X-Box vs PS2

[Celstar]

I'd pay $300 for the PS2 for two reasons:

• It doubles as a DVD player and any cheap dvd player runs around 150 bucks and I need a dvd player anyway so I'll actually be getting a two-fer.

• Final Fantasy 9!!!!

 

[Sephiroth_IX]

Xbox does DVD, it also is rumored to do LIVE TV PAUSING etc. (TIVO functions)

Also, the only reason computer makers have problems is because we all have different things. When you make a game, you have to make it compatible with every chipset, every processor, (sse/3dnow, anyone?) every video card, a lack of ram, etc. Plus, they have to make it for the slowest 20% of computers.

With the XBOX, everything is in place, just like every other console. Plus, they have a known API (DirectX). It simply is going to be the best thing out there.

 

[Soulflare]

<< Good luck forking over $300 for a console not inckluding games. >>



What do you think the X-Box is going to cost? All estimates to date
point to the X-Box costing the same or $50+ more than PS2 (currently)
when it launches and it isn't going to include any games.



<< it also is rumored to do LIVE TV PAUSING etc. (TIVO functions) >>



Yes, and we all know so many people that have rushed out to buy
their Replay TV's. It's a gimmicky feature that consumers are
never going to use and shouldn't be included on the X-Box. It
should also be noted that those same rumors have stated that there's
going to be a monthly charge associated with those TIVO functions.



Anyways, as far as the PS2 goes, Sony has made so many mistakes on so
many fronts that they'll be hard pressed to win this round of the
console wars but are a shoe-in for second place thanks to brand
loyalty, Squaresoft and timing. It will be up to Microsoft and
Nintendo to determine who will come in 1st and 3rd, and Microsoft
seems to be in a much better position at the moment.

Sony should be incredibly thankful for the incredible support
they've received from Electronic Arts, without whom their launch
lineup would be complete and utter sh!t.

 

[Byte]

MSes plan is to buy out as many companies as possible. This may work as they may get the &quot;killer app&quot; to launch the X-Box. Also the PS2 is very limited with it's VRAM unfortunatly. BTW that 733MHz WILL change to something higher, probably the GHz. Intel will refine their processing so much by then, it would be stupid.

 

[robisc]

You know I am not a Sony fan even though I have a PS2 prebought mainly because of the fact like Celstar said it doubles as a DVD player. I am a Sega fan and don't even own a Dreamcast, but now I'm thinking about it now that that the second gen games are out and look great and the price is lower. As far as the Xbox goes, I don't believe this thing will do 15mil pps, no way, and even if it gets close to that like someone stated earlier it will be with all effects off, I mean I don't understand why folks want to run benchmarks and such with AA off and all effects off and details low on their machine when in fact that isn't how they play games, I run benchmarks in real life game playing situations because that is how I want to compare my machine and drivers and such, if I wanted it to look like crap and just get good scores and framerates only for bragging rights I would go back to playing Atari 2600. As far as all these Microsoft specs I still see this thing as vaporware and I also don't see how they could make any $ on it at the price range that has been rumored if this is the hardware that is in there, unless they are solely looking at game sales as their cash cow. Just like was also said elsewhere in this thread this comparison if the specs are even accurate for the Xbox is like apples and oranges, I mean the PS2 is out now (almost) and the Xbox is still on paper, and gamers will have a year to play the PS2, so who really wins, oh and don't forget the Gamecube.

 

[Zeeliv]

Soulflare, when he said



<< Good luck forking over $300 for a console not inckluding games. >>



The unspoken part wasn't that he'd be getting an Xbox, but a Gamcube, which will cost $150-200.

 

[RagingGuardian]

<< The unspoken part wasn't that he'd be getting an Xbox, but a Gamcube, which will cost $150-200. >>



Well said. Why would I get an X-Box when I have a PC, which BTW will most likely be more powerful than the X-Box when it launches? I'm sure days after the X-Box is released there'll be emulators to run the games on PCs.

 

[randomlinh]

The thing I like about the ps2 is sony has done something no other console has done, made it backwards compatible. You can reuse your memory/controller/games with it. And they do have a year or so before the x-box.

 

[robisc]

RagingGuardian I partially agree with you about the PC being more powerful than the Xbox, especially when these stats came out a few months back, remembering again that this is still just vaporware in my opinion. I thought the specs were great for then but not so for hardware a year and a half later, I mean my PCs hardware specs are for the most part above those of the Xbox right now but the problem is or rather the advantage of the Xbox will be that it is a dedicated gaming console with emphasis only toward gaming unlike a PC which is a multiuse machine, this is if MS doesn't decide to make a junior PC and fill it with bloatware like they always do, if that's the case I do agree with you that most of us will have PCs that will blow this thing away by next year.

