Its time for a new generation of consoles given the upcoming games.

I've been reading Rage requiring an 8GB mandatory installation on PS3, and the xbox 360 version using 3 discs. The recently released beta for Battlefield 3, while good its missing the 64 player option of the PC as well as Jets. Skyrim with its huge massive world, most likely will probably will have texture pop up , downgraded it to keep a steady framerate. The gap is getting considerable noticeable by now, games running below 720p ; I'd hope a new console by late 2012 while the Wii U will be released then we know how 3rd party devs are skeptical on releasing their games on Nintendo's console.

Anyone else feeling the same lately? I know this console cycle has still a few years left but I get the feeling that with big budget games I'm not getting quite the full experience.

Xbox 720, PS3.5, GameCube 2

:D

games running below 720pD3s7rUc71oN

[QUOTE="D3s7rUc71oN"]games running below 720pBlack_Knight_00

Most games these days dont run at 720p.

Think of a game, ANY game, and then post it here. There is a 90% chance it doesnt even run at 720p (which is supposed to be HD).

I've been reading Rage requiring an 8GB mandatory installation on PS3, and the xbox 360 version using 3 discs. The recently released beta for Battlefield 3, while good its missing the 64 player option of the PC as well as Jets. Skyrim with its huge massive world, most likely will probably will have texture pop up , downgraded it to keep a steady framerate. The gap is getting considerable noticeable by now, games running below 720p ; I'd hope a new console by late 2012 while the Wii U will be released then we know how 3rd party devs are skeptical on releasing their games on Nintendo's console.

Anyone else feeling the same lately? I know this console cycle has still a few years left but I get the feeling that with big budget games I'm not getting quite the full experience.

D3s7rUc71oN

Dude I'm ready, I want a new hardware in and around my mouth. Was waiting for the PSP2 but it got pushed back. Actually i'll be ready by next year. But no one else seems to be clamoring for a new consoles (gamers and devs both), so Im not sure how quickly we will get the next gen consoles. Hopefully Wii U will have a decent first party line up with fancy next gen graphics when it launches next year. If Im not laid off, i will definitely pick one up.

in all reality, only a few ps3 exclusives take advantage of the full potential of the ps3.

it may be time for a new wii, or gamecube 2, or xbox...but i think ps3 still has untapped potential. i dont wanna see another playstation for at least another 2-3 years.

I am looking forward to new games more than new consoles. I am not particularly fond of playing the same old games on newer systems.

in all reality, only a few ps3 exclusives take advantage of the full potential of the ps3.

it may be time for a new wii, or gamecube 2, or xbox...but i think ps3 still has untapped potential. i dont wanna see another playstation for at least another 2-3 years.

ristactionjakso

in all reality, only a few ps3 exclusives take advantage of the full potential of the ps3.

it may be time for a new wii, or gamecube 2, or xbox...but i think ps3 still has untapped potential. i dont wanna see another playstation for at least another 2-3 years.

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="D3s7rUc71oN"]games running below 720pS0lidSnake

Most games these days dont run at 720p.

Think of a game, ANY game, and then post it here. There is a 90% chance it doesnt even run at 720p (which is supposed to be HD).

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] My TV tells me the resolution games runs at, I never see anything below 720. It may be a default value, I don't know.Pedro

This.

Actually MOST games do that. Otherwise you will see black bars all over the screen. Technically, if your TV can support it and if you change your resolution in the PS3 display settings, you can force every game to run at 1080p. Just because it's running at 1080p doesn't mean it's the native resolution. It's just being stretched that wide to make up the difference.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] What does that mean?Black_Knight_00

Most games these days dont run at 720p.

Think of a game, ANY game, and then post it here. There is a 90% chance it doesnt even run at 720p (which is supposed to be HD).

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="D3s7rUc71oN"]games running below 720pS0lidSnake

Most games these days dont run at 720p.

Think of a game, ANY game, and then post it here. There is a 90% chance it doesnt even run at 720p (which is supposed to be HD).

