PDA

View Full Version : Looks like there's a better (possible) reason to believe PS3 will be 1st ultimately


Pages : [1] 2

kevJ420
04-30-07, 02:16 PM
I'm probably not the 1st person to say this, but look @ all of AMD-ATI's trouble.

Maybe ATI is in such bad financial shape, that they can't afford to make enough Wii graphics processors. Maybe the Gamecube was discontinued partially due to ATI's troubles.

The X360 will be ****ed also, if ATI don't stay in business.

Then the PS3 wins and Sony dominates the market completely.

What does everyone else think?

H3avyM3tal
04-30-07, 02:24 PM
That you should go oout and see the world while you still have time.
Its not to late for you still!
Have faith in yourself!

kev13dd
04-30-07, 02:30 PM
I'm probably not the 1st person to say this, but look @ how big of a freaking idiot you are

I can't even propose a maybe here, because I honestly have no clue how or why

Do you even realize how idiotic it is to say that a console is doomed if it's hardware suppliers go out of business? I mean seriously think about it- just how idiotic it is to say a console who's hardware is ALREADY FINISHED and ALREADY IN PRODUCTION and IN PRODUCTION BY A DIFFERENT COMPANY is doomed in case the idea company behind that hardware crashes and burns?

I'm 98% sure that Microsoft made sure that the hardware in their console could be manufactured by whomever they want. That's why they went with a company like IBM rather than AMD or INTEL. So what does this mean? They are pretty much done with ATI in the first place, so them crashing and burning MEANAS NOTHING

Why have the moderators not given this guy his own forum? Think about it, we could move all his threads and posts to their own "KEVPLA1" forum that people would only have to see if they were willing

K

EDIT: Oh. I forgot you mentioned the Wii too. You do realize that the Wii is the only current gen console making a PROFIT on each one sold, right? Just wanted to make sure, you seem to forget reality sometimes

thor1182
04-30-07, 02:40 PM
yeah MS owns the silicon for both of the main chips in the 360, so they could care less.

tornadog
04-30-07, 03:01 PM
Kevpla, did you get your parents' permission before posting stuff like this???

Mazztadawn
04-30-07, 03:12 PM
Hey, as long as a given console doesn't die out completley (before it's time) who cares who is # 1? As long as you can keep buying and playing games on it.

PS2 "won" the last generation it seems, but that didn't stop people from enjoying their other systems.

Worry not OP the bundle of cash you dropped on your PS3 won't go to waste. I'm sure you will be buying and playing games on it till the next generation of systems come out. So you can stop stressing about it being #1.

ENU291
04-30-07, 03:22 PM
What a duffous! It seems like he posts whatever the hell pops into his brain.

ViN86
04-30-07, 03:29 PM
cant.... compute.... stupidity.... need.... to.... breatheeee

:headexplode: :headexplode: :headexplode: :headexplode: :headexplode: :headexplode: :headexplode: :headexplode:

zoomy942
04-30-07, 03:37 PM
:wtf:

thats all i got

kaltek
04-30-07, 04:17 PM
We won't be seeing him again :p

Medion
04-30-07, 04:20 PM
I'm probably not the 1st person to say this, but look @ all of AMD-ATI's trouble.

Maybe ATI is in such bad financial shape, that they can't afford to make enough Wii graphics processors. Maybe the Gamecube was discontinued partially due to ATI's troubles.

The X360 will be ****ed also, if ATI don't stay in business.

Then the PS3 wins and Sony dominates the market completely.

What does everyone else think?

Microsoft owns the Xenos and handles the manufacturing. ATI only collaborated on its design, and was rewarded handsomely for it. If ATI went out of business, MS wouldn't be affected in the least.

kevJ420
04-30-07, 04:56 PM
I'm probably not the 1st person to say this, but look @ how big of a freaking idiot you are

I can't even propose a maybe here, because I honestly have no clue how or why

Do you even realize how idiotic it is to say that a console is doomed if it's hardware suppliers go out of business? I mean seriously think about it- just how idiotic it is to say a console who's hardware is ALREADY FINISHED and ALREADY IN PRODUCTION and IN PRODUCTION BY A DIFFERENT COMPANY is doomed in case the idea company behind that hardware crashes and burns?

