How many multi-plats were held back this generation because of 360's DVD format?

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="ispeakfact"]

Just an example:

http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/

rilpas

Not only that, but the actual finished product, the finished games that developers release are often altered across all platforms because of the 360. Like I said earlier, they need to make sure that their multi-platform game is capable of running on all the hardware it is releasing on, under every circumstance. Because of this, they usually develop on the 360 as lead platform, as it is the weakest. They need to make sure that their game can run on a 360, using a DVD drive without a harddrive installed, streaming directly off the DVD.

To make matters worse, Microsoft's way of competing with blu ray is by trying to persuade developers to not use additional DVDs in their games. The way that they do this, is by charging a ridiculous amount in licensing fees per additional DVD used, which are Microsoft proprietary DVDs, which already have a couple gigs taken off for security reasons. This is why PC is not a good comparison, because PCs all have harddrives and PC games are not hit with these proprietary MS licensing fees per additional DVD used.

It's obvious that developers care about the licensing fees they're required to pay for using additional DVDs.

Look at the link that was just posted.

http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/

"When Demon's Souls was released several years ago by Atlus in North America, it was a PS3 Exclusive. With the follow up title, Dark Souls coming this year, it will no longer be a PS3 exclusive title as a Xbox 360 version is coming as well. Now, the big question is, which of the two versions is better?

While playing the demo of Dark Souls at the Namco Bandai booth today at the E3 show floor, one of the questions I asked to the Namco Bandai representative is to what are the sacrifices From Software had to do in order to put it on the Xbox 360. A simple answer given to us is, "a lot of compression has to be done on the Xbox 360 to make it stay on a single disc".

When it comes to compressing a game on the Xbox 360, we all know how much quality it loses. For players who are thinking of purchasing Dark Souls on the PS3, expect the data to be uncompressed, thus having better quality in terms graphics and sounds. Take note that the lead platform of Dark Souls is the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is a direct port."

So this just goes to show that From Software, a smaller development team that doesn't have indispensable cash, made their game worse in order to fit it onto 1 DVD, because they didn't want to get hit with the licensing fees for using additional DVDs.

The real question is, how common has this exact scenario been this generation? I think it has been a lot more common that people would be led to believe.

Digital Foundry's comparison:

"For the deciding vote, it's close enough for us to recommend either controller preference or the PS3 version's larger range of supported audio formats as more crucial points for consideration."

Seem the only difference is the fact that the PS3 version supports more languages, yep, miles apart :roll:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dark-souls-face-off?page=2

Don't forget to mention the broken mp on the 360 verison also. :) Yep, they are still miles apart. Ps3 version superior.

Xbox only "wins" on dumb fanboy sites like lens of truth or digital foundry. And it's always by something small and unnoticable, stuff that no one in real life cares about.

ShadowMoses900

Yes, of course, when a publication doesn't favor you or your argument, call them fanboys. Mature and intelligent manner of debating right there, folks.

" i say it again they ended up being truly identical.. :)

Strutten

Not really. The 360 version had broken mp.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Not only that, but the actual finished product, the finished games that developers release are often altered across all platforms because of the 360. Like I said earlier, they need to make sure that their multi-platform game is capable of running on all the hardware it is releasing on, under every circumstance. Because of this, they usually develop on the 360 as lead platform, as it is the weakest. They need to make sure that their game can run on a 360, using a DVD drive without a harddrive installed, streaming directly off the DVD.

To make matters worse, Microsoft's way of competing with blu ray is by trying to persuade developers to not use additional DVDs in their games. The way that they do this, is by charging a ridiculous amount in licensing fees per additional DVD used, which are Microsoft proprietary DVDs, which already have a couple gigs taken off for security reasons. This is why PC is not a good comparison, because PCs all have harddrives and PC games are not hit with these proprietary MS licensing fees per additional DVD used.

It's obvious that developers care about the licensing fees they're required to pay for using additional DVDs.

