Ten reasons not to get a PS3

[nik0tine]

I'll buy the PS3. Why? Well, I don't care much about specs, but I do care about quality games, and Sony has consistently supplied me with quality games. Microsoft, however, fails HARD when it comes to games. I haven't played the 360, but I have yet to play a good game on the origional Xbox. Halo was a joke, and the amount of hype behind it was almost offensive.

And with that said, I think this thread deserves a big, fat LOL.

[Sephex]

Fixed!

Damn. This is the only time I'll agree with someone ****ing with my wording online.

[Vyk]

I re-iterate, Halo wasn't all X-Box had. Though I guess most of its excellent games were also on PC. But my PC doesn't do games. So X-Box was for me, with KOTOR, and Fable and stuff.

[Samuraid]

Let's review the facts...

5. The Cell.

Not only is the cell processor going to jack up the price of the PS3 quite
a bit. It's greatly bottlenecked by the 512 MBs of L2 Cache (the 360
has twice that much L2 Cache).

There is no way any console has a 512MB L2 cache. That amount of SRAM would cause the console to use more power than a small microwave (over 800Watts). 512KB is the actual amount of L2 cache in the Cell. Also, each of the 7 vector units contains an additional 256KB cache.
The 360 contains 1MB of L2 cache overall.

What matters for gaming is the GPU. And most reports (anandtech etc.) state that the
360's graphics card is almost a generation more advanced. This makes
sense, ATI built the card from the ground up with technology that won't
make it's way into PC cards for atleast an year or so. The NVIDEA card
in the PS3 is identical to the card as what'll be available for the PC
in a month or two.

Let's take a look at the specs. The Xbox 360 uses an Ati R500 GPU at 500MHz with 10MB of framebuffer running at 500MHz, and 512MB of GDDR3 at 700MHz shared between the CPU and GPU.
The PS3 uses an Nvidia (not Nvidea) RSX GPU at 550MHz using a dedicated 256MB GDDR3 cache.
Both systems have a 22.4GB per second memory bus bandwidth to the GDDR3; however, the Xbox 360 GPU shares this with the CPU while the PS3 GPU gets the full dedicated 22.4GB bandwidth.

The only thing that the cpu will actually matter for
is the AI. And AI is more depenedent on L2 cache (this is what
ultimately determines the number of simultanous algorithms you can run
at any one time) than on processing speed. And guess what, the 360's
has twice the L2 cache of the PS3's Cell!

Please tell me how L2 cache specifically enhances AI calculations. Any computer architecture student could tell you that L2 is simply a slower and larger-capacity abstraction of L1 cache, used to cache instructions and data to reduce the extreme latency of fetching words from main computer memory. Now it's true that a larger L2 cache increases the frequency of cache hits, decreasing memory access latency and increasing overall system performance; however, this affects the system on a much larger scale, not specifically for "AI".


Anyway, the conculsion is...this "top 10" had some good points, some of which are definitely true, but some of it just sounds like misinformed fanboy banter.

[Lindy]

Next topic in the fanboy series; why Joel should never be allowed to post about Sony or their products, ever.

[Erdrick Holmes]

Why, because I freaking refuse to accept your stupid little console?

Just wait till it gets released. I'm pretty sure the thing will have a bigger pricetag than 400 dollars, long loading times, and more expensive games for a short while. Have fun blowing your dough on this sucker.

[XxSephirothxX]

To go slighlty off topic, Samuraid, I find it absolutely fascinating when you do breakdowns of the console specs, seeing as how, before explanations, all the MHZ and Gigabytes don't mean much to me. I'd love to see a fully detailed, side-by-side comparison of every aspect of the two, but, of course, the PS3 hasn't been released yet.

[Lindy]

Yeah, as soon as I don't agree with you suddenly it's "my" console, when in these stupid fanboy wars I've stayed as goddamned objective as I possibly can, I have no stance on which console is "better", it's stupid and entirely down to the games available.

You refuse to accept y'know, evidence and logic to the contrary of your own "facts" on the PS3, that's why, every single topic on this subject involving you is the exactly the same.

You post some garbage, people prove you wrong, you post some more garbage, a few thinly veiled insults and whine a bit here and there.

I don't even see the point of topics like this, why decide what you're going to buy or what's going to happen BEFORE THE CONSOLE IS EVEN OUT?

It makes at least a million times more sense to wait for it to actually be released and see what happens rather than assume "lolz wil cost fortuun an sux!!111", which you're purely doing because you don't like Sony for some god-awful, unknown (and most likely) petty reason.

[Samuraid]

To go slighlty off topic, Samuraid, I find it absolutely fascinating when you do breakdowns of the console specs, seeing as how, before explanations, all the MHZ and Gigabytes don't mean much to me. I'd love to see a fully detailed, side-by-side comparison of every aspect of the two, but, of course, the PS3 hasn't been released yet.

