The end of the Wii?

[Spacemarine_E]

It is possible to use a wii mote and some uv lights to make your computer respond to movment of the UV lights (Placing them on your head should be fun) Team that up with the Headband that let's you control by e.g. winking and you have possilbe the worst, but lots of fun, way to play FL

[Krahken]

[quote="McViper";p="210638"]
it is like that camera for the PS2...i forget its name
[/quote]

EyeToy?

Thanks for posting this Verminard, very interesting!

[Kahless_uk]

[quote="-Wolfie-";p="210696"]WOW!!! THE GAME LAGGED!!! oh wait its 360 -_-

PS3 For The WIN

just look it up 360 fanboys, every comp geek knows the performance of a PS3 kicks 360's a**[/quote]

Lol who told you that? Sony PR guys probably. All independant reviewers so far say that 360 versions of multiplatform games are better than the ps3 versions many of which cannot maintain antialiasing and drop frames like they're hot potatoes (it's Nvidia's fault btw, relying on blurry 2x quincunx AA instead of the pin sharp conventional 4x AA the ATI chip in the 360 uses). It's the exclusives where ps3 has the edge it just doesn't have enough good exclusive titles (neither does 360 so it's a multiplatform win for 360 then lol)

Anyway, what we're looking at here is a prototype. When have you EVER seen a prototype that functioned perfectly? I haven't, that's what prototypes are for though. Even the wiimote used for motion control on the wii is more than a little twitchy and that's established tech not a prototype.

As someone already said though I can't see it actually being used on 360. The current generation of machines (except the wii of course) are very much mainstream, old school machines with old school audiences, neither ps3 or 360 would really benefit from introducing gimmicks at this late stage. Even the Bluray player functionality of ps3 is rarely used by ps3 owners who like 360 owners are in it for the games (plus you can still buy a standalone Bluray player, a 360 AND a wii for the price of a ps3). Neither ps3 or 360 is going to topple wii at this point anyway no matter how many gimmicks they try. The wii is essentially a stupid, underpowered gimick machine that just happened to do well this time around, 360 and ps3 are both conventional powerhouse machines that in the core market are still both doing well.

The next generation will be the playground for new methods of control etc etc and this extra time will also allow Sony and Microsoft to perfect their new gizmos rather than pushing them into a generation that doesn't need them or want them in much the same way Microsoft are planning to introduce "multitouch" controls into Windows 7 rather than add them to Vista.

[-Wolfie-]

Xbox 360 only doesnt lag in games, ive seen main menu lag lol

besides, the PS3 uses DMA AND has an 8 core cell-CPU (6 cores for your games, 1 for system and 1 isnt even used), which the 360 only has 3 core CPU, each core used and works independently, without DMA

and who said the games on 360 are better? its mostly FPS games which basically suck on consoles anyways, the PS3 has little big planet, it has uncharted, WipEout HD (for the WipEout fans), Call of Duty 4, Call of Duty 5, can copy files directly from USB device

and then the Xbox, it has.. Halo 3, Gears of War, Call of Duty 4, Call of Duty 5, cant copy files directly from USB, is Microsoft product (and thats bad enough for me)

isnt that a difference?

the Xbox360 RROD on overheat, water, powercable not connected properly etc

the PS3 DOES freeze sometimes, but that happens VERY few times, doesnt react on water (well not so sensitive as the Xbox), does not overheat, doesnt even turn on when powercable isnt properly connected

and the Xbox REFUSES to start after the red ring pops up, where the PS3 starts up fine after system crash (again, it doesnt happen as often as the Xbox RROD)

the look on PS3 is much better than the Xbox360, the Xbox360 is cheaper, to a certain point, the Xbox u gotta pay for exclusive keyboard, wireless antenna, HDD, controller batteries, etc

which all are included from before in the PS3 (well the drivers for most keyboards, mics etc, so u can just use ur comp keyboard, comp mic on the PS if its USB).

