46 replies to this topic

[momaw]

A comprehensive side by side on 360 vs PS3 graphics.

Quite interesting

http://www.1up.com/d...ure?cId=3155393


Gotta say I am a little surprised.  I was already to grab Tiger Woods on PS3, but if it looks identical why pay the higher price?

I love the Ken quotes

[AndrewW]

Quote

"We want for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else...The PS3 will instill discipline in our children and adults alike. Everyone will know discipline."

WTF ?

[Andre28]

perhaps the PS3 is capable of producing the better graphics, but thats when the accompanying game is specifically set out to do just that. Maybe for these crossover games, they simply just transferred much of the original source code or whatever to the different media.

In the future, you will perhaps see PS3 games with unbelievable graphics which the 360 wont be able to match.

For the record, i own a Wii only, so that was just an opinion based on, well, not a whole lot.

[Bob51]

What you get for the extra price of PS3 is something more 'future proof' eg with high definition video capability. But if you want only a games machine then 360 or Wii or PS2 are all cheaper options. Its all a case of what do you want and you get what you pay for.

[motlking]

Andre28, on May 2 2007, 10:12 PM, said:

perhaps the PS3 is capable of producing the better graphics, but thats when the accompanying game is specifically set out to do just that. Maybe for these crossover games, they simply just transferred much of the original source code or whatever to the different media.

Exactly what I was thinking. The game is only as good as its source...

[AndrewW]

motlking, on May 2 2007, 10:29 PM, said:

Exactly what I was thinking. The game is only as good as its source...

Ok, but let's take that argument one step further.

How many games companies, in this world of ever diminishing returns, are going to produce separate versions of games specific to a platforms abilities, when they can just port the same game across all platforms ?

Andrew.

[GSpot]

Bob51, on May 2 2007, 08:25 PM, said:

What you get for the extra price of PS3 is something more 'future proof' eg with high definition video capability. But if you want only a games machine then 360 or Wii or PS2 are all cheaper options. Its all a case of what do you want and you get what you pay for.

My 360 hardly gets used as a games machine. It's used mainly for streaming media from my PC, and for those new fan dangled high defintion videos...for a hundred bucks less.

[AndrewW]

GSpot, on May 2 2007, 10:41 PM, said:

My 360 hardly gets used as a games machine. It's used mainly for streaming media from my PC, and for those new fan dangled high defintion videos...for a hundred bucks less.

Not to mention watching HD DVDs

Andrew.

[momaw]

AndrewWilcockson, on May 2 2007, 10:31 PM, said:

Ok, but let's take that argument one step further.

How many games companies, in this world of ever diminishing returns, are going to produce separate versions of games specific to a platforms abilities, when they can just port the same game across all platforms ?

Andrew.

bingo, they do it already for the PS2 and the xbox.  I think we are gonna see a whole lot of games designed for the lowest spec.  Unfortunately this means the only PS3 games which will really shine are the exclusives.  With those now being rare commodities will the PS3 overtake the 360 which offers the same at a lower price (gaming wise)?

I prefer my PS for games (sixaxis aside) but like I said in the original post, $120 for tiger woods on PS3 vs $80 on 360, I'm gonna put up with that jet engine me thinks.

[momaw]

GSpot, on May 2 2007, 10:41 PM, said:

My 360 hardly gets used as a games machine. It's used mainly for streaming media from my PC, and for those new fan dangled high defintion videos...for a hundred bucks less.

I think as a media centre the 360 offers more if only for the ease with which it talks to your windows PC.  Like the PS2, you won't find many using the PS3 as a dedicated HD movie player once standalone prices come down.

[croops]

This exact test was done at Gamespot yonks ago... they basically came to the conclusion that we really wont start seeing how good the PS3 is for at least 12 months until developers begin exploiting the Ps3's Cell and RSX. Hardly a fair comparison at the moment...

[palmag]

croops, on May 2 2007, 11:34 PM, said:

Hardly a fair comparison at the moment...

I disagree, because the test show what both SKU's are capable to perform at the moment with cross over games. At the moment the PS3 is more or less the same as the 360. So the incentive to pay extra for a games machine that will output the same or slighlty inferior graphics to the competitor is unappelaling. (in repstect to games)

[souljah_adam]

I'm just glad I bit the bullet and bought the 360 last year instead of waiting for the PS3 like some of my mates did(I new the PS3 release would be delayed). With the PS3 expected to take 12 months before it starts showing its real value and another 6-12 months after that to really hit its straps, I will get much use out of the 360 at a lower cost(the machine originally cheaper plus most games I buy being cheaper).

