Is it really worth the wait? PS3 isn't delivering on the promises.

We all know PS3 and 360 are relatively the same in capabilities in respect to what you get in a game. Sure the 360 has a better GPU and the cell is better at things like folding @ home. So let's not turn this into a hardware discussion as that will just go back and forth with each party showing a link to something that they think is the most important thing in the world (like unified shaders vs. dedicated specialized ones).

Also we know the cell/PS3 is a lot harder to program for and that's the excuse used so far by sony fans explaining why the 360 has the better multiplats overall. But to be fair, they are all pretty much equal with most games. If you think PS3 couldn't do halo or Gears you're wrong. Just like if you think the 360 couldn't do KZ2 or MGS4 you're wrong. Sure some minor tradeoffs would occur in either direction but you'd still have the same game. The only difference is how long it would take to create the game.

Now to the question...is it really worth the extra dev time with the PS3 to get a game that looks and plays pretty much just like the 360 game that can be shipped in about half the amount of time as the PS3 version? (and let's not bring the lack of rumble into this as that's a different reason why to get one platform over the other...same with sixaxis).

If it's worth they wait, why?

I really wished 360 and PS3 was one game console with features and games of both.

Supa Console.

I really wished 360 and PS3 was one game console with features and games of both.

Supa Console.

Poop_Slash

I actually wish that nintendo just created a 3rd party controller for one of the two consoles. That way that console would have the real power that the ps3 and 360 has AND the great games that nintendo has without the crappy power consoles they make. But it didn't happen, so we have to buy multiple consoles.

That's why you hear all the "MGS4 to 360" talk all the time. Because it's not unrealistic. Developers these days spend a great amount of money and time to make games, and it's not worth making them exclusive to a console if it means they won't even make their money back, much less make a profit. If the PS3 doesn't pick up in sales by next year, we'll be seeing more talk of its exclusives possibly becoming multiplats.Zeliard9

And that will be the new excuse for those that think their console is truly a lot more powerful than what it is..."that game would have been 100% better had it been exclusive and took advantage of {fill in component of your console here}"

just i am speachless, there is no word to express the ignorance that i just read. the best i can come up with is bull **** x1000 every sentence was incorrect on so many levels.

just i am speachless, there is no word to express the ignorance that i just read. the best i can come up with is bull **** x1000 every sentence was incorrect on so many levels.

the_new_neo

Or are you saying the PS3 doesn't take longer to dev for?

The lack of responses from the sony fans, its staggering. I would expect that they'd say yes it was worth the wait, but I guess they can't find the reasons why it's worth it.

The lack of responses from the sony fans, its staggering. I would expect that they'd say yes it was worth the wait, but I guess they can't find the reasons why it's worth it.

mikasa

lol 3 ppl have commented so far

We all know PS3 and 360 are relatively the same in capabilities in respect to what you get in a game. Sure the 360 has a better GPU and the cell is better at things like folding @ home. So let's not turn this into a hardware discussion as that will just go back and forth with each party showing a link to something that they think is the most important thing in the world (like unified shaders vs. dedicated specialized ones).

Also we know the cell/PS3 is a lot harder to program for and that's the excuse used so far by sony fans explaining why the 360 has the better multiplats overall. But to be fair, they are all pretty much equal with most games. If you think PS3 couldn't do halo or Gears you're wrong. Just like if you think the 360 couldn't do KZ2 or MGS4 you're wrong. Sure some minor tradeoffs would occur in either direction but you'd still have the same game. The only difference is how long it would take to create the game.

Now to the question...is it really worth the extra dev time with the PS3 to get a game that looks and plays pretty much just like the 360 game that can be shipped in about half the amount of time as the PS3 version? (and let's not bring the lack of rumble into this as that's a different reason why to get one platform over the other...same with sixaxis).

If it's worth they wait, why?

mikasa

The PS2 was no different. The PS2 was supposed to be more difficult to code for, yet did that hold the console back? No. The PS2 alsohad a lousy launch lineup (the only PS2 game I owned for quite a while was Madden 2001). PS3 has more 1st party support than any other console. Watch the games start rolling in when the Japanese devs start kicking out the games. It's a Playstation tradition. Yes, it's worth the wait. What were the early 360 adopters playing? Was it worth the wait for them? Probably, yes.

For me, there hasn't been a wait. I don't play PC games (outside of Hold 'Em), and I never own more than 1 console at a time...I'm an adult with an active life and don't have the time to devote to more than 1 system. Plus I don't want to plunk down the cash for multiple systems when 1 will suit me fine. This means I had never played Oblivion, the Clancy games (RB6 and SC), Resistence was fine asa launch title, and I typically play sports games (which IGameFly)for the most part. I've had Madden 07 (sucked), Fight Night Rd. 3, NBA 2K8, NCAA 2K8, Oblivion, God of War II, and now Rainbow 6: Vegas to keep me busy. When those games aren't cutting it, I have about 60 PS2 games from which to choose, and can always kick back an watch a Blu-Ray.