Look at the link that was just posted.

http://www.justpushstart.com/2011/06/e3-2011-dark-souls-ps3-is-superior-360-version-heavily-compressed-onto-one-disc/

"When Demon's Souls was released several years ago by Atlus in North America, it was a PS3 Exclusive. With the follow up title, Dark Souls coming this year, it will no longer be a PS3 exclusive title as a Xbox 360 version is coming as well. Now, the big question is, which of the two versions is better?

While playing the demo of Dark Souls at the Namco Bandai booth today at the E3 show floor, one of the questions I asked to the Namco Bandai representative is to what are the sacrifices From Software had to do in order to put it on the Xbox 360. A simple answer given to us is, "a lot of compression has to be done on the Xbox 360 to make it stay on a single disc".

When it comes to compressing a game on the Xbox 360, we all know how much quality it loses. For players who are thinking of purchasing Dark Souls on the PS3, expect the data to be uncompressed, thus having better quality in terms graphics and sounds. Take note that the lead platform of Dark Souls is the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is a direct port."

So this just goes to show that From Software, a smaller development team that doesn't have indispensable cash, made their game worse in order to fit it onto 1 DVD, because they didn't want to get hit with the licensing fees for using additional DVDs.

The real question is, how common has this exact scenario been this generation? I think it has been a lot more common that people would be led to believe.

ispeakfact

Digital Foundry's comparison:

"For the deciding vote, it's close enough for us to recommend either controller preference or the PS3 version's larger range of supported audio formats as more crucial points for consideration."

Seem the only difference is the fact that the PS3 version supports more languages, yep, miles apart :roll:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dark-souls-face-off?page=2

Don't forget to mention the broken mp on the 360 verison also. :) Yep, they are still miles apart. Ps3 version superior.

feel free to prove that

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

You guys are missing the point entirely.

Why did they sacrifice audio and visual quality?

rilpas

massive differences :roll:

Well there never really is a massive difference, only in very rare cases. But Lems like to pretend there is with their versions all the time. I always say that almos tall multiplats are equal, some people can't accept this. Not my fault. But when Cows say it Lems say they can't see a difference, pretty funny eh?

"A lot of compression has to be done on the Xbox 360 to make it stay on a single disc".

When it comes to compressing a game on the Xbox 360, we all know how much quality it loses. For players who are thinking of purchasing Dark Souls on the PS3, expect the data to be uncompressed, thus having better quality in terms graphics and sounds."

The question is, why wasn't the game left untouched and spread across 2 DVDs? Why did they sacrifice quality? It's because Microsoft deters developers from wanting to use 2 or more DVDs through extreme licensing fees that they charge developers per additional DVD used, as they are Microsoft proprietary DVDs, which already have a couple gigs taken off for security reasons. It is Microsoft's way of competing with blu ray, an underhanded tactic that affects games all around the industry. It affects games all across the industry, because games are built with the lowest common denominator in mind, it has to be able to run on the weakest system. The 360, with DVD and no harddrive, is a scenario they have to take into consideration. Their game needs to be able to run on a 360 without a harddrive, streaming from the DVD.

I wonder if people going on about how the 360 supposedly "held back" third party titles because of its DVD format realize that there's not a single PS3 exclusive that outpaces the best 360 exclusives in terms of content.

FallenAngel-

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]

arkephonic

Well it's your word against John Carmack's word. I'm going with Carmack. He says that using a blu ray disc is significantly cheaper than using 2 or even 3 DVDs, and when you look at cost per gigabyte, PS3 has a huge advantage over the 360. If Carmack is wrong, please provide proof saying otherwise, because I have proof that he said it.

