Microsoft used Sony to beat Sony in the console wars?

[rage2]

Wow, I didn't know about any of this during the Xbox 360 and PS3 development phase...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069467545545011.html

Microsoft went to IBM (who was working with Sony and Toshiba on the Cell Processor) to make the Xenon 360 processor, which took some of the R&D work that Sony paid for. This was possible because under the Cell development agreement Sony wanted to recoup costs by selling the Cell to others, but didn't realize that Microsoft was the "other" party. Who got the system out a year BEFORE the ps3.

Crazy stuff.

[Tik-Tok]

Hahahahah, that's brilliant.

[hampstor]

The fanboys will be all over this shortly. :rofl:

[adam c]

awesome, i guess that's why sony screwed over toshiba in the DVD wars

[black13]

I knew about this before and while this wasn't good for Sony, it certainly isn't the main reason why PS3 has ended up third. Nintendo didn't need any of this technology and look where they ended up.

[treg50]

Haha, well there you go. Sony must've let out a 'DOH!' after that one.

It's supposedly fairplay but it still validates my belief that Microsoft is a dirty shitstorm of unoriginality and lack of innovation:

Windows/Vista copied (and massively pales in comparison to) Mac OS/OS X
Xbox fed off of/ then killed Sega and the DreamCast console.
360 technology uses PS3 technology.


Originally posted by black13
I knew about this before and while this wasn't good for Sony, it certainly isn't the main reason why PS3 has ended up third. Nintendo didn't need any of this technology and look where they ended up.
Nintendo doesn't use Cell technology so you can't compare them to Microsoft. Without Sony's Cell technology definitely wouldn't be doing as good as it is now.

It's no wonder they didn't build a proper machine until 2009... they were using technology they didn't develop themselves. That's why they released 3 years worth of unfinalized Xbox 360's. 3 years and millions of refurbished units later we now know the real 360 should have been release in 2009 (tentatively).

:facepalm:

[hampstor]

Originally posted by treg50


It's Microsoft's fault for all the problems their competitors have. Oh, they hate babies too.

:facepalm:

Fixed your Anti-Microsoft Propoganda.

rage2 has already corrected you on a few things here:

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&postid=2752407#post2752407

[treg50]

^
Originally posted by hampstor
Fixed your Anti-Microsoft Propoganda.

rage2 has already corrected you on a few things...
Nope, actually you broke it... you must be MSCE.

No need to to go off-topic yet and drag one thread into another... I just addressed his 'corrections' ;)

[SpoonEK9@STRD]

Originally posted by treg50


It's no wonder they didn't build a proper machine until 2009... they were using technology they didn't develop themselves. That's why they released 3 years worth of unfinalized Xbox 360's. 3 years and millions of refurbished units later we now know the real 360 should have been release in 2009 (tentatively).

:facepalm:

meh, best 3 years of gaming iv had. Still on the same xbox too.

[The_Rural_Juror]

A little OT, but do they have Leisure Suit Larry for either console?

[b_t]

Originally posted by treg50
Haha, well there you go. Sony must've let out a 'DOH!' after that one.

It's supposedly fairplay but it still validates my belief that Microsoft is a dirty shitstorm of unoriginality and lack of innovation:

Windows/Vista copied (and massively pales in comparison to) Mac OS/OS X
Xbox fed off of/ then killed Sega and the DreamCast console.
360 technology uses PS3 technology.


Nintendo doesn't use Cell technology so you can't compare them to Microsoft. Without Sony's Cell technology definitely wouldn't be doing as good as it is now.

It's no wonder they didn't build a proper machine until 2009... they were using technology they didn't develop themselves. That's why they released 3 years worth of unfinalized Xbox 360's. 3 years and millions of refurbished units later we now know the real 360 should have been release in 2009 (tentatively).

:facepalm:

The fact remains that designing the Cell - even if Microsoft hadn't used some of its components - was a really, really bad business decision. Microsoft using some of the components just made it an even bigger failure than it already was :rofl:

[yue]

"U.S. sales of the PS3 fell 19% last month from a year earlier, while sales doubled for the Wii console and rose 8% for the Xbox 360."

i think these numbers will change in 2009 when good game titles get released on PS3. i'm a playstation fan and i don't have a PS3 because there are not enough games that i can buy to justify the cost of the console.

[CokerRat]

I'm sure I read that exact same statement one year ago.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by treg50
It's no wonder they didn't build a proper machine until 2009... they were using technology they didn't develop themselves. That's why they released 3 years worth of unfinalized Xbox 360's. 3 years and millions of refurbished units later we now know the real 360 should have been release in 2009 (tentatively).

:facepalm:

PS3 by 3rd Christmas:

CECHA/Bxx
CECHC/Exx
CECHH/G/K/Pxx

Xbox360 by 4th Christmas:

Xenon
Zephyr
Falcon
Jasper

Both console has been revising at the same rate.

[HiTempguy1]

Jeebus, that thread came back from the dead eh?! :nut:

I think in the end no-one really gives a shit. I have had NO reason whatsoever to buy a PS3. I think that speaks volumes, as I play a shit ton of games (RPG and FPS mainly) and have owned a ton of different consoles. I bought my 360 when Halo 3 came out (the Halo edition) and I've had no issues with it. Meh.

[treg50]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Both console has been revising at the same rate.
Yeah that's true --- but in what you quoted from me it misses my point. I was just saying that the rate of failures is higher in MS's 360. Sony launched a PS3 that was well designed and constructed that it didn't crap itself in the millions like 360 did. And yes, the number of revisions is almost equal, but the content of the revisions is what's different. The revisions made to 360 were much more drastic & critical to it's basic functioning, and MS had to because it was so poorly made in the first place.


Originally posted by SpoonEK9@STRD
meh, best 3 years of gaming iv had. Still on the same xbox too.

Totally, and good to hear. Not all 360's failed but an absurd amount did. You have a veteran there.

[eblend]

Originally posted by treg50

Yeah that's true --- but in what you quoted from me it misses my point. I was just saying that the rate of failures is higher in MS's 360. Sony launched a PS3 that was well designed and constructed that it didn't crap itself in the millions like 360 did. And yes, the number of revisions is almost equal, but the content of the revisions is what's different. The revisions made to 360 were much more drastic & critical to it's basic functioning, and MS had to because it was so poorly made in the first place.


Totally, and good to hear. Not all 360's failed but an absurd amount did. You have a veteran there.

We had our differences, but I don't want to start a war or anything, just want to state that ps3 has some pretty big revisions in my opinion, such as removal of the emotion engine (thats a pretty big hardware change) and the addition of vibration to the controllers. The platform may be build better then the 360, but i have more fun on my 360, even after it briked on my once and was replaced. I fear the laser issue that people are having with the ps3 is only going to get more widespread.

Anyways, don't matter, enjoy whichever system you have, competition is good indeed for everyone, its just different people side with different companies and in simple psychology want to make sure they don't regret their purchases with their hard earned money.