Bottom line is, a lot of us have entertainment options outside of video games. I like to lift weights and I train in jiu-jitsu. During winter I ski every weekend. If I don't feel like playing a video game when I'm bored, I'll play some poker online. Video games aren't the center of my universe, so it doesn't really matter that there aren't 300 titles available for the PS3 right now. Between work, life, and Netflix, video games have to compete for my time as it is.

[QUOTE="mikasa"]

The lack of responses from the sony fans, its staggering. I would expect that they'd say yes it was worth the wait, but I guess they can't find the reasons why it's worth it.

the_new_neo

lol 3 ppl have commented so far

I know and not one of them has said it was worth the wait. I guess that does say a lot.

[QUOTE="mikasa"]

We all know PS3 and 360 are relatively the same in capabilities in respect to what you get in a game. Sure the 360 has a better GPU and the cell is better at things like folding @ home. So let's not turn this into a hardware discussion as that will just go back and forth with each party showing a link to something that they think is the most important thing in the world (like unified shaders vs. dedicated specialized ones).

Also we know the cell/PS3 is a lot harder to program for and that's the excuse used so far by sony fans explaining why the 360 has the better multiplats overall. But to be fair, they are all pretty much equal with most games. If you think PS3 couldn't do halo or Gears you're wrong. Just like if you think the 360 couldn't do KZ2 or MGS4 you're wrong. Sure some minor tradeoffs would occur in either direction but you'd still have the same game. The only difference is how long it would take to create the game.

Now to the question...is it really worth the extra dev time with the PS3 to get a game that looks and plays pretty much just like the 360 game that can be shipped in about half the amount of time as the PS3 version? (and let's not bring the lack of rumble into this as that's a different reason why to get one platform over the other...same with sixaxis).

If it's worth they wait, why?

bforrester

The PS2 was no different. The PS2 was supposed to be more difficult to code for, yet did that hold the console back? No. The PS2 alsohad a lousy launch lineup (the only PS2 game I owned for quite a while was Madden 2001). PS3 has more 1st party support than any other console. Watch the games start rolling in when the Japanese devs start kicking out the games. It's a Playstation tradition. Yes, it's worth the wait. What were the early 360 adopters playing? Was it worth the wait for them? Probably, yes.

For me, there hasn't been a wait. I don't play PC games (outside of Hold 'Em), and I never own more than 1 console at a time...I'm an adult with an active life and don't have the time to devote to more than 1 system. Plus I don't want to plunk down the cash for multiple systems when 1 will suit me fine. This means I had never played Oblivion, the Clancy games (RB6 and SC), Resistence was fine asa launch title, and I typically play sports games (which IGameFly)for the most part. I've had Madden 07 (sucked), Fight Night Rd. 3, NBA 2K8, NCAA 2K8, Oblivion, God of War II, and now Rainbow 6: Vegas to keep me busy. When those games aren't cutting it, I have about 60 PS2 games from which to choose, and can always kick back an watch a Blu-Ray.

Bottom line is, a lot of us have entertainment options outside of video games. I like to lift weights and I train in jiu-jitsu. During winter I ski every weekend. If I don't feel like playing a video game when I'm bored, I'll play some poker online. Video games aren't the center of my universe, so it doesn't really matter that there aren't 300 titles available for the PS3 right now. Between work, life, and Netflix, video games have to compete for my time as it is.

True, if you really don't care about gaming then it won't really matter.

[QUOTE="bforrester"][QUOTE="mikasa"]

We all know PS3 and 360 are relatively the same in capabilities in respect to what you get in a game. Sure the 360 has a better GPU and the cell is better at things like folding @ home. So let's not turn this into a hardware discussion as that will just go back and forth with each party showing a link to something that they think is the most important thing in the world (like unified shaders vs. dedicated specialized ones).

Also we know the cell/PS3 is a lot harder to program for and that's the excuse used so far by sony fans explaining why the 360 has the better multiplats overall. But to be fair, they are all pretty much equal with most games. If you think PS3 couldn't do halo or Gears you're wrong. Just like if you think the 360 couldn't do KZ2 or MGS4 you're wrong. Sure some minor tradeoffs would occur in either direction but you'd still have the same game. The only difference is how long it would take to create the game.

Now to the question...is it really worth the extra dev time with the PS3 to get a game that looks and plays pretty much just like the 360 game that can be shipped in about half the amount of time as the PS3 version? (and let's not bring the lack of rumble into this as that's a different reason why to get one platform over the other...same with sixaxis).

If it's worth they wait, why?

mikasa

The PS2 was no different. The PS2 was supposed to be more difficult to code for, yet did that hold the console back? No. The PS2 alsohad a lousy launch lineup (the only PS2 game I owned for quite a while was Madden 2001). PS3 has more 1st party support than any other console. Watch the games start rolling in when the Japanese devs start kicking out the games. It's a Playstation tradition. Yes, it's worth the wait. What were the early 360 adopters playing? Was it worth the wait for them? Probably, yes.