Why would a game have a different version because of DVD? You can make a 10 DVD game if you really wanted to. All DVD is a storage medium. You could put Metal Gear Solid 4 on 360, but it would be in the form of 8 DVDs. You're completely missing the point. You would never have to make a different version for DVD, it is just that developers need to be prepared to get hit with a significant licensing fee per additional DVD that Microsoft charges for every DVD used. This "onerous" licensing fee, as Carmack put it, deters developers from making their games large enough to require multiple DVDs, because they want to sidestep the additional licensing fees. Carmack said that his game would have been better off using 3 DVDs, but he made compression quality sacrifices, hurting the overall game, in order to side step these licensing fees and fit it onto 2 DVDs.

So the real question is, how many games didn't live up to their full potential because developers didn't want to get hit by these additional licensing fees? Developers have clearly gone on record saying they have been taking it into consideration when making their games, so it seems obvious to me that the games aren't living up to their full potential because of it.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/54795/ids-tim-willits-on-rage

"Microsoft is not being dickheads," he said. "It was a simple kind of miscommunication. Microsoft does not charge a royalty per disc, but there is a cost of goods that goes along with manufacturing. "

[QUOTE="FallenAngel-"]

I wonder if people going on about how the 360 supposedly "held back" third party titles because of its DVD format realize that there's not a single PS3 exclusive that outpaces the best 360 exclusives in terms of content.

White_Dreams

Exactly. When making a multi-platform game, they will make the changes necessary so the game can run on everything, hence the term, "multi-platform".

[QUOTE="FallenAngel-"]

I wonder if people going on about how the 360 supposedly "held back" third party titles because of its DVD format realize that there's not a single PS3 exclusive that outpaces the best 360 exclusives in terms of content.

White_Dreams

...

I don't know what you're saying here.

[QUOTE="White_Dreams"][QUOTE="FallenAngel-"]

I wonder if people going on about how the 360 supposedly "held back" third party titles because of its DVD format realize that there's not a single PS3 exclusive that outpaces the best 360 exclusives in terms of content.

arkephonic

Exactly. When making a multi-platform game, they will make the changes necessary so the game can run on everything, hence the term, "multi-platform".

You assume changes are being made.

But once again, first and second party developers for the PS3 don't have to worry about such constraints so why is it that not a single PS3 exclusive drastically outpaces the average 360 exclusive in terms of content?

Gotta hand it to Sony, they sure know how to brainwash their flock.

Gotta hand it to Sony, they sure know how to brainwash their flock.

Fizzman

Gotta hand it to Sony, they sure know how to brainwash their flock.

Fizzman

[QUOTE="Strutten"]

" i say it again they ended up being truly identical.. :)

ispeakfact

Not really. The 360 version had broken mp.

I don't think brainwashing has anything to do with it.

It is a well known fact that having more space to work with allows you to do more things, not just limited to content.

Skyrim has some of the most content in any game this gen, and it is also one of the smallest in file sizes. They are able to achieve this through things like reusing the same textures, advanced compression algorithms (which in turn affect quality), there are ways around it.

Look at the amount of varied, different high resolution textures in a game like Uncharted 3. So many levels look completely different. They don't reuse the same textures over and over again like they do in a game like Gears of War.

Then you have to take into consideration that uncompressed audio and video is better than compressed audio and video, that's just a fact.

There are factual advantages to having more space, regardless of how much you care about the differences in quality.

About zero.

Fizzman

Pretty much this. More often then not, developers that stick games on multiple disks do it not because it's the only option, but because it's cheaper then spending the extra time compressing the game. Just look at Skyrim, it easily fits on one disc.

I don't think brainwashing has anything to do with it.

It is a well known fact that having more space to work with allows you to do more things, not just limited to content.

Skyrim has some of the most content in any game this gen, and it is also one of the smallest in file sizes. They are able to achieve this through things like reusing the same textures, advanced compression algorithms (which in turn affect quality), there are ways around it.

Look at the amount of varied, different high resolution textures in a game like Uncharted 3. So many levels look completely different. They don't reuse the same textures over and over again like they do in a game like Gears of War.

Then you have to take into consideration that uncompressed audio and video is better than compressed audio and video, that's just a fact.

