Microsoft's Xbox 360 strategy: not good for its fanbase

E3 made MS strategy pretty clear throw money at 3rd parties to make games multiplatform and rip off all the innovative features of your competitors. It's really sad when your biggest announcement is a multiplatform game but then again that has been the trend for MS. Look at the biggest news coming from MS's last few E3s: RE5 multiplat, GTA4 multiplatform, and FFXIII multiplatform or exclusive dlc for a multiplat title. MS is trying to win with their pocket books and not with ingenuity or 1st party software. MS showcased 2 multiplatform titles to open their show and an old trailer of a multiplatform game to end it. Basically, MS rushed to market to get an install base (which they have screwed over with RROD, nickle and diming for wifi, hard drive, live etc) and now throws their pocket book at anyone who will take it. Hell even though live has better features it doesn't have the same game performance as psn. LIVE has lag and host advantages on a p2p network that you pay for, while PSN is free has lagfree dedicated servers that support higher player counts. While 360 biggest multiplayer titles struggle with 10 and 16 player counts, ps3 exclusives have pressed 32 (kz2, warhawk, socom), 40 (r:fom), 60 (r2), and even 256 (MAG) player counts without a hitch.

On the other hand, Sony develops everything in house with great 1st and 2nd party support and it shows as ps3 exclusives look better and have more impressive tech than most multiplatform or 360 exclusives. Sony's big exclusives are exclusive this gen bc they made them, they didn't throw checks at someone and say "hey make this for us too" and wind up with a game that doesn't take advantage of either hardware.

I think eventually until MS builds their 1st game studio portfolio that this trend will continue with MS throwing $ at 3rd parties to try to even the odds with Sony and in the end this gen will end with the two even or Sony on top thanks to 1st party games. Right now I think that your LIVE fee isn't for the service but so MS can throw money at everyone. The problem is eventually you run out of money and you have to get that money from somewhere and that somewhere is the player through bull crap pricing ($179 for 120gb??? $99 for wifi??? $5 for gamer pics and themes??? $279-400 for a machine that craps out).

You may not agree with my love for Sony but you have to admitt that MS has a serious problem when they have no 1st party development and they need to rely on multiplatform titles to garner attention

jyoung312

How many Sony games support dedicated servers, exactly? Everyone has lag, buddy. And how can MAG and 256 players go off "without a hitch" when it doesn't exist yet? Got a time machine? You'll need it to play it in 2010.

Your second paragraph is fanboy 101. Sony exclusives have more impressive tech and look better ? Opinion, not fact and not true. How did any of this help the original Xbox last gen? Sony's big exclusives are NOT exclusive this gen... FF13, DMC4 anyone? That you say this 3 days after FF armagedeon makes me feel sad for you.

Much like the TC (suspiciously), you repeat 1st party over and over. Funny (and transparent) that this is now the battle cry after:

in reponse to IronBass, Oblivion is better on ps3 noted in several reviews. PS3 version has better framerate and less pop-in due to standardized hdd. If you think I'm joking go look at ign's live blog of the sony conference where it comments that bethesda basically loves that the ps3 has a standard hddjyoung312

I would hope it was better on the PS3, it had AN EXTRA YEAR OF DEV TIME... and it's STILL better on the PC.

[QUOTE="Sihanouk"]

Make no doubt about it, Microsoft will be profitable this generation. Will it make up for the loses last generation? No. Will ever recoup it's 7 billion losses on the XBOX business? It remains to be seen as, as those 7 billions would yield pretty good interests as well.

Well, I don't hink MS cares for that much.

The following is clear:

The rush to come out first this generation has yileded an Xbox 360 that is weaker and much more unreliable than the PS3. The first year advantage cannot overcome a 4-5 year disadvantage in CPU power, console hardware features, and console reliability.

Consloe reliability, ok. Power? Check this:

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

This time, please read. Every time you talk about power you sound ridiculous, so please read it.

Microsoft will seek profitability over install base. The price cut didn't really make the 360 cheaper it only add 40 gigs for the same price. The cheaper consoles will be discontinued.

By making the 60 gig a standard, supporting Blu-ray this generatio is pretty much out of the question because Blu-ray plus a 60 gig is simply too expensive. It's very unlikely that 360 owners will ever experiece the next generation movie format that is Blu-ray. It's a big loss.

No, it is not. Blue ray is no that important. Will it becom important? No one knows. But right now it is not an argument.

Microsoft has chosen to continue with their strategy of charging for LIVE. It's simple psychology to understand that doing so will scare away the casuals especially considering what the Wii offers and what the PS3 offers in terms of Blu-ray and free PSN. An additional problem is that Sony is taking the battle over online supremacy very seriously. Whether it's because of the P2P nature of LIVE or because of the weakness of the 360 console to handle larger multiplayer games, LIVE's weakness is beginning to show and Sony is taking full advantage of it. This E3 really shows that for large multiplayer gaming, or for user-generated content (Unreal Tournamen 3, and Little Big Planet), LIVE is clearly weaker than PSN. HOME is a nice bonus that the LIVE lacks as well.

Yes, but MS has 4 years of advantage in online. Yes, PSN will get better, but so will Live. And, talking about Home, last time I checked it won't be released until sometime 2009, so is " a nice bonus" that the PS3 lacks as well.

For games, Microsoft has opted to use money as incentives for 3rd party timed exclusives. While it worked in the short run, it is a weak strategy in the long run. Good multiplats that first appear on the 360 are now coming to the PS3 with better graphics and extra features. To name a few, these games include Oblivion, Bioshock and Eternal Sonata. While a year or 2 ago, fans can say multiplats were better on the 360, this is no longer the case. I expect as more games are ported to the PS3 with improved graphics and features, multiplats overall will look and play better on the PS3. But the real battle will be between first party exclusives, and Microsoft is very weak in this area, especially since Bungie is no longer first party. Sony's strategy of investing heavily in first party is beggining to show. These games makes excellent use of the PS3's superior technology and as such will make 360 games look smaller and more outdated.

Oblivion is ocnsidered bettr in the 360. The PS3 version is a port. And, again, check all the graphics comparissions about multiplats. The 360 wins in almot everyone. And Bungie has dais they will continue working with MS, so no problem there.

And check the link again, I hope you finaly understand that the PS3 is not superior.

That Microsoft didn't realy show 2009 games this E3 is a big cause for concern. Without a doubt this is due to the lack of early investment in first party games. The future of the 360 looks bleak compared to that of the PS3.

No its not. IN the 2007 they didn't show games for the 2008, but still we enjoyed this year with a lot of good games. An there are alos excellent coming. So that's only speculation. And what games showed Sony for the 2009? Just a 10 sec. CGI teaser of GoW 3.

Really, can you make a good post? If you want to be taken seriously, you have to tra harder.

IronBass

God, dude. I finally decided to read because I think you already asked me twice. It's an article written in 2006, and most of what he said seems biased against the PS3. He obviously isn't a developer because he had to e-mail people to get information. Check out this E3 2008 where actual 3rd party developers compliment on the PS3's advantages. But really, the best way to find the truth that companies with billions at stake try to give you is not to read what each side or each supporter said. The games speak for themselves. Everyone knows that the PS3 is very difficult to program for relative to the 360. Yet 1 yr less in development time, the best aspects of gaming: most technologically advanced, most photorealistic, best sounds, largest multiplayer, best animation, etc. are all on the PS3. Read the reviews of the best PS3 games and the best 360 games, exclusive ones. Do you think Microsoft first party exclusive develpers are so dumb that they cannot produce games as advanced as the PS3 developers?? Think about that. It's because the PS3 is more powerful. Period. Do you think Sony is so dumb that they don't make sure their console is more powerful/advanced/future-proof than the 360 since it came out a year after?

Blu-ray isn't an important feature now? You need to read articles outside of gaming such as High Def mags or websites. Go to Best Buy or other electronics store and look at the TVs sold and the number of Blu-ray players out there. The future has arrived right in front of you and you can't see it.

Microsoft's advantages over the PS3 is time. Such advantages disappear over time. Look at the games. Sony, 1 year behind, already produced the most advanced games. On the other hand, Sony's advantages is hardware, which is pretty much permanent. That's why Microsoft will lose this war.

