, I'd like to point and laugh that people are even bringing this up, esp since it's the people who have been saying for quite some time "Oh, I won't be using my PS3 for anything but gaming"...which would imply all thier music and vids / pictures would already be on their PC, so the need for transferring would be pointless...why use your PS3 as a primary storage device? Don't contridict yourselves here people....
Click to expand...
My concern is down the road with Linux, and maybe using it as a media center. I've read nothing that has said the PS3 will let you network with your PC. Thus, if you want to play media with it, that media needs to be present on the HDD. So, a bigger HDD drive in that circumstance will help. With the 360, given they will allow networking with PCs, it isn't an issue.

CT
 
Solid Lifters
Dude, just don't bother, anymore. It aint worth it.
Click to expand...
Damn man. I know I'm new here, and all. But, first I'm not worthy of someone helping me out with a SINGLE LINK to some supposed factual info. But now, I'm just not worthy of any discussion at all?? Man. And to think, it was you who said it was ME that should work on trying to be less harsh, and try to make some friends here. Weird how those things work.

CT
 
http://ps3.ign.com

There ya go, your single link, just look at all the gamers day coverage, tons of interviews in their videos, developer interviews, and comments. All the games running in 1080p are more than confirmed in that wealth of information contained on that site.
 
Jeremy Ricci
http://ps3.ign.com

There ya go, your single link, just look at all the gamers day coverage, tons of interviews in their videos, developer interviews, and comments. All the games running in 1080p are more than confirmed in that wealth of information contained on that site.
Click to expand...
Wow, was that so hard?? Damn man.

And, after reading some of that, I do see they bring up 1080p a few times. But, I guess I might just be looking for something that just isn't out there in writing. They bring up the games "playing in 1080p" a lot. But, much like the debate with the 360, what a game is rendered at and what its output at can be two different things. I guess we'll never know until someone does some actual framebuffer dumps with one, like people did with the 360.

Oh well. Like I said originally, when replying to Digital-Nitrate who originally brought up the 1080p thing, I don't really care either way. My TV only shows 1366x768, so 1080p isn't much use to me. My PS3, whenever I get one, will be set to 720p, just like my 360 is currently. The 1080p thing is just interesting to me, and I just wanted to know to satisfy my own suspicions. Sorry my searches of the internet aren't good enough. I didn't know it would cause such a ruckus just to ask for info on something I couldn't find myself.

But oh well, so it goes I guess when you're new to a forum. But, I hope this isn't a sign of things to come. As I've said many times, I'm sorry I seem to come across so recalcitrant to some people. But, I've just grown up understanding that if I make a statement, it needs facts to back it up. And that gets reciprocated to others when they say things as well.

CT
 
Interview with Cell Architect Jim Kahle

Jim Kahle is the chief architect of the Cell microprocessor and the visionary behind the multiprocessing beast that is the heart of the PlayStation 3. He led IBM's side of the chip alliance with Sony and Toshiba. He has been designing microprocessors since the 1980s and was one of the founding members of the Somerset Design Center, the chip design house formed by Apple, Motorola and IBM at the onset of the Power PC alliance. He was also the chief architect of IBM's Power 4 microprocessor which was used in IBM servers and Apple's G5 Macintosh machines. I caught up with him after his recent keynote at a Cadence Design Systems conference.

DT: It seems like you finished the Cell chip designs early. The first prototypes came out in 2004 and this is 2006. Did you still need a lot of development time after that first tape out?
JK: We used that first tape out to get the initial software up and running. There were modifications we did to the chip over time. The design center is still active and participating. Our roadmap shows we are continuing down the cost reduction path. We have a 65 nanometer part. We are continuing the cost reductions. We have another vector where we are going after more performance. We have talked about enhanced double-precision chips. Architecturally we have double precision but we will fully exploit that capability from a performance point of view. That will be useful in high-performance computing and open another set of markets.

DT: That sounds like it’s not a PlayStation 3 chip?