The Xbox controllers are heavier.

and the only thing AA does is actually blurring, not to a very noticable degree of course but it "removes" pixels by blurring the picture, basically hides them

the only thing worth using is anistrophic filtering

supports Bluray, the Xbox360 supports HD DVD, bluray can contain 50GB, and the HD DVD can contain 30GB

Xbox is only 720p HD, the PS3 is 1080p HD

thats why the PS3 kills the xbox360

[Kahless_uk]

Lol

My 360 is over a year and a half old..it RROD'd and Microsoft fixed it FOR FREE out of warranty, they even replaced the dvd drive FOR FREE which didn't need doing. And there was no PandP charges either. Sony have pretty good customer services but out of warranty support is expensive VERY expensive.

PS3 is not 1080p all the time neither is the 360. They BOTH operate at 720p with only a few exceptions (WipeoutHD being one) to display games at 1080p they simply upscale the 720p picture before outputting it.

AA shouldn't cause blurring. 2x Quincunx AA used by the PS3 DOES cause blurring because that's frankly how it works. It does a regular 2x AA pass (rendering the image at 2 times the display resolution then resampling it twice at the display resolution) but then deliberately squews the image to hide the remaining jaggies to create a fake 4x AA image without having to spend the resources required for a full 4x AA pass. This results in a blurred image or "soft focus" effect common in ALL PS3 titles (when it actualy manages to keep up the process, which it doesn't because AA is abandoned as soon as the machine is pushed in any way). The 360 however uses genuine 4x multisample AA which doesn't cause blurriness, when pushed it will drop the 4x AA in favour of 2x AA but will maintain the AA no matter what. On a big screen HDTV dropping AA shows up straight away and looks revolting. Also the 360 will do just about whatever it takes to maintain a smooth 30fps even if it results in tearing artifacts, the PS3 however will drop frames when it begins to struggle it a somewhat stupid attempt to avoid tearing artifacts lol

Anisotropic filtering is indeed a feature common to PS3 but not seen at all on 360. In case you don't know anisotropic filtering is a process which adjusts the level of detail on distant surfaces or surfaces shown at an obtuse angle to "push back" the point at which a visible decrease of detail is seen. The 360's chip can do 16x anisotropic filtering but almost never does instead favouring trilinear and occasionally bilinear filtering methods which can generate artifacts if you know what to look for. The reasons for this are obvious. Anisotropic filtering uses a staggering amount of memory which neither machine has. To allow anisotropic filtering on PS3 textures have to be compressed more to make up for the lack of space. So it's a compromise, have more texture compression producing more compression artifacts but gain anisotropic filtering removing distance artifacts or have less compressed textures resulting in better detail in the foreground but sacrifice distance detail and produce distance artifacts. Neither company got this right TBH both machines should have had at least 1gig of ram but instead they both come with 512megs..tut tut.

The cpu argument is a mute point anyway since the 3 cores of the Xenon (the 360's cpu) are programmable and can run 2 threads each but the PS3 cell chip's 8 cores are NOT programmable and run one thread each. The PS3 does definitely have more power in the cpu but it cannot be used as efficiently as the Xenon. It's the graphics chips that demonstrate the real grunt of these machines anyway and it's ATI's 360 chip that wins that fight over Nvidia's PS3 chip in several ways counterbalancing the cpu advantage of the PS3.

360 does NOT use HDDVD it uses regular DVD9 (8.5 gig) the PS3 uses Bluray (either 25gig or 50gig depending on whether it's dual layer or not) but this again is a mute point if you can't fit your game onto a DVD9 you haven't done your job. The ONLY game so far that utilizes the Bluray's storage potential 9and thereby justifies the manufacturing costs of Bluray disks) is Metal Gear Solid which fil the Bluray with pointless featurelength cutscenes instead of gameplay. Incidentally the Wii uses DVD5 (4.3gig) as it's primary format but can also read DVD9 and Gamecube minidvd (1.5gig). Bluray has potential, no arguments there but in a multiformat environment that potential will never be realised.

