Lance Uppercut
Guest
I hope it doesn't cost £400.
I'd expect it to be between £250-300 (dependent on the size of the hard drive you go for.)I hope it doesn't cost £400.
Do you seriously believe that if say Wii had launched a year later, so two years after Xb360 and one year after PS3, it would not have had the same impact? I'd argue that they should have launched it later.My point still stands. Graphical advancements aside, Sony cannot afford to let time pass. It's not a smart move, and anyone who has worked with them will tell you the computer entertainment division still have a lot to improve upon.
Unless they plan more than a couple years gap and aim for the half generation (i.e like the dreamcast) and hope the economy is better by then. But it's risky.
How many people bought XBox 360's because they couldn't buy a ps3? The ps2 absolutely demolished the original xbox, if Sony had released the ps3 earlier, they would probably be 10-15 million ahead instead of still being 3 million behind 6 years in.Not sure why a years wait would hurt Sony? Certainly has not hurt them with the PS3. According to Video Game Charts, Game Sales, Top Sellers, Game Data - VGChartz the PS3 is only 3 million units down on Microsoft. When the 360 had a years head start. If you go on those charts, the PS3 has been selling more per year than the 360.
I don't suspect the WiiU will touch the next gen Sony or MS consoles. It certainly won't do as well as the Wii. I see that as the Gamecube or Dreamcast. Personally I'm not sure why Nintendo are going back to targeting gamers, certainly was not working for them in the past. A chunky controller with a big screen in the middle certainly won't change that.
Exactly, this is my overall point. People seem to read what they want to read sometimes.How many people bought XBox 360's because they couldn't buy a ps3? The ps2 absolutely demolished the original xbox, if Sony had released the ps3 earlier, they would probably be 10-15 million ahead instead of still being 3 million behind 6 years in.
Answer it anyway!Oh and Weaste if you want to ask me question, starting it with an answer already formed in your head isn't really the way to go.
I would hope so, because that's a full 100 less than the current model!Answer it anyway!
It don't really matter what's ahead of what, BX360 had a year start and now they are both equal and the RRP of the PS3 is still restrictive. When all is said and done it will outsell the XB260 by quite some margin.
Indeed.I've never really understood the fanboism between PS3 and 360 owners. I understand Nintendo as their console is different and they have a lot of their own intellectual property. To me, my decision to buy an Xbox was purely motivated by price. It was a lot cheaper than a Ps3 and the majority of the games are identical. Technically there is not a noticeable difference between the two.
Some of us shudder at the thought of a living room dominated by Microsoft or Apple software. It's bad enough having them infesting the workplace.I've never really understood the fanboism between PS3 and 360 owners. I understand Nintendo as their console is different and they have a lot of their own intellectual property. To me, my decision to buy an Xbox was purely motivated by price. It was a lot cheaper than a Ps3 and the majority of the games are identical. Technically there is not a noticeable difference between the two.
I own both. I prefer the PS3, as Sony don't charge me for using my inturdnet connection which I already pay for.I've never really understood the fanboism between PS3 and 360 owners. I understand Nintendo as their console is different and they have a lot of their own intellectual property. To me, my decision to buy an Xbox was purely motivated by price. It was a lot cheaper than a Ps3 and the majority of the games are identical. Technically there is not a noticeable difference between the two.
That's a hell of a lot more valid reason than chosing one for the name on the plasticI own both. I prefer the PS3, as Sony don't charge me for using my inturdnet connection which I already pay for.
The name on the plastic is a reflection of the corporate philosophy. It's not as disjoint as you would like to make out.That's a hell of a lot more valid reason than chosing one for the name on the plastic
That's a new one!The name on the plastic is a reflection of the corporate philosophy. It's not as disjoint as you would like to make out.
When I bought mine, the playstation was 300 quid and I got my Xbox 60gb version for 160 with four games and two controllers all brand new. I don't really bother with xbox live so it really came down to price.I own both. I prefer the PS3, as Sony don't charge me for using my inturdnet connection which I already pay for.
I am fairly certain that I will buy both. I didn't get into this generation of gaming until fairly late, but I have been hooked ever since.When I bought mine, the playstation was 300 quid and I got my Xbox 60gb version for 160 with four games and two controllers all brand new. I don't really bother with xbox live so it really came down to price.
Most of the games I play are multiplatform, only Nintendo will have their own series that really interest me. I've played games like GOW and although its good, I don't really feel any magic while playing it.
Next gen I will probably just go for whichever console is released first or which has the best price point. Are Sony really better from a corporate responsibilty point of view weaste? I know Bill Gates has set up a foundation to get billionaires to give away a lot of their fortunes to charity. I'm sure both companies have as many dodgy dealings as the other. (except Nintendo of course )
Laugh all you want, but it's true.That's a new one!
I really can't see the "value" of buying both. Like I said earlier probably 90 percent of games are across both platforms. To me both seem kind of generic in the way they offer very little unique. Obviously now they have kinect and move but neither interests me greatly.I am fairly certain that I will buy both. I didn't get into this generation of gaming until fairly late, but I have been hooked ever since.
I don't like to miss out on exclusives. There may not be many, but I feel it's worth it. For example, I have bought and completed Alan Wake, The Gears Trilogy, the Fable Games, Crackdown, and am just about to start Halo 3.I really can't see the "value" of buying both. Like I said earlier probably 90 percent of games are across both platforms. To me both seem kind of generic in the way they offer very little unique. Obviously now they have kinect and move but neither interests me greatly.