No. Oblivion is considerably better on the PS3, with free extra content to, boot. Most of the multiplats the 360 won were out a year or longer. The multiplats in 08 are about equal. IGN has gone on records to say GTA4 looks and plays a little better on the PS3. Gamepro actually went on records to say that Call of Duty 4 plays better on the PS3. That games being ported to the PS3 come with improved graphics, features, or conent cannot be ignored. The majority of gamers have yet to enter this generation. As the biggest multiplats come to the PS3 with improvements, the PS3's multiplats should be better overall.

I read that article. Why don't you do some unbiased thinking of your own. Look at the games. Read the game reviews for exclusives for both consoles. Think about the PS3 came out 1 yr behind. Ask why are best aspects of gaming found on the PS3???

In 2007, Microsoft didn't show games for 2008? Hmm. Well, not sure about that. But that actually proves my point. Look at their 2008 games. So far all flops. Every single one of their upcoming exclusives aren't as advanced as MGS4 at all. Even Gears 2 doesn't push boundaries in anything significant, and didn't look to improve that much over Gears 1. Resistance 2 will teach Gears about "epicness", big boss fights, and huge multiplayers. Little Big Planet is getting alot of hype as well. If Microsoft's 2009 exclusives are as good as the 2008 exlusives, then believe me, the 360 is in more trouble than I thought. Because their 2008 exclusives overall suck, compared to the PS3's.

No. Oblivion is considerably better on the PS3, with free extra content to, boot.Sihanouk

Please explain how Oblivion is "considerably" better on PS3. I think it is the better version thanks to the 1 year of development time, but considerably better? That's an exaggeration and a completely subjective opinion. Fact is, you will get virtually the same experience playing Oblivion on Xbox 360 that you would get on the PS3. Fanboys will always pry into details, like "oh! Those wrinkles look a bit better on his face!" but it's still the same game, the same experience.

IGN has gone on records to say GTA4 looks and plays a little better on the PS3. Gamepro actually went on records to say that Call of Duty 4 plays better on the PS3. That games being ported to the PS3 come with improved graphics, features, or conent cannot be ignored.Sihanouk

We have seen side-by-side video and picture comparisons of all these multi-plat titles and nobody who isn't a hardcore video game nerd that counts pixels will tell any difference. You get the same experience playing these games on Xbox 360 or PS3. The parity is very, very close, especially for COD4 which is exactly the same on both PS3 and Xbox 360. I don't remember Gamepro saying that the PS3 version "plays" better, but they are wrong.

And yes, it can be ignored. Last gen it was clear that Xbox had better visuals and greater power than PS2, but did this really matter? No. Nobody cared, and it was ignored because the PS2 was just a better overall platform, period. The better gaming platform has always been the one that has the best content, not the best graphics.

Every single one of their upcoming exclusives aren't as advanced as MGS4 at all. Even Gears 2 doesn't push boundaries in anything significant, and didn't look to improve that much over Gears 1. Resistance 2 will teach Gears about "epicness", big boss fights, and huge multiplayers.Sihanouk

Neither Gears of War 2 or Resistance 2 are out. They have not been reviewed and currently we haven't seen what kind of content is available in them, including "epicness" and "big boss fights." Resistance will have bigger multiplayer sessions, but again....this all comes down to taste. More is not always better, and for a game like Gears which encourages teamwork it doesn't work well at all. All these comments you are making are purely subjective fanboyism at best.

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="Sihanouk"]

Make no doubt about it, Microsoft will be profitable this generation. Will it make up for the loses last generation? No. Will ever recoup it's 7 billion losses on the XBOX business? It remains to be seen as, as those 7 billions would yield pretty good interests as well.

Well, I don't hink MS cares for that much.

The following is clear:

The rush to come out first this generation has yileded an Xbox 360 that is weaker and much more unreliable than the PS3. The first year advantage cannot overcome a 4-5 year disadvantage in CPU power, console hardware features, and console reliability.

Consloe reliability, ok. Power? Check this:

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

This time, please read. Every time you talk about power you sound ridiculous, so please read it.

Microsoft will seek profitability over install base. The price cut didn't really make the 360 cheaper it only add 40 gigs for the same price. The cheaper consoles will be discontinued.

By making the 60 gig a standard, supporting Blu-ray this generatio is pretty much out of the question because Blu-ray plus a 60 gig is simply too expensive. It's very unlikely that 360 owners will ever experiece the next generation movie format that is Blu-ray. It's a big loss.

No, it is not. Blue ray is no that important. Will it becom important? No one knows. But right now it is not an argument.

Microsoft has chosen to continue with their strategy of charging for LIVE. It's simple psychology to understand that doing so will scare away the casuals especially considering what the Wii offers and what the PS3 offers in terms of Blu-ray and free PSN. An additional problem is that Sony is taking the battle over online supremacy very seriously. Whether it's because of the P2P nature of LIVE or because of the weakness of the 360 console to handle larger multiplayer games, LIVE's weakness is beginning to show and Sony is taking full advantage of it. This E3 really shows that for large multiplayer gaming, or for user-generated content (Unreal Tournamen 3, and Little Big Planet), LIVE is clearly weaker than PSN. HOME is a nice bonus that the LIVE lacks as well.

Yes, but MS has 4 years of advantage in online. Yes, PSN will get better, but so will Live. And, talking about Home, last time I checked it won't be released until sometime 2009, so is " a nice bonus" that the PS3 lacks as well.

For games, Microsoft has opted to use money as incentives for 3rd party timed exclusives. While it worked in the short run, it is a weak strategy in the long run. Good multiplats that first appear on the 360 are now coming to the PS3 with better graphics and extra features. To name a few, these games include Oblivion, Bioshock and Eternal Sonata. While a year or 2 ago, fans can say multiplats were better on the 360, this is no longer the case. I expect as more games are ported to the PS3 with improved graphics and features, multiplats overall will look and play better on the PS3. But the real battle will be between first party exclusives, and Microsoft is very weak in this area, especially since Bungie is no longer first party. Sony's strategy of investing heavily in first party is beggining to show. These games makes excellent use of the PS3's superior technology and as such will make 360 games look smaller and more outdated.

Oblivion is ocnsidered bettr in the 360. The PS3 version is a port. And, again, check all the graphics comparissions about multiplats. The 360 wins in almot everyone. And Bungie has dais they will continue working with MS, so no problem there.

And check the link again, I hope you finaly understand that the PS3 is not superior.

That Microsoft didn't realy show 2009 games this E3 is a big cause for concern. Without a doubt this is due to the lack of early investment in first party games. The future of the 360 looks bleak compared to that of the PS3.

No its not. IN the 2007 they didn't show games for the 2008, but still we enjoyed this year with a lot of good games. An there are alos excellent coming. So that's only speculation. And what games showed Sony for the 2009? Just a 10 sec. CGI teaser of GoW 3.

Really, can you make a good post? If you want to be taken seriously, you have to tra harder.

Sihanouk

God, dude. I finally decided to read because I think you already asked me twice. It's an article written in 2006, and most of what he said seems biased against the PS3. He obviously isn't a developer because he had to e-mail people to get information. Check out this E3 2008 where actual 3rd party developers compliment on the PS3's advantages. But really, the best way to find the truth that companies with billions at stake try to give you is not to read what each side or each supporter said. The games speak for themselves. Everyone knows that the PS3 is very difficult to program for relative to the 360. Yet 1 yr less in development time, the best aspects of gaming: most technologically advanced, most photorealistic, best sounds, largest multiplayer, best animation, etc. are all on the PS3. Read the reviews of the best PS3 games and the best 360 games, exclusive ones. Do you think Microsoft first party exclusive develpers are so dumb that they cannot produce games as advanced as the PS3 developers?? Think about that. It's because the PS3 is more powerful. Period. Do you think Sony is so dumb that they don't make sure their console is more powerful/advanced/future-proof than the 360 since it came out a year after?

Blu-ray isn't an important feature now? You need to read articles outside of gaming such as High Def mags or websites. Go to Best Buy or other electronics store and look at the TVs sold and the number of Blu-ray players out there. The future has arrived right in front of you and you can't see it.