There are factual advantages to having more space, regardless of how much you care about the differences in quality.

arkephonic

and when the PS2 was holding back games for the Xbox and PC were you so outspoken against sony?

Or how about how both the 360 and PS3 hold back PC games?

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

I don't think brainwashing has anything to do with it.

It is a well known fact that having more space to work with allows you to do more things, not just limited to content.

Skyrim has some of the most content in any game this gen, and it is also one of the smallest in file sizes. They are able to achieve this through things like reusing the same textures, advanced compression algorithms (which in turn affect quality), there are ways around it.

Look at the amount of varied, different high resolution textures in a game like Uncharted 3. So many levels look completely different. They don't reuse the same textures over and over again like they do in a game like Gears of War.

Then you have to take into consideration that uncompressed audio and video is better than compressed audio and video, that's just a fact.

There are factual advantages to having more space, regardless of how much you care about the differences in quality.

rilpas

and when the PS2 was holding back games for the Xbox and PC were you so outspoken against sony?

Or how about how both the 360 and PS3 hold back PC games?

What makes you think this is about Sony? Sony isn't even my favorite gaming company.

[QUOTE="White_Dreams"][QUOTE="FallenAngel-"]

I wonder if people going on about how the 360 supposedly "held back" third party titles because of its DVD format realize that there's not a single PS3 exclusive that outpaces the best 360 exclusives in terms of content.

FallenAngel-

...

I don't know what you're saying here.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

I don't think brainwashing has anything to do with it.

It is a well known fact that having more space to work with allows you to do more things, not just limited to content.

Skyrim has some of the most content in any game this gen, and it is also one of the smallest in file sizes. They are able to achieve this through things like reusing the same textures, advanced compression algorithms (which in turn affect quality), there are ways around it.

Look at the amount of varied, different high resolution textures in a game like Uncharted 3. So many levels look completely different. They don't reuse the same textures over and over again like they do in a game like Gears of War.

Then you have to take into consideration that uncompressed audio and video is better than compressed audio and video, that's just a fact.

There are factual advantages to having more space, regardless of how much you care about the differences in quality.

arkephonic

and when the PS2 was holding back games for the Xbox and PC were you so outspoken against sony?

Or how about how both the 360 and PS3 hold back PC games?

What makes you think this is about Sony? Sony isn't even my favorite gaming company.

still waiting for you to answer my question

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

and when the PS2 was holding back games for the Xbox and PC were you so outspoken against sony?

Or how about how both the 360 and PS3 hold back PC games?

rilpas

What makes you think this is about Sony? Sony isn't even my favorite gaming company.

still waiting for you to answer my question

What question? You made a claim that 360 and PS3 hold back PC games, and you want my opinion on it? Why?

There is a thread already up talking about whether or not 360 and PS3 hold back PC games.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29016075/consoles-to-hold-back-pc

As for your other question regarding PS2 and Xbox, there's also a Legacy Platform Forum for discussing such things.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/board/909184995/legacy-platforms?tag=platform-forums%3Btitle%3B10

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

and when the PS2 was holding back games for the Xbox and PC were you so outspoken against sony?

Or how about how both the 360 and PS3 hold back PC games?

arkephonic

What question? You made a claim that 360 and PS3 hold back PC games, and you want my opinion on it? Why?

There is a thread already up talking about whether or not 360 and PS3 hold back PC games.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29016075/consoles-to-hold-back-pc

As for your other question regarding PS2 and Xbox, there's also a Legacy Platform Forum for discussing such things.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/board/909184995/legacy-platforms?tag=platform-forums%3Btitle%3B10

both questions are highlighted, still waiting on your answer

a simple yes or no will do

oh wow, i have never seen the cows get ripped to shreds so much in one thread, everytim they state something it gets debunked almost straight away, c'mon cows, yoy letting me down today:)delta3074

Hey don't put the blame on me, I owned this thread :P

Seriously though, there I don't think it matters in multiplats considering that they are indentilce in almost every case (yes even RDR was pretty identicle) in cases where a game was too big they just released it on multiple discs for Xbox. But Blu Ray has advantages and next gen every console will be using it.

