No one is freaking using the PS3s damm power!!!

what damm power? rsx = a cutdown 7800gt which has more thinks in common with the 7600gt. 512mb total ram is a serve limitation, the single core pentium 4 has more gaming power than the cell. all the cell has is lots of floating point operations and its not very good for anything else. if sony really thought it was amazing all their computers would have a cell in them which they don't.

ps3 and x360 are basicly the same in terms of power.

I love my PS3 and it's games but they could be so much bigger and better...NonRock

if you want bigger levels you need more ram. crysis needs over 1gb ram plus 256mb vram just to run. console lack ram, as always.

This all gets me to thinking; Isn't both the PS3 and X360 GOOD ENOUGH already? Are people actually that unsatisfied with games like COD4, Resistance 2, Gears 1/2, MGS4, Dead Space, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and GRAW 2, that they have to complain "where are the really amazing games" ???

Just where do your standards come from if you have to make a thread like this? :|

They will soon enough.

But what really needs to happen is that developers have to take the PS3 as the lead platform for development.

OK xbox fanboys I expect a lot of flaming now but hear me out.

If the xbox360 would have much power as the PS3 it's games would be much larger and better... I'm not saying that they ain't good but they could be better with a little more better system.. (not saying that the PS3 is the better system)

Damn I wish ppl (game producers) would use it's maximum!

Too much of the word power??

NonRock

You, like the vast majority of cows, know nothing about game development. And your thread is proof of that assertion.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of game development knows that neither the Xbox360 or PS3 are capable of games the other is not.

[QUOTE="NonRock"]

The PS3 could do 10 x better if somebody would use it's power... Not even the exclusives use it's maximum... Well maybe LBP uses it's power but not all things... The multi platform games could do much better if they would be done just 4 the PS3!

OK xbox fanboys I expect a lot of flaming now but hear me out.

If the xbox360 would have much power as the PS3 it's games would be much larger and better... I'm not saying that they ain't good but they could be better with a little more better system.. (not saying that the PS3 is the better system)

Damn I wish ppl (game producers) would use it's maximum!

Too much of the word power??

AdobeArtist

I was considering many ways I would respond to your post, and yes, all of them quite serious, with no flaming intended. But I think the best way I can respond is simply to ASK YOU;

WHAT exactly, do you have to go on whereby to comment on this supposed 'superior power' that PS3 has over and above Xbox 360, which you believe developers should be able to utilize?

A great question that no cow seems capable of answering themselves.

All cows can do is just repeat talking points Sony feeds them.

[QUOTE="Crystal-Rush"]wow you PS3 fanboys really need to wake up. There's nothing amazingly special about the PS3. It has a stripped down version of the cell and a weaker graphics processor than the 360. The 360 can render graphics better than the PS3. The only thing it has is bluray and even that hasn't been proven useful yet. The 360 & PS3 are pretty much equal so stop acting like the PS3 is beyond our time. YOUR NOT GOING TO SEE 10X BETTER POWERNonRock

1. I'm no fanboy

2.I the multi platform games have the same graphichs on the PS3 and Xbox360

3. I didn't say the PS3 was beyond our time as u think...

4. I just think that the PS3 could do 10x better!

You are just wrong

what damm power? rsx = a cutdown 7800gt which has more thinks in common with the 7600gt. 512mb total ram is a serve limitation, the single core pentium 4 has more gaming power than the cell. all the cell has is lots of floating point operations and its not very good for anything else. if sony really thought it was amazing all their computers would have a cell in them which they don't.

ps3 and x360 are basicly the same in terms of power.

imprezawrx500

Even if they used 7800 gs its still not power anymore

Here is 7800 gs vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280

Texture fill rate : 6 billion 48.2 billion

Maximum memory bandwidth : 38.4 GB/s 141.7 GB/s

Memory size: 256 MB 1GB

DirectX : 9.0c 10

HDR lighting: 64 bit 128 bit

4. I just think that the PS3 could do 10x better!

NonRock

You are a victim of hype. Sorry.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"][QUOTE="NonRock"]

The PS3 could do 10 x better if somebody would use it's power... Not even the exclusives use it's maximum... Well maybe LBP uses it's power but not all things... The multi platform games could do much better if they would be done just 4 the PS3!

OK xbox fanboys I expect a lot of flaming now but hear me out.