Microsoft's advantages over the PS3 is time. Such advantages disappear over time. Look at the games. Sony, 1 year behind, already produced the most advanced games. On the other hand, Sony's advantages is hardware, which is pretty much permanent. That's why Microsoft will lose this war.

No. Oblivion is considerably better on the PS3, with free extra content to, boot. Most of the multiplats the 360 won were out a year or longer. The multiplats in 08 are about equal. IGN has gone on records to say GTA4 looks and plays a little better on the PS3. Gamepro actually went on records to say that Call of Duty 4 plays better on the PS3. That games being ported to the PS3 come with improved graphics, features, or conent cannot be ignored. The majority of gamers have yet to enter this generation. As the biggest multiplats come to the PS3 with improvements, the PS3's multiplats should be better overall.

I read that article. Why don't you do some unbiased thinking of your own. Look at the games. Read the game reviews for exclusives for both consoles. Think about the PS3 came out 1 yr behind. Ask why are best aspects of gaming found on the PS3???

In 2007, Microsoft didn't show games for 2008? Hmm. Well, not sure about that. But that actually proves my point. Look at their 2008 games. So far all flops. Every single one of their upcoming exclusives aren't as advanced as MGS4 at all. Even Gears 2 doesn't push boundaries in anything significant, and didn't look to improve that much over Gears 1. Resistance 2 will teach Gears about "epicness", big boss fights, and huge multiplayers. Little Big Planet is getting alot of hype as well. If Microsoft's 2009 exclusives are as good as the 2008 exlusives, then believe me, the 360 is in more trouble than I thought. Because their 2008 exclusives overall suck, compared to the PS3's.

If you actually read that link, you would see he has links to back up what hes saying, even the Cell White Paper from IBM, use your brain next time and heres a link to the GPU specs: Link

God, dude. I finally decided to read because I think you already asked me twice. It's an article written in 2006, and most of what he said seems biased against the PS3. He obviously isn't a developer because he had to e-mail people to get information. Check out this E3 2008 where actual 3rd party developers compliment on the PS3's advantages. But really, the best way to find the truth that companies with billions at stake try to give you is not to read what each side or each supporter said. The games speak for themselves. Everyone knows that the PS3 is very difficult to program for relative to the 360. Yet 1 yr less in development time, the best aspects of gaming: most technologically advanced, most photorealistic, best sounds, largest multiplayer, best animation, etc. are all on the PS3. Read the reviews of the best PS3 games and the best 360 games, exclusive ones. Do you think Microsoft first party exclusive develpers are so dumb that they cannot produce games as advanced as the PS3 developers?? Think about that. It's because the PS3 is more powerful. Period. Do you think Sony is so dumb that they don't make sure their console is more powerful/advanced/future-proof than the 360 since it came out a year after?

Blu-ray isn't an important feature now? You need to read articles outside of gaming such as High Def mags or websites. Go to Best Buy or other electronics store and look at the TVs sold and the number of Blu-ray players out there. The future has arrived right in front of you and you can't see it.

Microsoft's advantages over the PS3 is time. Such advantages disappear over time. Look at the games. Sony, 1 year behind, already produced the most advanced games. On the other hand, Sony's advantages is hardware, which is pretty much permanent. That's why Microsoft will lose this war.

No. Oblivion is considerably better on the PS3, with free extra content to, boot. Most of the multiplats the 360 won were out a year or longer. The multiplats in 08 are about equal. IGN has gone on records to say GTA4 looks and plays a little better on the PS3. Gamepro actually went on records to say that Call of Duty 4 plays better on the PS3. That games being ported to the PS3 come with improved graphics, features, or conent cannot be ignored. The majority of gamers have yet to enter this generation. As the biggest multiplats come to the PS3 with improvements, the PS3's multiplats should be better overall.

I read that article. Why don't you do some unbiased thinking of your own. Look at the games. Read the game reviews for exclusives for both consoles. Think about the PS3 came out 1 yr behind. Ask why are best aspects of gaming found on the PS3???

In 2007, Microsoft didn't show games for 2008? Hmm. Well, not sure about that. But that actually proves my point. Look at their 2008 games. So far all flops. Every single one of their upcoming exclusives aren't as advanced as MGS4 at all. Even Gears 2 doesn't push boundaries in anything significant, and didn't look to improve that much over Gears 1. Resistance 2 will teach Gears about "epicness", big boss fights, and huge multiplayers. Little Big Planet is getting alot of hype as well. If Microsoft's 2009 exclusives are as good as the 2008 exlusives, then believe me, the 360 is in more trouble than I thought. Because their 2008 exclusives overall suck, compared to the PS3's.

Sihanouk

Sihanouk, I've addressed everything you say, and you constantly dodge it. You are a paid Sony rep, and you are hitting all the talking points, but you are being deliberately misleading. Funny that you become so active right after Sony takes the biggest ownage in video gaming history by losing FF13 exclusivity. Why don't you tell us again how only 1st and 2nd party devs are key, like the 4 pillars of your console weren't: 1) MGS4 - which will probably come to the 360 2) FF13 - nuff said 3) DMC4 - see #2 and 4) GT - releasing 2010, ftl.

Technologically advanced? Best graphics and sound and animations? All your (paid for) opinion. Link me to where the concensus was reached. You've seen Gear 2? Stop stating opinion as fact, or link me to your time machine.

Remind me again how better hardware helped the original Xbox again? Since that's so important to you (you repeat it thread after thread), obviously you must have been a huge lemming last gen. Link me to your last gen lemming threads.

Again, Oblivion had a year extra dev time, I should hope it looks better and had extra content or it would be an embarassment. Most multiplats won't have that extra time, which you conveniently "ignore."

Inventing unprovable (fake) criteria like "epicness", which again you repeat over and over, FTL.

The best aspects of gaming are found on the PS3? Funny, I always thought that the best aspects were GAMES, where the 360 mops the floor with the PS3. Live and learn, I guess.

And on that note:

If Microsoft's 2009 exclusives are as good as the 2008 exlusives, then believe me, the 360 is in more trouble than I thought. Because their 2008 exclusives overall suck, compared to the PS3's. Sihanouk

If Sony's 2009 exclusives are as good as the 2008 exlusives, then believe me, the PS3 is in more trouble than I thought. Because their 2008 exclusives overall suck, compared to the 360's.

See how easy opinions are?

[QUOTE="Sihanouk"]

No. Oblivion is considerably better on the PS3, with free extra content to, boot.thinicer

Please explain how Oblivion is "considerably" better on PS3. I think it is the better version thanks to the 1 year of development time, but considerably better? That's an exaggeration and a completely subjective opinion. Fact is, you will get virtually the same experience playing Oblivion on Xbox 360 that you would get on the PS3. Fanboys will always pry into details, like "oh! Those wrinkles look a bit better on his face!" but it's still the same game, the same experience.

IGN has gone on records to say GTA4 looks and plays a little better on the PS3. Gamepro actually went on records to say that Call of Duty 4 plays better on the PS3. That games being ported to the PS3 come with improved graphics, features, or conent cannot be ignored.Sihanouk

We have seen side-by-side video and picture comparisons of all these multi-plat titles and nobody who isn't a hardcore video game nerd that counts pixels will tell any difference. You get the same experience playing these games on Xbox 360 or PS3. The parity is very, very close, especially for COD4 which is exactly the same on both PS3 and Xbox 360. I don't remember Gamepro saying that the PS3 version "plays" better, but they are wrong.

And yes, it can be ignored. Last gen it was clear that Xbox had better visuals and greater power than PS2, but did this really matter? No. Nobody cared, and it was ignored because the PS2 was just a better overall platform, period. The better gaming platform has always been the one that has the best content, not the best graphics.

Every single one of their upcoming exclusives aren't as advanced as MGS4 at all. Even Gears 2 doesn't push boundaries in anything significant, and didn't look to improve that much over Gears 1. Resistance 2 will teach Gears about "epicness", big boss fights, and huge multiplayers.Sihanouk

Neither Gears of War 2 or Resistance 2 are out. They have not been reviewed and currently we haven't seen what kind of content is available in them, including "epicness" and "big boss fights." Resistance will have bigger multiplayer sessions, but again....this all comes down to taste. More is not always better, and for a game like Gears which encourages teamwork it doesn't work well at all. All these comments you are making are purely subjective fanboyism at best.