JK: Yeah, it is a different vector. For us to extrapolate. We will push the number of special processing units. By 2010, we will shoot for a teraflop on a chip. I think it establishes there is a roadmap. We want to invest in it. For those that want to invest in the software, it shows that there is life in this architecture as we continue to move forward.

DT: Right now you’re at 200 gigaflops?

JK: We’re in the low 200s now.

DT: So that is five times faster by 2010?

JK: Four or five times faster. Yes, you basically need about 32 special processing units.

DT: AMD bought ATI Technologies and they signaled that a combined CPU and graphics processor is not so far off. They are going to do an initial crack at it for emerging markets in 2007. Is that something you see coming and is Cell anticipating this world already?

JK: If you look at a gaming system, there is obviously a close relationship between graphics and the main processing elements. Over time we will look to see how effectively we can make the main processor and graphics tie together. I won’t go beyond that.

DT: With Cell and PlayStation 3, was there a lot of thought about whether you needed a graphics chip?

JK: We explored that to understand the bounds of what we could do with the architecture. If you look at some of our ray tracing, ray casting techniques, they are very effective. People have worked on some software caches to help out the ray tracing. I wouldn’t say that is graphics processing because ray tracing is a little different. We’ve explored the bounds on this to understand where it can contribute with pure graphics processing. Over time, we have been exploring that.

DT: With Moore’s Law, is it inevitable that they will wind up on one chip?

JK: If you look at the PlayStation 2, eventually the graphics did get integrated into the Emotion Engine. Sony has talked about that. Definitely from a cost reduction view. Now we have to look at it from a performance point of view too. That is something we have to study for the future. Even beyond PlayStation 3. I don’t know if it is inevitable. We have to understand the pros and cons of it.
 
Gosh the updates to the PlayB3yond site are so amazing.... the presentations are so professional making it stand out as a more grown up type of machine unlike xbox's childish kind of direction ... JUMP IN!!! Lime Green with iPod style!

Is it me or is that the voice of the guy who does all the Honda adverts because im getting a Honda vibe of them!

It is really great stuff.. sells the console well because they are easy to understand even for a low tech kinda person. Clear and informative, sure they wont be selling many to the 14 year olds on this advertising but who cares, Sony want to go upmarket!

Robin
 
Duċk;2465114
Circle T, here's a few links proving some PS3 launch games will be in 1080p.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Just what I wanted to read. Thank you Duck.

So, it appears that NBA07 and maybe RR7 are launch games actually running at 1080p. Thats cool. I was apparently wrong, and I will admit it. I said I didn't think they could do it, but it appears a couple games can. Not the best games, but hey. They say they can do it, so whatever.

I guess I'll just wait patiently until the console comes out, and someone can do some actual framebuffer dumps on the games, to see what the real render is doing. I just wonder if some of these reviews consider it 1080p just because the TV is receiving that signal. And like I talked about earlier with PGR3 on 360, what the game is rendered at, and what it comes out the console are not always the same. So, we'll see.

But, looking at what you've shown, those couple game are allegedly running 1080p. And that does contradict my suspicion, so I was wrong, and will admit it. Thank you for that Duck. You helped me out, without me having to ask you 47 times, unlike someone else.

CT
 
Robin ///////
Gosh the updates to the PlayB3yond site are so amazing.... the presentations are so professional making it stand out as a more grown up type of machine unlike xbox's childish kind of direction ... JUMP IN!!! Lime Green with iPod style!
Click to expand...
Personally, I like the style of the XB360 as a game console, but I agree, the PS3 looks like a very nice piece of high-end AV equipment! 👍

Is it me or is that the voice of the guy who does all the Honda adverts because im getting a Honda vibe of them!
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Raitziger was correct in guessing that it is Lance Henriksen (Alien vs. Predator, Millennium, Aliens, The Terminator, among others). I don't think I've ever heard a Honda commercial with his voice over, but I could easily be mistaken. I think the current voice for Honda is Kevin Spacey (Superman Returns, American Beauty, L.A. Confidential, The Usual Suspects, among others)

