Just kinda curious, if the 720 includes blu-ray which is pretty much a must at this point, does Sony make money off the drives that the 720 uses? Wondering because the 360 wouldn't do blu-ray even though they could've if they had an add-on.
The Big Bad Console Thread - Sway your Station with an Xboner !
- Thread starter Xexx
- Start date
Technically, yes, but I don't think Sony is the sole owner of Blu-ray, it was developed by a group:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
Ya, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference in a company that size, but would be cool to know how much they make per 720 made. You'd basically have to expect about 100+ million developed, which even at a penny would give them over a mill in profit.
This article from 2009 says it is $9.50 in royalties for every BluRay player installed. Then 11 cents for every read only disc sold.
http://www.slashgear.com/blu-ray-fou...ocess-2535725/
I haven't found anything that actually says what each company's stake in the format is. There are 15 companies total.
Edit: The royalties have gone down since that article.
http://www.one-blue.com/royalty-rates/
http://www.slashgear.com/blu-ray-fou...ocess-2535725/
I haven't found anything that actually says what each company's stake in the format is. There are 15 companies total.
Edit: The royalties have gone down since that article.
http://www.one-blue.com/royalty-rates/
Actually their chip architecture is superior to AMD in every single way, the (only) HUGE downside is their price, you want Intel ? Prepare to pay the Intel-Tax.
Excluding the price factor (again we go back to the Intel-Tax) their CPU are much much faster, from the Pentium to the 10+10 Xeon.
AMD was probably chosen by Sony & Microsoft because they offered better prices (as they always do) and more flexibility (for future die shrinks).
Also as someone pointed out, you will get much better performance on a Console than on a PC with equal specs because you have fewer layers to interface (Windows, DirectX, GPU Drivers, etc etc).
Not to mention, on a PC you are FORCED to design games that will work for everyone (from the Core2Duo to the i7) so you can not custom design a game.
The perfect example would be Starcraft2 which could easily be octocored : MyUnitIA(Ground), MyUnitIA(Air/Building), EnemyUnitIA(Ground), EnemyUnitIA(Air/Building) Weather, PathingOvermind, Balistics/Physics, Sound/Music.
Now take this perfectly octo'ed game to Core2Duo... and the game wont even launch
Using x86 makes perfect sense because you get lower prices (it's an evolution of an existing chip), cheaper game design (no need to learn TheCell), better portability (Important when you hit 100M$ budgets).
Well of course, limited resources are always coveted by developers. Given what's under the hood of the next gen consoles though, with 8gb of RAM, the memory is very unlikely to be the bottleneck though.
So, no, it's not a fallacy to suggest 8gb will be sufficient with the hardware in those consoles.
Caliane
Avatar of War Slayer
- 14,625
- 10,138
Lets not pretend they didn't strike gold with that "supercharged PC architecture" phrase, aka blast processing. People(kids that don't know what it means) are going to eat that up. That phrase will sell PS4's. Will be injected into "Ps4 is better then PC's at 300 while PC's cost $5000 and comfy couch" arguments. VS WiiU, etc.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 44,804
- 93,661
Caliane
Avatar of War Slayer
- 14,625
- 10,138
well so is any comparatively priced PC hardware.
Hinadurus was already answered of course. His friend is an idiot.
Right NOW at the very beginning of the console gen, yes. a $600 ps4, will beat up to an $800 pc in general built within that last year. Note, that PC might have an SSD hd or other shinies, that are not comparable.
A higher priced PC, then no, its bloodly likely.
Secondary factors. Effort put in by the dev team. Shitty console ports that don't have 2440 res support, high res textures, etc. Last gen you could take Borderlands and play it on PC. yes its BETTER on PC graphically. but not by a whole lot. The PC itself could crank out ALOT more, but the game itself didn't have any more to give. Crysis is the example. Years later still the best looking, because no one else put that much effort in after that debacle.
The whole "pc evolve fast" thing has been completely sandbagged by console development. They don't as much as they used to. The good side is that its reduced PC costs, the bad side is yeah. There isn't significant improvements in PC hardware.
At the end of the console gen, it was very noticeable. PC games looked alot better due to shaders and things xbox/PS3 couldn't do. Low res textures. this stuff is pretty noticeable.
This next gen though? going to be pretty small for quite a while. And again, Dev teams are not really going to put the extra work into the PC versions to really take advantage of what a PC can offer that consoles cant.
ronne
Nǐ hǎo, yǒu jīn zi ma?
- 7,949
- 7,143
I think what I look forward to the most is games not graphics-crippled based on the need to scale down to console levels. Skyrim was the perfect example of this (and thankfully mods let you undo a lot of the graphics issues), because holy shit does that game look and run like ass on consoles. Having the consoles actually be more on par with current PC tech will do wonders for PC graphics hopefully, based simply on the fact that they don't have to have every game be able to scale down to complete shit settings to accomodate 360/ps3.
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
Emilie: Not saying its accurate - but AMD has posted benchmarks in an artificial environment that stays ahead.
Intel right now wins because of better threading and operation subsets largely - things that may not be relevant to a different architecture.
Its possible their benchmarks were complete fiction - but unlikely considering it was a stockholder presentation. (Legal ramifications to lying) They were very clear about the artificial environment bit however.
Just like right now according to the bro in law that uses Linux religiously supposedly with the kernel he's using AMD wins. (Which he ranted about a while on FB being a longtime Intel fan once he benched the kernel on a friend's machine - and I'm pretty sure he's got an i7, likely an Extreme, being a 8 digit trust fund baby and permanent bachelor)
Intel right now wins because of better threading and operation subsets largely - things that may not be relevant to a different architecture.
Its possible their benchmarks were complete fiction - but unlikely considering it was a stockholder presentation. (Legal ramifications to lying) They were very clear about the artificial environment bit however.
Just like right now according to the bro in law that uses Linux religiously supposedly with the kernel he's using AMD wins. (Which he ranted about a while on FB being a longtime Intel fan once he benched the kernel on a friend's machine - and I'm pretty sure he's got an i7, likely an Extreme, being a 8 digit trust fund baby and permanent bachelor)
Yeah, they're a bit longer and wider/bigger, slightly different shape too. They look better.
This will be the first generation of consoles without a significant improvement in graphics. The previous generation of consoles could already display gorgeous games in HD. All this new generation will really do is allow for larger environments and more things happening on screen.
That's not true at all. There's going to be a *huge* jump in texture quality. Current consoles use low-as-fuck resolution textures and almost all of them actually Render at 540p to 720p. The PS4/X720 will use way, way higher resolution textures and render at full 1080p.
Have you seen a low resolution base texture PC game that ports stuff straight from console that then gets a high resolution texture pack? There's an absurd jump in image quality there.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 44,804
- 93,661
You do realize that the PS3/360 do not have the power to run most of their games at 720p, right?
Pretty much bringing them up to where PCs where 3-4 years ago.
This really depends on the game though. An open world game like Skyrim will have a noticeable graphics improvement. A shooter like Gears of War, not so much. The current generation is such a mixed bag on graphics that I think we'll just see the floor raise rather than a huge jump in overall quality.
Yeah but how noticeable is that for most people? I'm not saying there won't be a graphical improvement but I'm not expecting anything to really blow us away at this point.