If the xbox360 would have much power as the PS3 it's games would be much larger and better... I'm not saying that they ain't good but they could be better with a little more better system.. (not saying that the PS3 is the better system)

Damn I wish ppl (game producers) would use it's maximum!

Too much of the word power??

LosDaddie

I was considering many ways I would respond to your post, and yes, all of them quite serious, with no flaming intended. But I think the best way I can respond is simply to ASK YOU;

WHAT exactly do you have to go on, whereby to comment on this supposed 'superior power' that PS3 has over and above Xbox 360, which you believe developers should be able to utilize?

A great question that no cow seems capable of answering themselves.

All cows can do is just repeat talking points Sony feeds them.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to that :)

This all gets me to thinking; Isn't both the PS3 and X360 GOOD ENOUGH already? Are people actually that unsatisfied with games like COD4, Resistance 2, Gears 1/2, MGS4, Dead Space, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and GRAW 2, that they have to complain "where are the really amazing games" ???

Just where do your standards come from if you have to make a thread like this? :|

AdobeArtist

Cows are watching too many crysis screenshots.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to that :)

AdobeArtist

I'm bored. I will answer you.

wow you PS3 fanboys really need to wake up. There's nothing amazingly special about the PS3. It has a stripped down version of the cell and a weaker graphics processor than the 360. The 360 can render graphics better than the PS3. The only thing it has is bluray and even that hasn't been proven useful yet. The 360 & PS3 are pretty much equal so stop acting like the PS3 is beyond our time. YOUR NOT GOING TO SEE 10X BETTER POWERCrystal-Rush

uh no it the cell cant be stripped down because its the only thing that uses it. In order for it to be stripped down it would have had to be based off the cell but since its the first gen of cells you fail

and 360 being better at rendering graphics is debatable since the pu can also preform gpu process's

What Power you mean that joke of a processor they lied and hyped up to get people to buy a blray player with an off the shelf GPU? sony lied get over it. Nugtoka

The joke of a processor with a DVD player was the PS2 as well.
PS2 games just kept looking better through the consoles life.

Some dev's are lazy especially when it comes to multi-plat games.
As for the other's that try. It's hard. Very hard.
But once they get it right it works wonders, and they still haven't gotten it right.
Uncharted and MGS4 look awesome but they're not the best the PS3 can put out
You just have to give it time, just like the PS2.

programming is riduclously hard and even after a day of work you can get little much out of hence why games take so long to make face it the CELL is a failure the only reason LBP runs so well is because it has to render hardly anything hence why things like fallout 3 arent so good on the PS3 compared to LBP the fact is they wont be able to squeeze much else from the cell you have to realise that now cell = most stupid investment sony has ever made, waste of money, time, devs time and money, too complex for nothing, who made the decision for the cell to be used really? they could have made a slightly more powerful processor than the xbox 360 and they wouldnt be in this crap right now, they wuld have made lots of profit, devs wouldnt be complaining, games would have been better quicker etc etcBeaglesniffer

Sure buddy, .........LBP hardly renders anything? You can have so much stuff on the screen of LBP with crazy physics with no lag at all. Fallout 3 has a few graphical problems because it wasn't worked on as much as the 360 version.

Its not that the cells more hard to program for, its that since everyone grew up programing for windows(which 360 is based off of DX9) They can do it easily. Its like if you grow up speaking english of course your gonna think spanish is harder.....to learn even tho english is one of the most difficult languages to learn.

LOL, fanboys.

The PS3's artictecture isn't bad, its great...its just MORE DIFFICULT THAN YOUR STANDARD PC ONES that the 360 and PC uses. the HARDWARE and POWER IS THERE, it just harder to get to it, EXPECIALLY if your using the 360 as the lead platform, thats why when games are done with the PS3 in mind FIRST, they both look amazing and have less problems.

Sony's design choices as A lot to do with the future and wanting the console to keep pushing out better graphics, hence the PS2...over many years, devs will still be getting more out of the PS3, due to the design. Of course if you have the money and working with the right tools, you can get that power out quicker, (killzone 2, Uncharted, R2, R&C, MGS4, etc)

some company just don't have the time and money to work a little more on the PS3, and more so because it was done on the 360 first as the lead platform. this will change once the PS3 version are the lead ones.

we can't all have consoles with the same designs. but keep in mind that there are some great games out there already shown and PROVEN the PS3 is capable of such high tech gaming experiences/graphics.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

This all gets me to thinking; Isn't both the PS3 and X360 GOOD ENOUGH already? Are people actually that unsatisfied with games like COD4, Resistance 2, Gears 1/2, MGS4, Dead Space, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and GRAW 2, that they have to complain "where are the really amazing games" ???

