Everything that is wrong the the PS3 (This is UNACCEPTABLE)

The very assets that Sony is marketing for its PS3 are the very reasons it is inferior to the Xbox 360.

I am referring to its Blu-Ray capabilities and The Cell Processor

Blu-Ray - This was supposed allow for longer and more detailed games. Then Cows realized that multi-plats would not benefit because developers would not take the time to use the space. However, this was where Sony's exclusive titles would shine and really show the benefit of Blu-ray for gaming.

Results: Motorstorm - Sony's highly exclusivetitle which many claimed would convert the non-believers. This title proved to be a massive flop mainly due to the lack of content. A lack of racing tracks and split screen seemed unexplainable considering Blu-ray allowed the game to clock in at many gigs over dvd-9 capability. Sony's next two highly touted exclsives - Lair and Uncharted - both lost a little steam when their respected developers clocked the game length at 10-12 hrs. Why are Sony's exclusive titles nearing on the short side of gaming???

In addition,why are all of the PS3's exclusives too big to fit on a dvd? Well, its because the Blu-ray drive read speed that is in every PS3 is TOO SLOW. This is next gen? Why does the same game in my PS3 take twice as long to load than in my 360? This is next gen?

Graphics - If it weren't for the PS3's Blu-Ray capabilities holding it up, the PS3 would have been released one year earlier. We would be playing FF13, MSG4, and GT5. The PS3 would have a much larger install base. The effects of using last gen RSX would nothave been as obviousand the RSX would be better optimized by now.What is the Blu-Ray advantage??? All I see is an inflated price tag and a better chance for Sony at winning the movie format war.

The Cell - This is THE single most hyped component of the PS3. However, what has this 'super computer processor' yielded??? It has yielded the ability for Cows and developers alike to give EXCUSES for PS3 game delay after delay. IN ADDITION, the cell is even the PRIMARY excuse for the reason that multi-plat games are graphically worse. All in the name of "difficulty" and "sophistication."

What are the cell advantages? Well so far the 360's processor has been shown to put out better frame rates and produce better AI. Why the cell? Because it can help out a slightly gimped gpu? Well its not doing good enough, it is to blame for delay after delay, and it is lacking in some very important areas (AI anyone?)

"We would be playing FF13, MSG4, and GT5"

No, we wouldn't.

The very assets that Sony is marketing for its PS3 are the very reasons it is inferior to the Xbox 360.

I am referring to its Blu-Ray capabilities and The Cell Processor

Blu-Ray - This was supposed allow for longer and more detailed games. Then Cows realized that multi-plats would not benefit because developers would not take the time to use the space. However, this was where Sony's exclusive titles would shine and really show the benefit of Blu-ray for gaming.

Results: Motorstorm - Sony's highly exclusivetitle which many claimed would convert the non-believers. This title proved to be a massive flop mainly due to the lack of content. A lack of racing tracks and split screen seemed unexplainable considering Blu-ray allowed the game to clock in at many gigs over dvd-9 capability. Sony's next two highly touted exclsives - Lair and Uncharted - both lost a little steam when their respected developers clocked the game length at 10-12 hrs. Why are Sony's exclusive titles nearing on the short side of gaming???

In addition,why are all of the PS3's exclusives too big to fit on a dvd? Well, its because the Blu-ray drive read speed that is in every PS3 is TOO SLOW. This is next gen? Why does the same game in my PS3 take twice as long to load than in my 360? This is next gen?

Graphics - If it weren't for the PS3's Blu-Ray capabilities holding it up, the PS3 would have been released one year earlier. We would be playing FF13, MSG4, and GT5. The PS3 would have a much larger install base. The effects of using last gen RSX would nothave been as obviousand the RSX would be better optimized by now.What is the Blu-Ray advantage??? All I see is an inflated price tag and a better chance for Sony at winning the movie format war.

The Cell - This is THE single most hyped component of the PS3. However, what has this 'super computer processor' yielded??? It has yielded the ability for Cows and developers alike to give EXCUSES for PS3 game delay after delay. IN ADDITION, the cell is even the PRIMARY excuse for the reason that multi-plat games are graphically worse. All in the name of "difficulty" and "sophistication."