Technically, we are long overdue for new hardware. By industry standards past, gamers would be lining up to buy the next Xbox this month, and that's at the latest. That's why I don't understand the whinging about the Wii bailing out -- it is following a very conventional hardware cycle; it's the PS3 and 360 that are old dinos being kept alive artificially by motion gimmickry and baling wire that are the anomalies.

I mean, you can't really BLAME Sony or Microsoft for being hesistant to release given that they are going to have to go with the same painful model that hurt both bottom lines for years and years, win OR lose. However, why should the consumer care about Sony or Microsoft? If that were the case, nothing would ever get released. The consumer's expectation for visual fidelity has exceeded what the current machines are capable of, as has the size of the games and delivery methods. It is far past the time for new hardware, especially since said new hardware will likely need several years on the market before it'll even remotely approach mass market pricing and also that neither of the two systems being discussed is exactly the PS2 from a success standpoint.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] What does that mean?Teufelhuhn

Most games these days dont run at 720p.

Think of a game, ANY game, and then post it here. There is a 90% chance it doesnt even run at 720p (which is supposed to be HD).

Agreed, but you can't blame people like Solid for buying into the Sony marketing line. After all, he's basically just expecting them to live up to what they promised, BS though it may have been (and when hasn't Sony -- or any company -- been full of BS?). Many people want the 1080p 120 fps promise that Sony trotted out when the machine hit like the arrogant buttholes they are. Such claims place unreasonable expectations on the developers and the consumer. And this is the result -- a lot of people expecting some bullet point that never came true. Sony basically seized on theoreticals to market their machine, and as such, they are completely at fault for the dissatisfied sector of folk who expected some dreamlike utopia of graphics and framerate that never arrived. I STILL meet folks who think that any day, a magic development box is going to open and the PS3 will suddenly become this beast of a machine that can do all kinds of insane wizardry because that's how it was marketed to them. And unfortunately for those people, they are going to remain forever dissatisfied with the machine to a degree because of that.

Agreed, but you can't blame people like Solid for buying into the Sony marketing line. After all, he's basically just expecting them to live up to what they promised, BS though it may have been (and when hasn't Sony -- or any company -- been full of BS?). Many people want the 1080p 120 fps promise that Sony trotted out when the machine hit like the arrogant buttholes they are. Such claims place unreasonable expectations on the developers and the consumer. And this is the result -- a lot of people expecting some bullet point that never came true. Sony basically seized on theoreticals to market their machine, and as such, they are completely at fault for the dissatisfied sector of folk who expected some dreamlike utopia of graphics and framerate that never arrived.

Shame-usBlackley

lol nice try, but Sony first party games have been the ones that have consistently been 720p or above. So they are delivering on the marketing line they promised, the other third party developers aren't. (Though I am not blaming them either. MGS4 and Halo Reach are two of the best looking games I've seen this gen, and they are both sub 720p. Same with Crysis 2, arguably the best looking console game out right now, it doesn't do 720p.)

Teuf, I do get what you are saying. And I guess I would rather pick better performance over 50 or so pixels everytime. But most of the best looking games I've played this gen have been sub-HD (Not counting Uncharted, KZ, GT5 etc.) so I was just making a point.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

Agreed, but you can't blame people like Solid for buying into the Sony marketing line. After all, he's basically just expecting them to live up to what they promised, BS though it may have been (and when hasn't Sony -- or any company -- been full of BS?). Many people want the 1080p 120 fps promise that Sony trotted out when the machine hit like the arrogant buttholes they are. Such claims place unreasonable expectations on the developers and the consumer. And this is the result -- a lot of people expecting some bullet point that never came true. Sony basically seized on theoreticals to market their machine, and as such, they are completely at fault for the dissatisfied sector of folk who expected some dreamlike utopia of graphics and framerate that never arrived.

S0lidSnake

lol nice try, but Sony first party games have been the ones that have consistently been 720p or above. So they are delivering on the marketing line they promised, the other third party developers aren't. (Though I am not blaming them either. MGS4 and Halo Reach are two of the best looking games I've seen this gen, and they are both sub 720p. Same with Crysis 2, arguably the best looking console game out right now, it doesn't do 720p.)

