[Jetsfan115]

Sorry but your wrong. The money is not in the system its in the game. When they come out they will probably make a 50 dollar profit at best. The old xboxs were 200 dollars to produce (and are way less powerfull) and rigfht now they are selling at a 50 dollar loss however the PS2 which costs about 100 bucks to producs is making 50 each unit still. The problem with sony is they are greedy and their games don’t sell well. Out of the top 10 selling games for each system. Sony only publishes 2. MS 4 and Nintendo 8 so that’s why the money is in the games for these companies. And as far as your argument about newer technology it holds no water because the PS3 is already made. Honostly I don’t know why there waiting except to milk more money out of the PS2 or for lack of kaunch games but the system is built. All the specs are out and except for ligting effects the xbox360 wins everything. The only thing better on the PS3 is lighting effects but by the look of the demos shown so far the companies don’t know how to use it. I’m not an IT expert but have heard it from at least 5 IT people (who ar IT managers and PC programmers at companies for a living) that the xbox360 is better then the PS3.

[ellisjersey92]

that is when they came out. xboxs arent selling at a 50 dollar loss because the processors and other parts arent state of the art anymore and the prices have gone down since it came out several years ago.

and i dont know how anyone can claim to know this until the systems come out. you are campaining for this thing and speaking in a way like you designed the system or have one already. the fact is that no one will know until they come out.

[ManginiIsMyHero]

I've looked over the system specs and the power the two systems are running with. I'm right, PS3 is superior but will cost 500-600 dollars while xbox 360 will be xbox 1.5 and focus on online play/community. It's still going to be overpriced no matter which one you buy and what's worse is it'll succed simply b/c it's out first. Moore's law hold true to this. PS3 was developed longer and will come out after b/c it'staking longer. The system is way ahead of its time and thus according to Moore's law the technology will dictate the price. What i'm saying is xbox is expensive b/c microsoft is slightly ahead of it's time (this mostly has to do with HD techonology which is output) and ps3 will be expensive because it's WAY ahead of its time. That is the only reason the prices are what they are and thus logically the PS3 will be more powerful. It would make sense that if the PS3 was less powerful or as powerful it would be the same price or even less considering the two systems have basically the same extra features (wireless controllers, Hard Drive, HD output, and broadband modem to name a few)

[Jetsfan115]

Its based on the E3 specs. Both systems are already designed and set to go in production and supposedly the xbox360 is already being produced. Also they are. It costs 200 bucks each xbox to make so they started out making 100 off each system and now lose 50.

[ManginiIsMyHero]

No. Moore's law says that the price to make the chips that Xbox still uses has reduced over every 18 months since it's release. ALSO that same theory says that when PS3 comes out around 12 months after xbox 360, the same technology would be slightly cheaper and technology would be slightly advanced. I'm telling you that PS3 is not complete and that if it was it would be on the market the same time as xbox. Tell me why any company who has the technology ready to compete with a rival would allow the rival to get on the market first? it makes no sense. think logically here. and also PS3 still only has beta developement kits availible for thrid parties to use for deveoping a game while xbox 360 has pretty much the full devopement kit in the hands of the developers. this even more proves that PS3 is not ready for the market.

[Jetsfan115]

Its ready trust me. the only reason its not released is cause they feel they have some more money to milk out of the PS2. The xbox is a forgotten son. It was just there to boos MS into the game market.

[ManginiIsMyHero]

Its ready trust me. the only reason its not released is cause they feel they have some more money to milk out of the PS2. The xbox is a forgotten son. It was just there to boos MS into the game market.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry but I cant. as a computer science major and as a gamer since I was 5 I think I trust my sources (ign.com, gamespy.com, my professor who taught me Moore's Law!) better then I can trust you. I have nothing against you opinion here I just have a conflicting one and I feel like I should and do know moore (haha, pun) about it then you do. knowing whether the systems are done or not is not a very provable thing, but I still feel like something will come about proving me right to you.

[Jetsfan115]

I have a friend who knows somebody at sony (he gets people jobs as game testers there. (only 9$ an hour though) and they are already testing games on the finished product. They still want to milk the PS2 and have it rn through the holiday season. Figure if the drop the price to 100bucks for x-mas and still have a ton of games people might pick one up instead of a 400$xbox360.

[ManginiIsMyHero]

Oh yeah well my friend's cousin's roomate in college had a dog that was once owned by the childhood friend of Bill Gates and HE tells me that I am right and that PS3 simply is not ready for the market yet because no one will buy somthing for $700! They're waiting for the price to drop on the technology so that they can actually market an "affordable" product. but $500-$600 is still alot and you couldn't pay me to buy it at its release.