Just where do your standards come from if you have to make a thread like this? :|

Espada12

Cows are watching too many crysis screenshots.

I would surmise TC's entire presumption comes from the E305 CGI showcase.

Alright , enough is enough ........

Devs , unleash the Cell hidden 4D powerzzzz nowwww and

let them feel my wrath !!!!

Psst , Captain they are not swallowing the bull... anymore .

Some still do my friend , some still do , just look at this thread

Aye , captain Hirai !

.

PS3 should have used something more user friendly than the RSX.Something like 8600GTS.But than again that would be weak,give it the upper hand of user friendliness,it would do better than the rsx right now but NOT in the long term.

The only thing bottlenecking the PS3 technically is the RSXs ram.They should have given it around 512 for RSX and 256 for Cell.Making things more user friendly wouldnt have been of any advantage.

i think everyone's figured out by now that the ps3 doesn't have as much power as sony lead us to believemephisto_11

i think fallout3 demonstrates this perfectly, the ps3 has comparable power to the 360. perhaps a bit more but its MUCH harder to program for (no im not a dev but all of them have said the same) making the power 'gap' imaterial.

"teh powerz of teh cell" threads are so 2006

PS3 should have used something more user friendly than the RSX.Something like 8600GTS.But than again that would be weak,give it the upper hand of user friendliness,it would do better than the rsx right now but NOT in the long term.

The only thing bottlenecking the PS3 technically is the RSXs ram.They should have given it around 512 for RSX and 256 for Cell.Making things more user friendly wouldnt have been of any advantage.

shery_n95

They should have 2Gigs of ram, bottom line!

[QUOTE="shery_n95"]

PS3 should have used something more user friendly than the RSX.Something like 8600GTS.But than again that would be weak,give it the upper hand of user friendliness,it would do better than the rsx right now but NOT in the long term.

The only thing bottlenecking the PS3 technically is the RSXs ram.They should have given it around 512 for RSX and 256 for Cell.Making things more user friendly wouldnt have been of any advantage.

Bebi_vegeta

They should have 2Gigs of ram, bottom line!

8! no 16! no 32!!

we can sit here and surgest ram all day but the bottom line is that power wise ps3=360

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="shery_n95"]

PS3 should have used something more user friendly than the RSX.Something like 8600GTS.But than again that would be weak,give it the upper hand of user friendliness,it would do better than the rsx right now but NOT in the long term.

The only thing bottlenecking the PS3 technically is the RSXs ram.They should have given it around 512 for RSX and 256 for Cell.Making things more user friendly wouldnt have been of any advantage.

thegoldenpoo

They should have 2Gigs of ram, bottom line!

8! no 16! no 32!!

we can sit here and surgest ram all day but the bottom line is that power wise ps3=360

Huh?

This why Crytek said Crysis couldn't been done on console because of ram? Like said, 2Gb of ram would of been the sweet spot!

[QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="shery_n95"]

PS3 should have used something more user friendly than the RSX.Something like 8600GTS.But than again that would be weak,give it the upper hand of user friendliness,it would do better than the rsx right now but NOT in the long term.

The only thing bottlenecking the PS3 technically is the RSXs ram.They should have given it around 512 for RSX and 256 for Cell.Making things more user friendly wouldnt have been of any advantage.

Bebi_vegeta

They should have 2Gigs of ram, bottom line!

8! no 16! no 32!!

we can sit here and surgest ram all day but the bottom line is that power wise ps3=360

Huh?

This why Crytek said Crysis couldn't been done on console because of ram? Like said, 2Gb of ram would of been the sweet spot!

and made the consoles cost one hell of alot more in 2006 and 2007 respectively. even if they did have 2GB of ram, i still think crysis would have been beyond both of them. hell i struggled to run it untill i got 2 4850s and a quad-core.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="shery_n95"]

PS3 should have used something more user friendly than the RSX.Something like 8600GTS.But than again that would be weak,give it the upper hand of user friendliness,it would do better than the rsx right now but NOT in the long term.

