Technology Why I hate the Sony hype, warning to all

[Rukas]

I don’t know if some of you aren’t old enough to remember this, or just have a totally shitty memory, but take a little flash back to E3 1999/2000 before the PS2 launched in America. If you remember the situation was much similar then, except it was PS2 vs. Dreamcast. Sony used their show to hype up the PS2 beyond belief using names like “emotion engine” and “super computer.” They played all these jaw dropping videos claiming it was game footage, just like they are doing now. Everyone, including me, were in awe. This thing was a beast! As a result, the Sega show was a disappointment, Dreamcast suffered major PR problems and bad previous based on the showing.

However, when E3 went to the actual floor, and the games were played, things changed significantly, everyone said that the Dreamcast was a lot better than the PS2. The games were better, and they looked better. Over all the game sites like IGN said that Sega had the better showing because their games looked better and played better, and everyone agreed that compared to the video footage and hype, the PS2 was disappointing, which it was.

However the Sony Hype machine spun things their way and the mainstream press bought the hype, the kids bought the hype, and the Dreamcast was doomed.

That’s why I hate the Sony hype, I don’t hate the PS2 at all, I just hate the hype and Sony business tactics. Had things gone different, the Dreamcast could have still been around to this day and Sega would now be announcing its next machine.

Now it looks like Sony is doing the exact same thing, they are showing renders of games and hyping up the machine beyond belief. Its already a disappointment based off the original hype. Im not saying don’t buy the PS3, Im not saying the PS3 will be shit, it wont be, Im sure it will be dope, but it wont live up to the promises. Just look at Sony’s track record, and take everything this E3 with a grain of salt.

I will still buy the PS3 when it comes out if the price is kept reasonable, Ill buy a 360 too, and probably(hopefully) a Revolution too. Just dont believe the hype. Sony is as bad as the US government.

 

[KDeezy]

lol ....... yes agreed , Sonys crap led to the death of my beloved Sega......... the way i see it Sony is doing what it needs to do, create as much hype as possible........ this is what M$ should be doing and they havent achieved the same amount of hype despite the early unveliing on mtv.

 

[Rukas]

Oh and for the record, Sony/nVidia just count thier FLOPS differently because like Ive been saying, the nVidia chip is older technology than the ATI chip, which needs less flops to do the same thing. But look at it this way.

"Nvidia uses separate Vertex and Pixel Shaders, ATI uses a Unified Shader which does both Vertex and Pixel Shading using the same Shader. When Nvidia calculates performance, it totals both Vertex and Pixel Shaders running at peak efficiency. When ATI calculates performance, it totals the performance of the single unified shader (composed of both Pixel and Vertex shaders) at peak efficiency. So this means that in order to compare ATI's performance to Nvidia's, you would double the rated performance.

PS3:

CPU=0.25 TFlops

GPU=1.80 TFlops for both Pixel and Vertex Shaders

XBOX360:

CPU=0.18 TFlops

GPU=0.88 TFlops for Unified Shaders=1.75 TFlops for combined Pixel and Vertex Shaders

So the PS3 has a total theoretical of about 2 TFlops and XBox 360 has about 1.9 TFlops (counting Pixel and Vertex shaders separately, as thr PS3 does).

check the www.beyond3d.com forums for details"

Like I said, HYPE. Like I said, two different ways of achieving the SAME THING.

As for the CPU, by my calculations, FLOPS aside as we proved above thats wrong, if the Cell runs at 3.2GHz with 7 threads, and the 360 runs at 3.2ghz with 6 threads, that gives the PS3 about a 16% advantage -- hardly the 2x advantage Sony would like everyone to believe. Factor in the 360 having the better GPU, and everything evens out, just like I said.

 

[Hankaveli]

Just dont believe the hype. Sony is as bad as the US government.

lol the whole Time I was reading it I was thinking about how I feel about the US Government. REP! like you need it

 

[Snowman]

Im Quite Impressed Rukas, You Did Your Homework on This.
You are 100% Correct On What You said about the Ps2 v Dreamcast Thing.

I Really Did Like The Dreamcast Too. The NBA 2K Basketball Game I Thought Was Better Than Live. It Did Have Better Graphics Than The PS2. Dreamcast Games Started Quicker Than PS2 Games.

Sega Had a Winner an They Knew It. Fortunately Sony Was At A Point Where They Were Gonna Hit The Panic Button. An Like You Said It Was All Hype.

