I am getting a Console - Suggestions? Thread

To be honest I used to have an Xbox 360 but I've found that the direction it's slowly shifting to (more family friendly, kinect and a load of features I'll never even use) has really put me off so I ended up getting a PS3 instead which so far I've found to be much more towards the point of a console, I don't have to see all these adverts and such in my interface when all I want to simply do is launch a game. That said the PS3 doesn't have as many exclusives as Xbox 360 has, Sony has done pretty poorly in terms of that but there are still good games and like some have said a lot of games today are multi-platform. It's also worth saying that the PS3 is more future-proof compared to the Xbox 360 due to its use of Blu-ray

"Future-proof" in terms of a disk drive won't mean shit when the next round of hardware comes around (i.e relatively soon).

hogsy wrote: To be honest I used to have an Xbox 360 but I've found that the direction it's slowly shifting to (more family friendly, kinect and a load of features I'll never even use) has really put me off so I ended up getting a PS3 instead which so far I've found to be much more towards the point of a console, I don't have to see all these adverts and such in my interface when all I want to simply do is launch a game. That said the PS3 doesn't have as many exclusives as Xbox 360 has, Sony has done pretty poorly in terms of that but there are still good games and like some have said a lot of games today are multi-platform. It's also worth saying that the PS3 is more future-proof compared to the Xbox 360 due to its use of Blu-ray

And so the thread is forced to continue.

--

ambershee wrote: "Future-proof" in terms of a disk drive won't mean shit when the next round of hardware comes around (i.e relatively soon).

You mean optical media space and to be honest it means a lot, especially when games are starting to get about 30gb's or more in-size. Besides new hardware does not mean new types of storage mediums, the PS2 used DVD's and Xbox 360 still does.
And just a quick fyi, there supposedly will not be another generation of consoles until 2014 (well unless you want to count the WiiU).

Edited by: hogsy

Let me tell you - I Will not purchase a console

Why?

Consoles are Currently not on par with the PC in terms of Life Span or even freedom of use - How long has the personal Computer been around?

In short longer than the consoles.

Please let this thread DIE

Obviously but that is not the point of this thread and I was merely contributing to it which you're not doing.

hogsy wrote:

ambershee wrote: "Future-proof" in terms of a disk drive won't mean shit when the next round of hardware comes around (i.e relatively soon).

You mean optical media space and to be honest it means a lot, especially when games are starting to get about 30gb's or more in-size. Besides new hardware does not mean new types of storage mediums, the PS2 used DVD's and Xbox 360 still does.
And just a quick fyi, there supposedly will not be another generation of consoles until 2014 (well unless you want to count the WiiU).

The vast majority of games are not more than the capacity of an XG3 disk (around 8Gb); and those that are, are compressed and have a data additionally stored on the hard drive. For the record, a DVD can hold up to ~17Gb of data dependant on format. This storage space can rapidly become redundant if you cannot read it quickly enough, meaning that it is not suitable for high-data games wherein a lot of streaming is required.

The Ps3 might not be replaced until 2015/2016, but I would deem it unwise to discount a 360 successor showing up at trade shows this year or next. That's why the Ps3 isn't "future proof"; it's hardware is simply not up to scratch with the demands that would likely be required of many next-generation games.

hogsy wrote: Obviously but that is not the point of this thread and I was merely contributing to it which you're not doing.

He made the thread, he basically just told you he does not care.

--

If you want the thread to die then why are you all still responding to it? I was merely giving my thoughts.

ambershee wrote:
The vast majority of games are not more than the capacity of an XG3 disk (around 8Gb); and those that are, are compressed and have a data additionally stored on the hard drive. For the record, a DVD can hold up to ~17Gb of data dependant on format. This storage space can rapidly become redundant if you cannot read it quickly enough, meaning that it is not suitable for high-data games wherein a lot of streaming is required.

You basically answered the problem you stated.

Edited by: hogsy

He asked what he should buy, he said that he bought neither, thread should have died there. The thoughts should not be given because they are now useless.

--

No I didn't. I pointed out where stuffing everything on Blu-Ray fails. The most common Ps3 configurations have limited hard drive space, so storing significant quantities of data there isn't an option. This means they are limited to the speed at which the optical drive (16MB/s) can read - which is many times slower than reading from a hard disk (192MB/s), and hundreds of times slower than reading from memory (3200MB/s)*.

Memory is the real killer of the Ps3 and why it'll bite the dust as soon as new hardware becomes available, and there's nothing Sony can do about it - optical disk capacity is meaningless in the face of limited memory. 512Mb (shared with the GPU, no less) doesn't go very far, and it's nothing short of impressive that games like Battlefield 3 even run on it smoothly - but it also really shows when you compare it to its PC counterpart. I'm not suggesting the Ps3 will disappear entirely or that games won't come out for it - but you'll start to see a very definite split that will grow increasingly as time progresses between PC/360 titles and Ps3 titles where there had been previously tri-platform releases before.