The only thing bottlenecking the PS3 technically is the RSXs ram.They should have given it around 512 for RSX and 256 for Cell.Making things more user friendly wouldnt have been of any advantage.

thegoldenpoo

They should have 2Gigs of ram, bottom line!

8! no 16! no 32!!

we can sit here and surgest ram all day but the bottom line is that power wise ps3=360

if youre comparing the power in terms of time line i would say currently they both are equal.But in the long term cell will slingshot the hardware of 360.The 360 is DX9 api based.Its already starting to age...

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

They should have 2Gigs of ram, bottom line!

thegoldenpoo

8! no 16! no 32!!

we can sit here and surgest ram all day but the bottom line is that power wise ps3=360

Huh?

This why Crytek said Crysis couldn't been done on console because of ram? Like said, 2Gb of ram would of been the sweet spot!

and made the consoles cost one hell of alot more in 2006 and 2007 respectively. even if they did have 2GB of ram, i still think crysis would have been beyond both of them. hell i struggled to run it untill i got 2 4850s and a quad-core.

The compagnie choses the price, so they can sell the console at lost if they really wanted to... in order to attract more potential revenue in the end.

Crysis could run on a 7800GTX on lower res... just like COD4 running at 600p or Halo 3.

[QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="shery_n95"]

PS3 should have used something more user friendly than the RSX.Something like 8600GTS.But than again that would be weak,give it the upper hand of user friendliness,it would do better than the rsx right now but NOT in the long term.

The only thing bottlenecking the PS3 technically is the RSXs ram.They should have given it around 512 for RSX and 256 for Cell.Making things more user friendly wouldnt have been of any advantage.

shery_n95

They should have 2Gigs of ram, bottom line!

8! no 16! no 32!!

we can sit here and surgest ram all day but the bottom line is that power wise ps3=360

if youre comparing the power in terms of time line i would say currently they both are equal.But in the long term cell will slingshot the hardware of 360.The 360 is DX9 api based.Its already starting to age...

I don't see PS3 doing anything better, do you?

[QUOTE="shery_n95"][QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="shery_n95"]

PS3 should have used something more user friendly than the RSX.Something like 8600GTS.But than again that would be weak,give it the upper hand of user friendliness,it would do better than the rsx right now but NOT in the long term.

The only thing bottlenecking the PS3 technically is the RSXs ram.They should have given it around 512 for RSX and 256 for Cell.Making things more user friendly wouldnt have been of any advantage.

Bebi_vegeta

They should have 2Gigs of ram, bottom line!

8! no 16! no 32!!

we can sit here and surgest ram all day but the bottom line is that power wise ps3=360

if youre comparing the power in terms of time line i would say currently they both are equal.But in the long term cell will slingshot the hardware of 360.The 360 is DX9 api based.Its already starting to age...

I don't see PS3 doing anything better, do you?

precisely, everyones a tech expert these days and most poeple have no idea what they are talking about, all we really need to look at is the real-wolrd results. and in that department both seem equal, equal to such a degree that they are practcally identical. people have always said that the ps3 would take the lead in graphics in 2008 or 2009 and i doubt it will happen to any meaningful degree

Maybe when the GPU can be upgraded like the HDD and you put a 9800GTX in it....

[QUOTE="shery_n95"][QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="shery_n95"]

PS3 should have used something more user friendly than the RSX.Something like 8600GTS.But than again that would be weak,give it the upper hand of user friendliness,it would do better than the rsx right now but NOT in the long term.

The only thing bottlenecking the PS3 technically is the RSXs ram.They should have given it around 512 for RSX and 256 for Cell.Making things more user friendly wouldnt have been of any advantage.

Bebi_vegeta

They should have 2Gigs of ram, bottom line!

8! no 16! no 32!!

we can sit here and surgest ram all day but the bottom line is that power wise ps3=360

if youre comparing the power in terms of time line i would say currently they both are equal.But in the long term cell will slingshot the hardware of 360.The 360 is DX9 api based.Its already starting to age...

I don't see PS3 doing anything better, do you?

As i said,its about time line.You shouldnt be immature,jump to conclusions and say "I don't see PS3 doing anything better, do you?".

The base story must be very clear to people over here about tapping the power of cell with optimization.Ps3 is already starting to pull apart from other consoles.With games like MGS4,Resistance 2 and Killzone 2.Its already started to prove itself nothing lesser than a graphical powerhouse.

