Games: Sony takes a leaf out of Microsoft's book

[Cataferal]

Yeah, i think so too. While we cant yet say how it'll compare to the other consoles, i dont think there will be such a great margin of graphical quality, like between, say, the PS2 and the Xbox.

[Nevan]

That actually excites me. However there are some beautiful games for PS2, such as the Ratchet and Clank series, of course those a very few. I just wonder what M$ will pull out.

[Cataferal]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=5839

To summarize, the PS3 is to incorporate Nvidia's latest GPU "graphics and image processing foundation", in conjunction with Sony's impressive new cell technology. Instead of becoming a hybrid of expensive PC parts like the Xbox, it seems Sony intend on integrating, and ultimately minimizing this graphical technology.

In my opinion this is a good move for Sony, since it'll mean the PS3 will not only have the key gaming franchises, but also a high graphical standard as well, which was a notable limitation for its predacessor in comparison to its rivals.
What are your comments on this decision?

[mrwiseman]

It's actually quite different; they'll be using the graphics processor but won't have a PC architecture at all, which is what's suited for a console (and more cost-effective). Now we know they won't screw up on the graphics this time. If they don't screw up in the architecture and the external design like they did with PS2 too, I'll be a really happy man.

[Cataferal]

Hehe, ironically Microsoft previously rejected Nvidia (who provided a custom Geforce GPU for the XBox), in favour of their bitter rivals, ATI, to provide the graphical power for their next console. Their rivalry seems to have transcended the PC market now, and it really shows how competitive the next gen line-up of consoles will get in terms of performance and capability. This leaves me concerned for Nintendo's offense on the games market, since they now have a lot to live up to.

[mrwiseman]

I'm personaly more inclined towards ATI; their latest chips seem slightly better and somewhat cheaper. I think nVidia has perhaps relied on its fame more than they should.

[Cataferal]

Admittedly Nvidia are more well known. No doubt Sony will use the company name to advertise the PS3's technical specs.

[ZakuSage]

Cataferal: Actually, PS2 and XBox really aren't as far apart graphically as you might think, example of how good PS2 graphics can get: Gran Turismo 4. In reality they're quite close, but if you think graphics are a deciding factor then the XBox does have more games with better graphics then PS2 becase PS2 is a lot more difficult to develop games for.

Anyway, I think this is good news, and hopefully on PS3 we could see things that look like FF7: AC in real time (hey I can hope).

Also, does anyone else find it interesting how simliar Xennon and Revolution (XBox and GameCube successor's development names, respectively) seem to be turning out? They both have IBM CPUs, and both have ATI graphics cards announced.

[Cataferal]

Technically the PS2 and Xbox are quite far apart, and many developers struggle to achieve a high graphical quality on the PS2, thanks to its three core processor design. But at the end of the day, if you dont notice a big difference who's to argue?

As for both Xenon and Revolution being served by the same company, i think the situation may have changed now Microsoft are in partnership with ATI. Nintendo have recently been in talks with former collaborators NEC and IBM, who have announced their involvement on the next Nintendo console. I find it unlikely that both consoles will share the same technology, for legal reasons. As of yet, Nintendo refuse to release the specs for the Revolution; a wise business strategy, but it leaves this issue unsettled.