It is really great stuff.. sells the console well because they are easy to understand even for a low tech kinda person. Clear and informative, sure they wont be selling many to the 14 year olds on this advertising but who cares, Sony want to go upmarket!
Click to expand...
With perhaps the exception of Nintendo, the majority of console buyers and users are in the key demographic market of 18-39 year olds. Partly because gamers from the 80's-90's are older, but the graphics and game play have improved so much that they don't just appeal to kids anymore. As evidience to the age of the target market, just look at some of the best selling games... most are definetley oriented towards adults, rather than young kids. This is why the issue over the cost of the console isn't nearly as important as it was ten years ago, or even earlier than that.

If the PS3 does turn out to be an excellent Blu-ray player, then it might even attract an even older audience of home theater users.. who may also turn into game players. After all, some games are beginning to look more like an interactive movie rather than a repetitive arcade style game. 👍
 
Digital-Nitrate
With perhaps the exception of Nintendo, the majority of console buyers and users are in the key demographic market of 18-39 year olds.
Click to expand...
Beware, though, that while the average age of the video-game player is around 29, completely and intentionally ignoring the very real under 18 market is a stupid mistake to perform. The average may be high, but it isn't higher because of the younger players.
 
I don't think you have to worry about Sony ignoring anyone. Games like GTA (die), Sonic and White Knight are proof that the PS3 will be a Playstation. Much like the PS2, more saavy, powerful and audiophile, but still mostly a game machine.
 
Hmm. I've been out of town for a while, but it looks like things as usual around here for some people. I see "Deap" is gone now. Not that I'm shocked.

Back on topic though. I think, after reading up on all that I've missed, I kind of agree with those comments quoted by Circle T earlier. If the PS3 can do 1080p with ease, which it seemingly can, why not just do the games in 720p and use more effects and shaders?

I mean, very few people own 1080p sets just yet. So, building a game to run at that res is going to be unused on a very large segment of your users. Down the road, when 1080p sets are more prevalent, I could see trying to shoot for it. And, given time with the hardware, it shouldn't be hard for most developers to get 1080p with lots of effects.

But, I just think, if the games were made to run in 720p, which is still very good, they would be able to use so many more effects and things like that, the games would look great. I mean, all the 720p games on 360 look great to me. If the PS3 is that much better, they could do some really great things. But hey, I might just be really underestimating this thing. Maybe the PS3 really IS that buff. If it is, great. Bring it on.

I'm also going to be watching all this stuff with the Linux thing. I've never really been much of a Linux user, but I might actually try this. Should be interesting.


Hilg
 
Sorry to go off topic but I wonder if we'll see Circle T again? Last I heared he had two accounts to keep active here.
 
Digital-Nitrate
Personally, I like the style of the XB360 as a game console, but I agree, the PS3 looks like a very nice piece of high-end AV equipment! 👍
Click to expand...

Yes, I must say the 360 console looks nice, its just the image of Microsoft and Xbox that I have a problem with! lol

But yeah the PS3 is aiming high end and it will not look out of place with your thousands of pounds woth of AV equipment!
 
Opinion: Why Sony Won't Lose the Next-Gen War


No console maker has ever dominated three consecutive platform generations. Will Sony pull it off? We think so. Here's why the PlayStation 3 will assume the PS2's throne in the next few years...

Let's face it; Sony's seen better days. The company's turnaround plan hasn't been going quite as smoothly as they'd hoped, they've been forced to recall thousands of laptop batteries, they've significantly downsized their PlayStation 3 launch quantities and delayed the launch altogether in Europe, and their net profit forecast for the current fiscal year was recently slashed by almost 40 percent. In fact, in their most recent quarter, profits plunged 94 percent.

But you know what? Despite these setbacks and all the negative press the company has garnered over the last six or so months, when it's all said and done the PlayStation 3 will be No.1 worldwide, although not as dominant as the PS2 has been.