What are the cell advantages? Well so far the 360's processor has been shown to put out better frame rates and produce better AI. Why the cell? Because it can help out a slightly gimped gpu? Well its not doing good enough, it is to blame for delay after delay, and it is lacking in some very important areas (AI anyone?)

septicvirus

"We would be playing FF13, MSG4, and GT5"

No, we wouldn't.

-Spock-

How do you figure?

GT HD anyone??? If the PS3 were released a year earlier how can you argue that some of the games we are waiting for now would be complete?

You know whats more unnaceptable...thet 360 failure rate being as high as it is, and myself being on my 4th.jt8b2z

You know whats more unnaceptable...thet 360 failure rate being as high as it is, and myself being on my 4th.jt8b2z

i'm on 4 too

The very assets that Sony is marketing for its PS3 are the very reasons it is inferior to the Xbox 360.

I am referring to its Blu-Ray capabilities and The Cell Processor

Blu-Ray - This was supposed allow for longer and more detailed games. Then Cows realized that multi-plats would not benefit because developers would not take the time to use the space. However, this was where Sony's exclusive titles would shine and really show the benefit of Blu-ray for gaming.

Results: Motorstorm - Sony's highly exclusivetitle which many claimed would convert the non-believers. This title proved to be a massive flop mainly due to the lack of content. A lack of racing tracks and split screen seemed unexplainable considering Blu-ray allowed the game to clock in at many gigs over dvd-9 capability. Sony's next two highly touted exclsives - Lair and Uncharted - both lost a little steam when their respected developers clocked the game length at 10-12 hrs. Why are Sony's exclusive titles nearing on the short side of gaming???

In addition,why are all of the PS3's exclusives too big to fit on a dvd? Well, its because the Blu-ray drive read speed that is in every PS3 is TOO SLOW. This is next gen? Why does the same game in my PS3 take twice as long to load than in my 360? This is next gen?

Graphics - If it weren't for the PS3's Blu-Ray capabilities holding it up, the PS3 would have been released one year earlier. We would be playing FF13, MSG4, and GT5. The PS3 would have a much larger install base. The effects of using last gen RSX would nothave been as obviousand the RSX would be better optimized by now.What is the Blu-Ray advantage??? All I see is an inflated price tag and a better chance for Sony at winning the movie format war.

The Cell - This is THE single most hyped component of the PS3. However, what has this 'super computer processor' yielded??? It has yielded the ability for Cows and developers alike to give EXCUSES for PS3 game delay after delay. IN ADDITION, the cell is even the PRIMARY excuse for the reason that multi-plat games are graphically worse. All in the name of "difficulty" and "sophistication."

What are the cell advantages? Well so far the 360's processor has been shown to put out better frame rates and produce better AI. Why the cell? Because it can help out a slightly gimped gpu? Well its not doing good enough, it is to blame for delay after delay, and it is lacking in some very important areas (AI anyone?)

septicvirus

on multiplat ports from the 360 so far...

You know whats more unnaceptable...thet 360 failure rate being as high as it is, and myself being on my 4th.jt8b2z

I'm on number 2. It was a slight inconvenience for a few weeks, but come on. The PS3 has to wait months for the same game. Games that come out at the same time clearly have worse graphics. Blu-ray exclusive games are proving to be short. Where has my $600 gone?

So, the subject we seem to be on at the moment.

While the PS3 wasn't released, the developers stopped working on the game. The second it was released they started again...

So if the PS3 was released earlier, they could have started development earlier.

No, that can't be what's going on in your head, anyway I think your entire post is full of fud. :D

So, the subject we seem to be on at the moment.

While the PS3 wasn't released, the developers stopped working on the game. The second it was released they started again...

So if the PS3 was released earlier, they could have started development earlier.

No, that can't be what's going on in your head, anyway I think your entire post is full of fud. :D

inertk

I think you are simplifying things. Go back and read the post again.

[QUOTE="jt8b2z"]You know whats more unnaceptable...thet 360 failure rate being as high as it is, and myself being on my 4th.septicvirus

I'm on number 2. It was a slight inconvenience for a few weeks, but come on. The PS3 has to wait months for the same game. Games that come out at the same time clearly have worse graphics. Blu-ray exclusive games are proving to be short. Where has my $600 gone?

