http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26912837

For the modernhardcore gamer (which means that it's LIKELY HE/SHE PLAYS ONLINE EVERY YEAR AND HAS A HARD DRIVE) who is choosing between an Xbox 360 a PS3, the PS3 is almost always going to cheaper option over time, primarily because of the cost of Xbox live every year ($30-$40 a year). Not only would it be the cheaper option, it you get a much higher bang for buck. It's even more evident if you're one of the people who HAS to use a wi-fi adapter (most xbox 360 owners don't though). It's more common for people (like me) to want to get a rechargeable battery kit for their controller. It only runs like $20, but it's still an additional cost. You have to be a complete idiot not to understand any of this, lol.

For the gamer who doesn't want to play to play online or doesn't want a hard drive, the Xbox arcade is definitely cheaper than a PS3. Still, even here the $400 PS3 is a much better value than the arcade because of what you get in it (wi-fi, bluetooth, blu-ray, best media extender out of all 3 cosnoles, rechargeable controller) regardless whether you use these features or not. Anyways, if you are looking for the cheapest console between both no matter how many features you don't, the barebone Xbox 360 will always be the cheaper version of any of the consoles (honestly who the hell gets the Arcade version? Just buy the fricken 60gig...)

mD-

So? You're relying on the word 'IF'

You can place all the conditions you want but the xbox 360 is cheaper than the PS3. If you and a friend walk into the store and you buy a 360 your friend buys a PS3, you will be paying less money. It doesnt matter what features, cables, onloine service you get in the box.

One 'games console' IS CHEAPER than the other 'games console'.

Do you understand?

What you're talking about is value for money which is a different discussion than which is cheaper!

I didn't think there was much lag. Dont forget, there is still plenty of time to refine this before it comes out and for more ways for games to actually be built around this unlike burnout.

This has been discussed many times... though opinions vary on this subject i find PS3 asa 'whole package' is the best value for money you can get when it comes to consoles...

Apparently when someone shares his opinion that PS3 is a better deal (price wise) than 360 he gets shut down by the many fanboys in here.. Seems like none of them in SW play online, so they dont pay for XBL.. None of them download DLC or XBL games, so they only need the Arcade model.. None of them use WIFI, so wired connection is enough.. None of them spend money on batteries / rechargeable batteries or battery units, the ones they got with the system never end.. also none of them consider the fact that PS3 offers so many multimedia functions and is a Blu-ray player, that doesnt count... however the same people were happy discussing that Twitter & Facebook will be available on 360, 2 things which were accessible since 2006 on PS3via webbrowser..:)

360 is cheaper compared to PS3, but unfortunately its Hardware Failure percentage/rate showed that too... still though i enjoy gaming on both consoles since bothhave great exclusives :)

Malta_1980

TC was talking about which is cheaper wich refers to price!

Value for money is a different discussion!

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="mD-"]

It's simply not a cost-effective decision for Valve to spend money there when they could use it for more PC/360 projects, or to further polish and update the titles they already have. The skills gained are more applicable down the line, and it doesn't require as much of an investment.

Anyone who says that Valve doesn't have the technical skill to dev for the PS3, and they are too lazy, doesn't realize quite how monumental an achievement they created with the Source Engine when it debuted in 2003.

skektek

lol how many more times does this need explaining. They're not 'lazy', to be lazy would imply the can't be bothered getting off their backsides. A better description would be to call them 'overly cautious business plan' or something like that.

Basically, they are PC developer who has a significant amount of their skill-set within the bounds of PC game development. As we already know, this skill-set lends itself well to the 360. It doesn't so much to the PS3. So what do you do from a business planning point of view?

1. Retrain your existing staff
2. Hire additional staff
3. Outsource the development / porting process

Each option requires planning ahead and a new business plan to be developed. Each one also requires an investment in funding and presents certain risks. Training existing staff requires taking them off current projects, hiring new staff requires significant extra costs in terms of workspace, wages, recruitment, equipment and other resources. In planning ahead they way up what possible returns they may get in developing for the platform.

