WHY?!?
i could have this wrong and i hope i do, but from wat ive seen its gonna be on xbox 360.
it was a game unique to playstation and now theyre gonna put it on 360. Even though it may increase their profits... i still argue this point.
i dont see any games exclusive to xbox comin out on ps3!
Yes: it's because the PS3 is $100 more expensive than 360. And in this economy, MGS4 isn't going to get people to shell out $400 over $300.
Shocking though it may be, but BluRays have nothing to do with 1080p gaming. That is dominated solely by fillrate (and shader throughput). There are quite a few 360 games that can run in 1080p as well as PS3 games.
Well, the developers loved having fewer licensing fees to pay to Sony (as opposed to Nintendo). So it really wouldn't have mattered if it were really hard to program for.
That's because they had a good half year longer to polish up the graphics on the game. It says nothing about the PS3's comparative capabilities. They were doing a late PS3 port, so they decided to spruce up the graphics while they were there.
well
haha that was my point witht the econmy the way it is and the fact you can get a great systeme for 200. Serously think about it why wouldnt you go for the one thats cheeper and has more people. youll make more money
As shockingly un-informed as your statement is...Blu-ray disk formats do have something to do with 1080p gaming. In fact, most disk formats can output 1080p. As of right now, most games do not utilize the ability to have games run in full NATIVE 1080p. Yes, there are 35 titles for the 360 that state on the back of the box to support 1080p. These are games that were developed to run 720p and have been upscaled to 1080p...not developed to run at full NATIVE 1080p out of the box. There is a huge difference. And for those that think there isn't a huge difference (sorry, no dis-respect), but you have absolutely no clue about the differences between resolutions and what they mean.
Here is the list of ALL 360 games that are out-of-the-box full NATIVE 1080p games (6 of them and updated in December of 2008):
Wolf of the Battlefield Commando 3, Feeding Frenzy 2, Portal, Boogie Bunnies, Street Home Court, and Virtual Tennis 3.
Here is the list of ALL PS3 games that are out-of-the-box full NATIVE 1080p games (26 total and these were last updated in January):
All Pro Football 2K7, [ps] Blast Factor, [ps] Calling All Cars, College Hoops 2K7, The Darkness, Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer, [ps] flOw, Full Auto 2 Battlines, Harry Potter, [ps] High Stakes on the Vegas Strip: Poker Edition[ps] LocoRoco Cocoreccho!, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, [ps] Mesmerize™: Distort (Playstation Eye), MLB The ShowNBA ‘07, NBA 2K7, Ninja Gaiden, Pirates of the Carribean, [ps] PixelJunk™ Monsters, [ps] PixelJunk™ Racers[ps] Piyotama, Street Home Court, [ps]Super Stardust HD, [ps]Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection, and Virtua Tennis 3. Note [ps] are games that can be bought in the playstation store.
Also, you can only get the 1080p outputed resolution with the 360 elite, which on Amazon right now, is $375.95 brand new. You can get the 80gb PS3 on Amazon right now for 399.00. Both of these prices are the cheapest that you can get the consoles for brand new. So, tell me how the 360 elite is cheaper than the PS3 (and don't say by $20). If you're spending almost 400 on a console, another 20 isn't gonna matter.
Plus, for those of you who do not know, In one of the version updates for the PS3, they added the ability to fully upscale all dvd movies and PS2 and PS1 games to output with 1080p capabilities. See if you can get that with xbox!!!
Now, I have proved my point...so offer up some VALID counter proof as to why I'm wrong.
Maybe you don't understand the difference between movies and videogames. So let me explain.
Movies are information. Data. They are read and interpreted by a program to display an image of a certain size and a certain framerate with certain audio samples.
Videogames are programs. The game itself decides what resolution to display at. Just as it decides what images to display, what textures and shaders to use with which polygons, what information to send across the network, etc.
Whether a program chooses to output to 1080p resolution has nothing to do with what media it is written to.
You can show all the lists you want, but that does not provide evidence that BluRay is necessary or even important to outputting 1080p in games. For example:
Maybe that's why 360 game developers don't bother much with 1080p output. Because only a tiny fraction of the userbase can use it.
I'd guess that the 360 Elite can. Upscaling is nothing special; it just requires processing time.