It has gone down somewhere ugly, where they're never going to come back to you.

bluray is needed for games, HDDVD is to small and outdated

they both have 512 ram

CEll kills xenon

free online > pay online

PS3 doesnt have a 33% failure rate

and no 360 game comes close to the graphics of Uncharted

bluray is needed for games, HDDVD is to small and outdated

they both have 512 ram

CEll kills xenon

free online > pay online

PS3 doesnt have a 33% failure rate

and no 360 game comes close to the graphics of Uncharted

Activision_QAT

Take out what is bold and I agree with you

While all consoles have their downsides - not just the PS3 - you're correct in stating that Blu-Ray is a movie format forced into a console in an attempt to boost sales of blu-ray films. Simple as that. Cows will never admit it though.Ninja-Vox

[QUOTE="inertk"]

So, the subject we seem to be on at the moment.

While the PS3 wasn't released, the developers stopped working on the game. The second it was released they started again...

So if the PS3 was released earlier, they could have started development earlier.

No, that can't be what's going on in your head, anyway I think your entire post is full of fud. :D

septicvirus

I think you are simplifying things. Go back and read the post again.

If it wasn't for Blu-ray, those games would have already released. That's what you're basically saying right? But because of Blu-ray the console released later so the games will release later, right? If that's not you're going to have to explain it.

bluray is needed for games, HDDVD is to small and outdated

they both have 512 ram

CEll kills xenon

free online > pay online

PS3 doesnt have a 33% failure rate

and no 360 game comes close to the graphics of Uncharted

Activision_QAT

where are people getting this 33% failure rate? got a link or something other than an online survey?

[QUOTE="-Spock-"]

"We would be playing FF13, MSG4, and GT5"

No, we wouldn't.

septicvirus

How do you figure?

GT HD anyone??? If the PS3 were released a year earlier how can you argue that some of the games we are waiting for now would be complete?

An earlier console release wouldn't affect these games' development times. They would still come out in 2008. The reason? If all the games mentioned were to come out a year eariler, the studios would have had to be working on them at the same time as the previous installments. No developer works on a sequel untill the previous game is complete. Plan for it? Maybe. Work on it? Absolutely ****ing not.

[QUOTE="septicvirus"][QUOTE="inertk"]

So, the subject we seem to be on at the moment.

While the PS3 wasn't released, the developers stopped working on the game. The second it was released they started again...

So if the PS3 was released earlier, they could have started development earlier.

No, that can't be what's going on in your head, anyway I think your entire post is full of fud. :D

inertk

I think you are simplifying things. Go back and read the post again.

If it wasn't for Blu-ray, those games would have already released. That's what you're basically saying right? But because of Blu-ray the console released later so the games will release later, right? If that's not you're going to have to explain it.

That is part of what I was saying. The other part is how ironic it is that the Cell is the the scapegoat for all PS3 games being delayed. The almighty powerful cell. No one talks aboutany actual advantages - but rather blames it for causing difficulty in video game development.

How do you figure?

GT HD anyone??? If the PS3 were released a year earlier how can you argue that some of the games we are waiting for now would be complete?

septicvirus

The very assets that Sony is marketing for its PS3 are the very reasons it is inferior to the Xbox 360.

I am referring to its Blu-Ray capabilities and The Cell Processor

Blu-Ray - This was supposed allow for longer and more detailed games. Then Cows realized that multi-plats would not benefit because developers would not take the time to use the space. However, this was where Sony's exclusive titles would shine and really show the benefit of Blu-ray for gaming.

Results: Motorstorm - Sony's highly exclusivetitle which many claimed would convert the non-believers. This title proved to be a massive flop mainly due to the lack of content. A lack of racing tracks and split screen seemed unexplainable considering Blu-ray allowed the game to clock in at many gigs over dvd-9 capability. Sony's next two highly touted exclsives - Lair and Uncharted - both lost a little steam when their respected developers clocked the game length at 10-12 hrs. Why are Sony's exclusive titles nearing on the short side of gaming???

In addition,why are all of the PS3's exclusives too big to fit on a dvd? Well, its because the Blu-ray drive read speed that is in every PS3 is TOO SLOW. This is next gen? Why does the same game in my PS3 take twice as long to load than in my 360? This is next gen?

Graphics - If it weren't for the PS3's Blu-Ray capabilities holding it up, the PS3 would have been released one year earlier. We would be playing FF13, MSG4, and GT5. The PS3 would have a much larger install base. The effects of using last gen RSX would nothave been as obviousand the RSX would be better optimized by now.What is the Blu-Ray advantage??? All I see is an inflated price tag and a better chance for Sony at winning the movie format war.