I'm 98% sure that Microsoft made sure that the hardware in their console could be manufactured by whomever they want. That's why they went with a company like IBM rather than AMD or INTEL. So what does this mean? They are pretty much done with ATI in the first place, so them crashing and burning MEANAS NOTHING

Why have the moderators not given this guy his own forum? Think about it, we could move all his threads and posts to their own "KEVPLA1" forum that people would only have to see if they were willing

K

EDIT: Oh. I forgot you mentioned the Wii too. You do realize that the Wii is the only current gen console making a PROFIT on each one sold, right? Just wanted to make sure, you seem to forget reality sometimes

Yes, i've bitched in several of my posts about the Wii making a profit.

I've said how virtuous Sony is and how much of deal they're willing to give and how much they care about their customers.

Lyme
04-30-07, 05:02 PM
I've said how virtuous Sony is and how much of deal they're willing to give and how much they care about their customers.

What color is the sky in your reality?

SONY FIRED KEN!! Who is going to lead the Playstation vision without him?

Microsoft licenced all the IP that goes into the 360. You should really look into cutting out the drugs or upping the dose.

kevJ420
04-30-07, 05:04 PM
Microsoft owns the Xenos and handles the manufacturing. ATI only collaborated on its design, and was rewarded handsomely for it. If ATI went out of business, MS wouldn't be affected in the least.

Thanks for the info=)

I had thought that ATI did manufacture the GPU for the x360, and that sony was the one that manufactured their own gpu (RSX) and only licensed it.

I thought MS switched to ATI b/c they still wanted the designer to manufacture it. So then I have the question, why did microsoft not go with nvidia again if the only problem between the 2 was that nv was manufacturing the 2001 xbox's gpu and losing money? (they could have just stayed with nvidia, and then ms could manufacture an nvidia design, and their problem with the original xbox would be fixed)

Mazztadawn
04-30-07, 05:05 PM
Sony wants to make money, just like nintendo. They want to get the systems in people's houses, then make money off software. They sell at a loss because nobody would buy one if they were even more expensive than they already are.

kevJ420
04-30-07, 05:09 PM
What color is the sky in your reality?

SONY FIRED KEN!! Who is going to lead the Playstation vision without him?

Microsoft licenced all the IP that goes into the 360. You should really look into cutting out the drugs or upping the dose.

I always read that he retired.

I know he and Howard Stringer may have had issues w/ each other, but I don't think Howard Stringer(name is quite similar to King of All Media's real name.)

Kutargi was at Sony long before Stringer was. I know Stringer is the CEO and all, but I'm sure other executives wouldn't let Kutargi be fired.

H3avyM3tal
04-30-07, 05:35 PM
What color is the sky in your reality?

SONY FIRED KEN!! Who is going to lead the Playstation vision without him?


Someone else probably.

Medion
04-30-07, 05:40 PM
I've said how virtuous Sony is and how much of deal they're willing to give and how much they care about their customers.

Sony selling the console at a loss has nothing to do about caring about customers. Sony sells the console at a loss for a few reasons.

- Selling it at a lower price point means higher sales volume. Since Sony gets a royalty off all software sold, higher hardware sales = higher software sales + higher accessory sales = profit.

- By making it the cheapest HD format player at the time, they sped up the proliferation of Blu-Ray, helping it take the lead fro HD-DVD. Sony ALSO gets a royalty off ANY Blu-Ray movie sold, not just PS3 games.

So then I have the question, why did microsoft not go with nvidia again if the only problem between the 2 was that nv was manufacturing the 2001 xbox's gpu and losing money?

There were a few reasons that I can speculate on as to why MS chose NV over ATI this time around. For the regular XBox, MS made a bad contract where they paid a set price for the NV2a used in the system. They never got a price cut from NV on that hardware.

Also, at the time the 360 was being developed, ATI was currently spanking NV (9x00 series vs. FX series was a disaster for NV). MS went with the company that had the upper hand at the time.

Ninja Prime
04-30-07, 05:59 PM
Yes, i've bitched in several of my posts about the Wii making a profit.

I've said how virtuous Sony is and how much of deal they're willing to give and how much they care about their customers.