Teuf, I do get what you are saying. And I guess I would rather pick better performance over 50 or so pixels everytime. But most of the best looking games I've played this gen have been sub-HD (Not counting Uncharted, KZ, GT5 etc.) so I was just making a point.

Yeah, but Sony didn't promise and hype 720p, did they? I guess you and I remember different marketing campaigns from 2006, because the insanity around the whole 1080p thing was directly attributable to Sony touting "real" HD was only 1080p, and because of that, it became one of those BS marketing albatrosses that initially hung around the necks of the competition, but eventually was affixed to Sony themselves when they had to come out and say years later that, yeah, that was kind of BS.

If you are not part of the group that still believes the hype, that's fine, there are thousands of others that still do, or want to anyway. I kind of think you are though, to be honest, since most people don't even worry about or know what the resolution of the game is; only whether it looks good to them or not. But whatever, some people need a number to make themselves feel better. And that's fine. :)

I've been reading Rage requiring an 8GB mandatory installation on PS3, and the xbox 360 version using 3 discs. The recently released beta for Battlefield 3, while good its missing the 64 player option of the PC as well as Jets. Skyrim with its huge massive world, most likely will probably will have texture pop up , downgraded it to keep a steady framerate. The gap is getting considerable noticeable by now, games running below 720p ; I'd hope a new console by late 2012 while the Wii U will be released then we know how 3rd party devs are skeptical on releasing their games on Nintendo's console.

Anyone else feeling the same lately? I know this console cycle has still a few years left but I get the feeling that with big budget games I'm not getting quite the full experience.

D3s7rUc71oN

Yeah, but Sony didn't promise and hype 720p, did they? I guess you and I remember different marketing campaigns from 2006, because the insanity around the whole 1080p thing was directly attributable to Sony touting "real" HD was only 1080p, and because of that, it became one of those BS marketing albatrosses that initially hung around the necks of the competition, but eventually was affixed to Sony themselves when they had to come out and say years later that, yeah, that was kind of BS.

If you are not part of the group that still believes the hype, that's fine, there are thousands of others that still do, or want to anyway. I kind of think you are though, to be honest, since most people don't even worry about or know what the resolution of the game is; only whether it looks good to them or not. But whatever, some people need a number to make themselves feel better. And that's fine. :)

Shame-usBlackley

I played Resistance 3 a couple of weeks ago and it looked beautiful, but there was just something soft or low res about the way the game looked. I didn't know what it was at first, but then later found out it's not a 720p game. I've played KZ2 which looks SHARP as f*** at 720p so i use that as my reference. As much as i like Halo Reach's astethic or art styIe, I'm sure you will agree the game has this 'soft' look especially when compared to something like God Of War 3. So I dont think i NEED to have something that HAS to be 720p. I can just EASILY notice something that is 600 or sub 600 like COD games.

The marketing campaign I remember from Sony 2006 was Bluray, Bluray, $600 get two jobs, Bluray.

[QUOTE="D3s7rUc71oN"]

I've been reading Rage requiring an 8GB mandatory installation on PS3, and the xbox 360 version using 3 discs. The recently released beta for Battlefield 3, while good its missing the 64 player option of the PC as well as Jets. Skyrim with its huge massive world, most likely will probably will have texture pop up , downgraded it to keep a steady framerate. The gap is getting considerable noticeable by now, games running below 720p ; I'd hope a new console by late 2012 while the Wii U will be released then we know how 3rd party devs are skeptical on releasing their games on Nintendo's console.

Anyone else feeling the same lately? I know this console cycle has still a few years left but I get the feeling that with big budget games I'm not getting quite the full experience.

Jbul

GT5 full install was almost 10 gigs, and that took an hour I believe. So Rage should be less than an hour.

Still doesn;t make it any less annoying. THough by now I'm so used to installing my 360 games on the HDD, installing games has actual become a ritual of sorts. I start the install, go make myself a sandwich, come back and play the game without the 360 moaning like a whore. Wish PS3 had that feature.