Even Bethesda said themselves that the PS3 looks slightly better. Did you read about the "LOD shader" improvement? Load times is a lot better on the PS3, too. Extra, free content is better too. Extra year in dev time or not, Obliovion is better on the PS3.

Gampro said the PS3 version plays better because of the dedicated sever on PSN. Stop acting like other lemmings here who keep comparing OLD multiplats. You can't keep hiding in the past. The future is here. Talk about 2008 multiplats and beyond.

Fair enough. Neither games are out. We'll see if Gears 2 will be as well received as the first. My bet is it won't. Resistance 2 looks to have more significant improvements thans Gears 2 over their first games.

Even Bethesda said themselves that the PS3 looks slightly better. Did you read about the "LOD shader" improvement? Load times is a lot better on the PS3, too. Extra, free content is better too. Extra year in dev time or not, Obliovion is better on the PS3.

Gampro said the PS3 version plays better because of the dedicated sever on PSN. Stop acting like other lemmings here who keep comparing OLD multiplats. You can't keep hiding in the past. The future is here. Talk about 2008 multiplats and beyond.

Fair enough. Neither games are out. We'll see if Gears 2 will be as well received as the first. My bet is it won't. Resistance 2 looks to have more significant improvements thans Gears 2 over their first games.

Sihanouk

"Extra dev time or not???" Like you weren't previously saying it was the "power of teh cell." You can't dismiss the extra time when that extra time dismantles your whole argument.

What game do you mean in the second paragraph? And how can we compare multiplats that haven't come out yet? Only you can do that, with your time machine and rabid fanboyism.

That last paragraph is the first reasonable statement I've ever heard you make. I'm betting you're wrong, but at least I allow for the possibility that you're not. Who the hell knows and why waste time on it?

Even Bethesda said themselves that the PS3 looks slightly better. Did you read about the "LOD shader" improvement? Load times is a lot better on the PS3, too. Extra, free content is better too. Extra year in dev time or not, Obliovion is better on the PS3.

Sihanouk

*laughs hard* And it took an extra year of dev time to do that, It took what for the 360 to match ps3 in all that? an update lol Extra,free content? what extra free content? there is no EXTRA FREE content there is content on the 360 that the ps3 version will NEVER get, the ps3 version is not nearly as updated as the 360 or pc version as well.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Official_Mods

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:PS3

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Xbox_360

Oblivion 360, and ps3 are allmost indentical with a few better points on the ps3 version exclusively because of 1 year of extra dev time *where as before you've said it was the power of the cell that made this possible*

There is content that the ps3 version will never ever see, and the ps3 version is not nearly as updated as the 360 or pc version when it comes to bug fixes.

LOL this treat fails

360 have better games and the multi platform games LOOKs , move and feell better on the 360 compare the games that come to both consoles at the same time not games that are for 360 a year ago and now they are making it to ps3 we all know is goin to get better graphix cause they got more time with the game.

Better games , better graphix , More Games , More AAA´s MOre AA´s More exclusive games

LOL All the goood games the ps3 have right now are for 360

The only thing PS3 is better than the 360 is for movies

For games 360 is the GO

So pliz NOObs And Fanboys stop been so ignorants

God, dude. I finally decided to read because I think you already asked me twice. It's an article written in 2006, and most of what he said seems biased against the PS3. He obviously isn't a developer because he had to e-mail people to get information.

But at least he had something to back up his affirmations (links etc). Something you don't.

Check out this E3 2008 where actual 3rd party developers compliment on the PS3's advantages. But really, the best way to find the truth that companies with billions at stake try to give you is not to read what each side oreach supporter said. The games speak for themselves. Everyone knows that the PS3 is very difficult to program for relative to the 360. Yet 1 yr less in development time, the best aspects of gaming: most technologically advanced, most photorealistic, best sounds, largest multiplayer, best animation, etc. are all on the PS3.

That's opinion, not fact. I'd like to see something to back you up. Every reliable information I hear about that is that gaming experiences on both consoles are really similar. And if you say "largest multiplayer" for Resistance, I remember you that Gears with its "smaller multiplayer" was far more praised for it than Resistance. Larger =/= better.

Read the reviews of the best PS3 games and the best 360 games, exclusive ones.

Halo 3 higher ranked than MGS 4. So Gears of War . You said reviewS (plural) so I referred to Gamerankings.

Do you think Microsoft first party exclusive develpers are so dumb that they cannot produce games as advanced as the PS3 developers?? Think about that. It's because the PS3 is more powerful. Period. Do you think Sony is so dumb that they don't make sure their console is more powerful/advanced/future-proof than the 360 since it came out a year after?

Again, you hasn't proven that games are thechnically better on the PS3. Your opinion is not proof of anything.

Blu-ray isn't an important feature now? You need to read articles outside of gaming such as High Def mags or websites. Go to Best Buy or other electronics store and look at the TVs sold and the number of Blu-ray players out there. The future has arrived right in front of you and you can't see it.

I thogh we were talking about gaming. And, for gaming, Blue Ray is not that important now. And also, for every article claiming that Blue Ray is the future format, there's one saying it is not. Will be? Only time will tell.

Microsoft's advantages over the PS3 is time. Such advantages disappear over time. Look at the games. Sony, 1 year behind, already produced the most advanced games. On the other hand, Sony's advantages is hardware, which is pretty much permanent. That's why Microsoft will lose this war.

Again, can you prove that? Besides, being "more advanced" didn't help the original Xbox. Nor the Saturn. Nor the Megadrive. Nor the NeoGeo. Nor the PSP. Technology has proven not to be a warranty for victory in gaming.

No. Oblivion is considerably better on the PS3, with free extra content to, boot. Most of the multiplats the 360 won were out a year or longer. The multiplats in 08 are about equal. IGN has gone on records to say GTA4 looks and plays a little better on the PS3. Gamepro actually went on records to say that Call of Duty 4 plays better on the PS3.

Yup, but also Gamespot said that the 360 version of GTAIV looked a little better, and we all know that CoD 4 online is a little better on Xbox Live.

That games being ported to the PS3 come with improved graphics, features, or conent cannot be ignored.

Of course not, but they come one year later... Besides, multiplats that come out the same time usually are more interesting in the 360, for examble, both GTA IV and Fallout 3 downloadable content.

The majority of gamers have yet to enter this generation. As the biggest multiplats come to the PS3 with improvements, the PS3's multiplats should be better overall.

Speculation. No more. And last time I checked the multiplat looked similar in both consoles. Just that some games have DLC for the 360, but, besides that, no major difference.

I read that article. Why don't you do some unbiased thinking of your own. Look at the games. Read the game reviews for exclusives for both consoles. Think about the PS3 came out 1 yr behind. Ask why are best aspects of gaming found on the PS3???

I did. Conclusion: both are similar in terms of technologic.

In 2007, Microsoft didn't show games for 2008? Hmm. Well, not sure about that. But that actually proves my point. Look at their 2008 games. So far all flops. Every single one of their upcoming exclusives aren't as advanced as MGS4 at all. Even Gears 2 doesn't push boundaries in anything significant, and didn't look to improve that much over Gears 1. Resistance 2 will teach Gears about "epicness", big boss fights, and huge multiplayers. Little Big Planet is getting alot of hype as well. If Microsoft's 2009 exclusives are as good as the 2008 exlusives, then believe me, the 360 is in more trouble than I thought. Because their 2008 exclusives overall suck, compared to the PS3's.

Well, last time I checked the market was being ruled by multiplats. The only good exclusive this year for the PS3 was MGS 4 (that is not "that" advanced). The 360 will have Gers 2. And "epicness" is a personal criteria, not something you can argue, so it's not an argument. And this is what the 360 has to come:

Gears 2, Banjo, Halo Wars, The Last Remnant (timed exclusive), Infinite Undescover, Star Ocean, Fable 2, Too Human, Splinter Cell Conviction, the Next Bungie project and tons of great multiplats like RE5, Fallout 3 and... FFXIII.

More than enough.

