You know the fact that we compare 360 and PS3 graphics is just sad

    There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

    I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Game13a13y

The cell doesn't look to be doing a much better job then what the 360 is using, I shouldn't have to pay extra just because its a new processor. Wifi isn't a neccesity, and paying $200 extra for free online defeats the purpose of free online wouldn't it? They should have just kept the $500 model out. That way all you need to worry about is the Blu-Ray. 

    There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

    I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Blackbond

The fact that PS3s games look as good as the 360s second generations games are pretty good seeing as devs got a final PS3 dev it a little before the PS3 launch and the PS3 has a learning curve.

Like Game13a13y said, you are paying an extra 200 or in my case 100 for things like larger HDD (replaceable), Blu ray movie playback, HDMI compatible, Wifi, FREE online gaming for the life of your system, and a controller charger in the system.

Right now the because the PS3 is so new it only has a handful of games to compare to the 360s best.  Value is in the eye of the beholder and to me to get teh 360 to where my PS3s capabilities currently are, I would not save money and I use all the features of my PS3.

It's all in development tools and costs and the fact that graphics can only get so good.  The 360 and PS3 are at a point where a substantial increase in power doesn't lead to a great graphical leap.

[QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Blackbond

The cell doesn't look to be doing a much better job then what the 360 is using, I shouldn't have to pay extra just because its a new processor. Wifi isn't a neccesity, and paying $200 extra for free online defeats the purpose of free online wouldn't it? They should have just kept the $500 model out. That way all you need to worry about is the Blu-Ray. 

You can nit pick all you want on what is or isnt needed but the truth is you cant speak for everyone.  All the features on my PS3 I love and would not replace to save myself an extra hundred dollars that would be wasted on maintaining live.

Well , the ps3 has more in it and the 360 will cost me more money because of the stupid online fees. Doesn't that count for anything ? We are not all uninformed people here so there is really nothing sad about it.

[QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Blackbond

The cell doesn't look to be doing a much better job then what the 360 is using, I shouldn't have to pay extra just because its a new processor. Wifi isn't a neccesity, and paying $200 extra for free online defeats the purpose of free online wouldn't it? They should have just kept the $500 model out. That way all you need to worry about is the Blu-Ray. 

the fact that the cell doesn't "look" like its doing better job then the ones on 360 doesn't mean it "can't"

PS 3 is just roughly half year old, what we see is still the first generation games, given some times, we'll really start to see what the cell can do. plus, if you plan to keep your XBL for 4 years, you might as well pay the $200 for a PS 3 anyway with more new good stuffs.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Javy03

The cell doesn't look to be doing a much better job then what the 360 is using, I shouldn't have to pay extra just because its a new processor. Wifi isn't a neccesity, and paying $200 extra for free online defeats the purpose of free online wouldn't it? They should have just kept the $500 model out. That way all you need to worry about is the Blu-Ray.

You can nit pick all you want on what is or isnt needed but the truth is you cant speak for everyone. All the features on my PS3 I love and would not replace to save myself an extra hundred dollars that would be wasted on maintaining live.

Please, what are these features?  Oh, and can u make the live comment in the 4 years it would take u to make the 200 dollar argument difference valid? kk thanks. 

Allow me to point out why your comments are illogical

    There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week.Blackbond

1) Both consoles were in development for the same amount of time.  The reason the PS3 came out much later was due to numerous issue with manufacturing delays on their cell chip. Sony and MS had their hardware and specs finalized at roughly the same time.  It was the added features (whether or not to include BR?  What size HDD?) ane cell problems that caused the launch delay.

 2) It was the added features such as BR, HDMI outputs, HDD size, etc that cause the $200 difference.  Not some sort of ultra-space age technology.

this not happening?

3) Isn't it?  In your opinion it is not happening.  However, there is no denying that Resistance, a PS3 launch title looked much better than any of the 360 launch titles. I consider this a fact considering 360 fans have had to compare Resistance to 360 games that are second gen and had longer dev times and the devs got their final dev kits much sooner than Sony devs. 