[Jetsfan115]

there isn't that much put into the technology. at e3 they estimated it will cost about 400$ to produce. also the dog comment was dumb not funny. i also have to say if the product wasn't ready then why was the finished product at this years e3 and not next. the xbox360 wasn't ready and was running ob 1/3 power version of itself and still coming out this year. your argument thats its not ready holds no weigh cause they had it at e3. and also as far as the xboxs went the cost to produce them actually went up. the first gen had faulty thompson drives as people learned when games got more advanced. the 2nd gen had to have more expensive drives put in. not to mention the money they lost sending people new cords on the 2nd gen. please know what your talking about before trying to argue or u can't hold up your end

[ManginiIsMyHero]

there isn't that much put into the technology. at e3 they estimated it will cost about 400$ to produce. also the dog comment was dumb not funny. i also have to say if the product wasn't ready then why was the finished product at this years e3 and not next. the xbox360 wasn't ready and was running ob 1/3 power version of itself and still coming out this year. your argument thats its not ready holds no weigh cause they had it at e3. and also as far as the xboxs went the cost to produce them actually went up. the first gen had faulty thompson drives as people learned when games got more advanced. the 2nd gen had to have more expensive drives put in. not to mention the money they lost sending people new cords on the 2nd gen. please know what your talking about before trying to argue or u can't hold up your end

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OMG. You know nothing of what you speak. Dude PS3 WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO PLAYABLE AT E3. I f were to post your comments on an actual gaming message board everyone would go up in arms about how wrong you are. PS3 is not ready, plan and simple. Xbox was NOT ready at E3 either because NO ONE played EITHER system. if it was ready someone would have played it. Whatever happened at E3 was running on a beta system and NOT full speed. I'm done arguing with you over this because you keep telling me I know nothing about what it is I speak of while you provide nothing but a third person source while I told you I'm a computer science major at PSU with aspirations of getting into game programming. I practically live on IGN.com and gamespy.com. If I was someone else reading these posts I'd believe me more then you simply because I have much more rapport then you. YOur friend of a friend thing is just laughable.

[Jetsfan115]

Ok you’re a PC programmer at a college. U have knowledge of a computer. Doesn’t mean u have knowledge about SONY or MS. As far as the E3 comments they unveiled it. why would u unveil something that’s not ready and that’s not gonna be released till at least 06 in early 05? If it really wasn’t ready then they would have waited till the other E3.

The most logical reason that readers believe in PS3's power, though, may have less to do with E3 showings or marketing muscle and more to do with Moore's Law, which states that in general processing power doubles every 18 months while prices fall. The fact of the matter is, PlayStation 3 is set to release at least six months after Xbox 360, and possibly longer still, which in of itself suggests the machine will be more powerful.

That's all good and fine. But why, then, do only 10%, or 1,591 of readers polled, believe that Nintendo's next-generation consoled, codenamed Revolution, will be the most powerful of the bunch? The machine is expected to debut in late 2006, making it the last of the next-generation platforms. Doesn't Moore's Law apply? Apparently not. Nintendo has publicly stated on several occasions that its focus with Revolution is not raw processing power, but rather to create a small, quiet and affordable console.

That was taken form a tech site. by your logic and moores law which u talked about the revolution would be the best console.

And as far as the E3 comment whether or not there was a playable system there we don’t know but all the reports I heard is that there was and it was running at 1/3rd the power. And also debug ones are already being used by developers.

On the otherside MS seems to be pulling the best game makers towards them. That could hurt sony. Nintendo makes great games themselves so they don’t need 3rd party. I also should note I can care less which one is better or which has better games cause I’ll probably get both.

[ManginiIsMyHero]

I agree that Moore's Law says that Revolution will be more powerful. Nintendo has already stated they wont go HD. That means that the technology they DO use will be cheaper, but not necessarily better since they choose not to use it. That's the difference, the choice.