Sihanouk

Haven't you heard of Metal Gear Solid 4? Also, Resistance 2 will be bigger and more epic than Gears 2 as well. Mortorstorm 2 shows good promise as well. And when Killzone 2 comes out, graphics and console power debates will be over except for the delusional.

Sihanouk

Fanboys stop been so ignorants

tupapi006

lol you owned that fanboy

Sony fanboys always backup what they say with opinios Not with the true

:lol: fanboys :lol:

By making the 60 gig a standard, supporting Blu-ray this generatio is pretty much out of the question because Blu-ray plus a 60 gig is simply too expensive. It's very unlikely that 360 owners will ever experiece the next generation movie format that is Blu-ray. It's a big loss.

Sihanouk

Hmm. I'm a 360 owner and yet, I've somehow found away to experience Blu-ray....You see I have this black console that sits next to my 360 and it seems to be able to play Blu-ray disks even though I own a 360.I can play games on it too.

I know, I know maybe I'm a magician, or your thread is a complete farce.

[QUOTE="tupapi006"]

Fanboys stop been so ignorants

nervmeister

Well if you think that ...

Thats your opinion

I think I´m a gamer I love My 360 , my Wi and my PS3 but i like the true

My 360 for The games

The wii For the Multiplayer

And the ps3 for MGS 4 , RC And Bluray Movies

hmmmm MS stratedgy is bad........what the hell does that make Sony's??????

Let's see, MS has got just about all the major exclusives Sony had last gen with the exception of MGS4. Heck they even have flat out stolen games completely, Ace Combat has only been on X360 so far!!!! How can anyone defend what Sony has done with their 3rd party support? The losing of FF13 is about the last straw, their 3rd party support is basically worse than MS at this point......which is amazing considering the problems they've been having with the RRoD. How Sony has not been able to take advantage of that is a mystry.

Gampro said the PS3 version plays better because of the dedicated sever on PSN. Stop acting like other lemmings here who keep comparing OLD multiplats. You can't keep hiding in the past. The future is here. Talk about 2008 multiplats and beyond.

Sihanouk

And Gamepro is 100% totally wrong if they said that. COD4 on PS3 does NOT make use of dedicated servers for gameplay. It makes use of GLOBAL servers for matchmaking, and once the matchmaking is done then the game uses the same peer to peer setup that the Xbox 360 utilizes. This may have been a big assumption on Gamepro's part, but they are wrong.

"But the real battle will be between first party exclusives, and Microsoft is very weak in this area, especially since Bungie is no longer first party"

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

Rareware, Lionhead Studios, and Ensemble Studios are not weak.

Make no doubt about it, Microsoft will be profitable this generation. Will it make up for the loses last generation? No. Will ever recoup it's 7 billion losses on the XBOX business? It remains to be seen as, as those 7 billions would yield pretty good interests as well.

The following is clear:

The rush to come out first this generation has yileded an Xbox 360 that is weaker and much more unreliable than the PS3. The first year advantage cannot overcome a 4-5 year disadvantage in CPU power, console hardware features, and console reliability.

Microsoft will seek profitability over install base. The price cut didn't really make the 360 cheaper it only add 40 gigs for the same price. The cheaper consoles will be discontinued.

By making the 60 gig a standard, supporting Blu-ray this generatio is pretty much out of the question because Blu-ray plus a 60 gig is simply too expensive. It's very unlikely that 360 owners will ever experiece the next generation movie format that is Blu-ray. It's a big loss.

Microsoft has chosen to continue with their strategy of charging for LIVE. It's simple psychology to understand that doing so will scare away the casuals especially considering what the Wii offers and what the PS3 offers in terms of Blu-ray and free PSN. An additional problem is that Sony is taking the battle over online supremacy very seriously. Whether it's because of the P2P nature of LIVE or because of the weakness of the 360 console to handle larger multiplayer games, LIVE's weakness is beginning to show and Sony is taking full advantage of it. This E3 really shows that for large multiplayer gaming, or for user-generated content (Unreal Tournamen 3, and Little Big Planet), LIVE is clearly weaker than PSN. HOME is a nice bonus that the LIVE lacks as well.

For games, Microsoft has opted to use money as incentives for 3rd party timed exclusives. While it worked in the short run, it is a weak strategy in the long run. Good multiplats that first appear on the 360 are now coming to the PS3 with better graphics and extra features. To name a few, these games include Oblivion, Bioshock and Eternal Sonata. While a year or 2 ago, fans can say multiplats were better on the 360, this is no longer the case. I expect as more games are ported to the PS3 with improved graphics and features, multiplats overall will look and play better on the PS3. But the real battle will be between first party exclusives, and Microsoft is very weak in this area, especially since Bungie is no longer first party. Sony's strategy of investing heavily in first party is beggining to show. These games makes excellent use of the PS3's superior technology and as such will make 360 games look smaller and more outdated.

That Microsoft didn't realy show 2009 games this E3 is a big cause for concern. Without a doubt this is due to the lack of early investment in first party games. The future of the 360 looks bleak compared to that of the PS3.

Sihanouk

I have you figured, you are really annoyed that you spent alot of money on a console that you are bored of, so you spend the whole day hating on the opposing console.

i have both consoles iv had a 360 for 2 years

iv had a ps3 for 2 weeks , which then it turned in to a waitstation, for which i have had for 2 weeks.

iv played everything it has to offer. mgs4 -amazing uncharted - good - warhawk good - resistance - week.

now im waiting for lbp

[QUOTE="Sihanouk"]

God, dude. I finally decided to read because I think you already asked me twice. It's an article written in 2006, and most of what he said seems biased against the PS3. He obviously isn't a developer because he had to e-mail people to get information.

But at least he had something to back up his affirmations (links etc). Something you don't.

I don't need to. The games speak for me.

Check out this E3 2008 where actual 3rd party developers compliment on the PS3's advantages. But really, the best way to find the truth that companies with billions at stake try to give you is not to read what each side oreach supporter said. The games speak for themselves. Everyone knows that the PS3 is very difficult to program for relative to the 360. Yet 1 yr less in development time, the best aspects of gaming: most technologically advanced, most photorealistic, best sounds, largest multiplayer, best animation, etc. are all on the PS3.

That's opinion, not fact. I'd like to see something to back you up. Every reliable information I hear about that is that gaming experiences on both consoles are really similar. And if you say "largest multiplayer" for Resistance, I remember you that Gears with its "smaller multiplayer" was far more praised for it than Resistance. Larger =/= better.

Do you realize that you look at the score of the games when you should look at what reviewers say about technical achievemnets. We have been talking about graphics and sounds here to see which console is more powerful. The reviewers who said games between the PS3 and the 360 look "really similar" tend to compare multiplats. Like said read what reviewers said about GT5p, Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid 4, etc. You will read things that when added together clearly show the PS3 is more powerful. But, go ahead. Live in denial. You can't keep running from the truth forever. THE PS3 IS MORE POWERFUL.

As for larger multiplayer games, at least they offer different gameplay than smaller gones. At least the PS3 owners can enjoy small AND large multiplayer games. The gaming press is actually a bit hyped about Resistance 2's large multiplayer options.

Read the reviews of the best PS3 games and the best 360 games, exclusive ones.

Halo 3 higher ranked than MGS 4. So Gears of War . You said reviewS (plural) so I referred to Gamerankings.

MGS4 was docked points by lowly websites that don't like the fact that it's a metal gear game. It's like bashing Halo for being a run and gun shooter. The big sites: Gamespot, IGN, Gameinformer, Gamepro, Famitsu--all gave MGS4 perfect scores. Can't say the same with any Xbox 360 games.

Do you think Microsoft first party exclusive develpers are so dumb that they cannot produce games as advanced as the PS3 developers?? Think about that. It's because the PS3 is more powerful. Period. Do you think Sony is so dumb that they don't make sure their console is more powerful/advanced/future-proof than the 360 since it came out a year after?

Again, you hasn't proven that games are thechnically better on the PS3. Your opinion is not proof of anything.

I have proven it because you don't know the truth when it hits you on the head. Enjoy your world of denial. Answer me this: With one year headstart, and all the money in the world, why can't Microsoft first or 3rd parties make games that critics say have the best grahpics, the best animation, the best sounds, the best cutscenes, etc.? If the truth hurts you, stay away reading about PS3 exclusives.

