Comperhensive comparsion between the 360 and PS3

This is by far the best and TRUE anaylisis of the PS3 architecture.

Take a look:

http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=22858

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing. The fact is, most games look no different on PS3 than they do on 360, whether they are exclusives or multiplats. DEAL with it.

The only platform that actually puts its money where its mouth is is PC, atleast with that u see a difference. But hey, hermits are elitist for saying so right?

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing. The fact is, most games look no different on PS3 than they do on 360, whether they are exclusives or multiplats. DEAL with it.

The only platform that actually puts its money where its mouth is is PC, atleast with that u see a difference. But hey, hermits are elitist for saying so right?

Frozzik

It actually sheds some light about the so called "inferior" RSX comparing to the Xenos.

Reading this might shut all Tech-fanboys once and for all.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing. The fact is, most games look no different on PS3 than they do on 360, whether they are exclusives or multiplats. DEAL with it.

The only platform that actually puts its money where its mouth is is PC, atleast with that u see a difference. But hey, hermits are elitist for saying so right?

1xcalibur1

It actually sheds some light about the so called "inferior" RSX comparing to the Xenos.

Reading this might shut all Tech-fanboys once and for all.

I dont think anyone cares whats inside either the PC, 360 or PS3, its what you see on screen that counts m8. The PS3 has yet to show us anything that the 360 couldn't also do. The sooner PS3 owners come to terms with that the better.

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing.

Frozzik

I would be inclined to agree with you if the PS1 and PS2 didn't see dramatic graphical improvements over thier lifetime despite everyone saying they were maxed out, or "pushing the limits" after a couple years into their life.

For my money, no consoles have EVER advanced graphically over thier lifetime as much as the PS1 and PS2 have. The main reason for this isn't because of "theoretical" power, but because the difficult hardware takes longer to learn and even longer to perfect. This is why the PS2 saw dramatic improvements over its lifetime and continued to amaze people with what it could do years later. Granted, it was never going to beat the best the Xbox had to offer, but the Xbox saw only very minor graphical improvements over its lifetime, with launch games looking great and end-of-life games looking only slightly improved...because the hardware was easy and familiar and developers could access most of the power right off the bat. Now we have the PS3 which is even a more extreme case of difficult hardware.

I would also be inclined to agree with you IF the PS1 and PS2 never lived up to the tech demo "potential" that was showed before they launched. But they did, and so clearly what the PS3 "could do" is very much an issue worth discussing and it is extremely narrow minded to assume that what the PS3 looks like in only its first year is the best it will ever be.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing.

ZIMdoom

I would be inclined to agree with you if the PS1 and PS2 didn't see dramatic graphical improvements over thier lifetime despite everyone saying they were maxed out, or "pushing the limits" after a couple years into their life.

For my money, no consoles have EVER advanced graphically over thier lifetime as much as the PS1 and PS2 have. The main reason for this isn't because of "theoretical" power, but because the difficult hardware takes longer to learn and even longer to perfect. This is why the PS2 saw dramatic improvements over its lifetime and continued to amaze people with what it could do years later. Granted, it was never going to beat the best the Xbox had to offer, but the Xbox saw only very minor graphical improvements over its lifetime, with launch games looking great and end-of-life games looking only slightly improved...because the hardware was easy and familiar and developers could access most of the power right off the bat. Now we have the PS3 which is even a more extreme case of difficult hardware.

I would also be inclined to agree with you IF the PS1 and PS2 never lived up to the tech demo "potential" that was showed before they launched. But they did, and so clearly what the PS3 "could do" is very much an issue worth discussing and it is extremely narrow minded to assume that what the PS3 looks like in only its first year is the best it will ever be.

the PS2 was out a longer than the xbox...the 1st xbox would have continued to pump out better graphics with longer support

[QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing. The fact is, most games look no different on PS3 than they do on 360, whether they are exclusives or multiplats. DEAL with it.