The Cell - This is THE single most hyped component of the PS3. However, what has this 'super computer processor' yielded??? It has yielded the ability for Cows and developers alike to give EXCUSES for PS3 game delay after delay. IN ADDITION, the cell is even the PRIMARY excuse for the reason that multi-plat games are graphically worse. All in the name of "difficulty" and "sophistication."

What are the cell advantages? Well so far the 360's processor has been shown to put out better frame rates and produce better AI. Why the cell? Because it can help out a slightly gimped gpu? Well its not doing good enough, it is to blame for delay after delay, and it is lacking in some very important areas (AI anyone?)

septicvirus

I disagree with you, you say blu-ray would allow for longer games that was never said by anyone. Games just like music and TV all tend to be lumped in at certain times, I mean games are typically 10-12hrs long, songs are usually around 3.5 minutes etc.. The Blu-ray allows devs to put longer cutscenes like for RPGs, bonus content and for a game like LBP alot more levels and extra tools. The fact that it is 50G allows you to put the data with as little compression as possible. Meaning higer quality.

You then say that PS3 has longer load times, this has always been true but its not like we're talking minutes or hours. Also Rockstar and a few others have complained about the restrictions on the 360s limited space. You then go on to say that devs have not been using the space this is also true but give them time to make the content. the next batch of big PS3 titles all clock over 9G, but have taken a while to make.

The PS3 was held up because it had heating problems kinda like ... well Sony fixed theirs unlike... and the graphics comparison is a little wierd because what usually gets compared are second gen 360 titles vs. first gen PS3 ports.

You then go on to diss the cell, the cell has never been used for mainstream programing the 360 is similar to a PC which many devs know how to program for. They have not really used the cell all that much and are just now starting to find the little tricks and tweaks to optimize to their needs. They already have that with the 360. How much more improvement can they really get out of it, especially that the 360 is almost 2yrs old?

[QUOTE="septicvirus"][QUOTE="inertk"]

So, the subject we seem to be on at the moment.

While the PS3 wasn't released, the developers stopped working on the game. The second it was released they started again...

So if the PS3 was released earlier, they could have started development earlier.

No, that can't be what's going on in your head, anyway I think your entire post is full of fud. :D

inertk

I think you are simplifying things. Go back and read the post again.

If it wasn't for Blu-ray, those games would have already released. That's what you're basically saying right? But because of Blu-ray the console released later so the games will release later, right? If that's not you're going to have to explain it.

FF13 and the others have been in development for a while now, this isn't because of PS3's late release.

[QUOTE="Activision_QAT"]

bluray is needed for games, HDDVD is to small and outdated

they both have 512 ram

CEll kills xenon

free online > pay online

PS3 doesnt have a 33% failure rate

and no 360 game comes close to the graphics of Uncharted

TheBigDrat

where are people getting this 33% failure rate? got a link or something other than an online survey?

That's true, there's no link needed for this, it's something everyone knows.

[QUOTE="inertk"][QUOTE="septicvirus"][QUOTE="inertk"]

So, the subject we seem to be on at the moment.

While the PS3 wasn't released, the developers stopped working on the game. The second it was released they started again...

So if the PS3 was released earlier, they could have started development earlier.

No, that can't be what's going on in your head, anyway I think your entire post is full of fud. :D

Ragnarok1051

I think you are simplifying things. Go back and read the post again.

If it wasn't for Blu-ray, those games would have already released. That's what you're basically saying right? But because of Blu-ray the console released later so the games will release later, right? If that's not you're going to have to explain it.

FF13 and the others have been in development for a while now, this isn't because of PS3's late release.

Oh I know that, I just know he doesn't.

[QUOTE="septicvirus"]

The very assets that Sony is marketing for its PS3 are the very reasons it is inferior to the Xbox 360.

I am referring to its Blu-Ray capabilities and The Cell Processor

Blu-Ray - This was supposed allow for longer and more detailed games. Then Cows realized that multi-plats would not benefit because developers would not take the time to use the space. However, this was where Sony's exclusive titles would shine and really show the benefit of Blu-ray for gaming.