I would if I knew more (only an undergraduate student, so there's still a lot to learn) and if both companies released better specifications. Of course there are some things one cannot compare without performing tests and other things which just can't be evaluated at all.

It will be interesting to see how the three consoles actually fare against each other when they all hit the market.

[MecaKane]

more expensive games for a short while.

Ok Joel. You won't read the facts I've posted so here's something new:
It does cost more to make Blu-ray disks than DVDs.
You know what also costs more to make than DVDs? 2 DVDs!
Xenosaga episode II had two DVDs, yet it was in the same price range as every other PS2 game. Tons of GameCube games use more than one of those little retard disks, yet I don't see them costing anything out of the ordinary. Four disk PSX games cost the same as one disk games.
So here's something you should figure out by my example: The media a game is made on has nothing to do with its price.

And he doesn't like Sony because his 2D games that look like ass don't want to be on PS2.

[Lindy]

Yeah, I figured it was fighting games.

What a shame about all those 2D King of Fighters, Street Fighter and Guilty Gear games being released on the PS2, eh?

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Just a friendly reminder to everyone that personal attacks will not be tolerated, and this thread will be closed if it continues.

Also note that continued personal attacks will result in banning.

[edczxcvbnm]

Now I will dismantel this whole arguement.

1) No PS3 live? Who cares. Can I still go online and play games? Yes. Can I play 30297 players online on the PS3 or XBox? That is up to the DEVELOPERS! It has nothing to do with live.

2) Load times will probably go away for the most part with the advent of streaming or having filler type stuff mask load times. Not a big deal and we will probably not notice it. How many games have bad load times now? Very few because most stuff is streamed to get rid of that. We will be fine.

Also the consumer will not pay the price on price. Sony will take the huge hit on the price to remain competitive. Thinking otherwise is insanely ignorant.

3) 360 does not come standard with an HDD either. It is a $100 extra option essentially. You lose this one instantaniously.

4) Legit arguement but it could be solved by the time PS3 rolls out.

5) Same thing was said about the PS2 and the emotion engine. Where is PS2? On top. It will just take developers some time to get to know the new hardware. Also the Cube had the easiest to develop for console last time...where are they? I rest my case that the ease of code use means nothing.

6) Considering how few people have HD TVs let alone HDTVs that do true 720p this isn't much of an arguement. Watch me throw this one back in your face. By requireing this of all game you limit developers by forcing them to use processing power to get the games to run at that resolution.

7) This is yet another baseless claim. People will not pay it and thus it will not be. The PS3 will cost as much as 360 or inbetween. The games will be priced about the same as 360.

8) This is opinion but Perfect Dark Zero sucks. The multiplayer is so slow and clunky. Terrible!

9) Your running out of ideas if this is #9. I can see the controller arguement but they did that because of patent violations and other things. I say they should have payed the patent holders to keep the other controller design but what ever.

10) Look to number 6. This one is redundant...like threads on a message board.

Wow...1 legit arguement in the whole non-sensical rambling.

[Del Murder]

Boy, you guys sure are passionate about your gaming systems. I'll buy a PS3 if it has some games I really want to play (like Square games). I don't really care about online games or FPS. Playstation has the best RPGs and Nintendo makes awesome games, so Microsoft systems will always be third on my list. I don't have much time for games these days anyway.

If FFXIII comes out for PS3 I will buy one.

[BatChao]

I'm sad because I have a BS in Computer Engineering and this post confuses me... I've totally forgotten anything about computer architecture to make a valid point about any of the technical stuff... but what Samuraid says looks about right... heehee.

Anyway... one thing that I have been hearing about are bottlenecks, which might be true. But developers will probably be able to overcome them with due time.

Another valid point made is the fact that the 360's standards will help with streamlining the whole certification process, which right now sometime holds up a game from being released for quite a while. I work at a game publisher and the 360 standards have been spoken about on a few occasions, and it sounds pretty sweet. I'll see if it's really all it's cracked up to be when I get to work on a 360 title.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the general public will not care about processing speed, GPUs, cache, and all that jazz. They will mostly care about things like if the system is the 'hip' system to get or if the games are cool. And no matter what anyone says, sports games are a HUGE draw to the mainstream US audience.

No matter what, Sony has a HUGE battle ahead of itself. The 360 will be out for a good half year or so by the time the PS3 launches, which is a HUGE gap. By that time, many people will have already gotten the 360...be it because they are tired of waiting or they might not even know about the PS3. They'll just know that the 360 is the 'cool' thing right now and they'll get it. Also, the 360 hasn't gotten off to a bad start. The launch lineup is solid, though there aren't any killer apps, and the new Live service is amazing. I also believe that price is still a factor... I read an interview where Sony stated that the PS3 will not be targeted at the average household's income... whatever that means. I take it to mean that the PS3 will cost more than the Xbox360. But I could be wrong...

As for me... I'm sticking with the Revolution. That controller is too damn crazy awesome not to get. As for my second console, I'll have to factor in price and quality of games before I decide.