The only platform that actually puts its money where its mouth is is PC, atleast with that u see a difference. But hey, hermits are elitist for saying so right?

Frozzik

It actually sheds some light about the so called "inferior" RSX comparing to the Xenos.

Reading this might shut all Tech-fanboys once and for all.

I dont think anyone cares whats inside either the PC, 360 or PS3, its what you see on screen that counts m8. The PS3 has yet to show us anything that the 360 couldn't also do. The sooner PS3 owners come to terms with that the better.

Is that a joke?

Remind me again what XBOX360 exclusive game scored a perfect 10 on IGN, GAMESPOT etc?

Might that be MGS4? Oh I'm sorry, but that's a PS3 exclusive. So there ya go, something that xbox couldnt do thus far.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing. The fact is, most games look no different on PS3 than they do on 360, whether they are exclusives or multiplats. DEAL with it.

The only platform that actually puts its money where its mouth is is PC, atleast with that u see a difference. But hey, hermits are elitist for saying so right?

1xcalibur1

It actually sheds some light about the so called "inferior" RSX comparing to the Xenos.

Reading this might shut all Tech-fanboys once and for all.

I dont think anyone cares whats inside either the PC, 360 or PS3, its what you see on screen that counts m8. The PS3 has yet to show us anything that the 360 couldn't also do. The sooner PS3 owners come to terms with that the better.

Is that a joke?

Remind me again what XBOX360 exclusive game scored a perfect 10 on IGN, GAMESPOT etc?

Might that be MGS4? Oh I'm sorry, but that's a PS3 exclusive. So there ya go, something that xbox couldnt do thus far.

what does a game scoring a 10 have to do with the power of the PS3? That is the talent of the dev

[QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing. The fact is, most games look no different on PS3 than they do on 360, whether they are exclusives or multiplats. DEAL with it.

The only platform that actually puts its money where its mouth is is PC, atleast with that u see a difference. But hey, hermits are elitist for saying so right?

chikenfriedrice

It actually sheds some light about the so called "inferior" RSX comparing to the Xenos.

Reading this might shut all Tech-fanboys once and for all.

I dont think anyone cares whats inside either the PC, 360 or PS3, its what you see on screen that counts m8. The PS3 has yet to show us anything that the 360 couldn't also do. The sooner PS3 owners come to terms with that the better.

Is that a joke?

Remind me again what XBOX360 exclusive game scored a perfect 10 on IGN, GAMESPOT etc?

Might that be MGS4? Oh I'm sorry, but that's a PS3 exclusive. So there ya go, something that xbox couldnt do thus far.

what does a game scoring a 10 have to do with the power of the PS3? That is the talent of the dev

Easy.

Having the game using the entire Bluray surface disc (if I recall correct Kojima even complained that 50gb wasnt enough for him) - that alone could have never been done on the box. So there ya go.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing.

ZIMdoom

I would be inclined to agree with you if the PS1 and PS2 didn't see dramatic graphical improvements over thier lifetime despite everyone saying they were maxed out, or "pushing the limits" after a couple years into their life.

For my money, no consoles have EVER advanced graphically over thier lifetime as much as the PS1 and PS2 have. The main reason for this isn't because of "theoretical" power, but because the difficult hardware takes longer to learn and even longer to perfect. This is why the PS2 saw dramatic improvements over its lifetime and continued to amaze people with what it could do years later. Granted, it was never going to beat the best the Xbox had to offer, but the Xbox saw only very minor graphical improvements over its lifetime, with launch games looking great and end-of-life games looking only slightly improved...because the hardware was easy and familiar and developers could access most of the power right off the bat. Now we have the PS3 which is even a more extreme case of difficult hardware.

I would also be inclined to agree with you IF the PS1 and PS2 never lived up to the tech demo "potential" that was showed before they launched. But they did, and so clearly what the PS3 "could do" is very much an issue worth discussing and it is extremely narrow minded to assume that what the PS3 looks like in only its first year is the best it will ever be.