For me, there hasn't been a wait. I don't play PC games (outside of Hold 'Em), and I never own more than 1 console at a time...I'm an adult with an active life and don't have the time to devote to more than 1 system. Plus I don't want to plunk down the cash for multiple systems when 1 will suit me fine. This means I had never played Oblivion, the Clancy games (RB6 and SC), Resistence was fine asa launch title, and I typically play sports games (which IGameFly)for the most part. I've had Madden 07 (sucked), Fight Night Rd. 3, NBA 2K8, NCAA 2K8, Oblivion, God of War II, and now Rainbow 6: Vegas to keep me busy. When those games aren't cutting it, I have about 60 PS2 games from which to choose, and can always kick back an watch a Blu-Ray.

Bottom line is, a lot of us have entertainment options outside of video games. I like to lift weights and I train in jiu-jitsu. During winter I ski every weekend. If I don't feel like playing a video game when I'm bored, I'll play some poker online. Video games aren't the center of my universe, so it doesn't really matter that there aren't 300 titles available for the PS3 right now. Between work, life, and Netflix, video games have to compete for my time as it is.

True, if you really don't care about gaming then it won't really matter.

Don't get me wrong either, I love me some gaming. I was sad when I found out that GTAIV had been pushed back as far as it is. As I'm getting married Oct. 6th, I doubt that news will be a disappointment to the future Mrs! There are a few games I'm really looking forward to that I wish I didn't have to wait for, but that's the nature of the game. We're always waiting for something. After finishing Vice City, I had to wait for San Andreas. I have to wait for Ratch and Clank: TOD and MGS4. It's just part of being a gamer. I'm patient though. Good things come to those who wait. If I were an Xbox guy, I'd just be waiting for different games.

Well I have to disagree with a lot of the statements. For starters--I believe the PS3 is more powerful and will be showing this as the years go by. However, Iwon't discuss thisfurther as you stated that you did not want this drug into the conversation.

Also, I don't think it takes more time to dev PS3 games. Sure many have been getting delayed, but that is due to the new hardware. Most devs are comfortable with the 360 and still learning with the PS3. I would expect by this fall/winter that all multiplat games come out simultaneously on both systems.

I would agree that most multiplats will play and look similar on each console through out each of the systems lives. This is due to not taking the time to really tap into the power of (enter console of choics here). And I do find it funny that people claim ownage that some multiplats look better on their favorite system. When in reality, you can't really see much of a difference between the two. You can tell the difference with Oblivion and Fight Night looking better on PS3 and you can tell that Fear and Splinter Cell looks better on 360--other than that the rest are so nominal that you would never be able to tell the difference.

So to answer your main question--well must I really as it is a moot point. Multiplat games will be coming out on both systems at the same time very soon. Heck, you may have noticed over the past few months that multiplats have already started coming out at the same time. By this holiday, all games will come out at the same time--as by then devs will understand the PS3 better.

Also, your question does not really matter as any real gamerspurchases the system of their choice based on exclusives. I love Sony First Party and can't wait for their games. Sony has some of the greatest first party studios in the gaming industry. Nintendo has some pretty good ones too--but since they were not apart of your discussion we will leave them out. So comparing first parties--Sony wipes the floor with MS. Sure both have some killer apps--but for every MS first party killer app--Sony has around 4-5. Now your personal interests may be more aligned with MS first parties and that if so then you should purchase the 360. However, no one can honestly deny the massive studios that Sony has and the huge list of high caliber games that they output. This is the main reason why I bought the PS3--oh and also a little game that you may have heard off... MGS4.

Well I have to disagree with a lot of the statements. For starters--I believe the PS3 is more powerful and will be showing this as the years go by. However, Iwon't discuss thisfurther as you stated that you did not want this drug into the conversation.

Also, I don't think it takes more time to dev PS3 games. Sure many have been getting delayed, but that is due to the new hardware. Most devs are comfortable with the 360 and still learning with the PS3. I would expect by this fall/winter that all multiplat games come out simultaneously on both systems.

I would agree that most multiplats will play and look similar on each console through out each of the systems lives. This is due to not taking the time to really tap into the power of (enter console of choics here). And I do find it funny that people claim ownage that some multiplats look better on their favorite system. When in reality, you can't really see much of a difference between the two. You can tell the difference with Oblivion and Fight Night looking better on PS3 and you can tell that Fear and Splinter Cell looks better on 360--other than that the rest are so nominal that you would never be able to tell the difference.

So to answer your main question--well must I really as it is a moot point. Multiplat games will be coming out on both systems at the same time very soon. Heck, you may have noticed over the past few months that multiplats have already started coming out at the same time. By this holiday, all games will come out at the same time--as by then devs will understand the PS3 better.