4) Furthermore you have conveniently ignored all the developers who complain that the PS3 hardware is too hard to develop for and games cost too much to properly utilize the hardware.  I think this is another sign that the PS3 is more "advanced".  Add to this the fact that devs only got their final dev kits like two months before launch (and even then not all devs got it), and you have a whole number of reasons why "this is not happening."  

5) Even if a game came out that was amazing looking, would fanboys admit it?  I have no plans on getting the PS3, I have a wii and want a 360...because of the games.  Having said that, I thought resistance looks amazing and as a launch title it was a real eye-opener of the PS3's potential.  Much moreso than the rushed games that came out for the 360 launch which everyone called Xbox 1.5 titles.  But instead fanboys nitpicked and suddenly a game had to "blow them away" to get their respect.  So I refer back to my original question.

I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more.

6) Yes, you should.  The illogical point here is that you ignore all the major issues Sony has had, developers have had, etc...and want to blame the hardware as being inferior.  ANd again, you ignore the actual results that $200 allows for...larger HDD, free online, 1080p, BR player, etc.  Those may not be "game related" but they are certainly "results" of the higher price tag if you ask me. 

confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better.

7) The same reason people are arguing about Bush's competance...some people will just never "get it" and refuse to see the other side of the arguement.   

Why am I paying $200

8) Clearly you aren't paying for it. 

for equal graphical and gaming capabilities?

 9) As a PS1 fan, and possible PS2 owner, you should have realized how the PS1 kept getting better and better looking games through it's life.  Same with PS2.  This despite the fact that everyone though the console were maxed out after two years.  I personally would also argue that the PS2, while always graphically inferior to the Xbox, saw a much greater improvement over it's lifetime than the Xbox showed.  It is illogical to ignore history and just assume that the PS3, which is harder to develop for and suffered serious delays issues, is going to be maxed out from day one. 

How can developers get to know the system, be familiar with it, and make games that PROVE the PS3 to you under these conditions.  Yes, that is Sony's fault.  No doubt.  But Sony's mishandling of the PS3 isn't really the issue.  The issue is the misconception that the PS3 isn't proving itself graphically superior despite the extra money.  But I will refer back to all my points to explain both the graphical complaints AND the price tag.

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Game13a13y

[QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

dumfart66

The cell doesn't look to be doing a much better job then what the 360 is using, I shouldn't have to pay extra just because its a new processor. Wifi isn't a neccesity, and paying $200 extra for free online defeats the purpose of free online wouldn't it? They should have just kept the $500 model out. That way all you need to worry about is the Blu-Ray.

You can nit pick all you want on what is or isnt needed but the truth is you cant speak for everyone. All the features on my PS3 I love and would not replace to save myself an extra hundred dollars that would be wasted on maintaining live.

Please, what are these features?  Oh, and can u make the live comment in the 4 years it would take u to make the 200 dollar argument difference valid? kk thanks. 

I payed 100 dollars more. And the features I got for that extra one hundred was Blu ray (I am a movie buff with a 1080p TV so it was a huge plus for me), HDMI compatible, upgradable HDD, Free online.  So Live would only take 2 years for me to make it up then the price gab is gone and I still will lack these features that for ME, was important.  You see thats the beauty of free will, you can chose what you want according to your values.  I never said that every owner should get a PS3 or that a 360 is trash.  Its the system I chose because it satisfied two of my hobbies, movies and gaming. 

[QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Taz-Bone

since when Sony charge for going online with PS 3?

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Javy03

The fact that PS3s games look as good as the 360s second generations games are pretty good seeing as devs got a final PS3 dev it a little before the PS3 launch and the PS3 has a learning curve.

No. Sony pushed the PS3 so much I was expecting Killzone 2 to be real and had no doubt it was real when I saw the trailer because of the hype about the PS3 and what it will do. The fact that after all that hype a 360 game is the benchmark for graphics so far and 360 games seem to be on par or better most of the time is insane compared to how I thought it was gonna be.