That's why I really like how the 360 installs games. It takes 10 minutes or less and the entire game is run from the HDD with no need to access anything from the dvd aside from security authentication on start-up and ending the game session.Archangel3371

The best thing about the 360 is the 1 minute or less software updates. PS3 firmwares take almost a half hour to install, and the patches are over half a gig sometimes. Resistance 3 had two 600MB patches in the first week alone. I was like wtf, did you forget to attach a whole single player level or something. What kinda patch is this?

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]That's why I really like how the 360 installs games. It takes 10 minutes or less and the entire game is run from the HDD with no need to access anything from the dvd aside from security authentication on start-up and ending the game session.S0lidSnake

The best thing about the 360 is the 1 minute or less software updates. PS3 firmwares take almost a half hour to install, and the patches are over half a gig sometimes. Resistance 3 had two 600MB patches in the first week alone. I was like wtf, did you forget to attach a whole single player level or something. What kinda patch is this?

Teuf, I do get what you are saying. And I guess I would rather pick better performance over 50 or so pixels everytime. But most of the best looking games I've played this gen have been sub-HD (Not counting Uncharted, KZ, GT5 etc.) so I was just making a point.

S0lidSnake

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Most games these days dont run at 720p.

Think of a game, ANY game, and then post it here. There is a 90% chance it doesnt even run at 720p (which is supposed to be HD).

Shame-usBlackley

Agreed, but you can't blame people like Solid for buying into the Sony marketing line. After all, he's basically just expecting them to live up to what they promised, BS though it may have been (and when hasn't Sony -- or any company -- been full of BS?). Many people want the 1080p 120 fps promise that Sony trotted out when the machine hit like the arrogant buttholes they are. Such claims place unreasonable expectations on the developers and the consumer. And this is the result -- a lot of people expecting some bullet point that never came true. Sony basically seized on theoreticals to market their machine, and as such, they are completely at fault for the dissatisfied sector of folk who expected some dreamlike utopia of graphics and framerate that never arrived. I STILL meet folks who think that any day, a magic development box is going to open and the PS3 will suddenly become this beast of a machine that can do all kinds of insane wizardry because that's how it was marketed to them. And unfortunately for those people, they are going to remain forever dissatisfied with the machine to a degree because of that.

I disagree. IMHO most people know little and care less about the minutia of tech. Its how everything comes together that matters. From a broad tech perspective, the X360 underwhelmed at launch (PD Zero was just embarrassing and the X360 version of FEAR fell short of its PC counterpart) but it quickly found its feet (nods towards Oblivion and GRAW). And when Gear of War hit, it hugely impressed everyone. No it wasn't 1080p or 60 fps, but almost everyone considered it the most amazing looking game they had ever seen.

Also, the demand for new tech is traditionally created by games which use tech consoles don't have. In the old, old days that would have been arcade games. In the slightly less old days that would have been PC games. In modern times I suppose it is still PC games, but the PC game market is such that there isn't much money in pushing the tech envelope (Crysis will hold the tech crown up until Battlefield 3 largely because Crysis was the king of a mountain so small few figured it was worth the effort to climb it).

Most of the tech griping on these forums comes from PC gamers who are unhappy because they feel that due to multiplat development, consoles are holding back their insanely powerful computers. But I suspect that the larger problem is not consoles, but the changing tastes of the market. Even on consoles, the overwhelming majority of developers of retail games use licensed engines like UE 3.0 rather than code to the metal (as was common last gen and all of the generations before it). Most of the bestselling core games are nice looking but none are on the cutting edge of tech (nods towards Halo, CoD and GTA).Given thatconsumers figure UE 3.0 (or below graphics) are good enough why spend money doing better if such spending won't translate into additional sales?

I've been reading Rage requiring an 8GB mandatory installation on PS3, and the xbox 360 version using 3 discs. The recently released beta for Battlefield 3, while good its missing the 64 player option of the PC as well as Jets. Skyrim with its huge massive world, most likely will probably will have texture pop up , downgraded it to keep a steady framerate. The gap is getting considerable noticeable by now, games running below 720p ; I'd hope a new console by late 2012 while the Wii U will be released then we know how 3rd party devs are skeptical on releasing their games on Nintendo's console.