 

[Passions]

comparing xbox to ps2 is really illogical. first of all, ps2 is already out and the specs are finalized. xbox is still in development and far from being ready to ship. if you want to do a comparison, compare xbox to gamecube, or ps2 to dreamcast, now that makes alot more sense. sony has already said they are working on ps3.

 

[RagingGuardian]

<< sony is working on PS3 >>



Well this just shows that Sony realized they made some serious design flaws with the PS2. The problem is the average console stays on the market for 5yrs. Now tell me how the average consumer would feel when they realize the company is leaving the console in favor of a more powerful machine. Remember what happened with the Saturn and slow adoption of the Dreamcast? This is what will happen to Sony.

All the journalists who claimed that PS2 is the second coming of God must feel like some idiots right now. The machine is powerful but it's very expensive and apart from the DVD player it can't offer dedicated players very much in the way of innovative gameplay. Sony has way too little first parties to compete with Microsoft and Nintendo and third parties are in the game to make money. This simply means no longer will third parties publish exclusive games which leaves all the new innovative gameplay ideas to first and second parties. While Sony was out there touting the PS2 as the most powerful game machine to date Microsoft and Nintendo were behind the scenes snatching up second parties and extending there first parties. Now tell me who's the smart ones?

 

[Orbius]

Raging you're fairly clueless. There are no flaws with the PS2, some developers have been critical of the PS2 because it does require a great deal of skill to extract its full potential. I think this will eventually work in the PS2's favor, rather than cookie cutter Direct X games, programmers who put in the time and effort into the PS2 will come up with some truly home-run titles.

As for snatching up developers? I dont get that one, all the major players are pouring their resources into the PS2, plus it will be out for a year before the other competitors.

Don't get me wrong the other consoles look to be shaping up well, but the PS2 is going to be number 1 like it or not.

 

[Bignate603]

That article that this thread is about is ludicrous. A normal person may see 300 Mhz to 733 Mhz and say wow, must x-box must be faster. We should know different, we know stuff like this doesn't matter when we talk processing power. Just like a thunder bird still can wreck a duron with a faster clock speed, the 300 mhz chip can be more powerful. They didn't supply it in any comparable numbers because it must not be all it's cracked up to be! X-box ruins the advantage of console games, the ability to sit down and just play. Bring a game to a friends house and play, rent a game and play. The X-box will require you to install games. That 8 gig hard drive will get cluttered because of all the rented or borrowed games.

I dislike microsoft's idea that it can just come in and &quot;redefine&quot; the consoles. The x-box is promising alot but is already showing it's flaws. Imagine having your OS and hardware designed by microsoft...
Crash twice as much!

 

[Sephiroth_IX]

<< Raging you're fairly clueless. There are no flaws with the PS2, some developers have been critical of the PS2 because it does require a great deal of skill to extract its full potential. I think this will eventually work in the PS2's favor, rather than cookie cutter Direct X games, programmers who put in the time and effort into the PS2 will come up with some truly home-run titles. >>

Think before you speak. There are so many design flaws with the ps2 it isnt even funny. First, they have a low powered graphics chip. Second, they have only 4mb of dedicated texture memory. Yes, they can steam more memory in from main memory, but that memory will not be NEARLY as fast as video memory would be, and plus it eats away from the entire amount of memory available (24mb? i dont remember ) Also, the console only have two controller ports! What gives?! And finally, the console is damned difficult to develop for. You say that the programmers that &quot;put in the time will come up with some truly home-run titles.&quot; Yeah, look at the N64. Some of the games are excellent, but the majority are average at best. The N64 was *almost* as difficult to develop for as the PS2 is now. Then look at the Dreamcast. If you jump on DC-IGN, you will see that many many games get scores of 6+, with a staggering amount pulling down 8+'s. With ease of development, the developer saves money and is able to make a better game.



<< The X-box will require you to install games. >>

They have publically said &quot;THERE WILL BE NO INSTALLATIONS OF GAMES. THERE WILL ONLY BE ADD ON PACKS FOR THE HARD DRIVE.&quot; Put it this way, you just beat MARIO64, and you can go download 2 more worlds for no charge and put them on the hard drive. What, would you prefer Sony's AFTERTHOUGHT harddrive?



<< Imagine having your OS and hardware designed by microsoft...
Crash twice as much! >>

There will be zero bloat to this OS. Did they Dreamcast crash all the time? Was it's OS made by MS? Hell yes it was.