All of them. Devs are always having to cut corners and water down games to fit onto those ancient DVD discs. Swapping discs for the same game is absolutely unbearable in today's day and age and MS should be ashamed for not adopted for not adopting the all powerful blu ray format for their console. HD DVD FTL

All of them.

BPoole96

Compelling statement there. I can't wait to see you prove it! :D

john carmack "I can make benchmarks that will show either the PS3 or 360 to be superior, so they are close, but I prefer the trades on the 360" http://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/124917372040642560 john carmack on the ps3 version of Rage "We had to make the game dominated by the console hardware trade offs. And the PlayStation 3 is, in some ways, the long pole there. They are close, the PS3 and the Xbox 360." "You don't have to do radically different things, but the memory is a little tighter on the PS3 because it is segmented and Sony takes a little bit more off the top for their guide overhead than Microsoft does," he said. "There is no doubt that decisions had to be based around what would work well on the consoles." http://myona.com/2011/08/15/rage-development-is-limited-due-to-ps3-memory-id/ delta3074

Carmack is one man, he does not represent everyone's opinion. Why are you trying to start me up again?

What your saying is that Carmacks opinion is your opinion? Glad I think for myself, I think PS3 is better than 360. Don't like it? Kiss my ass.

I was trying to be balanced and look what happens?

All of them. Devs are always having to cut corners and water down games to fit onto those ancient DVD discs. Swapping discs for the same game is absolutely unbearable in today's day and age and MS should be ashamed for not adopted for not adopting the all powerful blu ray format for their console. HD DVD FTL

BPoole96

I'm sure a lot of gamers out there are overweight and out of shape. Getting up to change discs might be the only exercise they get in a day. It might actually be a good thing, they could maybe even turn it into an ad campaign.

[QUOTE="delta3074"]oh wow, i have never seen the cows get ripped to shreds so much in one thread, everytim they state something it gets debunked almost straight away, c'mon cows, yoy letting me down today:)ShadowMoses900

Hey don't put the blame on me, I owned this thread :P

Seriously though, there I don't think it matters in multiplats considering that they are indentilce in almost every case (yes even RDR was pretty identicle) in cases where a game was too big they just released it on multiple discs for Xbox. But Blu Ray has advantages and next gen every console will be using it.

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

All of them. Devs are always having to cut corners and water down games to fit onto those ancient DVD discs. Swapping discs for the same game is absolutely unbearable in today's day and age and MS should be ashamed for not adopted for not adopting the all powerful blu ray format for their console. HD DVD FTL

arkephonic

I'm sure a lot of gamers out there are overweight and out of shape. Getting up to change discs might be the only exercise they get in a day. It might actually be a good thing, they could maybe even turn it into an ad campaign.

No way. I've gotten so large over the years that getting off the couch is too much of a chore. I play video games to get fat, not lose weight

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

All of them. Devs are always having to cut corners and water down games to fit onto those ancient DVD discs. Swapping discs for the same game is absolutely unbearable in today's day and age and MS should be ashamed for not adopted for not adopting the all powerful blu ray format for their console. HD DVD FTL

BPoole96

I'm sure a lot of gamers out there are overweight and out of shape. Getting up to change discs might be the only exercise they get in a day. It might actually be a good thing, they could maybe even turn it into an ad campaign.

No way. I've gotten so large over the years that getting off the couch is too much of a chore. I play video games to get fat, not lose weight

Well maybe Weight Watchers could work in conjunction with Xbox, and have an ad campaign detailing the advantages of having to repeatedly get up and change discs, showing how it is actually a luxury.

I go to the gym a few times a week so I can stay in good shape. And to think, I wouldn't even need a gym membership if I had just gotten my multi-plats on my 360 instead of my PS3.