The thing that I find funny is
Ps3 keeps taking stuff out of the system to make it cheeper talking about taking the BC out
yet the 360 got cheeper and a bigger harddrive 20g to 60g
Untrue. All models now have HDMI output (the elite just comes with a cable included).
How can the PS3 be more powerful than the 360? If you look at the specs the PS3 is a duel core while the 360 is a tri core and has more rams too. If the PS3 cant even run SupCom then it sucks. I dont own any console atm except my PC.
Yes, I do understand the differences and probably better than you seem to believe of me. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough earlier. The point I was trying to make earlier was that the blu-ray format is by and large a better disk format than what the 360 is using for many reasons, one of which is the capability of outputting full 1080p.
In my comment earlier, NOWHERE did I mention gaming, I cannot help it if you took it that way. And the lists that I provided earlier were not to prove that blu-ray was necessary or important (stop putting words in my mouth, as I never once used those two words), it was to prove that the PS3 is ahead of the 360 in this certain instance. And the Blu-ray format and capabilities were one of the major selling points of the PS3 to begin with.
You obviously did not look at the specs.
The 360 is a 3-core, where each core is a 2-way SMT chip.
The PS3 is single-core, where each core is a 2-way SMT chip. It also has 7 SPU processors that can be used.
The question of which is more powerful than which requires first answering the question, "at doing what?"
The PS3 and the 360 are game consoles. This is a gaming forum. If you didn't want to talk about gaming in relation to the capabilities of these game consoles, then you should have made that clear.
Yes, the PS3 has more and better non-gaming functions than the 360. But unless you actually care about those non-gaming functions, the PS3's added cost is just that: added cost.
One of the most anticipated aspects of the PlayStation 3 is the new GPU that was created for it -- the RSX "Reality Synthesizer."
Sony designed the RSX with graphics-card manufacturer Nvidia. The RSX is based on Nvidia's GeForce graphics technology. It's a 550-MHz, 300-million-transistor graphics chip.
Unlike the GPU in the 360, the RSX is built on the traditional independent vertex/pixel shader architecture. Shaders are computer programs that determine the final look of what you see on the screen when you're looking at computer animation.
All of this translates to a level of graphic detail never before seen on a video-game console. With one HDMI output, the PlayStation 3 supports 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p.
The setup of the Cell processor is like having a team of processors all working together on one chip to handle the large computational workload needed to run next-generation video games. In order to understand how the Cell processor works, it helps to look at each of the major parts that comprise this processor.
The "Processing Element" of the Cell is a 3.2-GHz PowerPC core equipped with 512 KB of L2 cache. The PowerPC core is a type of microprocessor similar to the one you would find running the Apple G5. It's a powerful processor on its own and could easily run a computer by itself; but in the Cell, the PowerPC core is not the sole processor. Instead, it's more of a "managing processor." It delegates processing to the eight other processors on the chip, the Synergistic Processing Elements.
The computational workload comes in through the PowerPC core. The core then assesses the work that needs to be done, looks at what the SPEs are currently processing and decides how to best dole out the workload to achieve maximum efficiency.
The SPEs used in the Cell processor are each SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data), 128-bit vector processors. Vector processors are designed to quickly process several pieces of data at once. They were commonly used in the 1980s in large, powerful, scientific supercomputers and were created as a faster alternative to the more common scalar processor. Scalar processors can only work one data element at a time. Despite this limitation, advances in scalar design and performance have made the use of vector processors very rare these days in most computers. However, because of the vector processor's ability to handle several data elements at once, IBM resurrected this design for the Cell. There are eight SPEs on the chip, but only seven of them handle processing. The eighth SPE is built in as redundancy in case one of the other seven fails.
The SPEs each come loaded with 256 KB SRAM. This high-speed memory helps each SPE crunch numbers quickly. The SPE memory is also visible to the main Processing Element. This allows the PowerPC Core to utilize the resources of each SPE in the most efficient way possible. All of this amounts to unprecedented power for a piece of consumer electronics.
This is a direct quote from the how stuff works website.
point taken...however, just because it comes with an HDMI port, doesn't mean that it can output 1080p. I very easily could be wrong, but do remember seeing the specs for the xbox and seeing that only the elite could output 1080p, the other versions could only do 1080i and 720p.