Also, your question does not really matter as any real gamerspurchases the system of their choice based on exclusives. I love Sony First Party and can't wait for their games. Sony has some of the greatest first party studios in the gaming industry. Nintendo has some pretty good ones too--but since they were not apart of your discussion we will leave them out. So comparing first parties--Sony wipes the floor with MS. Sure both have some killer apps--but for every MS first party killer app--Sony has around 4-5. Now your personal interests may be more aligned with MS first parties and that if so then you should purchase the 360. However, no one can honestly deny the massive studios that Sony has and the huge list of high caliber games that they output. This is the main reason why I bought the PS3--oh and also a little game that you may have heard off... MGS4.

HuhJustaBox

I understand if you like a 1st party game, then you really have no choice but to go with that console. But my point (which is being avoided by the cows that say this type of thing)...they all claim PS3 is harder to code for and will be way better than 360 once the tap that power. Well, was it worth the wait? so far I can't see any real difference as stated not even in the exclusives. The only difference that will come in time is HD full motion video, which I personally don't care about, but if you do then the PS3 is the better choice. Outside of that there is no real hidden power of the ps3 in repsect to gaming (which I wouldn't call watching in game full motion video really much of a game).

BTW: FNR3 was better on the 360 (at least according to GS).just look at the crowd...it's obvious the devs couldn't figure out the ps3 in time to even get a decent crowd shot. But the models were slightly better on the PS3 so it's a wash. You use the fighters so the slight difference is more noticeable than the really different crowds.

Nobody here has a time machine. We'll just have to wait and see if the games do look better 2 or 3 years from now. If cows want to wait that long then good for them. If lemmings don't, then good for them too. It's just a person choice, thats all.jack_russel

Ok, then why spend $600 on a console that won't be anydifferent for 3 to 4 years? (unless you like the 1st party games obviously). But those trying to say the PS3 takes longer to dev for because it is hard to understand but once it is watch out for the powah....well it's a joke. They can't point to one game now or even being released in teh future that couldn't be done on teh 360. Besides so far gears is teh best looking game on all consoles. So if PS3 was uber powerful at least sony would have been able to tap at least one game that would blow it out of the water. It hasn't happened. PS3 == 360 in gaming power.

Also if this is true (more power is coming once tapped)...has sony said this? Where is the press release saying expect more power once we figure this thing out?

[QUOTE="jack_russel"]Nobody here has a time machine. We'll just have to wait and see if the games do look better 2 or 3 years from now. If cows want to wait that long then good for them. If lemmings don't, then good for them too. It's just a person choice, thats all.mikasa

Ok, then why spend $600 on a console that won't be anydifferent for 3 to 4 years? (unless you like the 1st party games obviously). But those trying to say the PS3 takes longer to dev for because it is hard to understand but once it is watch out for the powah....well it's a joke. They can't point to one game now or even being released in teh future that couldn't be done on teh 360. Besides so far gears is teh best looking game on all consoles. So if PS3 was uber powerful at least sony would have been able to tap at least one game that would blow it out of the water. It hasn't happened. PS3 == 360 in gaming power.

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

Well I have to disagree with a lot of the statements. For starters--I believe the PS3 is more powerful and will be showing this as the years go by. However, Iwon't discuss thisfurther as you stated that you did not want this drug into the conversation.

Also, I don't think it takes more time to dev PS3 games. Sure many have been getting delayed, but that is due to the new hardware. Most devs are comfortable with the 360 and still learning with the PS3. I would expect by this fall/winter that all multiplat games come out simultaneously on both systems.

I would agree that most multiplats will play and look similar on each console through out each of the systems lives. This is due to not taking the time to really tap into the power of (enter console of choics here). And I do find it funny that people claim ownage that some multiplats look better on their favorite system. When in reality, you can't really see much of a difference between the two. You can tell the difference with Oblivion and Fight Night looking better on PS3 and you can tell that Fear and Splinter Cell looks better on 360--other than that the rest are so nominal that you would never be able to tell the difference.

So to answer your main question--well must I really as it is a moot point. Multiplat games will be coming out on both systems at the same time very soon. Heck, you may have noticed over the past few months that multiplats have already started coming out at the same time. By this holiday, all games will come out at the same time--as by then devs will understand the PS3 better.

Also, your question does not really matter as any real gamerspurchases the system of their choice based on exclusives. I love Sony First Party and can't wait for their games. Sony has some of the greatest first party studios in the gaming industry. Nintendo has some pretty good ones too--but since they were not apart of your discussion we will leave them out. So comparing first parties--Sony wipes the floor with MS. Sure both have some killer apps--but for every MS first party killer app--Sony has around 4-5. Now your personal interests may be more aligned with MS first parties and that if so then you should purchase the 360. However, no one can honestly deny the massive studios that Sony has and the huge list of high caliber games that they output. This is the main reason why I bought the PS3--oh and also a little game that you may have heard off... MGS4.

mikasa

I understand if you like a 1st party game, then you really have no choice but to go with that console. But my point (which is being avoided by the cows that say this type of thing)...they all claim PS3 is harder to code for and will be way better than 360 once the tap that power. Well, was it worth the wait? so far I can't see any real difference as stated not even in the exclusives. The only difference that will come in time is HD full motion video, which I personally don't care about, but if you do then the PS3 is the better choice. Outside of that there is no real hidden power of the ps3 in repsect to gaming (which I wouldn't call watching in game full motion video really much of a game).