Fanbois dont use that argumentation because its actually a valid point, and fanboys are idiots who dont have valid points.Yeah, I always see fanboys argue over corporate philosophy. It's right alongside who has the most handsome CEO.
Fanbois dont use that argumentation because its actually a valid point, and fanboys are idiots who dont have valid points.
Im not sure what exactly the difference is between Sony and Microsoft's corporate philosophy is that would make someone choose either over the other though, so not sure what Weaste's point is exactly. It would be a much more fitting argument in an "Apple vs Microsoft" debate.
Fair dos, I quite like fable but the others are all a bit Meh to me. It would kind of feel like buying a Sony MP3 player and then an ipod. Both do the same thing and largely the same content, but that's just me. I'm not exactly a hardcore gamer so one device is fine. If Sony are late or too expensive I think a lot of gamers may be put off.I don't like to miss out on exclusives. There may not be many, but I feel it's worth it. For example, I have bought and completed Alan Wake, The Gears Trilogy, the Fable Games, Crackdown, and am just about to start Halo 3.
Hooked, as I said.
There is a total difference for example for paying for the service through content or paying for the service itself. The back end of XBLIVE for example doesn't do much at all, yet you pay for it. The back end of PSN doesn't do anything different, yet it's free.Yeah, I always see fanboys argue over corporate philosophy. It's right alongside who has the most handsome CEO.
That's an extremely inaccurate generalisation.Fanbois dont use that argumentation because its actually a valid point, and fanboys are idiots who dont have valid points.
An idiot can't call me an idiot, it doesn't work like that. Only a non-idiot can call me an idiot, but there are no non-idiots that frequent RedCafe, so that doesn't wash.That's an extremely inaccurate generalisation.
Plus Weaste won't be happy you called him an idiot
PlayStation 4 Ditching The Cell Processor, Sources Say, Which Leads to Some Wild Theories.PlayStation 4 Ditching The Cell Processor, Sources Say, Which Leads to Some Wild Theories.
The PlayStation 4 will not use Sony's Cell processor nor any possible successor to the vaunted chipset that was introduced to the world through the PlayStation 3, gaming industry sources tell Kotaku.
What we're hearing from sources follow a Forbes rumor last week that chip-maker AMD would make the graphics chip for a PS4, a shift from the PS3's use of a graphics chip from AMD rival Nvidia.
The abandonment of the Cell architecture would thrill the many game developers who have struggled with the complex chipset, but it could also be viewed as the admission of a mistake.
Cell was the pet project of PlayStation creator Ken Kutaragi, who dreamed that the chip—a "Power Processing Element" married to eight "Synergistic Processing Elements"—would make the PS3 the most impressive gaming console ever. He spoke of a home equipped with multiple devices that were powered by Cell, all of them linking to each other to increase the computational power driving any of the devices.
Cell was not the revolution Sony hoped and hyped that it would be. It also never managed to make the PS3 appear to be significantly more powerful than the year-older Xbox 360. That could have been the Cell's fault or simply the result of development decisions that compelled game creators to make their games run on both the PS3 and the generally-more-popular Xbox 360.
But with no Cell or Cell successor in the PS4, what would Sony do? Here's where the reporting turns to speculation. One theory I've heard is that AMD will provide both the CPU and GPU for the PS4, meaning that AMD, not Sony, would engineer the main processing and graphics chips for the machine. Should AMD be doing that, they could go with the AMD Fusion architecture, which puts CPU and GPU on the same chip. AMD has already been putting chips like this out (one was considered for the MacBook Air), which would enable Sony to turn to developers and say: you could be working with the PS4 architecture right now; just work on an AMD Llano chip or something. Would developers like that? They'd have to prefer it to Cell and—what do you know—here's one of gaming history's best programmers, id's John Carmack, saying in an interview with PC Perspective last year that AMD Fusion-style chip architecture is "almost a forgone conclusion" for the future of computing.
A Sony rep declined to comment on this story, citing the company's policy not to comment on rumors and speculation.
Sony hasn't even acknowledged the existence of the PlayStation 4 let alone detailed the guts within it. But we're beginning to hear trickles of information about Sony's next gen. It's all vaguer than the talk for next Xbox, code-named Durango, which Microsoft has been showing to publisher and developer partners.
The lack of chatter on PS4 would suggest that Sony will once again put its next console out after Microsoft. But if the chipset for the PS4 is actually one that already exists, then aspiring PS4 developers might find themselves capable of ramping up for this new machine faster than expected. And if that happens, the code-named Durango, probable for 2013, might have a sparring partner from Sony sooner than we thought.
Not going to happen!If the PS4 costs more than the 720
Considering how well the DS was doing they could financially have afforded to but the Gamecube was long since dead by the time the Wii came out so they had their hand forced.Do you seriously believe that if say Wii had launched a year later, so two years after Xb360 and one year after PS3, it would not have had the same impact? I'd argue that they should have launched it later.
Answer it anyway!
It don't really matter what's ahead of what, BX360 had a year start and now they are both equal and the RRP of the PS3 is still restrictive. When all is said and done it will outsell the XB260 by quite some margin.
Nice guess. Want to try your luck again and suggest why they would do such thing as "ditching" the Cell/incorporate AMD CPU? Fusion perhaps?Post 61
Nice guess. Want to try your luck again and suggest why they would do such thing as "ditching" the Cell/incorporate AMD CPU? Fusion perhaps?