Sony plays anti-PR card again in new generation. Aims to dismiss Xbox 360

It worked when they did it against the dreamcast. They made a bunch of BS promises and then at launch had crap to show for it. However the fact it was a cheap DVD player helped sales a ton (I worked retail during the laucnh), but its HD movies won't help out as much this time around since it is only a visual leap and nothing more. Also very few have HD-TVs to take advantage of it.

Edit: 360 supports HD as standard, but it will work and look good on your normal set as well.

Original Killzone was using multilayering textures, which in short means:Higher detail on closer ranges On PS3 that's how it's gonna look and I don't see why Halo 3 wouldn't be comparable for that matter.

All I got out of that article was, in the author's words 'It's simply not possible to look at the specs and say "this one is more powerful for what game developers need to do."'

As for XNA, we currently have no idea what Sony is offering in terms of architecture and library support. It's been said it will be easy to develop for, and there will be much more developer support than for the PS2. Yeah it could be lies, but right now it would be premature to assume it is.



Do you know what the development kit for the Killzone2 demo was? No? Me neither, but I'm guess there was one given all the other demos shown.



You know, it is possible to code for hardware that doesn't exist yet. What do you think those Apple G5 dev kits were that went out to Microsoft's favoured developers (Rare - HA!). I'll bet they weren't using final silicon when they first went out.

There must be some Cell-based development platform out there, because there were a whole bunch a Cell-powered tech demos at E3 - the gas station explosion, the rubber duckies water sim, the Getaway stuff. (though I guess you're inclined to believe that was all fake - even the Eyetoy interactive duckies)

Take that development platforms, strap on some prototype nVidia hardware and you've got a dev kit.



Well, we'll see. Until then, you can worship MS and its blatant spewing of BS, because BS is all part of the game no matter who you side with.

Everything done to spec correct?

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3141034

Thats impossible. RSX chip isn't done. They could have just as easily overestimated the power with the dev kits just to make themselves look better. (Sorry I have to assume they lie more then they tell the truth). Also the VIDEOS (keyword) were claimed to be real. The EA thing was real, but done to spec. Until its a full game it means nothing. Microsoft could have easily put out a bunch of tiny portions of cool looking s**t... but they'd rather have games. You know... the stuff people play.

Meanwhile Microsoft did the opposite and said they had underpowered kits. This was echoed by TONS of other developers. Meanwhile only Sony is saying those vids are real with someone from GG saying the opposite. Thats how they "want" it to look like. Thats like having sex with a girl and telling her "Well I wanted it to look like you got f**ked by a 12 incher, but this fiver is all I got."

Epic siad it was easy to program for, but DUH! They are trying to sell there engine to everyone and their grandma so they almost HAVE to say that. I'll wait till 3rd party that isn't EA says the same.

i agree with you 100%! let's take a look back before the ps2 came out. sony claims that the ps2 would push 70 million polygons persecond, microsoft claims 114. did we see any games that could have done that yet, even in their final life span? not yet. now x-box is dead by year end, ps2 never even reach the polygon amount claim. what we need to realize, we can not get hype over raw power. the games that sony showed at E3 were not actually games but "something that they hope their games would look like", that means you're f**k to see that. now sony and microsoft is following in nintendo foot step and saying is not all about the graphics anymore (are they scared for something nintendo go?). nintendo plainly said that when they release their specs is what you are gonna see in their games, so they are not competing in raw power. do not get me wrong, but sony and microsoft games are going to look good but it's not like what sony showed of Killzone. also, sony said that their new ps3 is going to be a multi-function supercomputer. so people, and all those sissy rich boys, expect to pay over a $1,000 for the ps3.

Come on, guys! If you're gonna hate Sony at least get what they (Sony, Gerrilla, Nv) said right, so you can try, with your own arguments and not some fabricated Microsoft-sponsored bullshit, prove them wrong!