Of course we will start to see improvements in games over the consoles lifespan, we will see the same on 360 also. Its this unhealthy obsession PS3 gamers have with comparing a PS3 with a super computer that gets everybody's back up. I will put money on it right now that by the end of this generation the graphical gap between PS3 and 360 still isn't as great as what PS3 fanboy's claim it to be. This coming from a PS3 owner.

What really annoys me however, as a PC gamer now, you actually see, with your own eyes, as of now, a big improvement from what you see on PS3 to what you see on PC, this gap will continue to grow as new PC tech is released. Yet we are elitist and only care about graphics when we point this out.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing. The fact is, most games look no different on PS3 than they do on 360, whether they are exclusives or multiplats. DEAL with it.

The only platform that actually puts its money where its mouth is is PC, atleast with that u see a difference. But hey, hermits are elitist for saying so right?

1xcalibur1

It actually sheds some light about the so called "inferior" RSX comparing to the Xenos.

Reading this might shut all Tech-fanboys once and for all.

I dont think anyone cares whats inside either the PC, 360 or PS3, its what you see on screen that counts m8. The PS3 has yet to show us anything that the 360 couldn't also do. The sooner PS3 owners come to terms with that the better.

Is that a joke?

Remind me again what XBOX360 exclusive game scored a perfect 10 on IGN, GAMESPOT etc?

Might that be MGS4? Oh I'm sorry, but that's a PS3 exclusive. So there ya go, something that xbox couldnt do thus far.

Easy.

Having the game using the entire Bluray surface disc (if I recall correct Kojima even complained that 50gb wasnt enough for him) - that alone could have never been done on the box. So there ya go.

1xcalibur1

[QUOTE="chikenfriedrice"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing. The fact is, most games look no different on PS3 than they do on 360, whether they are exclusives or multiplats. DEAL with it.

The only platform that actually puts its money where its mouth is is PC, atleast with that u see a difference. But hey, hermits are elitist for saying so right?

1xcalibur1

It actually sheds some light about the so called "inferior" RSX comparing to the Xenos.

Reading this might shut all Tech-fanboys once and for all.

I dont think anyone cares whats inside either the PC, 360 or PS3, its what you see on screen that counts m8. The PS3 has yet to show us anything that the 360 couldn't also do. The sooner PS3 owners come to terms with that the better.

Is that a joke?

Remind me again what XBOX360 exclusive game scored a perfect 10 on IGN, GAMESPOT etc?

Might that be MGS4? Oh I'm sorry, but that's a PS3 exclusive. So there ya go, something that xbox couldnt do thus far.

what does a game scoring a 10 have to do with the power of the PS3? That is the talent of the dev

Easy.

Having the game using the entire Bluray surface disc (if I recall correct Kojima even complained that 50gb wasnt enough for him) - that alone could have never been done on the box. So there ya go.

so MGS4 on the 360 with multiple disc just like LO had would not have scored a 10? And Bluray has nothing to do with the power of the PS3 it's just a format

[QUOTE="Frozzik"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing. The fact is, most games look no different on PS3 than they do on 360, whether they are exclusives or multiplats. DEAL with it.

The only platform that actually puts its money where its mouth is is PC, atleast with that u see a difference. But hey, hermits are elitist for saying so right?

1xcalibur1

It actually sheds some light about the so called "inferior" RSX comparing to the Xenos.

Reading this might shut all Tech-fanboys once and for all.

I dont think anyone cares whats inside either the PC, 360 or PS3, its what you see on screen that counts m8. The PS3 has yet to show us anything that the 360 couldn't also do. The sooner PS3 owners come to terms with that the better.

Is that a joke?

Remind me again what XBOX360 exclusive game scored a perfect 10 on IGN, GAMESPOT etc?