BTW: FNR3 was better on the 360 (at least according to GS).just look at the crowd...it's obvious the devs couldn't figure out the ps3 in time to even get a decent crowd shot. But the models were slightly better on the PS3 so it's a wash. You use the fighters so the slight difference is more noticeable than the really different crowds.

Well again, what wait are you talking about? The wait where games like R6V or Graw was delayed? I mean who cares. So a few games got pushed back. The bottom line is that this holiday on out there will be no delays. Which makes the point of a wait moot.

I could turn the whole wait argument around and ask all of the GC, xbox, and PS2 buyers if it was worth it--because people were playing games on the Dreamcast for a whole year and then many multiplats got delayed on the PS2 early on. But I doubt any would claim that the wait was not worth it. The bottom line is that the wait during the first few months of a consoles life is but a small insignificant thing to worry about. You have to look at the big picture--the life of the console over the course of 5-7 years. When viewed in that context--it all looks good to me.

And I am not the one claiming the PS3 is harder to code for--this is all coming from the devs themselves. You also have to realize that had the 360 and PS3 switch places in release--the same thing would have happened to the 360. The bottom line is that the devs have had more time with the 360--thus they need more time with the PS3 to better understand it. Look at Madden--the first two Maddens on the 360 ran at 30fps (as devs were still learning how to code for it). Now this year it will run at 60fps. Same can be said with the PS3--the first two Maddens will run at 30fps as next year it will run at 60fps.

And you can believe that the PS3 and 360 will perform the same across their lifespan. However, I will disagree, as I have friends in the development community and they have all told me that the PS3 is just going to keep getting better and better. This is not to say the 360 won't--but the PS3 will constantly be distancing itself as the years go by. I will trust their words as they are close friends and they are deving for all the consoles and many of them own all three systems--so I don't find a fanboy bias in their assessment.

And the FN3 thing--go see them in person side by side. There is no comparison. Sure the crowds look ever so slightly better in the 360 version--but the fighters look far better in the PS3 version (it is very noticable, unlike the crowds). I saw this side by side on two HDTVs. And last time I checked--thefighters is what matters. Don't listen to GS all of the time. You have fanboys where ever you go, and GS is no different. Bottom line--see it for yourself--you will see. Not to mention the Madden fiasco comparison that GS got busted on. Check the link in my sig for the explanation. Note: I am not saying GS is biased against PS3--as they have done unfair crap to all systems. My point is that fanboys exist everywhere--and only believe your own two eyes.

[QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

Well I have to disagree with a lot of the statements. For starters--I believe the PS3 is more powerful and will be showing this as the years go by. However, Iwon't discuss thisfurther as you stated that you did not want this drug into the conversation.

Also, I don't think it takes more time to dev PS3 games. Sure many have been getting delayed, but that is due to the new hardware. Most devs are comfortable with the 360 and still learning with the PS3. I would expect by this fall/winter that all multiplat games come out simultaneously on both systems.

I would agree that most multiplats will play and look similar on each console through out each of the systems lives. This is due to not taking the time to really tap into the power of (enter console of choics here). And I do find it funny that people claim ownage that some multiplats look better on their favorite system. When in reality, you can't really see much of a difference between the two. You can tell the difference with Oblivion and Fight Night looking better on PS3 and you can tell that Fear and Splinter Cell looks better on 360--other than that the rest are so nominal that you would never be able to tell the difference.

So to answer your main question--well must I really as it is a moot point. Multiplat games will be coming out on both systems at the same time very soon. Heck, you may have noticed over the past few months that multiplats have already started coming out at the same time. By this holiday, all games will come out at the same time--as by then devs will understand the PS3 better.

Also, your question does not really matter as any real gamerspurchases the system of their choice based on exclusives. I love Sony First Party and can't wait for their games. Sony has some of the greatest first party studios in the gaming industry. Nintendo has some pretty good ones too--but since they were not apart of your discussion we will leave them out. So comparing first parties--Sony wipes the floor with MS. Sure both have some killer apps--but for every MS first party killer app--Sony has around 4-5. Now your personal interests may be more aligned with MS first parties and that if so then you should purchase the 360. However, no one can honestly deny the massive studios that Sony has and the huge list of high caliber games that they output. This is the main reason why I bought the PS3--oh and also a little game that you may have heard off... MGS4.