Here are five reasons why we believe Sony will stay on top in the console race.

The Brand

Go up to any random person on the street and ask them to name a video game system. Odds are that the vast majority of the time the individual will respond with "PlayStation" or "PlayStation 2." In the late '80s and early '90s Nintendo was king, but on today's market there is no brand more synonymous with the world of video games than PlayStation. It's true that Microsoft has made great strides in this area with the Xbox and now Xbox 360, but on a pure mindshare basis Xbox still can't compare.

[ "Rather than bolting the door shut, Microsoft has left it slightly ajar, just waiting for Sony to slam it wide open." ]

Sony is well aware of the power of its brand and it will do everything it can to leverage the PlayStation name. Providing backwards compatibility with both the PS1 and PS2, as well as offering full PS1 titles for download through the PS3, can only help to reinforce that brand and remind gamers of the PlayStation games they hold so dear.

Selling over 100 million units, twice, has its advantages. In fact, there are a number of people who have probably owned nothing but PlayStation consoles, and those consumers are likely to stick with a brand they know and trust. Before they've even learned anything about Sony's new console, many consumers have already made up their minds that they want the next PlayStation no matter what. A strong brand should not be underestimated.

Microsoft (somewhat) Squandered its Lead

Prior to the 360's launch, all we heard about was how Microsoft didn't want to be beat to market. They wanted to get all the time they could to convince consumers to buy into their "HD Era" before Sony unleashed its PlayStation 3. Well, now it's almost a year later and is Microsoft really that far ahead? According to NPD data, Microsoft sold around 2.7 million units in the U.S through September. MS' figures indicate that the company sold 5 million units worldwide through June, and just yesterday they revealed that they had reached the 6 million units mark. That said, some analysts believe the 360 is tracking below market expectations. There's certainly no guarantee that MS will hit its goal of 10 million units sold by the end of 2006, even if Microsoft CFO Chris Liddell remains "confident."

The fact of the matter is that although there have been many truly solid 360 offerings (GRAW, PGR3, Call of Duty 2, to name a few) there have been basically no "killer apps," except for perhaps Bethesda's Oblivion. And guess what? That'll be a PS3 launch title—so much for that advantage. If Microsoft really wanted to run away with the lead they would have needed Halo 3 to be released within the first four to six months of launch, or at the very least a near-Halo category title like Gears of War.

When the PS2, a six-year-old console, outsells your next-gen hardware month after month—which has been the case in recent months—something is not right. And according to Deutsche Bank analyst Jeetil Patel, the Xbox 360 continues to underperform the original Xbox at the same stage of its life. Rather than bolting the door shut, Microsoft has left it slightly ajar, just waiting for Sony to slam it wide open.

Japan is Ripe for the Taking

Let's not forget that this is a global market. Sure, Microsoft can do just fine with North America and Europe, but in order to win on a worldwide basis, all three of the major territories become quite important. The original Xbox was an outright failure in Japan, and despite Microsoft's renewed efforts in the country the Xbox 360 is simply continuing the struggle. The company has tried to make itself more attractive to Japanese gamers by courting developers who can make games that appeal to Japanese tastes, but those games were needed much sooner in order to make some headway in a market dominated by Nintendo and Sony.

Early reports suggest that pre-orders for Blue Dragon and related bundles are selling out, but will that be enough to stand up against the introductions of both the Wii and the PlayStation 3 this year? Yes, there will only be 100,000 PS3 units available on day one in Japan, but recent consumer surveys indicate an increasing interest in Sony's next-gen console as its launch approaches. What it comes down to is that the PS3 will have the content Japanese gamers (and plenty of Western gamers) want—Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy XIII, Virtua Fighter 5, Devil May Cry 4, Gran Turismo, etc.

And if the incredible success of the Nintendo DS is any example, the Japanese seem ready to embrace alternate control methods and unique gameplay. The Wii's innovative controls, cheaper price, and valuable catalog of IP could potentially lead to sales on the level of the DS in the land of the rising sun. Ultimately, Japanese gamers are far more likely to flock to either the Wii or PS3 than some American-made system.