Might that be MGS4? Oh I'm sorry, but that's a PS3 exclusive. So there ya go, something that xbox couldnt do thus far.

Well i could say go look at gamerankings couldn't i and see just how MGS4 stacks up there. But i cant, aparently only GS has valid review scores and the rest are wrong. This is exactly why cow's are hated in SW right now. You get one game, one great game and its all we hear about. What, i wonder, will you do once you are bored with MGS4? go play all the other 9+ games? oh thats right, you dont have many do you.

I am forced to agree with the only one above shouting out logic - It doesn't matter what's inside, it matters what is on the screen and what is fun to play. If graphics and power are the only ways to have fun and enjoy and be completely consumed by a video game, tell me why people thought OoT was the best game. Tell me why Mario Cart, Pong, and Commander Keen (DOS game) were thought to be amazing. It was for how fun and great they were. Sure they tested the limit of graphics at the time, but it wasn't that that made them truely great.

Anyone who tries to compare anything on PAPER is ignorant. That is like telling me that a football player that is 295 and 6'5 and can run a 4.7 is automatically a beast of a D-tackle. Paper means nothing, performance is everything.

360 = PS3 on performance

Games are preference and that is the only reason people bought PS3s (other than people buying them as a movie player or fanboys or people who link to PS3 forums claiming the hidden power of thier console of choice in order to justify in their minds, the purchase of a several hundred dollar piece of electronics).

[QUOTE="1xcalibur1"]

Easy.

Having the game using the entire Bluray surface disc (if I recall correct Kojima even complained that 50gb wasnt enough for him) - that alone could have never been done on the box. So there ya go.

heretrix

http://gizmodo.com/363075/blu+ray-cannot-contain-metal-gear-solid-4s-awesomeness

Read'em and whip.

Is that a joke?

Remind me again what XBOX360 exclusive game scored a perfect 10 on IGN, GAMESPOT etc?

Might that be MGS4? Oh I'm sorry, but that's a PS3 exclusive. So there ya go, something that xbox couldnt do thus far.

1xcalibur1

Easy.

Having the game using the entire Bluray surface disc (if I recall correct Kojima even complained that 50gb wasnt enough for him) - that alone could have never been done on the box. So there ya go.

1xcalibur1

Esepcially after posting this and reading "read'em and whip" that made me laugh too. funny stuff goin on here.

MGS4 could have been done on the 360, regardless of what you try to convince yourself to believe.

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"]

Easy.

Having the game using the entire Bluray surface disc (if I recall correct Kojima even complained that 50gb wasnt enough for him) - that alone could have never been done on the box. So there ya go.

1xcalibur1

http://gizmodo.com/363075/blu+ray-cannot-contain-metal-gear-solid-4s-awesomeness

Read'em and whip.

The reason MGS 4 takes up so much space is the uncompressed audio which takes up a phenomenal amount of space.

You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

I guess I would buy the "theoretical power" vs. actual if I didnt see improvements. If these games never came out its a non issue, but ps3 is trending toward its power ceiling and most importantly has the higher ceiling. The 360 came out earlier, and gave developers an easier go, thus having a larger overall library. It should. But that advantage came at the price of getting a few things wrong, losing the HD format battle, and putting out a lesser built product.

History says microsoft will value being the first kid on the block at the expense of longer term. Sony will look to get it perfect and have a longer run gaining momentum as it goes. Pick your poison I guess.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing.

chikenfriedrice

I would be inclined to agree with you if the PS1 and PS2 didn't see dramatic graphical improvements over thier lifetime despite everyone saying they were maxed out, or "pushing the limits" after a couple years into their life.

For my money, no consoles have EVER advanced graphically over thier lifetime as much as the PS1 and PS2 have. The main reason for this isn't because of "theoretical" power, but because the difficult hardware takes longer to learn and even longer to perfect. This is why the PS2 saw dramatic improvements over its lifetime and continued to amaze people with what it could do years later. Granted, it was never going to beat the best the Xbox had to offer, but the Xbox saw only very minor graphical improvements over its lifetime, with launch games looking great and end-of-life games looking only slightly improved...because the hardware was easy and familiar and developers could access most of the power right off the bat. Now we have the PS3 which is even a more extreme case of difficult hardware.