Nah man, the PS3 was pushed like it would destroy the 360 in graphics. Now we can see it was all hype 

[QUOTE="dumfart66"][QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Javy03

The cell doesn't look to be doing a much better job then what the 360 is using, I shouldn't have to pay extra just because its a new processor. Wifi isn't a neccesity, and paying $200 extra for free online defeats the purpose of free online wouldn't it? They should have just kept the $500 model out. That way all you need to worry about is the Blu-Ray.

You can nit pick all you want on what is or isnt needed but the truth is you cant speak for everyone. All the features on my PS3 I love and would not replace to save myself an extra hundred dollars that would be wasted on maintaining live.

Please, what are these features? Oh, and can u make the live comment in the 4 years it would take u to make the 200 dollar argument difference valid? kk thanks.

I payed 100 dollars more. And the features I got for that extra one hundred was Blu ray (I am a movie buff with a 1080p TV so it was a huge plus for me), HDMI compatible, upgradable HDD, Free online. So Live would only take 2 years for me to make it up then the price gab is gone and I still will lack these features that for ME, was important. You see thats the beauty of free will, you can chose what you want according to your values. I never said that every owner should get a PS3 or that a 360 is trash. Its the system I chose because it satisfied two of my hobbies, movies and gaming.

And now that free will or option to get the 20GB model is gone and I'm forced to get the 60GB which sucks no? 

    There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

    I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Blackbond

The $200 extra dollars is bigger hardrive, WiFi, and highdef player (Blu-Ray).  Now Microsoft doesn't force you take those, but SOE went the route hoping that in the future developers could take advantage of those.

Right now developers have to assume X360 has no harddrive, limited storage with DVD9.  With PS3 that is the standard. 

Is that enough to pay $200.....to me X360 isn't good enough to buy at $300 let alone a $600 PS3 lol.  Until it hits $200, I won't be buying either.

[QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Blackbond

The cell doesn't look to be doing a much better job then what the 360 is using, I shouldn't have to pay extra just because its a new processor. Wifi isn't a neccesity, and paying $200 extra for free online defeats the purpose of free online wouldn't it? They should have just kept the $500 model out. That way all you need to worry about is the Blu-Ray. 

Cell is made for decoding HD video streams, 360 CPU is far better for GAMES !!

BTW 360 launch titles looked 1000 times better than PS3 launch ones, Kameo DESTROY Resistance totally or the empty Motorstorm

[QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

greg_splicer

The cell doesn't look to be doing a much better job then what the 360 is using, I shouldn't have to pay extra just because its a new processor. Wifi isn't a neccesity, and paying $200 extra for free online defeats the purpose of free online wouldn't it? They should have just kept the $500 model out. That way all you need to worry about is the Blu-Ray. 

Cell is made for decoding HD video streams, 360 CPU is far better for GAMES !!

BTW 360 launch titles looked 1000 times better than PS3 launch ones, Kameo DESTROY Resistance totally or the empty Motorstorm

you can't be serious. Kameo's graphic is as good as RE 4 on gamecube at best.  and if you have seen games like Virtua Fighter 5, Grand Turismo HD, and Oblivion on PS 3, those will blow Kameo graphics away.

[QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

kcpp2b

The fact that PS3s games look as good as the 360s second generations games are pretty good seeing as devs got a final PS3 dev it a little before the PS3 launch and the PS3 has a learning curve.

No. Sony pushed the PS3 so much I was expecting Killzone 2 to be real and had no doubt it was real when I saw the trailer because of the hype about the PS3 and what it will do. The fact that after all that hype a 360 game is the benchmark for graphics so far and 360 games seem to be on par or better most of the time is insane compared to how I thought it was gonna be.

Nah man, the PS3 was pushed like it would destroy the 360 in graphics. Now we can see it was all hype 

Wrong, all the consoles were pushed, the fact that GEOW a game that was released over 12 months after the 360 launched makes alot of sense that it is the benchmark.  DId you expect a game to come out and blow away a game that had over 12 months with a FINAL dev kit as opposed to PS3 games that had alot less times with a final dev kit.