Most people, unless they're extremely tech savvy would have a hard time spotting the difference between PS3 and 360 when they're both running the same game side by side, neither has a distinct advantage over the other and Microsoft have managed to rid themselves of most of the reliability demons the 360 originally had without having to increase the price (in fact they've reduced the price) so ultimately it comes down to which one do you want..arguing about it is inherently pointless because both machines are here to stay and the only real debate is over price NOT performance since both machines have been thoroughly surpassed by cheap PC cpus and graphics cards anyway, for less than £600 you can buy a PC that will urinate on both machines from a great height meaning the consoles primary advantage comes from not having to be tech savvy to operate them and not having to muck about installing games and other apps to play them (oh wait you DO have to install some PS3 games lol)

They both have pros and cons which effectively leave them even at the end of the day. personally I can't wait to see what the next generation has to offer. Genuine 1080p is on the cards for ALL games but it's probably going to become a battle of the gimmicks unfortunetly since raw power doesn't seem to matter anymore.

[-Wolfie-]

[quote="Kahless_uk";p="210795"]Lol

My 360 is over a year and a half old..it RROD'd and Microsoft fixed it FOR FREE out of warranty, they even replaced the dvd drive FOR FREE which didn't need doing. And there was no PandP charges either. Sony have pretty good customer services but out of warranty support is expensive VERY expensive.

PS3 is not 1080p all the time neither is the 360. They BOTH operate at 720p with only a few exceptions (WipeoutHD being one) to display games at 1080p they simply upscale the 720p picture before outputting it.

AA shouldn't cause blurring. 2x Quincunx AA used by the PS3 DOES cause blurring because that's frankly how it works. It does a regular 2x AA pass (rendering the image at 2 times the display resolution then resampling it twice at the display resolution) but then deliberately squews the image to hide the remaining jaggies to create a fake 4x AA image without having to spend the resources required for a full 4x AA pass. This results in a blurred image or "soft focus" effect common in ALL PS3 titles (when it actualy manages to keep up the process, which it doesn't because AA is abandoned as soon as the machine is pushed in any way). The 360 however uses genuine 4x multisample AA which doesn't cause blurriness, when pushed it will drop the 4x AA in favour of 2x AA but will maintain the AA no matter what. On a big screen HDTV dropping AA shows up straight away and looks revolting. Also the 360 will do just about whatever it takes to maintain a smooth 30fps even if it results in tearing artifacts, the PS3 however will drop frames when it begins to struggle it a somewhat stupid attempt to avoid tearing artifacts lol

Anisotropic filtering is indeed a feature common to PS3 but not seen at all on 360. In case you don't know anisotropic filtering is a process which adjusts the level of detail on distant surfaces or surfaces shown at an obtuse angle to "push back" the point at which a visible decrease of detail is seen. The 360's chip can do 16x anisotropic filtering but almost never does instead favouring trilinear and occasionally bilinear filtering methods which can generate artifacts if you know what to look for. The reasons for this are obvious. Anisotropic filtering uses a staggering amount of memory which neither machine has. To allow anisotropic filtering on PS3 textures have to be compressed more to make up for the lack of space. So it's a compromise, have more texture compression producing more compression artifacts but gain anisotropic filtering removing distance artifacts or have less compressed textures resulting in better detail in the foreground but sacrifice distance detail and produce distance artifacts. Neither company got this right TBH both machines should have had at least 1gig of ram but instead they both come with 512megs..tut tut.

The cpu argument is a mute point anyway since the 3 cores of the Xenon (the 360's cpu) are programmable and can run 2 threads each but the PS3 cell chip's 8 cores are NOT programmable and run one thread each. The PS3 does definitely have more power in the cpu but it cannot be used as efficiently as the Xenon. It's the graphics chips that demonstrate the real grunt of these machines anyway and it's ATI's 360 chip that wins that fight over Nvidia's PS3 chip in several ways counterbalancing the cpu advantage of the PS3.