First, The hardware site makes the assumption that Axis animation (or whatever the animation studio name was) created a "pre-rendered" sequence for the upcoming Killzone (shown at E3 by Sony), based solely in the fact that the same studio did create pre-rendered sequences for the original Killzone game. Well, that doesn't sound like proof to me. The website never mentions confirmation from anyone at the animation studio, whose employees were probably never contacted by them in the first place.

2) According to Guerrilla, it took them (Guerrilla), about 7 months (and not 3 months) to create that 2 minute sequence of the upcoming Killzone game.

3) Nvidia said that the demos were shown using a GPU configuration based on their upcoming G70 gfx card series as well as other existing GPU configurations, in the attempt to emulate the performance of the RSX, which was not used because it is not completely finalised; however they've stated countless times that the RSX will be even more powerful than the configuration used on the PS3 demos at E3, so please, explain to me how exactly the PS3 performance could be inferior to what was seen on EA's Fight Night demo or Epic's Unreal demonstration?!

4) Sony has hinted countless times that the launch title for the PS3 would be something between the same of the launch of the Ps1/Ps2 and 40000 yen (as reported by gamespot and other sources). So, no, It won't cost $1000, not even close.


Don't you people realise that letting the fanboyism take over you, by inventing exaggerated "arguments" to try to prove something wrong just makes you sound unreliable and stupid?! At least use plausible arguments if you want to be taken seriously!

PS - I don't believe hype either. I only bought a PS2 in 2002 when the games started feeling more attractive to me. Until that point I only had a Dreamcast and was damn happy with it, because, not only the games looked just as good, but also they were better games.

The difference this time is that I already know which games will be on the PS3 and Xbox 360 initially, and the PS3 games are more attractive to me. So, until Sega announces possible Xbox 360 exclusives such as Panzer Dragoon Saga 2, Shenmue 3, Afterburner, etc... I'll still favour the Ps3 because I know I'll be able to play Tekken 6, Devil May Cry 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, God of War 2, Final Fantasy 13, GT5, That Sonic Team shooter (which I unforgivingly forgot the title), etc.

So in other words, your entire support is thrown behind third party franchise updates, or sequels if you'd like to stretch the meaning of the word.

If the sequels are of games I like by developers that have more than proven themselves to me than yes. I'm sure all the consoles will have some excellent original stuff at some point, but since what we're initially gonna get from all 3 companies is inevitably sequels, I'll first buy the platforms that will have the best ones : (Nintendo and Sony).

Not my entire support, if that was the case I wouldn't have even bothered with HeadHunter on the Dreamcast, since it came out about the same time as Metal Gear Solid 2, and that was not the case.

PS - sorry to split the message like this, I was unable to edit the other message earlier.

And you people make comment on how he's ONLY looking foward to sequels!? Sequels are what this industry thrives on. It doesn't have s**t without them! This is what people should be looking for! Tell me what your 360 fanboys have?! Perfect Dark Zero?! Hahahaha, 4 years in development AT LEAST, and now it's pushed to 360 launch to make it worth buying. Don't hate on Newguy here, he's got a good, optimistic attitude about PS3. It sucks when 3/4's of the forum contributers are blatant fanboys or uninformed gamers with some "radical" thoughts on the game world. Like the kids who say Halo 2 IS WAAAAAY overhyped and then go and say Killzone is much better and highly underrated. Back it up son. Gimmie some cold hard facts and interesting insight. At least my man Lupos throws a good arguement. Like I've said many times before, gimmie a launch list and ACTUAL gameplay and I'll make some quips whether X-Box 360 is worth buying.

Plus PS3 is a YEAR AWAY! They were always planning on a 2006 launch I think, so naturally the demos would be pre-rendered because it's a YEAR AWAY. They didn't have stuff ready for 2005 because the launch is A YEAR away. You can't say 360 or 3 is better if you don't have anything to back it up!