Some people have unrealistic expectations.

[QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="dumfart66"][QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

kcpp2b

The cell doesn't look to be doing a much better job then what the 360 is using, I shouldn't have to pay extra just because its a new processor. Wifi isn't a neccesity, and paying $200 extra for free online defeats the purpose of free online wouldn't it? They should have just kept the $500 model out. That way all you need to worry about is the Blu-Ray.

You can nit pick all you want on what is or isnt needed but the truth is you cant speak for everyone. All the features on my PS3 I love and would not replace to save myself an extra hundred dollars that would be wasted on maintaining live.

Please, what are these features? Oh, and can u make the live comment in the 4 years it would take u to make the 200 dollar argument difference valid? kk thanks.

I payed 100 dollars more. And the features I got for that extra one hundred was Blu ray (I am a movie buff with a 1080p TV so it was a huge plus for me), HDMI compatible, upgradable HDD, Free online. So Live would only take 2 years for me to make it up then the price gab is gone and I still will lack these features that for ME, was important. You see thats the beauty of free will, you can chose what you want according to your values. I never said that every owner should get a PS3 or that a 360 is trash. Its the system I chose because it satisfied two of my hobbies, movies and gaming.

And now that free will or option to get the 20GB model is gone and I'm forced to get the 60GB which sucks no? 

Sure if you wanted the 20gb model but the truth is PS3 fans had the chance to vote with their money which one they wanted and they chose to buy a 60gb model and stores chose to order 60gb models over 20gb.  You cant please all of the people all of the time.

[QUOTE="greg_splicer"][QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Game13a13y

The cell doesn't look to be doing a much better job then what the 360 is using, I shouldn't have to pay extra just because its a new processor. Wifi isn't a neccesity, and paying $200 extra for free online defeats the purpose of free online wouldn't it? They should have just kept the $500 model out. That way all you need to worry about is the Blu-Ray. 

Cell is made for decoding HD video streams, 360 CPU is far better for GAMES !!

BTW 360 launch titles looked 1000 times better than PS3 launch ones, Kameo DESTROY Resistance totally or the empty Motorstorm

you can't be serious. Kameo's graphic is as good as RE 4 on gamecube at best.  and if you have seen games like Virtua Fighter 5, Grand Turismo HD, and Oblivion on PS 3, those will blow Kameo graphics away.

Whatever floats your boat

I agree Oblivion is amazing, does not come nearly close to how Kameo uses particles, fire effects, paralax mapping etc though

But i was comparing launch titles, not games like Oblivion that got ONE WHOLE YEAR moreto make for PS3 and does not even look as good as on 360, with downgraded textures in rocks/town/armor

[QUOTE="kcpp2b"][QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="dumfart66"][QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Javy03

The cell doesn't look to be doing a much better job then what the 360 is using, I shouldn't have to pay extra just because its a new processor. Wifi isn't a neccesity, and paying $200 extra for free online defeats the purpose of free online wouldn't it? They should have just kept the $500 model out. That way all you need to worry about is the Blu-Ray.

You can nit pick all you want on what is or isnt needed but the truth is you cant speak for everyone. All the features on my PS3 I love and would not replace to save myself an extra hundred dollars that would be wasted on maintaining live.

Please, what are these features? Oh, and can u make the live comment in the 4 years it would take u to make the 200 dollar argument difference valid? kk thanks.

I payed 100 dollars more. And the features I got for that extra one hundred was Blu ray (I am a movie buff with a 1080p TV so it was a huge plus for me), HDMI compatible, upgradable HDD, Free online. So Live would only take 2 years for me to make it up then the price gab is gone and I still will lack these features that for ME, was important. You see thats the beauty of free will, you can chose what you want according to your values. I never said that every owner should get a PS3 or that a 360 is trash. Its the system I chose because it satisfied two of my hobbies, movies and gaming.