Blu-ray Will Matter

No, we're not talking about Blu-ray as a next-gen movie format. The worst case scenario for Sony is that Blu-ray will fail as a movie format, HD DVD will be crowned the successor to DVD, and Sony will be left with a proprietary game disc format. And while that would certainly hurt them as a company, it wouldn't take away the fact that Blu-ray provides PS3 developers with much more storage space. Microsoft can tout highly advanced compression techniques all they want, but the extra space on the Blu-ray discs affords developers the opportunity to make their games more expansive and more detailed without having to worry about whether it will fit. Of course, if the best case scenario occurs, and Blu-ray beats out HD DVD, then the PS3 will get the added boost of being the first viable hi-def movie player for many consumers, just as the PS2 introduced DVD to many for the first time.

Sure some of this is hype, and maybe we're falling for it, but certain PS3 launch games (e.g. Resistance: Fall of Man) already look as good as the best Xbox 360 has to offer. In one to two years, we think the combination of the Blu-ray medium and the Cell processor will lead to a noticeable difference between the visuals of the PS3 and the Xbox 360, as developers begin to really harness the technology in the PS3. And by that time the PS3 won't be retailing for $500 or $600 anymore. Nintendo may not care about hi-def graphics, but in the ultra-tech battle between Microsoft and Sony, it's beginning to look like Sony has the edge.

Free Online

In the next five years and beyond, online is going to take on much greater importance, not only in terms of online gameplay, but also as a way of downloading games, extra content, and episodic material. Judging by the company's recent Gamer's Day announcements, this appears to be one area that Sony is prepared to make great strides in. PS2 online, despite Sony's arguments to the contrary, hasn't been a great experience. Xbox Live, on the other hand, continues to be a fantastic experience. Microsoft's certainly got the online advantage for now, but the Redmond giant has a weakness that Sony can and will exploit—the company, as far as we know, has no plans to make its Xbox Live Gold service free of charge. Moreover, it now appears that free, Silver-level Xbox Live membership doesn't always entitle you to free content at the same time that Gold members can access it. Meanwhile, the PS3 will offer full online gaming and other online features completely free from day one.

Yes, the argument can be made that for the price of the PS3 gamers should be entitled to free online gaming, but we think this is a great move on Sony's part nevertheless. With the inclusion of free online play, publishers know that anybody in the PS3's install base can go online. Not only does that automatically encourage developers to make use of online functionality, but it also could have important ramifications with regards to in-game ads that are streamed online. All of a sudden the potential audience for these ads is that much bigger, while on the 360 publishers of online titles with streamed in-game ads will still be limited to the number of Xbox Live Gold subscribers. Ultimately, we think that Microsoft will have no choice but to go free as well (perhaps with some ad-supported scheme with the help of MS-owned Massive Inc.), even if it's not for another couple years.

Final Thoughts

New console launches are often some of the most exciting periods to witness in the video game industry and we can't wait to watch it all unfold. This industry is poised for some tremendous growth in the years ahead, but we still believe it'll be Sony that'll maintain a leadership position and will lead the charge forward.

We don't expect Sony to dominate the way it did with the PS2. Certainly the first six to twelve months could be rough going for the PS3 as Sony deals with ramping up its manufacturing, but at the end of the day Sony will have done the "impossible" by winning three console generations in a row.
Click to expand...
http://biz.gamedaily.com
 
I think no one (except the diehard X360 fanboys) is arguing that Sony will lose this war. At the worst (and this is entirely possible), Sony will barely edge out the Wii and 360, unless some nut decides he'll bomb the manufacturers of the PS3, resulting in a worldwide drought of them (but that of course is my imagination talking).

I think the real question is how much market share Sony will lose this generation.

Also, here's Sony's new PS3 ad that was shown during the World Series last night.



IMO it reminds me of Chucky. And that's not a good thing. 👎
 

Latest Posts

Back