When the PS3 does start kicking the 360's butt I will then look to get the PS3. Since that wont be for another 12-18 months I will get much more use out of the 360 and 'hopefully' be able to snag a PS3 for much lower cost than the $1000 tag on it now. Hopefully the prices of the games will have come back down to a realistic price point too, they cant seriously expect people to fork out $120 a game? $80-100 should be the limit and leave the $120 to special additions, limited editions etc.

Aaaah... finally my inability to be patient may have paid off.

[momaw]

palmag, on May 3 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

I disagree, because the test show what both SKU's are capable to perform at the moment with cross over games. At the moment the PS3 is more or less the same as the 360. So the incentive to pay extra for a games machine that will output the same or slighlty inferior graphics to the competitor is unappelaling. (in repstect to games)

Actually I agree with this too.  Potential in 12 months times does not move games today.  I found this comparison while trying to decide which version of a game to buy that is available on both formats.  Since I have both machines I can take the version that is best, and at present that looks to be the 360 version.  Why?  Well if both are identical but one is up to $40 cheaper, Ill be getting that one.  This then feeds the cycle where programers will program for the 360 over the PS3 as that format is selling more copies.  The PS3 will get a port and both will remain the same.  I'm not altruistic enough to spend more on my games to prop up the profits of the PS3 version so it will get more attention from the programers in 12-18 months.

While I would prefer the PS3 version, I probably won't get it.  Aside form the monetary savings I can console myself with the fact the 360 controllers is far more ergonomic and comfortable.  Pity the 360 doesn't use bluetooth, then I could put it in a sound proof box

[attilathepun]

I own both, and I agree - why pay more for the same thing?

With regards to the future, the creative VP at Rockstar was recently asked:

"On PS3 you've got a guarantee that every machine is going to have a hard-drive and, with Blu-ray, you've got plenty of storage, whereas on Xbox 360 there's no guarantee of a hard-drive and you're working with the DVD format. Does that create limitations?" His answer? "Yep."

It was a leading question (from a PS magazine), but still interesting.  I don't think it will be a problem for the 360 for a while though.

[souljah_adam]

croops, on May 2 2007, 11:34 PM, said:

Hardly a fair comparison at the moment...

Will there ever be a 'fair' comparison?

PS3 owners will always argue that its too early to be comparing the two

360 owners will be argueing in 12-18 months time that its unfair because the 360 is 12 months older...

Each to their own I guess, as long as they enjoy the purchase they make.

For the record I am a PS fanboy at heart   but bought the 360 out of a mixture of impatience and because it represented the best value :ph34r: .

[nonny]

attilathepun, on May 3 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

I own both, and I agree - why pay more for the same thing?

With regards to the future, the creative VP at Rockstar was recently asked:

"On PS3 you've got a guarantee that every machine is going to have a hard-drive and, with Blu-ray, you've got plenty of storage, whereas on Xbox 360 there's no guarantee of a hard-drive and you're working with the DVD format. Does that create limitations?" His answer? "Yep."

It was a leading question (from a PS magazine), but still interesting.  I don't think it will be a problem for the 360 for a while though.

I dont think it will be a problem at all, sounds to me more like developers moaning like they usually do because they dont have it all their own way. Fact is the 360 is easier to develop for than the PS3, the multi-core environment is a b1tch but the PS3 benefits from the fact that every SKU has the same optical and storage drives in Blu-Ray and the HDD.

On 360 it's easier to code but you have to compensate for that lack of HDD on the core model and the size limitations of DVDR. Conversely DVDR has quicker disc access so thats a small gain.

I think its all relative though. As long as developers (I mean all devs, not just Rockstar) focus on each machines strengths there is no reason why both can't get identical games. As for huge content titles like GTA you only have to look at Elder Scrolls Oblivion for a decent comparison and that worked just fine without the HDD on 360.

Developers love to whinge.

[souljah_adam]

momaw, on May 3 2007, 10:30 AM, said:

While I would prefer the PS3 version, I probably won't get it.  Aside form the monetary savings I can console myself with the fact the 360 controllers is far more ergonomic and comfortable.  Pity the 360 doesn't use bluetooth, then I could put it in a sound proof box

I always loved my ps2 controller but never got comfy with the xbox controllers. The 360 controllers however are fantastic! just feels right, never get sore from long sessions on the 360.

The jet engine running the 360 really gets my goat though. Almosty as annoying as the P platers driving around in hyundai excels with racing exhausts that sound just aweful(get a real car for that). The 360 is probably louder though...  