HuhJustaBox

I understand if you like a 1st party game, then you really have no choice but to go with that console. But my point (which is being avoided by the cows that say this type of thing)...they all claim PS3 is harder to code for and will be way better than 360 once the tap that power. Well, was it worth the wait? so far I can't see any real difference as stated not even in the exclusives. The only difference that will come in time is HD full motion video, which I personally don't care about, but if you do then the PS3 is the better choice. Outside of that there is no real hidden power of the ps3 in repsect to gaming (which I wouldn't call watching in game full motion video really much of a game).

BTW: FNR3 was better on the 360 (at least according to GS).just look at the crowd...it's obvious the devs couldn't figure out the ps3 in time to even get a decent crowd shot. But the models were slightly better on the PS3 so it's a wash. You use the fighters so the slight difference is more noticeable than the really different crowds.

Well again, what wait are you talking about? The wait where games like R6V or Graw was delayed? I mean who cares. So a few games got pushed back. The bottom line is that this holiday on out there will be no delays. Which makes the point of a wait moot.

I could turn the whole wait argument around and ask all of the GC, xbox, and PS2 buyers if it was worth it--because people were playing games on the Dreamcast for a whole year and then many multiplats got delayed on the PS2 early on. But I doubt any would claim that the wait was not worth it. The bottom line is that the wait during the first few months of a consoles life is but a small insignificant thing to worry about. You have to look at the big picture--the life of the console over the course of 5-7 years. When viewed in that context--it all looks good to me.

And I am not the one claiming the PS3 is harder to code for--this is all coming from the devs themselves. You also have to realize that had the 360 and PS3 switch places in release--the same thing would have happened to the 360. The bottom line is that the devs have had more time with the 360--thus they need more time with the PS3 to better understand it. Look at Madden--the first two Maddens on the 360 ran at 30fps (as devs were still learning how to code for it). Now this year it will run at 60fps. Same can be said with the PS3--the first two Maddens will run at 30fps as next year it will run at 60fps.

And you can believe that the PS3 and 360 will perform the same across their lifespan. However, I will disagree, as I have friends in the development community and they have all told me that the PS3 is just going to keep getting better and better. This is not to say the 360 won't--but the PS3 will constantly be distancing itself as the years go by. I will trust their words as they are close friends and they are deving for all the consoles and many of them own all three systems--so I don't find a fanboy bias in their assessment.

And the FN3 thing--go see them in person side by side. There is no comparison. Sure the crowds look ever so slightly better in the 360 version--but the fighters look far better in the PS3 version (it is very noticable, unlike the crowds). I saw this side by side on two HDTVs. And last time I checked--thefighters is what matters. Don't listen to GS all of the time. You have fanboys where ever you go, and GS is no different. Bottom line--see it for yourself--you will see. Not to mention the Madden fiasco comparison that GS got busted on. Check the link in my sig for the explanation. Note: I am not saying GS is biased against PS3--as they have done unfair crap to all systems. My point is that fanboys exist everywhere--and only believe your own two eyes.

What do you mean who cares? Anyone that wanted to play that game sooner rather than later cares. for example, if Halo3 gets delayed I will care. If Burnout gets delayed I will care.

Let's see...its got a bunch of exclusives coming up with new IP's, and the graphics look fantastic. Home is coming to wrap that all up in an online networking service. Why exactly are we disappointed?Teufelhuhn

apparently if you arn't forced to drop 600 the first year it's released, than the console "didn't deliver." You don't need to start next-gen now. If I had to sell my 360 right now it wouldn't effect my gaming life in anyway.

[QUOTE="jack_russel"]Nobody here has a time machine. We'll just have to wait and see if the games do look better 2 or 3 years from now. If cows want to wait that long then good for them. If lemmings don't, then good for them too. It's just a person choice, thats all.mikasa

Ok, then why spend $600 on a console that won't be anydifferent for 3 to 4 years? (unless you like the 1st party games obviously). But those trying to say the PS3 takes longer to dev for because it is hard to understand but once it is watch out for the powah....well it's a joke. They can't point to one game now or even being released in teh future that couldn't be done on teh 360. Besides so far gears is teh best looking game on all consoles. So if PS3 was uber powerful at least sony would have been able to tap at least one game that would blow it out of the water. It hasn't happened. PS3 == 360 in gaming power.

Also if this is true (more power is coming once tapped)...has sony said this? Where is the press release saying expect more power once we figure this thing out?

Devs have figured out the Hardware since launch

Go compare PS3 launch games Vs 360s launch games

Its noticeable that PS3 games look better

Yeah GeOW is currently king but remember that Epic themselves have stated that UT3 is running better on PS3 than GeOW on 360

How is it not delivering? It has more features than any console this gen (save for PC), including the cheapest blu-ray player you can find. It's proving it can dish out great graphics, and it's remaking all your favorite franchises on the PS2 into sequels and spinoffs on the PS3, including promising looking new IPs. So if you don't have 500-600 dollars, than it's not really their fault.
Koalakommander

Graphics-wise it's missing the mark by a countrymile. It should be able to blow out the 360, but barely competes. All the waiting and we're told wait even longer. What proof do you have that any of the games will look better than what the 360 can do in the future?