Sony Had To One Up Sega, Sony Decides "Hey Lets Win The Kids Over By Putting In a feature where The Youth Can Watch DVD Movies". Sega In The End Couldn't Compete With That,( An The Rest is History.)

Now Sega Makes Games For Sony, An The Rest Of Them

Great Thread :thumb:

 

[Pittsey]

I bought the dreamcast on the back of 1 game.

Can't even remember the name of it now. It was pretty good though. It was about a japanese guy whose father died. You had to learn loads of moves and perform loads of puzzles. It was the shit.

 

[Illuminattile]

I bought the dreamcast on the back of 1 game.

Can't even remember the name of it now. It was pretty good though. It was about a japanese guy whose father died. You had to learn loads of moves and perform loads of puzzles. It was the shit.

Shenmue, one of the greatest games ever made.

 

[Silleone]

in the end so what...who cares about the hype, playstation is the better console is the best of the bunch, you buy a console to play games, playstation has the majority and suits everyones taste, it would be better if u just

a)buy a playstation and and enjoy it
b)play your other consoles and enjoy it

it seems like you like to go against the masses and keep banterin about why u hate sony for this and that but the fact is playstation is the better console, its that simple, games aint about graphics, there about fun, which is exactly why the xbox was garbage.

Playstation will sell more due the the variaty of games, you seem to he hellbent on tryin to make people dislike playstation.

1 more thing dreamcast was not better than ps2, ps2 had basically all the games dreamcast had and a shit load more.

Dreamcast however is better than xbox and the dissapointing game cube, and NO not graphically, GAMEplay wise, remember GAMES, what consoles were built for, not the amount of nuclear quantom gigigigig you can fit inside it so u can control a freaking warhead.

 

[PaulyPac]

Oh and for the record, Sony/nVidia just count thier FLOPS differently because like Ive been saying, the nVidia chip is older technology than the ATI chip, which needs less flops to do the same thing. But look at it this way.

"Nvidia uses separate Vertex and Pixel Shaders, ATI uses a Unified Shader which does both Vertex and Pixel Shading using the same Shader. When Nvidia calculates performance, it totals both Vertex and Pixel Shaders running at peak efficiency. When ATI calculates performance, it totals the performance of the single unified shader (composed of both Pixel and Vertex shaders) at peak efficiency. So this means that in order to compare ATI's performance to Nvidia's, you would double the rated performance.

PS3:

CPU=0.25 TFlops

GPU=1.80 TFlops for both Pixel and Vertex Shaders

XBOX360:

CPU=0.18 TFlops

GPU=0.88 TFlops for Unified Shaders=1.75 TFlops for combined Pixel and Vertex Shaders

So the PS3 has a total theoretical of about 2 TFlops and XBox 360 has about 1.9 TFlops (counting Pixel and Vertex shaders separately, as thr PS3 does).

check the www.beyond3d.com forums for details"

Like I said, HYPE. Like I said, two different ways of achieving the SAME THING.

As for the CPU, by my calculations, FLOPS aside as we proved above thats wrong, if the Cell runs at 3.2GHz with 7 threads, and the 360 runs at 3.2ghz with 6 threads, that gives the PS3 about a 16% advantage -- hardly the 2x advantage Sony would like everyone to believe. Factor in the 360 having the better GPU, and everything evens out, just like I said.

thats so wrong , i dont even know where to start



"Nvidia uses separate Vertex and Pixel Shaders, ATI uses a Unified Shader which does both Vertex and Pixel Shading using the same Shader. When Nvidia calculates performance, it totals both Vertex and Pixel Shaders running at peak efficiency. When ATI calculates performance, it totals the performance of the single unified shader (composed of both Pixel and Vertex shaders) at peak efficiency. So this means that in order to compare ATI's performance to Nvidia's, you would double the rated performance.

PS3:

CPU=0.25 TFlops

GPU=1.80 TFlops for both Pixel and Vertex Shaders

XBOX360:

CPU=0.18 TFlops

GPU=0.88 TFlops for Unified Shaders=1.75 TFlops for combined Pixel and Vertex Shaders

So the PS3 has a total theoretical of about 2 TFlops and XBox 360 has about 1.9 TFlops (counting Pixel and Vertex shaders separately, as thr PS3 does).