Results: Motorstorm - Sony's highly exclusivetitle which many claimed would convert the non-believers. This title proved to be a massive flop mainly due to the lack of content. A lack of racing tracks and split screen seemed unexplainable considering Blu-ray allowed the game to clock in at many gigs over dvd-9 capability. Sony's next two highly touted exclsives - Lair and Uncharted - both lost a little steam when their respected developers clocked the game length at 10-12 hrs. Why are Sony's exclusive titles nearing on the short side of gaming???

In addition,why are all of the PS3's exclusives too big to fit on a dvd? Well, its because the Blu-ray drive read speed that is in every PS3 is TOO SLOW. This is next gen? Why does the same game in my PS3 take twice as long to load than in my 360? This is next gen?

Graphics - If it weren't for the PS3's Blu-Ray capabilities holding it up, the PS3 would have been released one year earlier. We would be playing FF13, MSG4, and GT5. The PS3 would have a much larger install base. The effects of using last gen RSX would nothave been as obviousand the RSX would be better optimized by now.What is the Blu-Ray advantage??? All I see is an inflated price tag and a better chance for Sony at winning the movie format war.

The Cell - This is THE single most hyped component of the PS3. However, what has this 'super computer processor' yielded??? It has yielded the ability for Cows and developers alike to give EXCUSES for PS3 game delay after delay. IN ADDITION, the cell is even the PRIMARY excuse for the reason that multi-plat games are graphically worse. All in the name of "difficulty" and "sophistication."

What are the cell advantages? Well so far the 360's processor has been shown to put out better frame rates and produce better AI. Why the cell? Because it can help out a slightly gimped gpu? Well its not doing good enough, it is to blame for delay after delay, and it is lacking in some very important areas (AI anyone?)

Izzy12345

I disagree with you, you say blu-ray would allow for longer games that was never said by anyone. Games just like music and TV all tend to be lumped in at certain times, I mean games are typically 10-12hrs long, songs are usually around 3.5 minutes etc.. The Blu-ray allows devs to put longer cutscenes like for RPGs, bonus content and for a game like LBP alot more levels and extra tools. The fact that it is 50G allows you to put the data with as little compression as possible. Meaning higer quality.

You then say that PS3 has longer load times, this has always been true but its not like we're talking minutes or hours. Also Rockstar and a few others have complained about the restrictions on the 360s limited space. You then go on to say that devs have not been using the space this is also true but give them time to make the content. the next batch of big PS3 titles all clock over 9G, but have taken a while to make.

The PS3 was held up because it had heating problems kinda like ... well Sony fixed theirs unlike... and the graphics comparison is a little wierd because what usually gets compared are second gen 360 titles vs. first gen PS3 ports.

You then go on to diss the cell, the cell has never been used for mainstream programing the 360 is similar to a PC which many devs know how to program for. They have not really used the cell all that much and are just now starting to find the little tricks and tweaks to optimize to their needs. They already have that with the 360. How much more improvement can they really get out of it, especially that the 360 is almost 2yrs old?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]While all consoles have their downsides - not just the PS3 - you're correct in stating that Blu-Ray is a movie format forced into a console in an attempt to boost sales of blu-ray films. Simple as that. Cows will never admit it though.SolidSnake35

A tiny percentage of people actually have HDTVs. Basically it's the idea that you're forced to pay for this technology which seems to benefit sony a heck of a lot more than it does you. Sure if you have an HDTV, good for you. But what about everyone else?

When I want opinion presented at facts I'll go watch FOX News.

I disagree with you, you say blu-ray would allow for longer games that was never said by anyone. Games just like music and TV all tend to be lumped in at certain times, I mean games are typically 10-12hrs long, songs are usually around 3.5 minutes etc.. The Blu-ray allows devs to put longer cutscenes like for RPGs, bonus content and for a game like LBP alot more levels and extra tools. The fact that it is 50G allows you to put the data with as little compression as possible. Meaning higer quality.

Izzy12345

Sorry but that's just completely incorrect. I dont know what forum you've been on for the past year, but cows have claimed relentlessly that blu-ray would give them longer, more content-filled games. Heck, didn't you see the onslaught of posts claiming GTA4 would be three times the size if it weren't for the xbox 360?

And even if you did deny all of that and say it's nothing to do with length, but quality... sub that into his post and he's still right. The PS3 hasn't shown any greater quality than the xbox 360 or PC.

When I want opinion presented at facts I'll go watch FOX News.