[QUOTE="delta3074"]john carmack "I can make benchmarks that will show either the PS3 or 360 to be superior, so they are close, but I prefer the trades on the 360" http://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/124917372040642560 john carmack on the ps3 version of Rage "We had to make the game dominated by the console hardware trade offs. And the PlayStation 3 is, in some ways, the long pole there. They are close, the PS3 and the Xbox 360." "You don't have to do radically different things, but the memory is a little tighter on the PS3 because it is segmented and Sony takes a little bit more off the top for their guide overhead than Microsoft does," he said. "There is no doubt that decisions had to be based around what would work well on the consoles." http://myona.com/2011/08/15/rage-development-is-limited-due-to-ps3-memory-id/ ShadowMoses900

Carmack is one man, he does not represent everyone's opinion. Why are you trying to start me up again?

What your saying is that Carmacks opinion is your opinion? Glad I think for myself, I think PS3 is better than 360. Don't like it? Kiss my ass.

I was trying to be balanced and look what happens?

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

All of them.

The_Game21x

Compelling statement there. I can't wait to see you prove it! :D

PS3 gets bonus content in plenty of games like Medal of Honor, Assassin's Creed, Mafia 2, Dead Space 2 (9.0 PS3, 8.5 360) etc, etc because it can handle having the extra content. If devs did this on 360 people's fingers would be bleeding for swapping discs so often. These companies need to avoid lawsuits so they simply water down the games to the crutch of the 360 to avoid trouble. Sometimes the devs feel bad so they reward PS3 gamers with extra content for free for having their games held back

360 ruined this generation and the Lemmings think it's funny. They know they messed up when they bought the 360 in the first place but it makes them feel better that the rest of us have to suffer along with them.

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

I'm sure a lot of gamers out there are overweight and out of shape. Getting up to change discs might be the only exercise they get in a day. It might actually be a good thing, they could maybe even turn it into an ad campaign.

arkephonic

No way. I've gotten so large over the years that getting off the couch is too much of a chore. I play video games to get fat, not lose weight

Well maybe Weight Watchers could work in conjunction with Xbox, and have an ad campaign detailing the advantages of having to repeatedly get up and change discs, showing how it is actually a luxury.

Join weight watchers and get a free xbox 360 arcade edition plus any of the several games that havemultiple discs. That would push some serious units

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]oh wow, i have never seen the cows get ripped to shreds so much in one thread, everytim they state something it gets debunked almost straight away, c'mon cows, yoy letting me down today:)delta3074

Hey don't put the blame on me, I owned this thread :P

Seriously though, there I don't think it matters in multiplats considering that they are indentilce in almost every case (yes even RDR was pretty identicle) in cases where a game was too big they just released it on multiple discs for Xbox. But Blu Ray has advantages and next gen every console will be using it.

All fanboys are hypocrites, I think your letting your personal bias get the better of you. It's human nature to find things and agree with people that support your views, however it's wise to listen to the other side as well.

But that's off topic, I have played both versions of RDR and there isn't a massive difference like lems think, in fact I would argue that sub HD isn't even that noticiable in the first place.

I have played alot of so called "sub HD" games like Halo Reach or Alan Wake, I didn't notice anything wrong with them. All these things are over exaggerated on here, and you shouldn't believe them.

And I never said anything about half that stuff your accusing me of.

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

All of them.

BPoole96

Compelling statement there. I can't wait to see you prove it! :D

PS3 gets bonus content in plenty of games like Medal of Honor, Assassin's Creed, Mafia 2, Dead Space 2 (9.0 PS3, 8.5 360) etc, etc because it can handle having the extra content. If devs did this on 360 people's fingers would be bleeding for swapping discs so often. These companies need to avoid lawsuits so they simply water down the games to the crutch of the 360 to avoid trouble. Sometimes the devs feel bad so they reward PS3 gamers with extra content for free for having their games held back

I can only hope this ridiculously stupid argument is a joke.