I would also be inclined to agree with you IF the PS1 and PS2 never lived up to the tech demo "potential" that was showed before they launched. But they did, and so clearly what the PS3 "could do" is very much an issue worth discussing and it is extremely narrow minded to assume that what the PS3 looks like in only its first year is the best it will ever be.

the PS2 was out a longer than the xbox...the 1st xbox would have continued to pump out better graphics with longer support

You missed my point completely. I never said the Xbox didn't or wouldn't improve. I said that because the hardware was familiar, and easy for developers to program for, they were able to access lot of the consoles power immediately. Therefore, the rest was optimization, etc.

Meanwhile, the PS2 had difficult hardware that took longer to learn. This means that launch window titles don't show what the console is capable of. It takes at a minimum, a full gen of games before developers are as comfortable with the hardware as they were when the Xbox launched. Then from that point they can optimize for the PS2...which again (arguably) is a slower process than the Xbox because the harware.

In short, it takes way longer for developers to learn, and utilize the full power of a SOny console, while they are able to utilize most of the power of the Xbox/360 right from launch. Therefore, the PS2 (or 3) sees greater improvements over time while the Xbox (or 360) only see minor improvements. They both improve, the question is of how much.

If we apply that to the legendarily difficult PS3 and the easy 360. Launch 360 titles were a good indicator of the power of the console because developers could acces much of it immediately. The PS3 on the other hand is only NOW starting to show what it is truly capable of because, until now, developers have struggled with learning the hardware and why porting 360 games doesn't work. NOW that devs have had time to work with and use the hardware, games are starting to look way better. THIS is the true indicator of potential and it will only grow from here. The PS3 will pull away from the 360 graphically, as time goes on, and the difference in power will become apparant.

Will it matter for sales, or developer support over the long run? That is another question and arguement entirely.

I am forced to agree with the only one above shouting out logic - It doesn't matter what's inside, it matters what is on the screen and what is fun to play. If graphics and power are the only ways to have fun and enjoy and be completely consumed by a video game, tell me why people thought OoT was the best game. Tell me why Mario Cart, Pong, and Commander Keen (DOS game) were thought to be amazing. It was for how fun and great they were. Sure they tested the limit of graphics at the time, but it wasn't that that made them truely great.

Anyone who tries to compare anything on PAPER is ignorant. That is like telling me that a football player that is 295 and 6'5 and can run a 4.7 is automatically a beast of a D-tackle. Paper means nothing, performance is everything.

360 = PS3 on performance

Games are preference and that is the only reason people bought PS3s (other than people buying them as a movie player or fanboys or people who link to PS3 forums claiming the hidden power of thier console of choice in order to justify in their minds, the purchase of a several hundred dollar piece of electronics).

seabiscuit8686

"Anyone who tries to compare anything on paper is ignorant" - actually that is a state of ignorance right there.

If it was well known that the entire might of PS3 was unleashed right at it's first year, I'm not sure how many would buy it. I mean why bother spending the extra 100$ on a system when you already have a so called "better" and cheaper one out? You saw it yourself. Almost all first year titles ported to PS3 were a complete disaster. It's Sony's reputation, potential and BLACK ON WHITE PAPER promises that bought it it's customers when it was still down.

[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"]

I am forced to agree with the only one above shouting out logic - It doesn't matter what's inside, it matters what is on the screen and what is fun to play. If graphics and power are the only ways to have fun and enjoy and be completely consumed by a video game, tell me why people thought OoT was the best game. Tell me why Mario Cart, Pong, and Commander Keen (DOS game) were thought to be amazing. It was for how fun and great they were. Sure they tested the limit of graphics at the time, but it wasn't that that made them truely great.