Anyone else feeling the same lately? I know this console cycle has still a few years left but I get the feeling that with big budget games I'm not getting quite the full experience.

D3s7rUc71oN

I see your point, but honestly, I haven't yet seen the PC game which makes me curse the outdated tech that powers the PS3 (and the X360) so I'm happy if the current gen runs a few more years.

If you want to fly a plane in a console shooter, I recommend Starhawk (which is 720p).

I don't want to see new hardware until at least 2014.

I disagree. IMHO most people know little and care less about the minutia of tech. Its how everything comes together that matters. From a broad tech perspective, the X360 underwhelmed at launch (PD Zero was just embarrassing and the X360 version of FEAR fell short of its PC counterpart) but it quickly found its feet (nods towards Oblivion and GRAW). And when Gear of War hit, it hugely impressed everyone. No it wasn't 1080p or 60 fps, but almost everyone considered it the most amazing looking game they had ever seen.

Also, the demand for new tech is traditionally created by games which use tech consoles don't have. In the old, old days that would have been arcade games. In the slightly less old days that would have been PC games. In modern times I suppose it is still PC games, but the PC game market is such that there isn't much money in pushing the tech envelope (Crysis will hold the tech crown up until Battlefield 3 largely because Crysis was the king of a mountain so small few figured it was worth the effort to climb it).

Most of the tech griping on these forums comes from PC gamers who are unhappy because they feel that due to multiplat development, consoles are holding back their insanely powerful computers. But I suspect that the larger problem is not consoles, but the changing tastes of the market. Even on consoles, the overwhelming majority of developers of retail games use licensed engines like UE 3.0 rather than code to the metal (as was common last gen and all of the generations before it). Most of the bestselling core games are nice looking but none are on the cutting edge of tech (nods towards Halo, CoD and GTA).Given thatconsumers figure UE 3.0 (or below graphics) are good enough why spend money doing better if such spending won't translate into additional sales?

CarnageHeart

If you want to ignore the fact that Sony created a marketing impossibility in order to sell an overpriced machine and that a certain segment of the base that bought into those lies still believes them to be true, then that's your prerogative. The reason dips**** on GAF look at resolutions is because they still use it as a barometer of how their games look. Most people I've talked to think most of the "sub-HD" games Solid cited look superb -- I remember most people thinking COD4 was ridiculously gorgeous. When I inform those people that games like COD4 aren't running at 720p or higher, they usually don't care. At all. I don't think many people outside of hyped-up Sony fans really care about resolution, they care about how the game looks.

The truth is that Sony created the 1080p "true HD" horse crap to try and sell their machine, and their bloated marketing machine did it so well that even Microsoft had to buckle and start including HDMI (a fine addition, but not for the reasons they did, which were to combat Sony's bullet point) in newer 360s. The lie still persists to this date -- there are STILL people who believe that the PS3 is a true hi-def machine, while the 360 is not.

My post had nothing to do with launch software, or even future software. Launch software most always sucks, and always has.

Your last line of logic is the same logic Nintendo used when Sony was coming out with the Playstation. Remember? "The market is happy with cartridges and current graphics," they said. Crysis is a poor example. It would be the same as using Doom 3 for the same reason on whether it was time for new hardware in the PS2 era. The market for both games was so small that indeed it would have been silly to make hardware for them. However, that's completely ignoring the fact that even though Skyrim looks divine, I can only imagine how amazing it would look on new hardware, how that "wow" factor Oblivion had might return again. The bottom line is that the 5-6 year cycle has been around for decades and will likely continue to be around in coming ones. When you compare it to other technological advancements, it's rather slow. Look at computer hardware and televisions, tablets and cell phones.

I don't think new consoles will make much difference - the developers will just push them past their limits so the games run like crap, just like they do now.