If I am wrong on this, then I stand corrected. I admit that I am not the best one to ask on the exact specs for the xbox versions.
Touche and good point. I, personally, did not purchase the PS3 strictly for the non-gaming functionality, but for both. However, at the time the PS3 was originally released, it was the cheapest blu-ray player and was also proven to be the best quality blu-ray player (and you got the added capability of playing video games on it as well).
That has to be copied verbatum from some PS3 PR, right?
Which again, was copied verbatum from Sony's PR department. Indeed, it suggests that the division of labor for all of the Cell elements is something that happens transparently; it isn't.
The reason PS3 is such a pain to develop for is because programmers have to divide up their code into pieces that the SPUs can work on. The hardware doesn't magically do it itself. What the article describes is Sony's idea of the best way to use the Cell. But nothing in the hardware does this for you, and no game engine that isn't PS3 specific is designed to work this way.
Like he said, once upon a time that was true, but not for the newer 360s. And yes, an HDMI port is all you need to output 1080p.
Which means that game developers need to reduce Sony's install base by a percentage, based on a number of people who bought PS3s as a BluRay player and will never use its game playing abilities. Which means that the 360 leads PS3 by an even larger margin than the numbers show.
In short, it may have helped Sony put it in a few more hands, but it doesn't help developers try to figure out which platform has the most actual gamers on it.
yes those remarks were copied verbatum, that is why I put that they were a direct quote.
This is very true and developers have stated this many times. And i've never tried to sell anyone on the point of more gamers playing on a PS3. There's no doubt that there are more players on xbox than the PS3.
Ill sum up the rest of the post
ps3 rocks 360 sucks
no 360 rocks ps3 sucks
oh yeah well eat flaming orger punch
not as good as my flaming orger kick
360 suxs
ps3 suxs
mods- now play nice
someone takes it to far form locked
and that will be the rest of the post ok noo need to go any further face it people love there systems
A true gamer wouldnt care what system he plays what on just so long as he gets to play the game. Isnt that what gaming is all about NOW SOMEONE HOLD MY ****EN HAND AND WE WILL ****EN THE MOST GOD **** PEACEFULL SONG. WHOS DOWN FOR SOME COOMBUYA
sorry just seen way to many post go this way
So, a "true gamer" should pay a total of $950 just to have all of the current-gen consoles?
Sorry, I'd rather be a regular old gamer who has money than a broke "true" gamer. And that means you buy what gives you the biggest bang for your buck. And buying both a PS3 and a 360 isn't that.
I would like to point out that I'm not arguing for anything. I'm correcting misinformation. I don't even own a 360 (or a PS3).
Quite frankly, I thought that Alfonse and I were very civil in our posts to each other. I didn't feel that he was insulting to me and hope that I wasn't insulting to him. We were simply debating and speaking our opinions.
And a "true gamer" or even a "regular old gamer" should be able to spend what they want and get what they want, as long as they are happy gaming, which is the point I think you were trying to get across.
Doesn't matter to me about how much something costs...if I want it, I get it (and hopefully enjoy it). God knows, I spent alot on my gaming rig and entire set-up for my PC gaming room.
One thing I'd like to point that hasn't been mentioned is that the PS3 was released almost one year later than the 360 so in my eyes I think the 1080 fight is a bit stupid. Back when the 360 was released there were almost no 1080 TVs, the pure thought of myself even purchasing a 1080 tv then is suicidial. I bought a 720 TV just before I bought a 360 and now I could probably get 2-3 1080 TVs for the same price, and I think I remember saying something about the DVD and HD outputs being decisions at that time since the majority of the consumers didn't have access to either. I don't remember seeing either HD or Bluray even when the PS3 was released, maybe a month or two later they started showing up in stores.
Also 1080 support in games, if you are just talking about the output a lot more than 6 games support it on the 360 however the games were not made to be native 1080 which is why that list is so small otherwise. On the PS3 game manufacturers can't even list 1080 unless it's a native mode.