Blu-ray isn't an important feature now? You need to read articles outside of gaming such as High Def mags or websites. Go to Best Buy or other electronics store and look at the TVs sold and the number of Blu-ray players out there. The future has arrived right in front of you and you can't see it.

I thogh we were talking about gaming. And, for gaming, Blue Ray is not that important now. And also, for every article claiming that Blue Ray is the future format, there's one saying it is not. Will be? Only time will tell.

Gamers don't just play games. They watch movies, listen to music, etc. If their consoles allow them to enjoy other forms of entertainment, all the better. The 360 is not match for the PS3 in terms extra features that gamers can enjoy. Blu-ray is the future format in disc-based movies. It's the only future right now. Downloads are another matter. The PS3-PSP connecctivity in addition to Sony owning a major studio, also gives Sony a leg up. But you are in your own world of denial.

Microsoft's advantages over the PS3 is time. Such advantages disappear over time. Look at the games. Sony, 1 year behind, already produced the most advanced games. On the other hand, Sony's advantages is hardware, which is pretty much permanent. That's why Microsoft will lose this war.

Again, can you prove that? Besides, being "more advanced" didn't help the original Xbox. Nor the Saturn. Nor the Megadrive. Nor the NeoGeo. Nor the PSP. Technology has proven not to be a warranty for victory in gaming.

The Xbox was more advanced, but it didn't have EA's support and other 3rd parties until really late in it's lifespan. Big difference. Learn to think a little bit, would you.

No. Oblivion is considerably better on the PS3, with free extra content to, boot. Most of the multiplats the 360 won were out a year or longer. The multiplats in 08 are about equal. IGN has gone on records to say GTA4 looks and plays a little better on the PS3. Gamepro actually went on records to say that Call of Duty 4 plays better on the PS3.

Yup, but also Gamespot said that the 360 version of GTAIV looked a little better, and we all know that CoD 4 online is a little better on Xbox Live.

We all know?? IGN says GTA4 loosk better AND plays better on the PS3 because it has install options. Gamepro says COD4 runs with less lag on the PS3 because the PS3 uses a dedicated servers. Gamespot tend to be more biased towars the 360 in its news coverage and even in its reviews of the PS3's big games.

That games being ported to the PS3 come with improved graphics, features, or conent cannot be ignored.

Of course not, but they come one year later... Besides, multiplats that come out the same time usually are more interesting in the 360, for examble, both GTA IV and Fallout 3 downloadable content.

The majority of gamers have yet to enter this generation. As the biggest multiplats come to the PS3 with improvements, the PS3's multiplats should be better overall.

Speculation. No more. And last time I checked the multiplat looked similar in both consoles. Just that some games have DLC for the 360, but, besides that, no major difference.

I read that article. Why don't you do some unbiased thinking of your own. Look at the games. Read the game reviews for exclusives for both consoles. Think about the PS3 came out 1 yr behind. Ask why are best aspects of gaming found on the PS3???

I did. Conclusion: both are similar in terms of technologic. Denial. I think it's the first stage of grief. You will see the light. I promise, or you will find yourself in a loony bin. Actually, I don't think you read the reviews for EXCLUSIVE games on the PS3. You fear the truth, perhaps?

In 2007, Microsoft didn't show games for 2008? Hmm. Well, not sure about that. But that actually proves my point. Look at their 2008 games. So far all flops. Every single one of their upcoming exclusives aren't as advanced as MGS4 at all. Even Gears 2 doesn't push boundaries in anything significant, and didn't look to improve that much over Gears 1. Resistance 2 will teach Gears about "epicness", big boss fights, and huge multiplayers. Little Big Planet is getting alot of hype as well. If Microsoft's 2009 exclusives are as good as the 2008 exlusives, then believe me, the 360 is in more trouble than I thought. Because their 2008 exclusives overall suck, compared to the PS3's.

Well, last time I checked the market was being ruled by multiplats. The only good exclusive this year for the PS3 was MGS 4 (that is not "that" advanced). The 360 will have Gers 2. And "epicness" is a personal criteria, not something you can argue, so it's not an argument. And this is what the 360 has to come:

Gears 2, Banjo, Halo Wars, The Last Remnant (timed exclusive), Infinite Undescover, Star Ocean, Fable 2, Too Human, Splinter Cell Conviction, the Next Bungie project and tons of great multiplats like RE5, Fallout 3 and... FFXIII.

More than enough.

Like i said, stay away from the PS3 exclusives. The truth will shatter your world of denial.

Keep telling yourself that the 360 is equally powerful. That exclusives look and sound the same. Go ahead. Keep doing it.

IronBass

Haven't you heard of Metal Gear Solid 4? Also, Resistance 2 will be bigger and more epic than Gears 2 as well. Mortorstorm 2 shows good promise as well. And when Killzone 2 comes out, graphics and console power debates will be over except for the delusional.

Sihanouk

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="Sihanouk"]

God, dude. I finally decided to read because I think you already asked me twice. It's an article written in 2006, and most of what he said seems biased against the PS3. He obviously isn't a developer because he had to e-mail people to get information.

But at least he had something to back up his affirmations (links etc). Something you don't.

I don't need to. The games speak for me.

Yes, you have. In a discussion, you say something and you bring facts to back you up.

Check out this E3 2008 where actual 3rd party developers compliment on the PS3's advantages. But really, the best way to find the truth that companies with billions at stake try to give you is not to read what each side oreach supporter said. The games speak for themselves. Everyone knows that the PS3 is very difficult to program for relative to the 360. Yet 1 yr less in development time, the best aspects of gaming: most technologically advanced, most photorealistic, best sounds, largest multiplayer, best animation, etc. are all on the PS3.

That's opinion, not fact. I'd like to see something to back you up. Every reliable information I hear about that is that gaming experiences on both consoles are really similar. And if you say "largest multiplayer" for Resistance, I remember you that Gears with its "smaller multiplayer" was far more praised for it than Resistance. Larger =/= better.

Do you realize that you look at the score of the games when you should look at what reviewers say about technical achievemnets. We have been talking about graphics and sounds here to see which console is more powerful. The reviewers who said games between the PS3 and the 360 look "really similar" tend to compare multiplats. Like said read what reviewers said about GT5p, Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid 4, etc. (Gears of War, Halo 3's multiplayer, Bioshock) You will read things that when added together clearly show the PS3 is more powerful. But, go ahead. Live in denial. You can't keep running from the truth forever. THE PS3 IS MORE POWERFUL.

Again, did you read the link I showed you? And talking about denial...

As for larger multiplayer games, at least they offer different gameplay than smaller gones. At least the PS3 owners can enjoy small AND large multiplayer games. The gaming press is actually a bit hyped about Resistance 2's large multiplayer options.

larger =/= better. The two best multplayer experiences this gen (considered by the media) are Halo 3 and CoD 4. Only inn the 360 you can play both.

Read the reviews of the best PS3 games and the best 360 games, exclusive ones.

Halo 3 higher ranked than MGS 4. So Gears of War . You said reviewS (plural) so I referred to Gamerankings.

MGS4 was docked points by lowly websites that don't like the fact that it's a metal gear game. It's like bashing Halo for being a run and gun shooter. The big sites: Gamespot, IGN, Gameinformer, Gamepro, Famitsu--all gave MGS4 perfect scores. Can't say the same with any Xbox 360 games.

Gamespot? the same Gamespot that fired Jeff for not giving Kane & Linch a good score? That Gamespot? Sorry, but using Gamerankings (that is what most of us do) is standard. There's no selective choices.

Do you think Microsoft first party exclusive develpers are so dumb that they cannot produce games as advanced as the PS3 developers?? Think about that. It's because the PS3 is more powerful. Period. Do you think Sony is so dumb that they don't make sure their console is more powerful/advanced/future-proof than the 360 since it came out a year after?

Again, you hasn't proven that games are thechnically better on the PS3. Your opinion is not proof of anything.

I have proven it because you don't know the truth when it hits you on the head. Enjoy your world of denial. Answer me this: With one year headstart, and all the money in the world, why can't Microsoft first or 3rd parties make games that critics say have the best grahpics, the best animation, the best sounds, the best cutscenes, etc.? If the truth hurts you, stay away reading about PS3 exclusives.