And now that free will or option to get the 20GB model is gone and I'm forced to get the 60GB which sucks no?

Sure if you wanted the 20gb model but the truth is PS3 fans had the chance to vote with their money which one they wanted and they chose to buy a 60gb model and stores chose to order 60gb models over 20gb. You cant please all of the people all of the time.

Not true at all.  Sony made a limited number of the 20 gb systems, and it was the only thing that became 100% sold out.  They may have given a choice, but it was no where near letting people decide.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

    There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

    I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Javy03

The fact that PS3s games look as good as the 360s second generations games are pretty good seeing as devs got a final PS3 dev it a little before the PS3 launch and the PS3 has a learning curve.

Like Game13a13y said, you are paying an extra 200 or in my case 100 for things like larger HDD (replaceable), Blu ray movie playback, HDMI compatible, Wifi, FREE online gaming for the life of your system, and a controller charger in the system.

Right now the because the PS3 is so new it only has a handful of games to compare to the 360s best.  Value is in the eye of the beholder and to me to get teh 360 to where my PS3s capabilities currently are, I would not save money and I use all the features of my PS3.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

    There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

    I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Javy03

The fact that PS3s games look as good as the 360s second generations games are pretty good seeing as devs got a final PS3 dev it a little before the PS3 launch and the PS3 has a learning curve.

Like Game13a13y said, you are paying an extra 200 or in my case 100 for things like larger HDD (replaceable), Blu ray movie playback, HDMI compatible, Wifi, FREE online gaming for the life of your system, and a controller charger in the system.

Right now the because the PS3 is so new it only has a handful of games to compare to the 360s best.  Value is in the eye of the beholder and to me to get teh 360 to where my PS3s capabilities currently are, I would not save money and I use all the features of my PS3.

Do you remember when the Xbox released a year after the PS2? From day one it left the PS2 in the dust, and it was the same price!

And for your information, PS3 games are not looking as good as current 360 games. The 360 still has the best looking exclusives, and multiplats generally look better as well.

[QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

    There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

    I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Danthegamingman

The fact that PS3s games look as good as the 360s second generations games are pretty good seeing as devs got a final PS3 dev it a little before the PS3 launch and the PS3 has a learning curve.

Like Game13a13y said, you are paying an extra 200 or in my case 100 for things like larger HDD (replaceable), Blu ray movie playback, HDMI compatible, Wifi, FREE online gaming for the life of your system, and a controller charger in the system.

Right now the because the PS3 is so new it only has a handful of games to compare to the 360s best.  Value is in the eye of the beholder and to me to get teh 360 to where my PS3s capabilities currently are, I would not save money and I use all the features of my PS3.

Fact: The PS2 launched in Japan end of 99 or very start of 00.  Therefore the PS2 was almost two years old when the Xbox came out. 

Fact: The ps2 was in development and final specs confirmed well before the Xbox was even started being built.  PS2s were in the store and being sold in NA before the Xbox was even finalized.  Meanwhile the PS3 and 360 were in development for the same amount of time but the PS3 had massive delays due to problems with the cell chip and BR development.  NONE of that had anything to do with spec or changing hardware power. 

Fact: it is extremely illogical to assume that because the PS3 didn't launch with clearly superior graphics (allegedly) compared to second gen 360 games...that it somehow means the hardware is less powerful and will always be less powerful.  You are turning opinion into an illogical assumption but thinking its fact.

Sorry but the Xbox/PS2 comparison is nothing more than lemming damage control.

Ugh, Why do people on these boards consider the DVD a limited storage device? On Sony's part, it was probably a brilliant idea to market the blu ray with the PS3 to help with the format war, although Blu-ray is hardly needed for games at this time. Blu-Ray doesn't magically make games look better or run faster, its simply a larger storage medium. Even when games start becoming more advanced and bigger, is it really that much of a hassle to simply get off your couch and put disc 2 in? :P

Now, if/when blu-ray wins the format war I will definetly consider buying a PS3 and a bunch of blu ray movies. But as a gamer, I see blu-ray as being a generation ahead of what is actually needed and pratical.