The reason I made a ROFL on the DLCs on the PS3 is due to one of my friends, it's rather hilarious really... So he buys this PS3 and gets GTA IV, my other friend gets a 360 and GTA IV. Of course the PS3 guy is bragging, then comes the DLC announcement. Oh dear now the PS3 guy is starting to get worried actually pissed and sad. Later Fallout 3 comes and the PS3 guy buys it only to a month or two later get declined the DLC again. Of course it's prolly microsoft sticking their money up the right arses but damn 2 of the games he wanted most and he gets no DLCs due to a bad console. He actually owns only those 2 games and 2 retarded games his wife likes to play =P
most of this is true. However, I would point out that I bought my 1st 1080 tv 3 months before the PS3 released and the blu-ray format was being used before the PS3 was released...the PS3 just helped to main-line the blu-ray hype.
I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that there are somewhere around 35 games for 360 that can output in 1080, but the actual game was developed for 720 and then upscaled. The list of 6 are games that were developed to output a full native 1080p. And as you stated, for the PS3 if it is listed, then it is full 1080p.
This is just too funny and yes there are way better perks as far as dlc goes for the 360. Like I said earlier...xbox online had a 2 year head start on ps. However, the ps dlc is getting better and it remains to be seen how much better it can get in the future.
just going to barge in for a second .imo, the real problem here is M$. They can do basically anything to any game and make it possibly xbox exclusive due to their billions.every time i hear of a new game going to the xbox that has no release date for the ps3 i wonder what would have happened if m$ had never destroyed the gaming industries balance when it blasted its way in.We would still be getting Rare games made for the GC and Wii (star fox and donkey kong ftw), half the gaming world wouldnt be flaming each other left and right over console specs, developers wouldnt be wasting their money making jrpgs on a system that sells next to 0% in Asia, and everyone would be happy.now back on to what i want to post:imo, all these devs going for the 360 are making a money grab. there are way more us 360 buyers then over in Asia, but they also know that the xbox was rpg depraved. so, flood the xbox with rpgs, make fast cash. imo its a crap shoot and its most likely going to fly back into their faces once they realize that a majority of their sales actually come from Asia (it has too, Asia = buko more population then the US, more customers, more systems, more money), which is why I think some devs are placing a ps3 version of some of these games on the back burner, like Eternal Sonata which just recently was released on the ps3.but yeah, I could give a crap if the games are cross console, just release them on all three of them! or two of them is the wii cant handle em! and dont take m$'s blood money, cant ever tell who's veins m$ had to open to get it and it's a bad practice anyway, it's kind of like whoring yourself out to the highest bidder.the biggest let down of all time for me was Star Ocean 4. I was friggin stoked about that game, then they said it was going to be 360 only. i mean, wtf, the series has been PS exclusive ever since it was made.all in all hopefully dev's get back their minds once the recession stops hurtling along and realize where the real jrpg fan base is at and either start releasing the exclusives back on the ps3 or at least make them cross-console.as a fanatical gaming fan I own all three N.G. systems and I will NEVER own/buy another xbox system due to my extremely poor experiences with both of the systems. I had to buy 2 new xboxs after each one just died on me, M$ would not replace or fix them as the warranty was out of date when each indecent happened.and my first 360 got so hot that it warped one of my games and jammed it into the system. set it in to m$, they emailed me that I would have to buy a new system as they said that there was no way it had gotten hot enough on it's own to do that, when in fact it had, it was sitting right underneath an A/C vent while I had it so I am almost sure that there was no way in hell it would have done that had it been funcitoning correctly. the second 360 I got RRoD'ed and fried itself, and the third one doesnt even start up all the way, it gets to the menu then shuts down. only had the third one for a week before it started doing this.similar things happened to a friend of mines system as well.my ps2 still works like new after 7 years of use, and my 60 gig ps3 has had no issues what so ever. Also, about the PSN.I dont see any problems with it at all. people complain about it though, so why? if they say the speeds are too slow, i suggest they get off their dsl's and aol and get on broadband/cable. and they should also get off their wireless connections and wire their ps3's to their routers.I dl'ed the Dynasty Warriors Gundam demo in 4 minutes, so I have no complaints about the psn as far as speeds go.
and just os I can say i posted something about the topic, <.<, as long as FF 13 is ALSO on the ps3, i dont care what MS pays, but if it's not then I say it's time we formed a lync squad and march on over to M$'s HQ, cuz i have about had anough of them screwing everyone over it;s bad ebough in the computer world, but I wont take any bs from them in the gaming world as well.
ps. crazy typos
good post geo...and I agree, although I never owned 360 (and never will).