360 does NOT use HDDVD it uses regular DVD9 (8.5 gig) the PS3 uses Bluray (either 25gig or 50gig depending on whether it's dual layer or not) but this again is a mute point if you can't fit your game onto a DVD9 you haven't done your job. The ONLY game so far that utilizes the Bluray's storage potential 9and thereby justifies the manufacturing costs of Bluray disks) is Metal Gear Solid which fil the Bluray with pointless featurelength cutscenes instead of gameplay. Incidentally the Wii uses DVD5 (4.3gig) as it's primary format but can also read DVD9 and Gamecube minidvd (1.5gig). Bluray has potential, no arguments there but in a multiformat environment that potential will never be realised.

Most people, unless they're extremely tech savvy would have a hard time spotting the difference between PS3 and 360 when they're both running the same game side by side, neither has a distinct advantage over the other and Microsoft have managed to rid themselves of most of the reliability demons the 360 originally had without having to increase the price (in fact they've reduced the price) so ultimately it comes down to which one do you want..arguing about it is inherently pointless because both machines are here to stay and the only real debate is over price NOT performance since both machines have been thoroughly surpassed by cheap PC cpus and graphics cards anyway, for less than £600 you can buy a PC that will urinate on both machines from a great height meaning the consoles primary advantage comes from not having to be tech savvy to operate them and not having to muck about installing games and other apps to play them (oh wait you DO have to install some PS3 games lol)

They both have pros and cons which effectively leave them even at the end of the day. personally I can't wait to see what the next generation has to offer. Genuine 1080p is on the cards for ALL games but it's probably going to become a battle of the gimmicks unfortunetly since raw power doesn't seem to matter anymore.[/quote]

completely agreed, btw, one thing u forgot mentioning, the 360 doesnt have any more bloom than the PS3 does, both are faked, texture lighting isnt exactly the same

at the top of that, multithreading like the Xbox360 uses can at times be very unstable, and the PS3 is stable at 60 FPS - WipEout HD that is

and the 360 uses v sync? didnt know

[Kahless_uk]

Yes both machines use vsync. The difference is the PS3 will maintain vsync even if it means dropping frames whereas the 360 will drop vsync in order to avoid dropping frames lol.

As I said it's very much swings and roundabouts with these two machines, they both take slightly different approaches but ultimately end up in the same place even though on paper at least the PS3 should be much much better than the 360...paper isn't real life though and in reality both machines sacrifice lots of things that PC owners are used to in order to pull off what you end up seeing on screen because neither machine realy has the grunt their manufacturers claim.

That said though they still use shader model 1.1 bloom effects to "fake" shader model 3.0 HDR in a lot of PC games too lol, It's the "virtual iris" effect (where light levels change as the camera's "eye" adapts much like your real eyes do) that shader model 3.0 is needed for, all other shader model 3.0 effects can easily be faked with 1.1 in a way that most people wouldn't notice.

Taking two exclusives titles from each machine (gears 2 for 360 and killzone 2 for PS3) you can see how both machines can deliver stunning visuals smoothly and also see that if those titles appeared on PC the PC versions would blow them both away. And it is exclusives that show the machines for what they are, PS3 needs more of them and they need to be better since so far 360 exclusive titles have sold 360's by the bucketload but PS3 exclusives flounder along with the console's hardware sales, the price is almost certainly to blame for this along with Sony's mindboggling refusal to drop the retail price of PS3 while Microsoft take a $200 loss per console they sell (manufacturing price versus retail price) and yet still make more overall profit. If PS3 cost the same as 360 it would undoubtedly be winning the console war and would enjoy more dedicated 3rd party support which currently Microsoft enjoys.

This is the crux of it. 360 is cheaper and much easier to code for (you only need a PC with direct x 9 and you can make 360 games) and it's games sell well so 3rd party developers simply can't be bothered to make the extra effort to properly optimise games for PS3 when it's difficult to begin with and the games wont sell as many copies.

[-Wolfie-]

[quote="Kahless_uk";p="210881"]This is the crux of it. 360 is cheaper and much easier to code for (you only need a PC with direct x 9 and you can make 360 games) and it's games sell well so 3rd party developers simply can't be bothered to make the extra effort to properly optimise games for PS3 when it's difficult to begin with and the games wont sell as many copies.[/quote]


thats the problem with DMA ya know 10 times faster, 20 times harder to program