I haven't read such thing. Just about MGS 4, but that's just one game. What did I read abou Uncharted? 10 hrs gameplay without multiplayer. About GT5p? That's an expensive demos that looks good. Not very impressive.And how do you know that Uncharted wouldn't look/hear better on the 360? Besides, games like Gears 2 may look better than MGS 4.

Blu-ray isn't an important feature now? You need to read articles outside of gaming such as High Def mags or websites. Go to Best Buy or other electronics store and look at the TVs sold and the number of Blu-ray players out there. The future has arrived right in front of you and you can't see it.

I thogh we were talking about gaming. And, for gaming, Blue Ray is not that important now. And also, for every article claiming that Blue Ray is the future format, there's one saying it is not. Will be? Only time will tell.

Gamers don't just play games. They watch movies, listen to music, etc. If their consoles allow them to enjoy other forms of entertainment, all the better. The 360 is not match for the PS3 in terms extra features that gamers can enjoy. Blu-ray is the future format in disc-based movies. It's the only future right now. Downloads are another matter. The PS3-PSP connecctivity in addition to Sony owning a major studio, also gives Sony a leg up. But you are in your own world of denial.

Gamer's primary objective are games. And, right now, thre's no way of telling if Blu-ray is the future format in disc-based movies.

Microsoft's advantages over the PS3 is time. Such advantages disappear over time. Look at the games. Sony, 1 year behind, already produced the most advanced games. On the other hand, Sony's advantages is hardware, which is pretty much permanent. That's why Microsoft will lose this war.

Again, can you prove that? Besides, being "more advanced" didn't help the original Xbox. Nor the Saturn. Nor the Megadrive. Nor the NeoGeo. Nor the PSP. Technology has proven not to be a warranty for victory in gaming.

The Xbox was more advanced, but it didn't have EA's support and other 3rd parties until really late in it's lifespan. Big difference. Learn to think a little bit, would you.

Actually, MS has eexactly the same 3th party support as Sony (maybe bigger, because of exclusives like Star Ocean 4, Gears 2, Infinite Undiscover etc, and all the DLC)

No. Oblivion is considerably better on the PS3, with free extra content to, boot. Most of the multiplats the 360 won were out a year or longer. The multiplats in 08 are about equal. IGN has gone on records to say GTA4 looks and plays a little better on the PS3. Gamepro actually went on records to say that Call of Duty 4 plays better on the PS3.

Yup, but also Gamespot said that the 360 version of GTAIV looked a little better, and we all know that CoD 4 online is a little better on Xbox Live.

We all know?? IGN says GTA4 loosk better AND plays better on the PS3 because it has install options. Gamepro says COD4 runs with less lag on the PS3 because the PS3 uses a dedicated servers. Gamespot tend to be more biased towars the 360 in its news coverage and even in its reviews of the PS3's big games.

again choosing which sites matter and which not according to your convenience?

That games being ported to the PS3 come with improved graphics, features, or conent cannot be ignored.

Of course not, but they come one year later... Besides, multiplats that come out the same time usually are more interesting in the 360, for examble, both GTA IV and Fallout 3 downloadable content.

The majority of gamers have yet to enter this generation. As the biggest multiplats come to the PS3 with improvements, the PS3's multiplats should be better overall.

Speculation. No more. And last time I checked the multiplat looked similar in both consoles. Just that some games have DLC for the 360, but, besides that, no major difference.

I read that article. Why don't you do some unbiased thinking of your own. Look at the games. Read the game reviews for exclusives for both consoles. Think about the PS3 came out 1 yr behind. Ask why are best aspects of gaming found on the PS3???

I did. Conclusion: both are similar in terms of technologic. Denial. I think it's the first stage of grief. You will see the light. I promise, or you will find yourself in a loony bin. Actually, I don't think you read the reviews for EXCLUSIVE games on the PS3. You fear the truth, perhaps?

The only compliment I've read was about MGS4. And it is still just one game. In any site/article/review I've read something like"this game is technological superior to all the 360 has to offer".

In 2007, Microsoft didn't show games for 2008? Hmm. Well, not sure about that. But that actually proves my point. Look at their 2008 games. So far all flops. Every single one of their upcoming exclusives aren't as advanced as MGS4 at all. Even Gears 2 doesn't push boundaries in anything significant, and didn't look to improve that much over Gears 1. Resistance 2 will teach Gears about "epicness", big boss fights, and huge multiplayers. Little Big Planet is getting alot of hype as well. If Microsoft's 2009 exclusives are as good as the 2008 exlusives, then believe me, the 360 is in more trouble than I thought. Because their 2008 exclusives overall suck, compared to the PS3's.

Well, last time I checked the market was being ruled by multiplats. The only good exclusive this year for the PS3 was MGS 4 (that is not "that" advanced). The 360 will have Gers 2. And "epicness" is a personal criteria, not something you can argue, so it's not an argument. And this is what the 360 has to come:

Gears 2, Banjo, Halo Wars, The Last Remnant (timed exclusive), Infinite Undescover, Star Ocean, Fable 2, Too Human, Splinter Cell Conviction, the Next Bungie project and tons of great multiplats like RE5, Fallout 3 and... FFXIII.

More than enough.

Like i said, stay away from the PS3 exclusives. The truth will shatter your world of denial.

Uncharted 8/10, Heavenly Sword 8/10, Lair 3/10 MGS 4 10/10 (one game)

Keep telling yourself that the 360 is equally powerful. That exclusives look and sound the same. Go ahead. Keep doing it.

Again, could you please read the link? and, why should it matter which console is more powerful, or which games are more technically advanced, when the 360 has better games (in this case, higher scored games)?

Well, this is becoming a tipical 360 vs PS3 discussion, so there's no sense in discussing any further (those discussions never ends), so I will be back to your original topic: "Microsoft's Xbox 360 strategy: not good for its fanbase ". Well, it is not, because we have recieved a lot of great games, and we will becoming more (some unexpected, like FFXIII).

Sihanouk

i see. so TC seems to think that multiplayer game size is the online gaming equivalent of **** size? :lol:

man i have always wondered what goes on in a fanboy's mind. in fact i reckon that there are 2, no, 3 types of fanboy: there's the IGNORANCE fanboy, the DENIAL fanboy, and lastly the ANTI-fanboy. :D get off this is MY sig now! :P

[QUOTE="omarguy01"]well one of the reasons they pulled the plug on the new bungie announcement was because they wanted too keep the focus on games that would be out by the end of this year. so if you're complaining about no 09 games it was because they didn't want to talk about them. it was intentional.Sihanouk

LOL. They want you to think it's intentional. Games company like to hype their games. It's a lot more likely that Microsoft didn't want to show games that can't compete with the PS3 ones.

jesus christ, I refuse to believe that you and renegade can possibly hate a god damn system so much. wow!

in reponse to IronBass, Oblivion is better on ps3 noted in several reviews. PS3 version has better framerate and less pop-in due to standardized hdd. If you think I'm joking go look at ign's live blog of the sony conference where it comments that bethesda basically loves that the ps3 has a standard hddjyoung312

now that you bring up the smoother framerate cause of the HDD. when 360 owners are able to install full games in the 360 hdd, will oblivion run smooth and with less pop in? will it run better than the PS3 version?

I'm asking cause I really don't know.

Make no doubt about it, Microsoft will be profitable this generation. Will it make up for the loses last generation? No. Will ever recoup it's 7 billion losses on the XBOX business? It remains to be seen as, as those 7 billions would yield pretty good interests as well.

The following is clear:

The rush to come out first this generation has yileded an Xbox 360 that is weaker and much more unreliable than the PS3. The first year advantage cannot overcome a 4-5 year disadvantage in CPU power, console hardware features, and console reliability.

Microsoft will seek profitability over install base. The price cut didn't really make the 360 cheaper it only add 40 gigs for the same price. The cheaper consoles will be discontinued.

By making the 60 gig a standard, supporting Blu-ray this generatio is pretty much out of the question because Blu-ray plus a 60 gig is simply too expensive. It's very unlikely that 360 owners will ever experiece the next generation movie format that is Blu-ray. It's a big loss.