    There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

    I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Blackbond

You do realise that besides GeOW, (2nd Gen Game)

PS3 titles look better???

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Game13a13y

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Blinblingthing

You do realise that besides GeOW, (2nd Gen Game)

PS3 titles look better???

My point is that 360 games shouldn't be comparable to a newer more expensive system period. And it doesn't matter if its besides Gears. A game on 360 shouldn't look better. Every gen the stronger system has out paced the inferior ones (tech wise) with better graphics from day 1. Why is it all of a sudden different. I should bring the Wii into this arguement as well. 

[QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]

There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Blackbond

You do realise that besides GeOW, (2nd Gen Game)

PS3 titles look better???

My point is that 360 games shouldn't be comparable to a newer more expensive system period. And it doesn't matter if its besides Gears. A game on 360 shouldn't look better. Every gen the stronger system has out paced the inferior ones (tech wise) with better graphics from day 1. Why is it all of a sudden different. I should bring the Wii into this arguement as well. 

    There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

    I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Blackbond

sir, in your topic you ask why we argue about such things, and then in your post you start another argument. So i ask you, look at Lair, and look at GTHD, and stfu please.

Losr Planet> Gears of War  in gamplay. It really sucks that the highest rated 360 exclusive lacks in gameplay. I won't feel sorry for you when your 360 breaks. Ps3 has better hardware. Its really nice that PS3 1st year titles are comparable to 360 2nd and 1st year titles. SO have a nice year, and i'll see you in by the end of the year.....where this argument will no longer be valid. ....

PS3 may have been released a year later, but it's core technology of CPU and GPU isn't a year younger than what's inside X360. PS3 came out a year later due to Blu Ray production delays, and if not for that, the console could have been released at the end of 2005 same as X360. So what's under the hood of both systems is relatively the same age despite one coming to store shelves a year later. That would be why we aren't seeing a substantial difference in game visuals. And blu ray drive being the cause of the PS3 release delay is also the primary factor for the price difference.

Losr Planet> Gears of War  in gamplay. It really sucks that the highest rated 360 exclusive lacks in gameplay. I won't feel sorry for you when your 360 breaks. Ps3 has better hardware. Its really nice that PS3 1st year titles are comparable to 360 2nd and 1st year titles. SO have a nice year, and i'll see you in by the end of the year.....where this argument will no longer be valid. ....

Adrian_Cloud

lol yeah, it was kinda of flattering seeing the Resistance vs GeOW threads. Honestly, the fact that the lems put Resistance as a worthy competitor was just awsome.

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"]

Losr Planet> Gears of War in gamplay. It really sucks that the highest rated 360 exclusive lacks in gameplay. I won't feel sorry for you when your 360 breaks. Ps3 has better hardware. Its really nice that PS3 1st year titles are comparable to 360 2nd and 1st year titles. SO have a nice year, and i'll see you in by the end of the year.....where this argument will no longer be valid. ....

Koalakommander

lol yeah, it was kinda of flattering seeing the Resistance vs GeOW threads. Honestly, the fact that the lems put Resistance as a worthy competitor was just awsome.

They weren't even the same genre.lol. 

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Koalakommander

sir, in your topic you ask why we argue about such things, and then in your post you start another argument. So i ask you, look at Lair, and look at GTHD, and stfu please.

Yeah because Lair just looks in a whole other league then Gears of War :roll:
Did I say that in my topic? I could have sworn I just said the fact that we argue you about it is sad because the PS3 should be in all ways superior.

Lets have this discussion in five years when both have their most impressive looking games DouglasBuffone

I doubt in 5 years the console will cost 600$. We are talking about a console that was claimed to be true next gen over Xbox1.5 but has failed to match the 360 graphically and it cost 200$ more. If you pay 600$  for a console, you should expected the games to look better then the 200$ cheaper competition. For the hefty price tag of the PS3 waiting 5 years sounds more like a lengthy gamble.