Private_Vegas

*ZING!*

:P

[QUOTE="Izzy12345"]

I disagree with you, you say blu-ray would allow for longer games that was never said by anyone. Games just like music and TV all tend to be lumped in at certain times, I mean games are typically 10-12hrs long, songs are usually around 3.5 minutes etc.. The Blu-ray allows devs to put longer cutscenes like for RPGs, bonus content and for a game like LBP alot more levels and extra tools. The fact that it is 50G allows you to put the data with as little compression as possible. Meaning higer quality.

Ninja-Vox

Sorry but that's just completely incorrect. I dont know what forum you've been on for the past year, but cows have claimed relentlessly that blu-ray would give them longer, more content-filled games. Heck, didn't you see the onslaught of posts claiming GTA4 would be three times the size if it weren't for the xbox 360?

And even if you did deny all of that and say it's nothing to do with length, but quality... sub that into his post and he's still right. The PS3 hasn't shown any greater quality than the xbox 360 or PC.

Hmmm... when I said anyone I meant official Sony people or developpers not fanboys. Second just because the format gets bigger does not mean the content gets longer. CDs hold alot more music the Vinyl yet songstypically fall in that 3.5 minute range. The same is to be said about games 10-12 hrs.

Your also right that qunatity is not quality but that is on an individual personal basis. The fact that you say PS3 hasn't shown greater quality is because it has not had the time to fully be exploited by devs. I mentioned that earlier. But you need to define what you mean by quality. If it is in terms of gameplay thats up to devs not PS3 the PS3 does not make games. If you are talking about the hardware give it time I told you, comparing 2nd gen to first gen portsis not fair.

All thats good and fine points TC, im getting my ps 3 next week. Its just what i need, it can be my media center pc for my living room which is downstairs away from my wireless router, then on top of the fact its just 499.99 I just cant past that deal up. I dont have to buy a wi fi addon or an HD media add on, plus I can put another drive in it at my will, at what ever size i want.

Nice thread, finally a worth while thread in SW!

Oh i forgot, i can also play nba 2k8 on it as well, and install linux. ps3 here i come.

While all consoles have their downsides - not just the PS3 - you're correct in stating that Blu-Ray is a movie format forced into a console in an attempt to boost sales of blu-ray films. Simple as that. Cows will never admit it though.Ninja-Vox

And yet it's working. Since so far, it's outselling HD DVD 2:1 currently. Will be interesting to see how this holiday shapes up. But anywho.

bluray is needed for games, HDDVD is to small and outdated

they both have 512 ram

CEll kills xenon

free online > pay online

PS3 doesnt have a 33% failure rate

and no 360 game comes close to the graphics of Uncharted

Activision_QAT

Blue ray isnt need for gaming as of right now maybe next year.

bluray is needed for games, HDDVD is to small and outdated

they both have 512 ram

CEll kills xenon

free online > pay online

PS3 doesnt have a 33% failure rate

and no 360 game comes close to the graphics of Uncharted

Activision_QAT

Blu-ray is needed for games? The ironic thing is that thus far, blu-ray is only needed because of reasons beyond gaming. Example. Developers need to put redundant data on the discbecause the blu-ray drive read is so slow. Blu-ray is needed because of blu-ray. Multiple languages all on the disc? Yeah, its pretty nice of the developers, but sounds like a novelty. How many languages to you play games in???

Uncharted's graphics??? To me, the in-game graphics don't look that great. PERIOD
Good luck if that is your flagship title for the PS3. Look what is happening to Lair's graphics debate.

Cell kills xenon? I think I have already mentioned what a disaster teh cell has been for developers.

[QUOTE="Activision_QAT"]

bluray is needed for games, HDDVD is to small and outdated

they both have 512 ram

CEll kills xenon

free online > pay online

PS3 doesnt have a 33% failure rate

and no 360 game comes close to the graphics of Uncharted

septicvirus

Blu-ray is needed for games? The ironic thing is that thus far, blu-ray is only needed because of reasons beyond gaming. Example. Developers need to put redundant data on the discbecause the blu-ray drive read is so slow. Blu-ray is needed because of blu-ray. Multiple languages all on the disc? Yeah, its pretty nice of the developers, but sounds like a novelty. How many languages to you play games in???

Uncharted's graphics??? To me, the in-game graphics don't look that great. PERIOD
Good luck if that is your flagship title for the PS3. Look what is happening to Lair's graphics debate.