Microsoft has chosen to continue with their strategy of charging for LIVE. It's simple psychology to understand that doing so will scare away the casuals especially considering what the Wii offers and what the PS3 offers in terms of Blu-ray and free PSN. An additional problem is that Sony is taking the battle over online supremacy very seriously. Whether it's because of the P2P nature of LIVE or because of the weakness of the 360 console to handle larger multiplayer games, LIVE's weakness is beginning to show and Sony is taking full advantage of it. This E3 really shows that for large multiplayer gaming, or for user-generated content (Unreal Tournamen 3, and Little Big Planet), LIVE is clearly weaker than PSN. HOME is a nice bonus that the LIVE lacks as well.

For games, Microsoft has opted to use money as incentives for 3rd party timed exclusives. While it worked in the short run, it is a weak strategy in the long run. Good multiplats that first appear on the 360 are now coming to the PS3 with better graphics and extra features. To name a few, these games include Oblivion, Bioshock and Eternal Sonata. While a year or 2 ago, fans can say multiplats were better on the 360, this is no longer the case. I expect as more games are ported to the PS3 with improved graphics and features, multiplats overall will look and play better on the PS3. But the real battle will be between first party exclusives, and Microsoft is very weak in this area, especially since Bungie is no longer first party. Sony's strategy of investing heavily in first party is beggining to show. These games makes excellent use of the PS3's superior technology and as such will make 360 games look smaller and more outdated.

That Microsoft didn't realy show 2009 games this E3 is a big cause for concern. Without a doubt this is due to the lack of early investment in first party games. The future of the 360 looks bleak compared to that of the PS3.

Sihanouk

1) They charge for Xbox-Live becuase it helps keep banned people banned. Not only that but we have a much more extensive library of Games for download, movies, TV shows, music, ect. Also Wii online is crap. Its worse than the online the PS2 had.

2) Bungie is 2nd Party. Bungie wouldn't think of making a PS3 game. Bungie is still sleeping with Microsoft and its going to stay that way.

3) Microsoft likes to show games you will be playing this year at E3.

[QUOTE="omarguy01"]well one of the reasons they pulled the plug on the new bungie announcement was because they wanted too keep the focus on games that would be out by the end of this year. so if you're complaining about no 09 games it was because they didn't want to talk about them. it was intentional.Sihanouk

LOL. They want you to think it's intentional. Games company like to hype their games. It's a lot more likely that Microsoft didn't want to show games that can't compete with the PS3 ones.

All Microsoft would have had to do was show a 20 second CGI trailer for new Halo and the entire E3 Building would have erupted with excitement. :|

What a load of crap

1) Microsoft made about 500 million profit of the xbox 360

2)they will soon fix the RROD

3)Multiplats are NOT better on the PS3. In best case they are the same but they come wayy later.

4)microsoft has a ton of money ,sony doesn't and is in trouble

5)stop trying to justify your PS3 purchase

6) Xbox sales will soar with casuals jumping in .

7) just a matter of time until games are announced ( just hope MSFT creates new studios)

all MS wants to do is use other people strategies. i mean come on everything they do is an exact repeat of what someone else did, whether it was Sony, Nintendo or Sega..... MS loses in terms of thinking about the consumer in all aspects, the only thing i do like is that they replaced the rrod systems, in which everyone should know to stop the the widespread of this and keep the press off their back.

[QUOTE="IronBass"]
[QUOTE="Sihanouk"]

Like i said, stay away from the PS3 exclusives. The truth will shatter your world of denial.

Uncharted 8/10, Heavenly Sword 8/10, Lair 3/10 MGS 4 10/10 (one game)

The topic is about the power of the consoles, not about the gamescores. Do you even know how to debate? Obviously you can't disprove of the PS3's technological superiority.

Keep telling yourself that the 360 is equally powerful. That exclusives look and sound the same. Go ahead. Keep doing it.

Again, could you please read the link? and, why should it matter which console is more powerful, or which games are more technically advanced, when the 360 has better games (in this case, higher scored games)?

It matters because when a console has more power, that power will be used to make bigger and better games. Case in point, MGS4. No games on the 360 will ever match it's technological prowess because of the the 360 has limited hardware. If you can't see the benefits of a more powerful console this early in the console war, well...I can't help you. Sad, though.

Well, this is becoming a tipical 360 vs PS3 discussion, so there's no sense in discussing any further (those discussions never ends), so I will be back to your original topic: "Microsoft's Xbox 360 strategy: not good for its fanbase ". Well, it is not, because we have recieved a lot of great games, and we will becoming more (some unexpected, like FFXIII).

The discussions will end when fanboys are honest enough to give credits where credits are due....I am getting a little irritated by all the denial. Go ahead mods, ban or suspend me. I am say it: The 360 fanboys are pathetic, lying idots if they can't see that the PS3 is more powerful, that the PS3's exclusives generally have better grahpics, sounds, and other technogical achievements. Idiots, I say.

Sihanouk

I agree with some of this..... you got to be nuts to not even think that sony's first and second party games are bad nuts!

"But the real battle will be between first party exclusives, and Microsoft is very weak in this area, especially since Bungie is no longer first party"

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

Rareware, Lionhead Studios, and Ensemble Studios are not weak.

SSCyborg

MS always been weak in the 1st party.... im trying 2 see why xbots dont see that.

Oh yeah and Sony's wait strategy is really great. :roll:

Sony is talking about the PS2 and talking about, (can you imagine the PS3 in 4 years) we all know the only reason PS2 has such a long life cycle is because of the success it has. Same with UMD movies if it was successful it would of been still here and have a longer life cycle. Life cycle is determine but the success of the product and thats the truth. If the PS3 isn't as successful as the PS2 it will not have as long of a life cycle.

[QUOTE="SSCyborg"]

"But the real battle will be between first party exclusives, and Microsoft is very weak in this area, especially since Bungie is no longer first party"

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

Rareware, Lionhead Studios, and Ensemble Studios are not weak.

xboxps2cube

MS always been weak in the 1st party.... im trying 2 see why xbots dont see that.

Their first party isn't weak anymore!

The way everyone goes on it's as if the fact that most of the big 360 games are coming out this year and not next year is a bad thing... Do people like to wait or something? AdolescentDon

I find that paradoxical since $ony(Oh noez, I put t3h moneh symbol instead of an 'S,' I is so clev@r)is still trying to get out games that were shown 3 years ago.

People were saying the same thing last E3, how do you think PS3 adopted the moniker of "PS3 has 2k8 on lockdown." "360 has nothing for 2k8" Now its lineup is stronger than 2007's. "Buh buh they shown nothing for 2009" is a precursor for "Just wait 2009"

It does look a little weaker than the PS3 for future games...

But now it has FFXIII, which is huge, so really, the competition is closer than you think.

the-very-best

Both systems get FFXIII, so it's a null effect.

I DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT BLU-RAY! IT ISN'T REQUIRED FOR GAMING JUST YET!

TMontana1004

without blue-ray, how many DVD would u need for MGS4? for FF13, they're already talking about compression-dumbing down the FMV (which is soooo important for RPG's feel)

not having HDD installed as standard --> more frequent loading time, slower performance etc - it might not show that clearly this early in the race, imagine 2 years from now where everygame is EPIC~! you probably don't even need to wait for that long, by this time next year - when the cell's SPUs' are utilised to their potential, the difference will be clear.

[QUOTE="TMontana1004"]

I DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT BLU-RAY! IT ISN'T REQUIRED FOR GAMING JUST YET!

Princecake

without blue-ray, how many DVD would u need for MGS4? for FF13, they're already talking about compression-dumbing down the FMV (which is soooo important for RPG's feel)

not having HDD installed as standard --> more frequent loading time, slower performance etc - it might not show that clearly this early in the race, imagine 2 years from now where everygame is EPIC~! you probably don't even need to wait for that long, by this time next year - when the cell's SPUs' are utilised to their potential, the difference will be clear.

Too bad you just got owned. 360 gamers can install their whole game onto their harddrive after the Fall Update. The game will play right from the harddrive, so long as the disc is in the drive to prove you own it.