all i\'m sayin is that when 2nd generation ps2 games were comin out, ist generation xbox games were lookin\' better the ps2 games....
Two things here, Xbox was pretty much PC in a box. PS2 used a multi-core processor, not a lot of devs had experience with that back then. Two very different designes, Xbox was the winner in the short run, PS2 in the long run.
and i\'m sayin that since the roles are reversed this time around the ps3 games really aren\'t lookin that better yet, i say that because the ps3 is supposedly newer hardware and supposedly more powerful, but the games still look at best either not as good or as good as the 360, but not better....this argument sounds painfully juvenile i know,....it\'s just that back then that was the argument....now however i feel both systems are about equal strength wise...
Again you cant call this one yet. Xbox 360 has been out for a longer period of time, the devs had their games running on 360 longer than devs have had PS3 games running (many devs are soon going to be releasing their SECOND 360 title). 360 is the primary platform for many of the mutliplatform games, those games get the quick port treatment when released on the PS3.
If ignoring whats out now on 360 and thinking what it would be like if both systems released at the same time, just for fun.
Who would look better in your eyes? PS3 has one very impressive title (graphically) and thats MotorStorm. That game singlehandidly rapes everything that was out for 360s release, tech wise (and visually, IMO.) And I think Resistance compares very well to any 360 title, 30fps rock solid with a shit-ton of action on screen and in parts very impressive visuals. Also flawless imagequality.
So, you don\'t think that the price of this thing is hurting them? Even if they did have some decent games at launch price is still a huge factor,...hell i can afford $600.00 but it\'s hard for me to pluck down that much cash for what at the end of the day is a gaming system....blu-ray is a nice addition, but all the other bells and whistles?
As I paid over 960 USD for my system (swedish taxes LOL!) I think 600 is NOTHING to cry about.
And the price is a short term problem, the system is already going through hardware revisions which will make it cheaper. The Emotion Engine & Graphics Synthesizer are gone, the CELL will soon or already is a 65nm processor, the cost of a blu-ray diode has gone from 125USD when the PS3 was released to under 8 dollars per diode. So things are in motion to make it cheaper, the question is when Sony will lower the price? As soon as they can I think. PS3 is selling well in only one region (2nd biggest market, but still) and thats Europe.
that\'s what a computer is for...and i could really do without....
Ever heard of HTPCs? PS3 could be one hell of a HTPC, it has wireless internet, its quiet and has a very very powerful media processor.
i applaud sony for tryin to think outside the box, but tryin\' to make the system the all in one, with such an aggresive nature, when the life of these systems are 5 - 6 yrs at most isn\'t worth it....
The life span is why I think its worth it. The blu-ray will benefit games software. If they had gone with a DVD yet again, the system would be gimped for the rest of the generation, 5-6 years.
Remember, a PC is replaced usually within 3-4 years. So you can afford to go so-so on the hardware. Consoles OTOH I think should get the best thats out there, because remember you\'ll be stuck with the tech for a long time.
I guess this is one of those things that make the ps3 a wee bit better than the 360 eh Fast?
I cant for the life of me understand why Microsoft didnt make the HDD standard. Such a retarded mistake. Also I think using DVDs as the storage media for games was a mistake.