Cell kills xenon? I think I have already mentioned what a disaster teh cell has been for developers.

The extra space the Blu-Ray offers isn't needed for gaming niether is a 360 or high end PC. There is plenty of fun to be had with an old Atari or NES thus the first part of your comment holds no water. Blu-Ray is not essential to gaming but enhances the experience. I have not heard any devs saying they lack space on Blu-ray. Next you'll say how does it enhance, well for RPGs you can put longer cutscenes, extra maps like for UT3 etc.

Your also right Blu-ray has more than gaming extras like playing movies which has always been a selling pointof the PS3 and a boost for Sony's format. Do you recall CDs for PS1. The next argument is old news longer loadtimes, ok how much long 10 minutes 36 hours please.

Then you talk about graphics, fine. You mention Uncharted and Lair, which have better graphics then you seem to give credit to but have you seen GT5, FFX3 and so on.

Next you say the cell is hrder to develop for yes its true you let the cat outta the bag, but what happens when devs figure out all its hidden power. The 360 is similar to a PC lets be honest how many more leaps and bounds will 360 make as compared to the PS3.

The very assets that Sony is marketing for its PS3 are the very reasons it is inferior to the Xbox 360.

I am referring to its Blu-Ray capabilities and The Cell Processor

Blu-Ray - This was supposed allow for longer and more detailed games. Then Cows realized that multi-plats would not benefit because developers would not take the time to use the space. However, this was where Sony's exclusive titles would shine and really show the benefit of Blu-ray for gaming.

Results: Motorstorm - Sony's highly exclusivetitle which many claimed would convert the non-believers. This title proved to be a massive flop mainly due to the lack of content. A lack of racing tracks and split screen seemed unexplainable considering Blu-ray allowed the game to clock in at many gigs over dvd-9 capability. Sony's next two highly touted exclsives - Lair and Uncharted - both lost a little steam when their respected developers clocked the game length at 10-12 hrs. Why are Sony's exclusive titles nearing on the short side of gaming???

In addition,why are all of the PS3's exclusives too big to fit on a dvd? Well, its because the Blu-ray drive read speed that is in every PS3 is TOO SLOW. This is next gen? Why does the same game in my PS3 take twice as long to load than in my 360? This is next gen?

Graphics - If it weren't for the PS3's Blu-Ray capabilities holding it up, the PS3 would have been released one year earlier. We would be playing FF13, MSG4, and GT5. The PS3 would have a much larger install base. The effects of using last gen RSX would nothave been as obviousand the RSX would be better optimized by now.What is the Blu-Ray advantage??? All I see is an inflated price tag and a better chance for Sony at winning the movie format war.

The Cell - This is THE single most hyped component of the PS3. However, what has this 'super computer processor' yielded??? It has yielded the ability for Cows and developers alike to give EXCUSES for PS3 game delay after delay. IN ADDITION, the cell is even the PRIMARY excuse for the reason that multi-plat games are graphically worse. All in the name of "difficulty" and "sophistication."

What are the cell advantages? Well so far the 360's processor has been shown to put out better frame rates and produce better AI. Why the cell? Because it can help out a slightly gimped gpu? Well its not doing good enough, it is to blame for delay after delay, and it is lacking in some very important areas (AI anyone?)

septicvirus

Bro, Sony did what they did to be different come MS. And they are different.

You are aware of course that the difference in speed between the drives when you are taking the DVD9 penalty into account is largely negligible, correct?

Also the Cell is by a fairly wide margin the better processor..so you can just end that argument right now.

BluRay is absolutely, positively, without question not needed by Sony. There is no doubt about this and it is easily proven if you can just take off the fanboy goggles for a second.

For games, the BD disk is just a storage device...that is all. Nothing more, nothing less. So is a HDD. In fact a HDD is a better storage device for gaming than is a removable media disk for the simple reason that read access times are faster.

Now which console sells with a HDD already attached in every unit? Hmmmm....Sony.

So why exactly isn't Sony just using 2 or more DVD9s and simply installing part or all of the game a la PCs? Take a wild guess!! Because it has nothing to do with gaming, that's why.

So lets see:

Sony is forced to delay the PS3 rollout for 6 months because of BD production problems.....

Sony is forced to price the PS3 at $599 because of the BD production cost....