Anyone who tries to compare anything on PAPER is ignorant. That is like telling me that a football player that is 295 and 6'5 and can run a 4.7 is automatically a beast of a D-tackle. Paper means nothing, performance is everything.

360 = PS3 on performance

Games are preference and that is the only reason people bought PS3s (other than people buying them as a movie player or fanboys or people who link to PS3 forums claiming the hidden power of thier console of choice in order to justify in their minds, the purchase of a several hundred dollar piece of electronics).

1xcalibur1

"Anyone who tries to compare anything on paper is ignorant" - actually that is a state of ignorance right there.

If it was well known that the entire might of PS3 was unleashed right at it's first year, I'm not sure how many would buy it. I mean why bother spending the extra 100$ on a system when you already have a so called "better" and cheaper one out? You saw it yourself. Almost all first year titles ported to PS3 were a complete disaster. It's Sony's reputation, potential and BLACK ON WHITE PAPER promises that bought it it's customers when it was still down.

Well, that doesn't change tha fact that the quote "the PS§ has bigger potential" if we compare both console graphics, games etc right now, because both are VERY similar, if not equal.

[QUOTE="chikenfriedrice"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing.

ZIMdoom

I would be inclined to agree with you if the PS1 and PS2 didn't see dramatic graphical improvements over thier lifetime despite everyone saying they were maxed out, or "pushing the limits" after a couple years into their life.

For my money, no consoles have EVER advanced graphically over thier lifetime as much as the PS1 and PS2 have. The main reason for this isn't because of "theoretical" power, but because the difficult hardware takes longer to learn and even longer to perfect. This is why the PS2 saw dramatic improvements over its lifetime and continued to amaze people with what it could do years later. Granted, it was never going to beat the best the Xbox had to offer, but the Xbox saw only very minor graphical improvements over its lifetime, with launch games looking great and end-of-life games looking only slightly improved...because the hardware was easy and familiar and developers could access most of the power right off the bat. Now we have the PS3 which is even a more extreme case of difficult hardware.

I would also be inclined to agree with you IF the PS1 and PS2 never lived up to the tech demo "potential" that was showed before they launched. But they did, and so clearly what the PS3 "could do" is very much an issue worth discussing and it is extremely narrow minded to assume that what the PS3 looks like in only its first year is the best it will ever be.

the PS2 was out a longer than the xbox...the 1st xbox would have continued to pump out better graphics with longer support

You missed my point completely. I never said the Xbox didn't or wouldn't improve. I said that because the hardware was familiar, and easy for developers to program for, they were able to access lot of the consoles power immediately. Therefore, the rest was optimization, etc.

Meanwhile, the PS2 had difficult hardware that took longer to learn. This means that launch window titles don't show what the console is capable of. It takes at a minimum, a full gen of games before developers are as comfortable with the hardware as they were when the Xbox launched. Then from that point they can optimize for the PS2...which again (arguably) is a slower process than the Xbox because the harware.

In short, it takes way longer for developers to learn, and utilize the full power of a SOny console, while they are able to utilize most of the power of the Xbox/360 right from launch. Therefore, the PS2 (or 3) sees greater improvements over time while the Xbox (or 360) only see minor improvements. They both improve, the question is of how much.

If we apply that to the legendarily difficult PS3 and the easy 360. Launch 360 titles were a good indicator of the power of the console because developers could acces much of it immediately. The PS3 on the other hand is only NOW starting to show what it is truly capable of because, until now, developers have struggled with learning the hardware and why porting 360 games doesn't work. NOW that devs have had time to work with and use the hardware, games are starting to look way better. THIS is the true indicator of potential and it will only grow from here. The PS3 will pull away from the 360 graphically, as time goes on, and the difference in power will become apparant.

Will it matter for sales, or developer support over the long run? That is another question and arguement entirely.