Early market dominance (one year) by the 360 helped damage consumer intake of the Ps3 early on and it has taken considerable time for it to catch up - it is only just doing so now, six years down the line. If Microsoft have a new console in the public eye within the next 12 months (and they will if they want it to ship for the 2014 christmas season), then that will give them a full two/three years headstart on Sony. Worst yet, if a console shipped with 8+Gb of memory, which isn't unrealistic, although I may expect to see a more likely figure of around half that, you could actually stuff your average Ps3 game in system memory; try putting that in perspective.

*Speeds based on Ps3 hardware. DD3 SD-RAM can read even faster.

ScientistSalarian wrote: He asked what he should buy, he said that he bought neither, thread should have died there. The thoughts should not be given because they are now useless.

But it might help someone interested that might read the thread in the future.

ambershee wrote: No I didn't. I pointed out where stuffing everything on Blu-Ray fails. The most common Ps3 configurations have limited hard drive space, so storing significant quantities of data there isn't an option. This means they are limited to the speed at which the optical drive (16MB/s) can read - which is many times slower than reading from a hard disk (192MB/s), and hundreds of times slower than reading from memory (3200MB/s)*.

Memory is the real killer of the Ps3 and why it'll bite the dust as soon as new hardware becomes available, and there's nothing Sony can do about it - optical disk capacity is meaningless in the face of limited memory. 512Mb (shared with the GPU, no less) doesn't go very far, and it's nothing short of impressive that games like Battlefield 3 even run on it smoothly - but it also really shows when you compare it to its PC counterpart. I'm not suggesting the Ps3 will disappear entirely or that games won't come out for it - but you'll start to see a very definite split that will grow increasingly as time progresses between PC/360 titles and Ps3 titles where there had been previously tri-platform releases before.

Early market dominance (one year) by the 360 helped damage consumer intake of the Ps3 early on and it has taken considerable time for it to catch up - it is only just doing so now, six years down the line. If Microsoft have a new console in the public eye within the next 12 months (and they will if they want it to ship for the 2014 christmas season), then that will give them a full two/three years headstart on Sony. Worst yet, if a console shipped with 8+Gb of memory, which isn't unrealistic, although I may expect to see a more likely figure of around half that, you could actually stuff your average Ps3 game in system memory; try putting that in perspective.

*Speeds based on Ps3 hardware. DD3 SD-RAM can read even faster.

I'm aware of all this thanks, but you still did answer the problem you stated

Edited by: hogsy

What problem? You store games on hard disk or instead of on the optical disk. Is that not blindingly obvious from the argument?

Despite the fact that Blu-ray isn't exactly fast to read, it can certainly hold a lot of data and amazingly the majority of games for the PS3 require the game to be installed to the hard-drive because of this which somewhat makes your argument invalid. While obviously when new hardware comes out the console will be outdated but like I said, this won't be anytime soon

In other words I have no idea what your point actually is, the format is more future-proof than DVD.
End of.

Edited by: hogsy

How about we all just agree to: Browse.deviantart.com§ion=&q=Neon++Jedi+Jeff+Bridges#/d3528f6

Edited by: TheUnabridgedGamer

My point is the Ps3 is NOT future proof because it has a magical blu-ray drive. The hardware is already outdated, and Nintendo's WiiU is set to rival it within the next 6-12 months. This is bad for Sony, because the territory Sony are dominant in is Asia (also Nintendos home territory). With the WiiU on the horizon, you can almost guarantee seeing a new Microsoft console at a trade show sooner rather than later as they will once again want to assert market dominance before Sony get their paws in (the killer move that won them the US market this generation) - in fact I would be surprised to see it release later than christmas 2013 and I'd also expect to see it appear at trade shows within the year. Consumers generally old off on sales of new current generation hardware when the next is imminently available.

If your hardware is going to trail within the next 12 months, it's definitely not "futureproof".

ambershee wrote: My point is the Ps3 is NOT future proof because it has a magical blu-ray drive. The hardware is already outdated, and Nintendo's WiiU is set to rival it within the next 6-12 months. This is bad for Sony, because the territory Sony are dominant in is Asia (also Nintendos home territory). With the WiiU on the horizon, you can almost guarantee seeing a new Microsoft console at a trade show sooner rather than later as they will once again want to assert market dominance before Sony get their paws in (the killer move that won them the US market this generation) - in fact I would be surprised to see it release later than christmas 2013 and I'd also expect to see it appear at trade shows within the year. Consumers generally old off on sales of new current generation hardware when the next is imminently available.

If your hardware is going to trail within the next 12 months, it's definitely not "futureproof".