They should have announced the next PS/Xbox at this years E3 just like Nintendo did, it's getting horrible how outdated the current consoles are

No, I still don't want to see a new generation at least until holiday 2013, Wii U notwithstanding.DarkCatalyst

This. I think the current systems still have a lot of life left in them for now and the release of new systems should hold off until late 2013 at best.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

I disagree. IMHO most people know little and care less about the minutia of tech. Its how everything comes together that matters. From a broad tech perspective, the X360 underwhelmed at launch (PD Zero was just embarrassing and the X360 version of FEAR fell short of its PC counterpart) but it quickly found its feet (nods towards Oblivion and GRAW). And when Gear of War hit, it hugely impressed everyone. No it wasn't 1080p or 60 fps, but almost everyone considered it the most amazing looking game they had ever seen.

Also, the demand for new tech is traditionally created by games which use tech consoles don't have. In the old, old days that would have been arcade games. In the slightly less old days that would have been PC games. In modern times I suppose it is still PC games, but the PC game market is such that there isn't much money in pushing the tech envelope (Crysis will hold the tech crown up until Battlefield 3 largely because Crysis was the king of a mountain so small few figured it was worth the effort to climb it).

Most of the tech griping on these forums comes from PC gamers who are unhappy because they feel that due to multiplat development, consoles are holding back their insanely powerful computers. But I suspect that the larger problem is not consoles, but the changing tastes of the market. Even on consoles, the overwhelming majority of developers of retail games use licensed engines like UE 3.0 rather than code to the metal (as was common last gen and all of the generations before it). Most of the bestselling core games are nice looking but none are on the cutting edge of tech (nods towards Halo, CoD and GTA).Given thatconsumers figure UE 3.0 (or below graphics) are good enough why spend money doing better if such spending won't translate into additional sales?

Shame-usBlackley

If you want to ignore the fact that Sony created a marketing impossibility in order to sell an overpriced machine and that a certain segment of the base that bought into those lies still believes them to be true, then that's your prerogative. The reason dips**** on GAF look at resolutions is because they still use it as a barometer of how their games look. Most people I've talked to think most of the "sub-HD" games Solid cited look superb -- I remember most people thinking COD4 was ridiculously gorgeous. When I inform those people that games like COD4 aren't running at 720p or higher, they usually don't care. At all. I don't think many people outside of hyped-up Sony fans really care about resolution, they care about how the game looks.

The truth is that Sony created the 1080p "true HD" horse crap to try and sell their machine, and their bloated marketing machine did it so well that even Microsoft had to buckle and start including HDMI (a fine addition, but not for the reasons they did, which were to combat Sony's bullet point) in newer 360s. The lie still persists to this date -- there are STILL people who believe that the PS3 is a true hi-def machine, while the 360 is not.

My post had nothing to do with launch software, or even future software. Launch software most always sucks, and always has.

Your last line of logic is the same logic Nintendo used when Sony was coming out with the Playstation. Remember? "The market is happy with cartridges and current graphics," they said. Crysis is a poor example. It would be the same as using Doom 3 for the same reason on whether it was time for new hardware in the PS2 era. The market for both games was so small that indeed it would have been silly to make hardware for them. However, that's completely ignoring the fact that even though Skyrim looks divine, I can only imagine how amazing it would look on new hardware, how that "wow" factor Oblivion had might return again. The bottom line is that the 5-6 year cycle has been around for decades and will likely continue to be around in coming ones. When you compare it to other technological advancements, it's rather slow. Look at computer hardware and televisions, tablets and cell phones.

Looking past your digressions,we seem to be in agreement that most gamers don't care about tech minutia to I'll focus on your last paragraph.

Crysis is a great example because it shows that for the first time, there was a vast gap inbetween the evolution of PC game hardware and the evolution of PC game design. Doom 3 didn't maintain its graphics crown for long because there were a lot of other talented developers also seeking to push PC hardware as far as they could. That is no longer the case. The money in PC gaming isn't in such games anymore and as a result many makers of non-MMOs (Valve and Crytek spring to mind) now make games which they are sure can run on consoles. Yes, the PC versions have higher resolutions, framerates and draw distances, but the PC versions were in essence the same games as the console versions.