[QUOTE="mikasa"]

[QUOTE="jack_russel"]Nobody here has a time machine. We'll just have to wait and see if the games do look better 2 or 3 years from now. If cows want to wait that long then good for them. If lemmings don't, then good for them too. It's just a person choice, thats all.Blinblingthing

Ok, then why spend $600 on a console that won't be anydifferent for 3 to 4 years? (unless you like the 1st party games obviously). But those trying to say the PS3 takes longer to dev for because it is hard to understand but once it is watch out for the powah....well it's a joke. They can't point to one game now or even being released in teh future that couldn't be done on teh 360. Besides so far gears is teh best looking game on all consoles. So if PS3 was uber powerful at least sony would have been able to tap at least one game that would blow it out of the water. It hasn't happened. PS3 == 360 in gaming power.

Also if this is true (more power is coming once tapped)...has sony said this? Where is the press release saying expect more power once we figure this thing out?

Devs have figured out the Hardware since launch

Go compare PS3 launch games Vs 360s launch games

Its noticeable that PS3 games look better

Yeah GeOW is currently king but remember that Epic themselves have stated that UT3 is running better on PS3 than GeOW on 360

Too funny. Why does VF5 look better on 360? And so many more multiplats look better on 360? How about Gears bieng the best? There is nothing on the PS3 that shows it has better graphics than the 360. Overall though they are comparable, but PS3 defnitely isn't delivering on the promises made.

[QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="mikasa"]

[QUOTE="jack_russel"]Nobody here has a time machine. We'll just have to wait and see if the games do look better 2 or 3 years from now. If cows want to wait that long then good for them. If lemmings don't, then good for them too. It's just a person choice, thats all.mikasa

Ok, then why spend $600 on a console that won't be anydifferent for 3 to 4 years? (unless you like the 1st party games obviously). But those trying to say the PS3 takes longer to dev for because it is hard to understand but once it is watch out for the powah....well it's a joke. They can't point to one game now or even being released in teh future that couldn't be done on teh 360. Besides so far gears is teh best looking game on all consoles. So if PS3 was uber powerful at least sony would have been able to tap at least one game that would blow it out of the water. It hasn't happened. PS3 == 360 in gaming power.

Also if this is true (more power is coming once tapped)...has sony said this? Where is the press release saying expect more power once we figure this thing out?

Devs have figured out the Hardware since launch

Go compare PS3 launch games Vs 360s launch games

Its noticeable that PS3 games look better

Yeah GeOW is currently king but remember that Epic themselves have stated that UT3 is running better on PS3 than GeOW on 360

Too funny. Why does VF5 look better on 360? And so many more multiplats look better on 360? How about Gears bieng the best? There is nothing on the PS3 that shows it has better graphics than the 360. Overall though they are comparable, but PS3 defnitely isn't delivering on the promises made.

It's up to devs, not the console. Everyone thought the GC was crap and then bam, Resident Evil 4 was arguably one of the best looking games last gen. Sony isn't forcing you to buy a system with no games, if anything, they're telling you to wait for the future, which looks very bright. But hey, if you want to purchase a console based on the multiplats having a little better lighting, go for it. I'll buy mine for the games.

[QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="mikasa"]

[QUOTE="jack_russel"]Nobody here has a time machine. We'll just have to wait and see if the games do look better 2 or 3 years from now. If cows want to wait that long then good for them. If lemmings don't, then good for them too. It's just a person choice, thats all.Koalakommander

Ok, then why spend $600 on a console that won't be anydifferent for 3 to 4 years? (unless you like the 1st party games obviously). But those trying to say the PS3 takes longer to dev for because it is hard to understand but once it is watch out for the powah....well it's a joke. They can't point to one game now or even being released in teh future that couldn't be done on teh 360. Besides so far gears is teh best looking game on all consoles. So if PS3 was uber powerful at least sony would have been able to tap at least one game that would blow it out of the water. It hasn't happened. PS3 == 360 in gaming power.

Also if this is true (more power is coming once tapped)...has sony said this? Where is the press release saying expect more power once we figure this thing out?

Devs have figured out the Hardware since launch

Go compare PS3 launch games Vs 360s launch games

Its noticeable that PS3 games look better

Yeah GeOW is currently king but remember that Epic themselves have stated that UT3 is running better on PS3 than GeOW on 360

Too funny. Why does VF5 look better on 360? And so many more multiplats look better on 360? How about Gears bieng the best? There is nothing on the PS3 that shows it has better graphics than the 360. Overall though they are comparable, but PS3 defnitely isn't delivering on the promises made.

It's up to devs, not the console. Everyone thought the GC was crap and then bam, Resident Evil 4 was arguably one of the best looking games last gen. Sony isn't forcing you to buy a system with no games, if anything, they're telling you to wait for the future, which looks very bright. But hey, if you want to purchase a console based on the multiplats having a little better lighting, go for it. I'll buy mine for the games.