Cell on the other hand has reached many graphical marvels by itself.Construction of real life like iRT cities or building models have been constructed on the cell arleady.One of the shining example is of roam :

Currently however it does seem like the 360 is more effective hardware.User friendly GPU would be the cause here.

I was just suggesting that a more user friendly hardware would have had helped ps3 to catch upto its competitors during the starting of its life cycle.But that really doesnt matter now,because it would have gone extinct with its competitors and thus would be of no use in the long term...

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="shery_n95"][QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="shery_n95"]

PS3 should have used something more user friendly than the RSX.Something like 8600GTS.But than again that would be weak,give it the upper hand of user friendliness,it would do better than the rsx right now but NOT in the long term.

The only thing bottlenecking the PS3 technically is the RSXs ram.They should have given it around 512 for RSX and 256 for Cell.Making things more user friendly wouldnt have been of any advantage.

thegoldenpoo

They should have 2Gigs of ram, bottom line!

8! no 16! no 32!!

we can sit here and surgest ram all day but the bottom line is that power wise ps3=360

if youre comparing the power in terms of time line i would say currently they both are equal.But in the long term cell will slingshot the hardware of 360.The 360 is DX9 api based.Its already starting to age...

I don't see PS3 doing anything better, do you?

precisely, everyones a tech expert these days and most poeple have no idea what they are talking about, all we really need to look at is the real-wolrd results. and in that department both seem equal, equal to such a degree that they are practcally identical. people have always said that the ps3 would take the lead in graphics in 2008 or 2009 and i doubt it will happen to any meaningful degree

Thats what we discuss at Beyond 3D and hate people when they come and try to prove themselves,what you call "Tech experts" :).

PS3 definitely does not have the power that Sony bluffed about upon release. But with games like Uncharted, Killzone 2, and Heavy Rain, it's difficult not to be at least a little impressed with it's capabilities.nervmeister

Wut? People are using it's power, maybe it's just not as godly as you think it is. And it's only 2 years old, it's power will be unleashed (God, that sounded cheesy) as the years go by.Floppy_Jim

the top games using ps3s power were uncharted and mgs4 which only used about 40% i think they said...LBP doesnt use power as much as space...its impressive and uses more then multiplat but donesnt compare to mgs or uncharted imo.

game devs will get there, and some games are made on ps3 (like mirrors edge) and will be better and use it more...

same with FF13

The PS3 could do 10 x better if somebody would use it's power... Not even the exclusives use it's maximum... Well maybe LBP uses it's power but not all things... The multi platform games could do much better if they would be done just 4 the PS3!

OK xbox fanboys I expect a lot of flaming now but hear me out.

If the xbox360 would have much power as the PS3 it's games would be much larger and better... I'm not saying that they ain't good but they could be better with a little more better system.. (not saying that the PS3 is the better system)

Damn I wish ppl (game producers) would use it's maximum!

Too much of the word power??

NonRock

you sound like the xbox fans last-gen

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

[QUOTE="kevbo77"]PS3's RAM bottleneck strikes again. It doesn't matter what kind of processor it has, or what kind of GPU it has if it is limited to 256 Megs of Ram. The 360 has more RAM so it's better. PS3=waste of money.WasntAvailable

RAM is not the limiting factor, there for that is not the problem. The problem is with the processor. Go check it out your self.

You sir, are nearly correct! It is with the cpu, but more specifically, its with programming FOR the cpu. Because it has lots of microprocessors, code is excecuted differently than normal code. It can return small responses much faster to the main program than a normal CPU can. Now this sounds great, and has lots of potential, but it also means all API's need to be rewritten to function on the cell. This is a big problem for developers, especially for ones that make multiplatform games. They like premade API's that they can customize, tried, tested, and true methods, isntead of reinventing the wheel.

Sony hadhoped that this cell CPU would take off, and be used in many of their products, which would increase the demand for it, and decrease the cost for it, which would let them sell the PS3 for cheaper eventually. Once it did not catch on, it caused a pricing problem for the PS3. On another note, Sony wanted to use PS3 to deliver Bluray players into all consumers house holds. The more they sell, the cheaper they get also, as with all manufactured products, however sales were nto as spectacular as they ahd hped, which also added to the PS3 price problem.