From my standpoint, the biggest problems with the PS3:
1. Price upon launch.
2. Released long after the 360.
3. Partly due to 1 and 2: failure to retain many exclusives.
4. Due to 3: There's little incentive to pick the PS3 over the 360.
I own neither a 360 or a PS3, but if I had the money, I'd pick the 360 at anytime. Earlier, because the PS3 was expensive in comparison. Now, because the 360 has a better line up of games in my opinion. Blu-ray and HD gaming hold no sway over me because I don't have an HDTV. Considering I can't afford a console, I certainly can't afford one and an HDTV, making much of the PS3's advantages completely useless for me.
kit...in this case...the 360 would prob be better for you.
If that were true, how is it that Sony has any exclusives? I mean, if Microsoft were able to buy every Sony exclusive, wouldn't they have done so?
Sorry, but mindless Microsoft hate isn't an argument.
Um, no. Rare's only entry into StarFox was crap, and their latest entry into DK was also crap. Rare was in a major slump when Nintendo sold it to Microsoft. Only recently has Rare started to make decent games again.
Please. Console wars came into existence the day there were two competing consoles. And flaming over specs has been around since Sega and Nintendo went at it in Genesis vs. SNES.
Blaming Microsoft for console wars is just silly.
If you're a Sony fan, abandoning the 360 is the last thing you want them to do. Because if they do that, they'll turn to the Wii, not the PS3. The Wii is the dominant console everywhere. And if you think cross-platform 360/PS3 development is hard, cross-platform Wii/PS3 development is almost impossible. And almost always not worth the costs involved.
not exactly, while Ms are bastards in every sense of the word, they are also smart, else they would have gone down in flames long ago.
They are picking off the top and most anticipated titles from SE/other ps3 developers in a ditch to pull those fans over to the 360 that they think they can get away with.
SO4 makes perfect sense in that reguard, a game born on the PS consoles gets exclusivity on the xbox.
While it might anger (which it has) the fan base originally, some players will start thinking, 'hell, maybe I should get a 360, all the games I have been waiting for are going over there'.
So you are saying MS's ability to pay any dev hundreds of millions (probably not that much, but maybe) to make the game exclusive or released before a sony or nintendo version has not and will not happen? sorry, but maybe you dont really know the real microsoft then lol.
touche about Starfox adventures, I thought it was marginally ok, but all the same, could have sworn i saw their logo on SF64 though .
anyway, they were in a slump yes, but they are now out of that slump because they were sold to ms? doubt it, they would have gone on to produce the same games for nintendo systems instead of the xbox.
Please. Console wars came into existence the day there were two competing consoles. And flaming over specs has been around since Sega and Nintendo went at it in Genesis vs. SNES.Blaming Microsoft for console wars is just silly.
not what i implied. What i was trying to convey is that between the ps3 and wii, there is little arguement over which is the stronger system, a line not so well defined with the 360.
there's been hundreds of billions of posts made (probably... ) about which system is stronger powerwise, and just about as many flames wars because of said fuzzy line.
that is what I was talking about. Now when it comes to functionality, the wii is a bit better then both the ps3 and 360 as theres more actual motion sensing involved in most of its games.
true and yet not so true at the same time. A FF game could never work correctly on the wii, neither could a Star Ocean or Secret of X game, and still keep the basic control design. like it might end up sort of how Twilight Princess ended up with certain motion sensor cues for certain attacks.
Or if they released a special controller I suppose.
and also you are wrong about the wii being the only alternitive. If the 360 had not ever been created, more people would have bought at least a 20, if not a 60 or 80, gig ps3 along with the wii. Makes sense as people would still have the 400 or so they would have spent on the 360.
this means ther would be a bigger player base then there is now and developers would probably be making more gmaes for it.
Point is that when MS brought in the xbox it shattered the balance between Sony and Nintendo by adding a third major console to develop for hence making the dev's have to decide if they want to spend the money to develop a game on all three consoles or sell out to the highest bidder(s). and with the global economy going down the tubes, it's just sickening to see ms flaunt it's money in the ps3 communities face.
Unfortunately, this is the way of the world.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