<< A normal person may see 300 Mhz to 733 Mhz and say wow, must x-box must be faster. We should know different, we know stuff like this doesn't matter when we talk processing power. >>

The Sony Emotion Engine is much more powerful than the Intel chip for game processing.

 

[j@cko]

some of you keep saying Emontion Engine is much faster than Pentium III. Could you please explain to me why? Just to back up your statement.... (hey, I am not a Pro-Intel)... so, don't get me wrong, just wanna see why that's all..

 

[SJ]

You Sony fanatics need to get a clue. Xbox, is a real console, 0 boot time, 0 installs. The hard drive is simply there for other &quot;things&quot; not to install games on. Second, if Nvidia lives up to their part of the deal XBox will be capable of doing 300million unlit polys/sec and or 150million lit, as in yes it will be pushing 150million over 3 times as much as PS2. One key feature devs love about Xbox over PS2, besides its much, much easier to program for, meaning less costly is true dynamic lighting, something PS2 can't really do, its does some, but its half assed no matter how skilled the programmers are.

MS will have an impressive first party launch title. Hell I bet Dungeon Siege makes it to Xbox.

 

[Zucchini]

Ps2 seems kind of lame so far. on firingsquad.com they have a review of unreal tourney.. apparently the ps2 can't even pull a decent framerate even while using lower quality textures then the pc version. I thought consoles were supposed to be ahead of pc's at launch, not behind I know there might be some great games for the ps2, but technologically.. it seems behind. Xbox should be able to kill it graphically.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

<< Think before you speak. There are so many design flaws with the ps2 it isnt even funny. First, they have a low powered graphics chip. Second, they have only 4mb of dedicated texture memory. >>



Low powered? The thing is made to run at TV rez. not 1600x1200@85htz refresh rate. OH no 4MB texture memory. The original PS only has 2.5MB of total memory and some of the things it can do are bad @ss.

I'm not specificaly targeting any one person here but STOP COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES!!!!


I'm tired of hearing people say <start nerdish accent> My PC is far superior to any console available!<end nerdish accent>

GODDAMNIT some people just don't give a flip about the specs of a console or computer. They want to play a game and have fun. They aren't gonna whine and bitch that they only got 60 frames a second.

I will buy a PS2, because I know Sony and thier developers can make entertaining games. I might buy an X-box, if it has quality enjoyable games, not just eye candy.

 

[Zucchini]

I guess you skipped right past my post. Unreal tournement is on ps2. The textures aren't great looking, and the frame rate is pitiful. This is not an apples to oranges comparison. Since the ps2 runs at such a low resolution and is soooo powerful, it should be able to run such games with ease.

 

[VisionsUCI]

the xbox comparison came from microsoft, so of course its a little biased. even then, its not all about the speed, but the quality of the games. the first playstation was hardly anything special after it had been out for a few years, yet the games kept the console selling well... also the fact that the mod chips were availble didn't hurt... it'll be difficult to decide whether sony or ms will get the better games... we'll see. i'm a little bit disappointed in my dc right now.

 

[VisionsUCI]

oh... computers are still the best anyhow. the xbox will blur the line, and so might not be as effective, esp. if the games can be played on the computer. i'm sure there'll be an emulator, if they're not completely compatible anyhow...

 

[KarlHungus]

I will buy a PS2, because I know Sony and thier developers can make entertaining games. I might buy an X-box, if it has quality enjoyable games, not just eye candy.

Um, isn't this position a bit hypocritical? I'm not getting a PS2, X-Box, or Gamecube until some quality games come out for it. The only PS2 games that have me the least bit interested are Tekken Tag and the new Madden. Future games could change my mind, but the line-up right now is far from compelling (especially for a $300 console).

 

[SSP]

original PS only has 2.5MB of total memory and some of the things it can do are bad @ss.

Oh come on... The texture quality on the PSX sucks. N64 had way better textures then that (granted it might depend on the game).

 

[SSP]

It's hard to tell which console will win the battle. It won't be an easy battle. But saying stuff like:

...but the PS2 is going to be number 1 like it or not.

is just plain stupid.

 

[RagingGuardian]

You know, I really hate it when someone calls me clueless simply based on the fact that they are a fan boy. To state that the PS2 is flawless is just plain stupid. Just about every console in the past and I'm sure in the future will have flaws. Sephirox pointed out the flaws and whether or not you like it you better realise that he made some valid points. Third parties are in the business to make money, not see who has better programming skills. Part of the reason developers fled from the N64 was because it was difficult to program for. The PS2 may have developer support right now but so does the Dreamcast. Just about everyday we see PS2 exclusives making the jump to other consoles.

Only time will tell who the real winner is but I'm sure that it won't be Sony. Get mad and feel free to disect my post.