This doesn't make the PS3 bad by any means, but it does mean that developers are less likely to fully use the cell, especially since it most likely won't be in the PS4 architecture. In other words, if a game is to run on ps3 and 360, they will use standard API's and try to make them run smooth on the PS3, where the 360 is made to handle those fast already, and if they want PS4 to run the PS3 games, it needs to be as generic as possible.

I realised it was to do with the programming, but I didn't know about it in that much detail. Thanks for clearing that up. This is also probably the best in depth explanation I have seen as to why the PS3 dosn't handle ports nearly as well as the 360. It also explains why the PS3 games can be easily ported to the Xbox 360, and why MGS 4 is unlikely to be ported.

Yeah, it all boils down to sony trying to get exclusive rights to their cell chip in other products, that they ended up makign the ps3 hard to program for, and thus they wated money on a product that will never be fully used. That andt he price of the console isnt going to drop very fast as that cell isnt selling. In fact if i recall, they sold the rights to cell recently as it wasnt performing in sales to what sony wanted.

wow you PS3 fanboys really need to wake up. There's nothing amazingly special about the PS3. It has a stripped down version of the cell and a weaker graphics processor than the 360. The 360 can render graphics better than the PS3. The only thing it has is bluray and even that hasn't been proven useful yet. The 360 & PS3 are pretty much equal so stop acting like the PS3 is beyond our time. YOUR NOT GOING TO SEE 10X BETTER POWERCrystal-Rush

mgs4?

[QUOTE="NonRock"]

The PS3 could do 10 x better if somebody would use it's power... Not even the exclusives use it's maximum... Well maybe LBP uses it's power but not all things... The multi platform games could do much better if they would be done just 4 the PS3!

OK xbox fanboys I expect a lot of flaming now but hear me out.

If the xbox360 would have much power as the PS3 it's games would be much larger and better... I'm not saying that they ain't good but they could be better with a little more better system.. (not saying that the PS3 is the better system)

Damn I wish ppl (game producers) would use it's maximum!

Too much of the word power??

onewiththegame

you sound like the xbox fans last-gen

???

How so? The Xbox was clearly more powerful last gen compared to PS2. I don't remember anyone complaining about it's abilities being held up by the other consoles. It had the best looking multiplats just about everytime.

[QUOTE="Crystal-Rush"]wow you PS3 fanboys really need to wake up. There's nothing amazingly special about the PS3. It has a stripped down version of the cell and a weaker graphics processor than the 360. The 360 can render graphics better than the PS3. The only thing it has is bluray and even that hasn't been proven useful yet. The 360 & PS3 are pretty much equal so stop acting like the PS3 is beyond our time. YOUR NOT GOING TO SEE 10X BETTER POWERSnake_raider

mgs4?

yeah and? is changing disk so inconvienent? i bet i would fit on 2 DVDs.

The PS3 could do 10 x better if somebody would use it's power... Not even the exclusives use it's maximum... Well maybe LBP uses it's power but not all things... The multi platform games could do much better if they would be done just 4 the PS3!

OK xbox fanboys I expect a lot of flaming now but hear me out.

If the xbox360 would have much power as the PS3 it's games would be much larger and better... I'm not saying that they ain't good but they could be better with a little more better system.. (not saying that the PS3 is the better system)

Damn I wish ppl (game producers) would use it's maximum!

Too much of the word power??

NonRock

I heard that BluRay is the new Laserdisc.

are'nt the sales of the players slowing down?

Plus, there are DVD machines that scale up to look real good with the library you already have.

I think its so funny that its about the movies rather than the game with PS3

I don't know if you noticed but those Blu-Ray movies cost a lot more than the DVDS

I'd prefer PS3 to make more exclusives rather than spending even more time developing games that use its "Maximum Potential" when I'm perfectly happy with what we have now.

As long as those awful install times don't increase, I don't really care.

LittleHands134

[QUOTE="Crystal-Rush"]wow you PS3 fanboys really need to wake up. There's nothing amazingly special about the PS3. It has a stripped down version of the cell and a weaker graphics processor than the 360. The 360 can render graphics better than the PS3. The only thing it has is bluray and even that hasn't been proven useful yet. The 360 & PS3 are pretty much equal so stop acting like the PS3 is beyond our time. YOUR NOT GOING TO SEE 10X BETTER POWERSnake_raider

mgs4?

How?:|

In the old days you got up to change a disc. This gen you wait 5-10 minutes for the chapter to install.:|

That's a step back worse than disc changing mate, not forward.