First off, PS3 games getting extra content is due to Sony moneyhats (Why else do you think EA is in bed with Sony? Charity?) and second, a handful of games does not equate to "all of them".

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

All of them.

BPoole96

Compelling statement there. I can't wait to see you prove it! :D

PS3 gets bonus content in plenty of games like Medal of Honor, Assassin's Creed, Mafia 2, Dead Space 2 (9.0 PS3, 8.5 360) etc, etc because it can handle having the extra content. If devs did this on 360 people's fingers would be bleeding for swapping discs so often. These companies need to avoid lawsuits so they simply water down the games to the crutch of the 360 to avoid trouble. Sometimes the devs feel bad so they reward PS3 gamers with extra content for free for having their games held back

True that. I got Assassin's Creed Revelations on PS3, and it came with a free copy of Assassin's Creed. Medal of Honor also came with a free copy of Medal of Honor Frontline.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]john carmack "I can make benchmarks that will show either the PS3 or 360 to be superior, so they are close, but I prefer the trades on the 360" http://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/124917372040642560 john carmack on the ps3 version of Rage "We had to make the game dominated by the console hardware trade offs. And the PlayStation 3 is, in some ways, the long pole there. They are close, the PS3 and the Xbox 360." "You don't have to do radically different things, but the memory is a little tighter on the PS3 because it is segmented and Sony takes a little bit more off the top for their guide overhead than Microsoft does," he said. "There is no doubt that decisions had to be based around what would work well on the consoles." http://myona.com/2011/08/15/rage-development-is-limited-due-to-ps3-memory-id/ delta3074

Carmack is one man, he does not represent everyone's opinion. Why are you trying to start me up again?

What your saying is that Carmacks opinion is your opinion? Glad I think for myself, I think PS3 is better than 360. Don't like it? Kiss my ass.

I was trying to be balanced and look what happens?

Cool for you, I however trust my own opinion and do things based off of what I want. Not what someone else likes or wants. Carmacks opinion is not my opinion, I don't give two sh!ts about what he thinks. He makes games that's all I care about, I don't care what system he prefers. I think Naughty Dog is better than Carmack and they like PS3 better. We all have our favoirtes Delta, it supports our own bias.

But like I said, my opinion is my opinion. Carmack's opinion doesn't matter to me.

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

All of them.

BPoole96

Compelling statement there. I can't wait to see you prove it! :D

PS3 gets bonus content in plenty of games like Medal of Honor, Assassin's Creed, Mafia 2, Dead Space 2 (9.0 PS3, 8.5 360) etc, etc because it can handle having the extra content. If devs did this on 360 people's fingers would be bleeding for swapping discs so often. These companies need to avoid lawsuits so they simply water down the games to the crutch of the 360 to avoid trouble. Sometimes the devs feel bad so they reward PS3 gamers with extra content for free for having their games held back

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

Compelling statement there. I can't wait to see you prove it! :D

The_Game21x

PS3 gets bonus content in plenty of games like Medal of Honor, Assassin's Creed, Mafia 2, Dead Space 2 (9.0 PS3, 8.5 360) etc, etc because it can handle having the extra content. If devs did this on 360 people's fingers would be bleeding for swapping discs so often. These companies need to avoid lawsuits so they simply water down the games to the crutch of the 360 to avoid trouble. Sometimes the devs feel bad so they reward PS3 gamers with extra content for free for having their games held back

I can only hope this ridiculously stupid argument is a joke.

First off, PS3 games getting extra content is due to Sony moneyhats (Why else do you think EA is in bed with Sony? Charity?) and second, a handful of games does not equate to "all of them".

[spoiler] It is. I'm not that stupid. :PThere really has been no advantage of Blu Ray this gen aside from having a blu ray player for movies. Blu ray has its place for movies, but really isn't necessary for games. [/spoiler]