[attilathepun]

nonny, on May 3 2007, 10:39 AM, said:

As for huge content titles like GTA you only have to look at Elder Scrolls Oblivion for a decent comparison and that worked just fine without the HDD on 360.

Developers love to whinge.

But the argument is that a "open world" title is not appropriate for a multi-disk solution, so developers will be limited (if they want to produce identical titles) to the space of a single DVD.  They managed for Oblivion, but what about looking forward?

As I said, it was a PS biased question, but it does raise issues for the 360 - will they eventually mandate a HDD?  Given continually falling prices of storage, it isn't ridiculous to suggest that they may require a $50 add on HDD in 12 - 18 months IMO.

[momaw]

attilathepun, on May 3 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

I own both, and I agree - why pay more for the same thing?

With regards to the future, the creative VP at Rockstar was recently asked:

"On PS3 you've got a guarantee that every machine is going to have a hard-drive and, with Blu-ray, you've got plenty of storage, whereas on Xbox 360 there's no guarantee of a hard-drive and you're working with the DVD format. Does that create limitations?" His answer? "Yep."

It was a leading question (from a PS magazine), but still interesting.  I don't think it will be a problem for the 360 for a while though.

That's really interesting Attilla, it would then beg the question, why did they go neutral on GTA:IV then and why is the 360 seeing an earlier release?

I wonder if the PS3 version will have additional content, run better after the extra progrmaing time.

Personally I think if a game is huge and will suffer from a lack of hardrive, then program for a hardrive.  I dare say a majority of 360 owners have the harddrive.  All that is needed is a sticker saying HDD required.  Incentive for peeps to upgrade.  With the 120gb drive hitting shelves, 20gb ones should probably drop in price.  It's the same concept as games that are online only or require xbox live for the main experience.  Sure you'll get some unhappy campers, but that's life.

[attilathepun]

I didn't realise the 360 was coming out sooner?  That will present a test of willpower if there is an indication the PS3 version will be any better

I agree with your second point - who doesn't have a HDD anyway?  MS will obviously know the breakdown of sales, so I think a low cost HDD will be the way to go.  I never understood the core system - if you couldn't afford the extra cash for the premium, how will you be able to buy any games?

[dunnas]

How many times do I have to say that the 360 version is not coming out earlier and it was never going to.  

[momaw]

attilathepun, on May 3 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

I didn't realise the 360 was coming out sooner?  That will present a test of willpower if there is an indication the PS3 version will be any better

I agree with your second point - who doesn't have a HDD anyway?  MS will obviously know the breakdown of sales, so I think a low cost HDD will be the way to go.  I never understood the core system - if you couldn't afford the extra cash for the premium, how will you be able to buy any games?

Yes, it will present a dilema which to buy.  I think it will come down to the delay verses what is promised in terms of improvements.

[swordfish805]

Reading this thread brought a few things home to me.  I automatically bought a PS3 because I have a PS2 and it seemed the natural progression.  I also wanted a blu-ray or HD DVD player and a media player.  The PS3 seems to offer a (slightly) better set of features over the xbox although the ability to use the xbox as a media extender is very attractive.

In the end I went with the PS3 because I think it will be more expandable and future proof.  I'm hoping we'll see more apps developed for it - perhaps even running under linux.  However, after reading this I'm less comfortable that things will develop as I hoped...

With the delayed launch of the PS3 Sony has got itself into a chicken and egg disaster.  No exclusive high end game content - why would most people buy the PS3? running the same games as the xbox in the same video quality - why not buy the xbox and it's cheaper games?  Everyone buying an xbox?  Why bother develop a game for the PS3?

The only way out of this mess for Sony is to:
a - spend heaps marketing the PS3 - not an attractive option given that you'd be trying to outspend Microsoft!

b - contract a leading games studio to develop exclusive content for the PS3 that kick starts the markets interest in the PS3 as a gaming platform and encourages upgrades from the PS2.

Plan b is what Sony did with the PS2 but it will be much higher risk and higher cost now (because any good game developer will be so wary of restricting good content to the PS3 while the xbox is selling so well they will require Sony to not only pay for the development, but to guarantee their profits).

I suspect in this mess plus the cost of developing the PS3 lies the answer to why certain people are no longer lunching in the Sony executive canteen

[momaw]

Swordfish, removing the whole BD saga on which my stance is well known over in the HD DVD/BD subforum, I have always been a PS fan.  This gen I am forced to agree that your assessment pretty much sums up the situation and I am reluctantly thinking my 360 is gonna be seeing a lot more action than my PS3.