The $200 more isnt just for graphics.....

Its Card Readers, 60GB HD, WiFi, Blu-Ray, HDMI, Additional USB Ports.........

On top of all that you're not paying for online play.  The PS3 is a good value for what you get people just dont want to admit it.  This Thread fails.

The $200 more isnt just for graphics.....

Its Card Readers, 60GB HD, WiFi, Blu-Ray, HDMI, Additional USB Ports.........

This Thread fails.

Uptown

I guess it does. Thankfully I have a 20GB because I really could care less about all that extra baggage. 

[QUOTE="Uptown"]

The $200 more isnt just for graphics.....

Its Card Readers, 60GB HD, WiFi, Blu-Ray, HDMI, Additional USB Ports.........

This Thread fails.

Blackbond

I guess it does. Thankfully I have a 20GB because I really could care less about all that extra baggage.

well I for one care about the bigger HD, Blu-Ray, and Card Readers so I could care less what someone else thinks.  Extra baggage to you isnt extra baggage to everyone else.  Isnt that the point Microsoft is also trying to make by releasing the Elite? 

    There shouldn't be any comparison in my opinion. A system that comes out a year later and at a higher price should be able to outperform a one year older system which cost $200 less any day of the week. Why is this not happening? Something like this is just inexusable to me. I should be able to clearly see the results of a newer machine that is priced $200 more. Although I don't believe in graphics being the end all and to be important.

    I really dont' even care about graphics to put it bluntly as my PS1 remains the most active system of the last three years. It just confuses me why there are even debates about these two systems graphical capabilities when the PS3 clearly should be better. Why am I paying $200 more for equal graphical and gaming capabilities? Well besides getting the good games of course 8)

Blackbond

mainly because the ps3 offers more features out the box, thats like asking why the 360 elite costs more for the same hardware plus HDMI port & bigger HDD whilst neglecting nxt-gen media formts or even wifi???

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Game13a13y

Yea you are paying for an unproven processor that wasn't developed for games at all.

You are paying for the Trojan Horse called Blueray which will never have an impact on games unless the Dev sticks in tons of Prerendered CGI at 1080p

All real gamers know that online gaming with Wifi is just wack!! why on earth would i want to be forced to buy it?

No thanks sony you lose.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"][QUOTE="Uptown"]

The $200 more isnt just for graphics.....

Its Card Readers, 60GB HD, WiFi, Blu-Ray, HDMI, Additional USB Ports.........

This Thread fails.

Uptown

I guess it does. Thankfully I have a 20GB because I really could care less about all that extra baggage.

well I for one care about the bigger HD, Blu-Ray, and Card Readers so I could care less what someone else thinks. Extra baggage to you isnt extra baggage to everyone else. Isnt that the point Microsoft is also trying to make by releasing the Elite?

Well your entitled to your thoughts. But last I checked this was a video game industry not a multimedia industry. The first and main focus of any machine should be gaming. A lot of this stuff Sony is putting is not needed. And now without the $500 version you are pretty much forced into buying all of it. 

[QUOTE="Game13a13y"]

you are paying $200 more because you are getting a brand new developed processor, the cell, a brand new developed storage drive, the Blu-ray, a Wi-fi connector, and free online experiences.

 

 

Nugtoka

Yea you are paying for an unproven processor that wasn't developed for games at all.

You are paying for the Trojan Horse called Blueray which will never have an impact on games unless the Dev sticks in tons of Prerendered CGI at 1080p

All real gamers know that online gaming with Wifi is just wack!! why on earth would i want to be forced to buy it?

No thanks sony you lose.

for one an unproven processor isn't necessarily a bad thing!

secondly how can u predict blu-ray will not impact games in the nxt 3-5 years! (hardly any games use pre-rendered cgi now, and capacity used presently is mostly sound!)

i personally prefer wifi, wires are just too messy for me...

no thanks ur opinion loses...IMO

p.s. i hate elitist comments involving "real" gamers u're wack...