Its true this has already been a longer generation than usual, but (as you mentioned) hardware prices started off higher than usual and this is the first gen ever that developers have mostly used middleware like UE 3.0 to build their games, so I strongly suspect that the X360 and PS3 haven't been squeezed as much in this span of time as the Xbox and PS2 were in a shorter span of time. Another problem is that the PS3 and X360 split the core market.

As for your point that someone always says the market isn't ready, sometimes they are right (as the makers of the TG-16, 3DO and Jaguar could attest). I agree that consoles don't advance as fast as computing technology, but that has always been the case and always will be.

To make a long story short, I belive a new high powered system is long overdue. No wonder the App Store and Iphone games have taken off. They actually just relasesed a new version of UNITY to make games on Iphone that are PS3 quality. Totally unacceptable, we should have systems on our TV's that are light years ahead of our PHONES for crying out loud. !:twisted:

To make a long story short, I belive a new high powered system is long overdue. No wonder the App Store and Iphone games have taken off. They actually just relasesed a new version of UNITY to make games on Iphone that are PS3 quality. Totally unacceptable, we should have systems on our TV's that are light years ahead of our PHONES for crying out loud. !:twisted:

5UPERMARIO

[QUOTE="Jbul"][QUOTE="D3s7rUc71oN"]

I've been reading Rage requiring an 8GB mandatory installation on PS3, and the xbox 360 version using 3 discs. The recently released beta for Battlefield 3, while good its missing the 64 player option of the PC as well as Jets. Skyrim with its huge massive world, most likely will probably will have texture pop up , downgraded it to keep a steady framerate. The gap is getting considerable noticeable by now, games running below 720p ; I'd hope a new console by late 2012 while the Wii U will be released then we know how 3rd party devs are skeptical on releasing their games on Nintendo's console.

Anyone else feeling the same lately? I know this console cycle has still a few years left but I get the feeling that with big budget games I'm not getting quite the full experience.

S0lidSnake

GT5 full install was almost 10 gigs, and that took an hour I believe. So Rage should be less than an hour.

Still doesn;t make it any less annoying. THough by now I'm so used to installing my 360 games on the HDD, installing games has actual become a ritual of sorts. I start the install, go make myself a sandwich, come back and play the game without the 360 moaning like a whore. Wish PS3 had that feature.

Having downloaded full retail games on both PS3 and 360, I can safely say XBL does not have any noticeable advantage in download speeds at all. It took about the same time on both boxes.TransFishers

Honestly I don't think it's the right time to release new systems. It feels like it's too soon IMO.

I don't know what kind of connection you're using (I'm using wireless), but downloading much smaller games than 8GB has taken me 2+ hours on PSN (and that doesn't include the actual install or update downloads which could add another hour). The f***ing service is rediculously, inexcusably slow. The yearly fee for XBL is seriously worth the lightning fast download times in and of itself. I also very rarely install games on my 360, and they run fine. I don't hear my 360 "moan like a w****" because I have my volume and subwoofer cranked up too high to hear the pitiful humming. Whenever people complain about that I always think it's hilarious.Jbul

Im confused, i thought we were talking about installs, not downloads. :(

I dont download much from XBL, but PSN always gets me 1MBps downloads on wifi. Downloaded the 1.7GB BF3 beta in exactly 17 minutes yesterday. What kinda service are you using? Cable/DSL? Run the internet connection test from the XMB, it should tell you what your download speed is. I get 7Mb downloads and 700K uploads on wifi. My connection is capable of 10Mbps on wired.

As for installs, I have an Arcade 360 and when the discs starts spinning that's all i hear. I can probably find you some vids on youtube. Also, installing games on your HDD can speed up loading times and even better texture streaming in some cases. So i would highly recommend it.

In a really selfish way I hope we don't get a new gen of consoles for at least 2, hopefully 3 years. I'm too poor and in love with my ps3 for that :PSquiggles123