Sure people have quashed unknown's blathering already but nobody mentioned Microsoft when they were hyping the first X-Box and how they fudged the numbers and ran tech demos that dazzled and mezmerized with no videos of gameplay in sight. Why? Because the X-Box launch minus the bought out Bungie FPS sucked major balls. at least Sony had SSX (the best snowboarding series in my opinion) and Tekken Tag Tournament.

P.S. I bought a PS1 to get back into the console game.

I bought PS2 on launch for SSX and Tekken Tournament Tag.

I bought Gamecube on launch because it looked to have a better game library coming. (I got Super Monkey Ball, Madden 2002, and Tony Hawk 3 on launch, damn good lineup!)

I bought an X-Box summer of 2002 for JSRF: Jet Set Radio Future. (I don't hate the X-Box as a system, it's just that there was utter crap for the first seven months!)

P.S.S. A YEAR AWAY!

Erm, your phrase not mine.



Yawn. Yes, I think we're all aware of that. But it doesn't change the fact that, given a dev kit comprising very latest GPU tech (close to RSX) and a eye on the capabilities of the RSX final silicon, one should be able to approximate the final product. See your point on EA below.



Then it's only logical to carry that assumption to Microsoft, an organisation known for its misdirection, sharp dealings and even bare faced lies (remember, Xbox is "all about games")



Ding! Wrong. EA admitted it was a mock-up, even the "in-game" play and HUD, of what the developers thought would be possible - just like the KZ vid. It's all part of the game. Get the investors juices flowing. For Sony, those investors are the deevlopers and publishers. For the publishers, it's the shareholders and consumers.



That its choice. Stupid, IMO, given that this isn't ever going to be an easy race.



Not sure I heard Sony ever say that. The tech demos and the Enreal stuff, but not the KZ stuff. Still, I haven't the time to sit through the hours of E3 presentational vids, so you may well be right.

Still, as I said before, the rubber duckie demo was all real-time and completely Cell-based. Throw RSX into the mix and even the KZ vid doesn't seem so far fetched.



I'd say "expect".



This is the game. Everyone has an agenda. I'm not saying that Sony aren't lying, but then, if you're going assume Sony are lying based on past performance, you have to assume the same for Microsoft. Nintendo was so understated in its presentation, there's no way that could be lies!

Launch titles are very often sequels. It's a risky time for publishers, so rather than bank on consumers going for new, unknown brands, it's safe to bet on sequels. It's better for developers too. They have to get to grips with new tech, so why complicate things further by also trying to create and refine a new game mechanic?

It'll not just happen on PS3, 360 and Revolution will get plenty of sequels in the first cut.

Wrong again ,
most of us already own psp`s and yes we will buy ps3`s when there out.

next stupid comment please.

Um, I'm a little confused. When did the Xbox become something other than a game console, at least without modding? (let's disregard DVD players, since that's a given nowadays)

Sure the 360 will offer some new technologies (media center stuff) However, Sony will likely have many of the same ideas, I would imagine. That, to me, doesn't make their consoles less of game consoles.

The Revolution will likely be the one "true" game console, but they also are the only company that just does games. It should be expected that Sony and MS will try for home integration.

I was refering to the Xbox brand, the Xbox as a Microsoft strategy. IMO this has never been "all about games", it's been about getting a Microsoft-controlled box into as many living rooms as possible. Once "in", MS can leverage its content delivery channel to make money from content creators (be it games, video, music or web) and consumers. It will have complete control of the DRM mechanism, and can dictate the pricing and, more concerning, the content.

Xbox 360 is the second phase - getting everyone used to having this entertainment hub in their homes. It'll bet, come Xbox720, there'll be a deal with News Corp and the like, at which point the hub delivers pay-per-view music and video, sandboxed Internet and satellite/cable TV. An entertainment hub able to monitor and indeed dictate what you watch. I'm sure games will feature in there somewhere, but it's hardly "all about the games"

I'm certain Sony would do the same. But the point is, Microsoft said Xbox was all about games, when in fact it's all about controlling the media you ingest - and getting the biggest, fattest cut for it.