GC has better graphics hardware than PS2...most knew that.

But let's test your theory it's all up to the devs. So you are saying teh best dev in the world can make gears looking game on the N64. Or is hardware a lmiting factor in that case?

[QUOTE="mikasa"]

[QUOTE="jack_russel"]Nobody here has a time machine. We'll just have to wait and see if the games do look better 2 or 3 years from now. If cows want to wait that long then good for them. If lemmings don't, then good for them too. It's just a person choice, thats all.Blinblingthing

Ok, then why spend $600 on a console that won't be anydifferent for 3 to 4 years? (unless you like the 1st party games obviously). But those trying to say the PS3 takes longer to dev for because it is hard to understand but once it is watch out for the powah....well it's a joke. They can't point to one game now or even being released in teh future that couldn't be done on teh 360. Besides so far gears is teh best looking game on all consoles. So if PS3 was uber powerful at least sony would have been able to tap at least one game that would blow it out of the water. It hasn't happened. PS3 == 360 in gaming power.

Also if this is true (more power is coming once tapped)...has sony said this? Where is the press release saying expect more power once we figure this thing out?

Devs have figured out the Hardware since launch

Go compare PS3 launch games Vs 360s launch games

Its noticeable that PS3 games look better

Yeah GeOW is currently king but remember that Epic themselves have stated that UT3 is running better on PS3 than GeOW on 360

The Launch game comparison is debatable. And for UT3 running better doesn't mean much, thrid person vs first person plus longer Dev time. Lets wait and see how UT3 runs on 360 then make a comparison.

I think we all come to terms that the 360 is not xbox 1.5 like Sony claimed, and the power gap between the two console isn't drastically prominent from each other.

[QUOTE="Poop_Slash"]

I really wished 360 and PS3 was one game console with features and games of both.

Supa Console.

mikasa

I actually wish that nintendo just created a 3rd party controller for one of the two consoles. That way that console would have the real power that the ps3 and 360 has AND the great games that nintendo has without the crappy power consoles they make. But it didn't happen, so we have to buy multiple consoles.

Yeah, because the Gamecube was so underpowered :/

[QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="Poop_Slash"]

I really wished 360 and PS3 was one game console with features and games of both.

Supa Console.

gamer620

I actually wish that nintendo just created a 3rd party controller for one of the two consoles. That way that console would have the real power that the ps3 and 360 has AND the great games that nintendo has without the crappy power consoles they make. But it didn't happen, so we have to buy multiple consoles.

Yeah, because the Gamecube was so underpowered :/

Obviously the PS3 is the more powerful system. That's why 1st gen PS3 games look way better than 2nd gen Xbox360 games.

And Rockstar is making their next big franchise on PS3, meaning Xbox360 is not powerful enough to handle their next gen vision.

Obviously the PS3 is the more powerful system. That's why 1st gen PS3 games look way better than 2nd gen Xbox360 games.

And Rockstar is making their next big franchise on PS3, meaning Xbox360 is not powerful enough to handle their next gen vision.

SomethingNew21

We have entered bizzaro world in SW. Where PS3 games look better than 360 games. I wish someone gave me the memo as everything I've read to date pretty much says/proves 360 > PS3 in graphics.

Looks at Gears....Yep still the best looking game on consoles.

We all know PS3 and 360 are relatively the same in capabilities in respect to what you get in a game. Sure the 360 has a better GPU and the cell is better at things like folding @ home. So let's not turn this into a hardware discussion as that will just go back and forth with each party showing a link to something that they think is the most important thing in the world (like unified shaders vs. dedicated specialized ones).

Also we know the cell/PS3 is a lot harder to program for and that's the excuse used so far by sony fans explaining why the 360 has the better multiplats overall. But to be fair, they are all pretty much equal with most games. If you think PS3 couldn't do halo or Gears you're wrong. Just like if you think the 360 couldn't do KZ2 or MGS4 you're wrong. Sure some minor tradeoffs would occur in either direction but you'd still have the same game. The only difference is how long it would take to create the game.

Now to the question...is it really worth the extra dev time with the PS3 to get a game that looks and plays pretty much just like the 360 game that can be shipped in about half the amount of time as the PS3 version? (and let's not bring the lack of rumble into this as that's a different reason why to get one platform over the other...same with sixaxis).

If it's worth they wait, why?

mikasa

PSN worst online gaming serivice on earth, second, yes, sony lies!! they copied that from americans

I think the PS3 is a great system with a weak lineup. It just isn't compelling enough to buy. Next year will be different though. At this time 500 or 600 bucks is too much for a system with a game library that doesn't do anything for me. And their online is a mess right now.The PS3needs sometime to mature, that's all. I'm just not into dropping money like that just to wait for something I like to come out.

There will be a time when the price is right and the titles are compelling and the online is more cohesive with the system. That's when they get my cash. Until then, no.