Many businesses, if they have certain strengths that are proving very profitable take a strategic decision not to invest or branch into a new sector if they forecast that doing so will require significant cost and their is a risk of little return. Valve have quite obviously done this. They may well end up being proved wrong but they are not forced to gamble on the PS3 market. They are one of the few developers who can afford not to.

Either way, valve are not lazy. They're just not willing to change their current business model.

A poll such as this merely determines which type of fanboy is more prevalent on system wars.

Does anyone know if Master Chief is the main character again?

immortality20

If its based on the book set before Halo 1 - 3 then no, I dont think so.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="Harry_Balzac"] How did they force anything on anyone? They took a risk none of the other two were gutsy enough to do by going with a new storage medium (even after beta and umd failed). PS3 still plays dvd's right? It still plays cd's yeh? So basically your pitiful "forced" cliche arguement is crapola. I still buy PS3 games for the same price as I buy 360 games, I can still keep collecting dvd movies over blu ray movies, I can still play cd and dvd based games on my b/c 60gig launch machine, as well as blu ray movies and games....... I can also not bother plugging a hardwire into my ps3 to play online thanks to a built in wi fi.... Your crap analogy is like a PS3 fanboy saying MS and Nintendo forced an old technology down our throats, by offering the outdated, thus unwanted dvd format. Sorry bro, but every Playstation product released has had a new storage format...CD, DVD, UMD and now Blu Ray. Now tell me what's wrong with Sony offering that to it's consumers? Harry_Balzac

lol you can't call them lazy. To develop on a new platform, that is well known for presenting difficulties to first time multiplatform developers and requires significant human resources, time, money and other development resources is a BUSINESS decision. It is asking a company to branch out and take risk! Such a decision needs to be weighed against likely returns from the installed user-base, what projects are currently in development and how it would fit in with Valve's current business plan for the next 1 - 3 years!

Again, it has to be looked at like an investment. Valve may have felt the risk v reward of such a business plan may not seem worth it and in such times, many many companies the world over are being very cautious in their investments.

Whether that decision is short sighted or not has nothing to do with them being 'lazy'. Being lazy implies they cannot be bothered to do it, they would rather sit around doing nothing. I find it very hard to believe Gabe Newell CEO would allow his organisation to run that way, in fact no CEO would.

Lazy...no

Short sighted business decision...possibly

[QUOTE="Sir_Lawl"]

[QUOTE="OreoMilkshake"]It reaches in your wallet and milks you.hansolo14

I wouldn't really call it milking :)

And Wii fanboys shouldn't be talking with their 50th Mario cash in game and different Nintendo DS handhelds released every year. :D

but halo... FPS, FPS, RTS failure etc etc

BTW halo doesnt have a GOTY this gen ;)

Did you just call the entire Halo franchise a failure?

*facepalm* if you did lol

[QUOTE="hywel69"]

[QUOTE="-Pred-Alien-"]Thats funny, other developers are doing just fine:?GreyFoXX4

Well actually not? Look at how much KZ2 cost to develop, how much did it sell? Far from being lazy, they are thinking about how much profit they can make so as to stay in business.

Isnt snubbing a developer for not releasing on a particular platform...fanboyish? Are you going to therefore snub all 360/PC only devs?

I don't think this has been posted or if this article is 100% trust worth, but ti's better then nothing.

It claims to offer a damage system that can cause pieces of your car to crack off like real fiber glass.

It offers full car customization and the ability to do engine swaps from one car to another.

Web Browser to buy car parts...(This can be terrible if you must pay real money..)

And as we all saw the WRC and Nascar license.

Also the information is a little bit off because the original site is in dutch, but this site tried to translate the info.

PS. This is not a fanboy site they offer other sites for the other consoles. There's a xbox.qj.net, pc.qj.net, etc.

http://ps3.qj.net/Gran-Turismo-5-details-damage-system-deeper-customization-web-browser-more/pg/49/aid/132034

bigblunt537

I actually do believe that GT5 will have damage etc but...

...you cant take the word of a site such as this which at best is quoting a dutch community site.