PS3 uses the most powerful and ahead of it's time piece of computer hardware in gaming history called the Cell Processor. Here's the best explanation I could find on it:

The Cell processor was co-designed by IBM, Toshiba and Sony. Configurations can differ, but here's what the PS3's Cell chip will be like:

PowerPC-based Core @ 3.2GHz
7 SPEs @ 3.2GHz
512KB L2 Cache
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPEs
Basically, a single Cell processor is designed to act like multiple processors working together, or even independently. A Cell processor has a single PowerPC Architecture Unit (PAU) and multiple Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs). A Cell's PAU dolls out instructions to its various SPEs, which can then independently work on tasks. So for instance, one SPU might be programmed to run a game's AI while another handles physics. Since each one acts independently, multiple calculations can be done simultaneously. In other words, it's very powerful. In fact, it's powerful enough to perform 218 GFLOPS.

I could not find the same type of coverage of the Xbox 360 processor on IGN b/c they had the PS3 FAQ readily available while the xbox 360 FAQ has been taken off the front page of it's specific channel (probably b/c it's been there long enough... ya know since it's further along in developement). But I did find this from gamespot.com

We're not saying to ignore specifications altogether--most of them are relevant in some way or another. And we're going to talk about the specifications that really jumped out at us at first glance. Let's start with the processor. Sony has announced that the PlayStation 3 will have a 3.2GHz Cell processor that consists of a PowerPC-based core with seven synergistic processing units. The PS3 spec-sheet says that there's an eighth SPE reserved for redundancy--whatever that means. The Xbox 360, in comparison, has a multicore PowerPC processor that has three dual-threaded cores that can handle six total threads at a time. You might be able to call the Cell's SPEs overgrown math units, but we think Sony's Cell processor wins from a brute power perspective.

Here's this link in full, it's a really good breakdown of the two systems.
http://hardware.game..._features_image

In summation I just proved that PS3 is more powerful thus ending this "argument." I also will not comment on the E3 coverage because I cant convince you that you're wrong about that since there is really no way to prove it one way or the other. I mean there is no stat which says: PS3 was finished at this point or that 360 was too. So on that I'll concede for arguments sake. But if you read what I posted that is stone cold facts and data from a well respected internet gaming information site that proves PS3 has more pure power then 360.

Also I should add that I hate PS2 and love my Xbox and that what I buy in the next generation is based on pricing, timing and games. Not alligances or a hatred for a brand name.

[Jetsfan115]

as far from a brute power thing maybe it might have more power but the xbox has 3 processors at 3.2 each which it said the article noted so it is like 6 PCs however it doens't make a mention as to how many the PS3 will act as. anyway i agree with your last comment fully. i'm buying the better system with the better games(i'll probably wind up with both) and i can care less if its sony, ms, or nintendo. i said it before why would i support a company? unless i had stock in it which i don't or their paying my bills no reason to support them. I understand all my info is 3rd party but u have to understand i trust my friends (who is a PC programmer and does some tchnical crap for nextel, and one is an IT manager) so they know their crap more then a journalist would. i doubt the journalist that wrote that has as many degrees as they do and they said the xbox360 looks more powerfull so far but also said they'll have to wait until both are on themarket to fully judge it. also my friend mods xboxs. its woth it your not gonna get a 360 right away

[ManginiIsMyHero]

3.2GHz Cell processor that consists of a PowerPC-based core with seven synergistic processing units.

I think you might have missed that. they both are 3.2GHz processor's but the Cell is decribed as several (maybe even seven as it says) processors working together sharing the load. That is much better then the 3 processors described by the Xenon (360's processor).

At least we agree to disagree.

[Jetsfan115]

Lets agree to withhold it until both are released. I’m sure there will be plenty arguments about it by then. Anyway it should be close. Both look to be good systems. Its not like last time when the xbox was far superior. It does mention that they still don’t have anything close to xbox live on the PS3.

[ellisjersey92]

i dont know what all the fuss is about with xbox live. ive never used it myself, but what can be any different than what PS2 offers. online play, chatting capability and support for headsets. if PS2 has it, the PS3 definitly will. plus the ethernet port is built in.

[Jetsfan115]

The whole network on xbox live. Not only does it have more features and more developers use it xbox live now u can run an online store and some other stuff. Plus it’s a faster more reliable network with less lag. Its rumuroed that MS invested a billion dollars into it. n ot onlt that but the PS3 controllers are bigger and look more awkward. Personally I didn’t like the original xbox controller but I love the controller S. and if size is a probem mad cats makes an xbox controller that’s the same size as the ps2 one

[ellisjersey92]

like i said, im not familiar with xbox live. you know more about it than me, but what i do know is that it isnt necessarily faster. that depends 100% on the bandwidth of the person hooking their internet connection up to it. someone with a router and 4 computers on a cable modem and someone with just their xbox hooked up to the internet will have different speeds.