Exactly. 360 enjoys the benefits of immediate satisfaction, titles, but you will be looking ahead to the next system. Ps3 ramps up over time. Microsoft wins early on, Ps3 finishes stronger. Like you say, how that translates overall is another question.

[QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"]

Easy.

Having the game using the entire Bluray surface disc (if I recall correct Kojima even complained that 50gb wasnt enough for him) - that alone could have never been done on the box. So there ya go.

heretrix

http://gizmodo.com/363075/blu+ray-cannot-contain-metal-gear-solid-4s-awesomeness

Read'em and whip.

The reason MGS 4 takes up so much space is the uncompressed audio which takes up a phenomenal amount of space.

You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

You wanna take that arguement up with Kojima? Go ahead.

Kojima says "50GB BD Not Enough For MGS4".

That's plain english black on white.

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"]

Easy.

Having the game using the entire Bluray surface disc (if I recall correct Kojima even complained that 50gb wasnt enough for him) - that alone could have never been done on the box. So there ya go.

1xcalibur1

http://gizmodo.com/363075/blu+ray-cannot-contain-metal-gear-solid-4s-awesomeness

Read'em and whip.

The reason MGS 4 takes up so much space is the uncompressed audio which takes up a phenomenal amount of space.

You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

You wanna take that arguement up with Kojima? Go ahead.

Kojima says "50GB BD Not Enough For MGS4".

That's plain english black on white.

Yup, declarations. MGS 4 is about 33 Gb.

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing. The fact is, most games look no different on PS3 than they do on 360, whether they are exclusives or multiplats. DEAL with it.

The only platform that actually puts its money where its mouth is is PC, atleast with that u see a difference. But hey, hermits are elitist for saying so right?

Frozzik

Yup. Hermits always have the graphics category locked down. It costs a lot to keep up (too much for my tastes), but the games sure do look pretty.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I really dont want to read it. Is it another pointless rant about the "theoretical" power of the PS3?

Look, lets settle this now, it really doesn't matter what the PS3 "Could do" its about what it has and is doing. The fact is, most games look no different on PS3 than they do on 360, whether they are exclusives or multiplats. DEAL with it.

The only platform that actually puts its money where its mouth is is PC, atleast with that u see a difference. But hey, hermits are elitist for saying so right?

dabear

Yup. Hermits always have the graphics category locked down. It costs a lot to keep up (too much for my tastes), but the games sure do look pretty.

Well im a pc Gamer. If im honest the graphics are well down the list of things i love about pc, as im sure they are for most pc gamers. The only time we use the graphics thing is usually in defence of some PS3 fanboy ranting about the power of the Cell.

[QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"]

Easy.

Having the game using the entire Bluray surface disc (if I recall correct Kojima even complained that 50gb wasnt enough for him) - that alone could have never been done on the box. So there ya go.

IronBass

http://gizmodo.com/363075/blu+ray-cannot-contain-metal-gear-solid-4s-awesomeness

Read'em and whip.

The reason MGS 4 takes up so much space is the uncompressed audio which takes up a phenomenal amount of space.

You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

You wanna take that arguement up with Kojima? Go ahead.

Kojima says "50GB BD Not Enough For MGS4".

That's plain english black on white.

Yup, declarations. MGS 4 is about 33 Gb.

Actually that's 44.6gb in ISO size.

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="1xcalibur1"]

Easy.

Having the game using the entire Bluray surface disc (if I recall correct Kojima even complained that 50gb wasnt enough for him) - that alone could have never been done on the box. So there ya go.

1xcalibur1

http://gizmodo.com/363075/blu+ray-cannot-contain-metal-gear-solid-4s-awesomeness

Read'em and whip.

The reason MGS 4 takes up so much space is the uncompressed audio which takes up a phenomenal amount of space.

You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

You wanna take that arguement up with Kojima? Go ahead.

Kojima says "50GB BD Not Enough For MGS4".

That's plain english black on white.