LMAO, are you for real? Virtuous and sony in the same sentence? Thats actually a monoply tactic, selling consoles at a loss in order to try and flood the market. Too bad those morons couldn't even do that right.

nemecb
04-30-07, 06:16 PM
See my sig. That's really all the explanation of kevpla you need.

kev13dd
04-30-07, 06:37 PM
I had thought that ATI did manufacture the GPU for the x360, and that sony was the one that manufactured their own gpu (RSX) and only licensed it.

I thought MS switched to ATI b/c they still wanted the designer to manufacture it
THEN DO YOUR FREAKING RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPEW CRAP

God...

And since you seem to KNOW that the Wii is making a profit, then explain to me why ATI can't afford to manufacture the Wii hardware, when everytime they do, they MAKE MONEY?

Or wait, maybe ATI doesn't do the manufacture for the Wii either. But really, who cares. It's perfectly acceptable to talk out of our asses in kevpla1's reality. We don't have to know anything to say whatever we want!

K

kevJ420
04-30-07, 06:43 PM
Anyways, when I say Sony is virtuous, I mean relative to nintendo and to a lesser extent MS.

Relative to Sega back in the day, Sony is/was not the least bit virtuous, especially, SCEA, who prevented me from playing gunner's heaven up until soon I hope. Fortunately those guys got fired, but it was too late for Gunner's Heaven to still come to the U.S.

However, I'll briefly compare Sony (and Sega) and Nintendo in terms of vituousness:

Nintendo went with carts w/ the N64 to protect only themselves from counterfeiting. Nintendo said due to loading times, but I'm sure that's a lie.
N64 carts were much harder to counterfeit than CD-ROM.

Nintendo has always, always up until the Wii, charged their 3rd parties much greater royalty fees than any of their competitors. Along with the ROM chips being so expensive in 96-97, 3rd party games were initially up to $80 (79.99.)
I paid $80 for Doom 64 on April 1st, 1997. Meanwhile, Nintendo only charged $59.99 for their own games.

Nintendo intimidated their 3rd parties to prevent them from working with Sega. Eventually, Capcom did go to develop for Sega, and they liked working with Sega so much in fact that they made sure their 1st Street Fighter 2 for the Genesis was every bit as good as the Super NES' Turbo (other than sound) and actually better. Sega charged less for a 24 mbit game than Nintendo charged for 20 mbit, and 20 mbit isn't a common ROM chip combination. Then, Super Street Fighter 2 was 40 megabits for the Genesis, costed less, and had a different ROM chip architecture in the Genesis cartridge (due to the normal 32 mbit limit), had 1 more star for speed, and had an extra mode, maybe more than one, I don't remember for sure, there was a score attack mode that was fun as ****, it wasn't on the SNES version.

Nintendo punished it's 3rd parties, made many mean rules on their 3rd parties, like a publisher limit.

Nintendo has not done as much work for the community as Sega did back in the day.

Sega didn't have a limited 2D rule like SCEA did (Example Earthworm Jim 2 was allowed by Sega, but not SCEA, only SCEE.

The Saturn was the most expensive, still the best value in the long run, the games were cheaper than not only N64 games, but also PS1 games. Sega had low game prices to compensate and also b/c their licensing fees were lower than the other 2, b/c Sega had the most respect for their 3rd parties.

PS3 Home is free, Sony gave freebies in Europe.

I could think of much more if i thought about it

The only thing that could possibly be about Nintendo being virtuous is that the American and Japanese divisions never really fought with each that i'm aware of.

nemecb
04-30-07, 06:50 PM
Nintendo went with carts w/ the N64 to protect only themselves from counterfeiting. Nintendo said due to loading times, but I'm sure that's a lie.
N64 carts were much harder to counterfeit than CD-ROM.
Yes, damn them for not wanting their games to get pirated. How could they be such bastards.

ENU291
04-30-07, 07:19 PM
Can these Kevpla1 post get any worst? I can barely read 2 sentences before a massive migrate kicks in... :headexplode: :headexplode: :headexplode:

kev13dd
04-30-07, 07:33 PM
Can these Kevpla1 post get any worst? I can barely read 2 sentences before a massive migrate kicks in... :headexplode: :headexplode: :headexplode:
Everytime I see one of his post I right away look under his username just in hope I'll see *banned*. Unfortunatly it's just a dream...

K