Ambershee, you're forgetting that people don't have as much money these days, and that there are still people holding off on transitioning from a Wii to something bigger. I know people who would consider getting a Wii a big investment, let alone a PS3 or Xbox 360. I'm not going to argue any of the consoles are future proof, but why are we even arguing about when something is going to die off? The PS2 is still being played enough that some PS2 games are still carried by retailers, and it's gotten a few actually decent titles (such as Motorstorm Arctic Shift and Silent Hill: Shattered Memories). The PSP is going to keep living thanks to homebrew. Once Sony finally moves on from the PS3, it'll probably end up the same way (and based on the fact hackers can stream Battlefield 3, RDR, and Arkham City to their PS Vita with just a hack on the home console, I expect that means it'll be living quite a while). None of us can speak for what most people will do, but as for me and my PS3, we shall wait and see.

Talking about consoles lol so the xbox 720 will be packing a 6670 lol derp. Videocardbenchmark.net its already a pretty low end card and the xbox 720 wont be coming out till 2013. Funny thing is even my mums computer is better that the 720..

Kyou. wrote: Talking about consoles lol so the xbox 720 will be packing a 6670 lol derp.

lol derp, rumours on the internet are fact.

Now I am a dogged supporter of physical media. I like my games to come on a disc, thank you very much.

The PS3 was a testing ground for the Blu Ray format, and suffered for it. Rockstar delayed GTA 4 while they ironed out streaming kinks, and Oblivion/Skyrim/Fallout cheat by storing multiple copies of game files on the disk to cut down seeking delays.

I think Sony missed an opportunity to expand the RAM on the PS3 to 1GB around the time they started screwing with system specs on the PS3 after the PAL version was released. (AKA: when Sony removed the PS2 harmware to save money and triggered massive false-advertising lawsuits.) Remember that the early PSP had 32MB of RAM, but all later models have 64MB. If they had increased the ram, early adopters would have complained, but they wouldn't now be stuck with a console that can't run Skyrim properly. Even if game devs had been forbidden to use the extra 512MB to keep backwards compatibility, devs still could have used it for caching, just like the 64MB PSP.

As for streaming limitations: doesn't Uncharted 3 run completely off-disc? Pretty impressive. Naughty Dog claims the PS3 has very good parallel processing abilities, and that Uncharted 3 couldn't have been made for any *other* console. But since they're Sony's pet, you have to take everything they say with a grain of salt.

Edited by: CallistoNTG

Ambient_Malice wrote: Now I am a dogged supporter of physical media. I like my games to come on a disc, thank you very much.

The PS3 was a testing ground for the Blu Ray format, and suffered for it. Rockstar delayed GTA 4 while they ironed out streaming kinks, and Oblivion/Skyrim/Fallout cheat by storing multiple copies of game files on the disk to cut down seeking delays.

I think Sony missed an opportunity to expand the RAM on the PS3 to 1GB around the time they started screwing with system specs on the PS3 after the PAL version was released. (AKA: when Sony removed the PS2 harmware to save money and triggered massive false-advertising lawsuits.) Remember that the early PSP had 32MB of RAM, but all later models have 64MB. If they had increased the ram, early adopters would have complained, but they wouldn't now be stuck with a console that can't run Skyrim properly. Even if game devs had been forbidden to use the extra 512MB to keep backwards compatibility, devs still could have used it for caching, just like the 64MB PSP.

As for streaming limitations: doesn't Uncharted 3 run completely off-disc? Pretty impressive. Naughty Dog claims the PS3 has very good parallel processing abilities, and that Uncharted 3 couldn't have been made for any *other* console. But since they're Sony's pet, you have to take everything they say with a grain of salt.

That's my thought aswell (ironically, the PS Vita will have more default memory at launch than the PS3 slim does). I gotta be honest though, Bethesda doesn't give shit about PS3, period. As to Uncharted... I have the second game, and while it may run primarily off of disc, the game's loading times are just irritating, Killzone 3 has similar loading times but at least it's visuals are more impressive and its got far more deep level design (especially in the multiplayer department).

Get an Atari Lynx. It's awesome!

Lynx... Lynx... Isn't that the handheld that did everything the GBA did, but did it decades earlier? The handheld which might have ruled the roost except no-one bought it?

Edited by: CallistoNTG

It was a handheld, but I woudn't go so far as to describe it like that

I've been trying to get my hands on one for ages.

Get a playstation 3. It's got free online multiplayer, the online service is just fine compared to what is offered by microsoft. Sure, they got hacked, but who gives a crap... it's not like the data was unencrypted. Oh and, counter strike global offensive is cross platform on ps3 version, but not xbox... which is only a symbol that in the future, more games will be cross platform... with the ps3 and not xbox. I have both a ps3 and an xbox... ps3 is simply a nicer package.