When they could have launched 6 months earlier, and they could have bundled a 120GB HDD or 200 GB HDD for a heck of a lot less than the BD.

So, please...stop the BS....the PS3 does not NEED the BD player. BD just like HD-DVD is completely irrelevant to the gaming experience and a better, cheaper, and readily available storage solution providing all the supposed benefits of BD and more already exists and in fact is already bundled into the unit....

BD is needed for gaming. Yah, right. LMAO.

BluRay is absolutely, positively, without question not needed by Sony. There is no doubt about this and it is easily proven if you can just take off the fanboy goggles for a second.

For games, the BD disk is just a storage device...that is all. Nothing more, nothing less. So is a HDD. In fact a HDD is a better storage device for gaming than is a removable media disk for the simple reason that read access times are faster.

Now which console sells with a HDD already attached in every unit? Hmmmm....Sony.

So why exactly isn't Sony just using 2 or more DVD9s and simply installing part or all of the game a la PCs? Take a wild guess!! Because it has nothing to do with gaming, that's why.

So lets see:

Sony is forced to delay the PS3 rollout for 6 months because of BD production problems.....

Sony is forced to price the PS3 at $599 because of the BD production cost....

When they could have launched 6 months earlier, and they could have bundled a 120GB HDD or 200 GB HDD for a heck of a lot less than the BD.

So, please...stop the BS....the PS3 does not NEED the BD player. BD just like HD-DVD is completely irrelevant to the gaming experience and a better, cheaper, and readily available storage solution providing all the supposed benefits of BD and more already exists and in fact is already bundled into the unit....

BD is needed for gaming. Yah, right. LMAO.

SUD123456

You are exactly right. Ask how many PC players have "blu-ray" drives, I bet you will find at most, 1 in 2000. It is completely unnecessary when you have a hard drive. All you have to do is be patient for 15 mintues while it installs for the first time...

If Sony loses the Console war, the Blu-ray drive most likely will be declared the reason.

The Cell I won't even touch other then it was a huge risk related to game development that was most likely not needed, but only the future can tell.

BluRay is absolutely, positively, without question not needed by Sony. There is no doubt about this and it is easily proven if you can just take off the fanboy goggles for a second.

For games, the BD disk is just a storage device...that is all. Nothing more, nothing less. So is a HDD. In fact a HDD is a better storage device for gaming than is a removable media disk for the simple reason that read access times are faster.

Now which console sells with a HDD already attached in every unit? Hmmmm....Sony.

So why exactly isn't Sony just using 2 or more DVD9s and simply installing part or all of the game a la PCs? Take a wild guess!! Because it has nothing to do with gaming, that's why.

So lets see:

Sony is forced to delay the PS3 rollout for 6 months because of BD production problems.....

Sony is forced to price the PS3 at $599 because of the BD production cost....

When they could have launched 6 months earlier, and they could have bundled a 120GB HDD or 200 GB HDD for a heck of a lot less than the BD.

So, please...stop the BS....the PS3 does not NEED the BD player. BD just like HD-DVD is completely irrelevant to the gaming experience and a better, cheaper, and readily available storage solution providing all the supposed benefits of BD and more already exists and in fact is already bundled into the unit....

BD is needed for gaming. Yah, right. LMAO.

SUD123456

If BD is useless why has PGR4 been complaing about a lack of space. Why is it that more maps can fit on on BD for UT3 then DVD. And if at that like someone said in other post why doesn't MS make PGR4 2 disks? Because it makes it look bad. BD is not absolutly necessary but by your logic games will forever be 9G.

Read and comprehend.

MS chose not to make a HDD standard in every unit. That is their problem.

Sony does have a HDD standard in every unit. Therefore, they don't need BD which is nothing more than storage....which MS doesn't have in all their units.

And excuse me....since when have PC games been limited to 9GB? More than 1 disk...That's the point.

Good grief.

I have to say (like many others) each console has its downfall. I fully expect my 360 to get a RRoD as soon as I begin playing Bioshock. I am also convinced that my Wii will burn my house down in my sleep because the wifi card gets so hot while on standby.

If Sony hadn't forced BluRay down my throat and increased the PS3 price by possibly $200 I would have purchased a PS3 instead of a 360 (nothing would have stopped me from buying the Wii). Maybe Bioshock would have been released on the PS3 along side the PC rather than 360. But no, Sony felt it had to include BluRay and thus inflate the price.