^^^^ this is bullshit



if microsoft has listed officially that the overrall floating point for xbox 360 is one tf, where are these numbers coming from ?

those specs are wrong

oh now you're reading forum posts now to prove a point ? you was telling us not to believe shit we read on websites

btw this guys post is wrong, where you got the info from
its intresting to see how that guy calculated that

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23040&highlight=ps3

i think someone cant except that the ps3 is superior to xbox 360

 

[Hankaveli]

Shenmue, one of the greatest games ever made.

yeah the saddest part of the Dreamcast and segas death was the death of that game! man I want to dig out dreamcast and that double disc game

 

[Rukas]

thats so wrong , i dont even know where to start



"Nvidia uses separate Vertex and Pixel Shaders, ATI uses a Unified Shader which does both Vertex and Pixel Shading using the same Shader. When Nvidia calculates performance, it totals both Vertex and Pixel Shaders running at peak efficiency. When ATI calculates performance, it totals the performance of the single unified shader (composed of both Pixel and Vertex shaders) at peak efficiency. So this means that in order to compare ATI's performance to Nvidia's, you would double the rated performance.

PS3:

CPU=0.25 TFlops

GPU=1.80 TFlops for both Pixel and Vertex Shaders

XBOX360:

CPU=0.18 TFlops

GPU=0.88 TFlops for Unified Shaders=1.75 TFlops for combined Pixel and Vertex Shaders

So the PS3 has a total theoretical of about 2 TFlops and XBox 360 has about 1.9 TFlops (counting Pixel and Vertex shaders separately, as thr PS3 does).

^^^^ this is bullshit



if microsoft has listed officially that the overrall floating point for xbox 360 is one tf, where are these numbers coming from ?

those specs are wrong

oh now you're reading forum posts now to prove a point ? you was telling us not to believe shit we read on websites

btw this guys post is wrong, where you got the info from
its intresting to see how that guy calculated that

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23040&highlight=ps3

i think someone cant except that the ps3 is superior to xbox 360

Microsoft says they only have 1 FLOP because they do. You ttoally dont understand my point, the XBOX 360 has one flop because the technology is different, it does the same thing with half the flops through unified shaders. But if they werent unified, it would be 2 FLOPS, but they both do the same thing.

 

[Hituup]

I don't think Rukas or anyone should blame PS2 for doing anything to any game company. If anything, Sega needs to blame themselves for being quitters. Whenever sales or something doesn't go there way, they QUIT. If that was the case then Nintendo wouldn't even be a software publishing company, let alone be in the hardware console competitions.

All the PS2 was doing was trying to get more sales for their system, which they achieved well. The hype was great. There were no more PS2's in the country after a week of the PS2's launching and it became very rare and this forced everyone to want their hands on one. Sony has great marketing strategies. That was something Sega should've learned-and no matter what the consequences they could've still kept the ball rolling and could've been very relevant in todays console wars.

 

[The.Menace]

Sony is as bad as the US government.

Yeah I hate it if they (not only Sony) put out screenshots etc that they did edit etc to make them look better then they actually are. I hate it, if they are cheating and act like we have no brain.

 

[L.O.G.O.S.]

why are you guys wasting your time over this garbage? bottom line is Sony deliver the best consoles and games bar none. anyone who argues that is biased. I have all three major consoles and PS2 is miles ahead as i think PS3 will be.

stick to talking about games not FLOPS etc ...

peace

 

[Rukas]

why are you guys wasting your time over this garbage? bottom line is Sony deliver the best consoles and games bar none. anyone who argues that is biased. I have all three major consoles and PS2 is miles ahead as i think PS3 will be.

stick to talking about games not FLOPS etc ...

peace

The Xbox and Gamecube are better CONSOLES than the PS2, if you dont think so then YOU are biased. The technology speaks for it self.

Games are debatable because it comes down to personal choice, but the fact is most games were cross platforum, and each system had enough of its own great games to warrent my purchase.

 

[L.O.G.O.S.]

a console is build and destroyed on the catalogue of games it has behind it. i dont care it "technically" Gamecube and Xbox are better. there really isnt much debating that the best games were on PS2 as opposed to XBox or Gamecube. The sheer volume of amazing games on PS2 dwarfed the others considerably and only users inlove with their other consoles would say otherwise.

I have all three and i would have loved from XBox and Gamecubt to give PS2 a better run for its money but they really havent. i bought about a dozen Xbox games, about the same for Gamecube, and about 10 times that for the PS2 (chipped ofcourse)...

peace