Kaz: PS3 and 360 Not Equal in Power - Why? Bluray! [Archive]

Kamalot

10-05-2007, 05:24 AM

Kazuo Hirai in a recent article on hollywoodinhidef.com talked up (http://www.hollywoodinhidef.com/inside_detail.php?id=11) the features of the PLAYSTATION 3, why Bluray is necessary, downloadable content and other goodies. When asked to clear up the biggest misconceptions 'in blogger-land' about PS3 in general and vs Xbox, he had this to say:

HIRAI: I have heard many people say our competitors’ systems are just as powerful as PS3. That simply is not true.

No other next-generation entertainment system pushes the envelope on advanced technology like PS3. I have heard people say that a high-capacity game delivery vehicle like Blu-ray isn’t necessary in a next-generation computer entertainment system. You just can’t expect that the 9 GBs of storage capacity found on today’s DVDs are going to have enough space to hold tomorrow’s games. Developers have already pushed the DVD to its limits in terms of space used. We had games like ‘Resistance: Fall of Man’ coming in 16 GBs at launch. That game simply wouldn’t be possible on any other system without using multiple discs. There is no doubt in my mind that you need more capacity on discs for truly next-generation gaming, and Blu-ray gives us that space.

Hollywoodinhidef.com is paid for (http://www.aboutus.org/Hollywoodinhidef.com) by Sony Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox and Walt Disney Studios in order to spread information about Bluray.

That sure clears things up for me. How about you?

Gorvi

10-05-2007, 05:29 AM

So is anyone surprised that they're still supporting Blu-Ray? It's a major part of the console. I'm not sure how this really qualifies as news.

Damn, I haven't said that in a while. :p

Telefrog

10-05-2007, 05:31 AM

I mean, really, what else is he going to say when asked that question?

rein

10-05-2007, 05:31 AM

Yep, pretty much what he has been saying all along. I am in the camp that agrees. I know the argument for multi-dvd's is around and will appear in this thread but you can't use multi-disks for some games. The question is, will there be enough games that actually require the storage space to justify the jump to that technology this generation? Either way, you can't argue against the Blueray drive for Sony in one thread and jump to another and claim they are only selling PS3's because of its Blueray playing capabilities.

Goronmon

10-05-2007, 05:32 AM

I mean, really, what else is he going to say when asked that question?"Honestly, I think the PS3 kind of sucks. We really screwed the pooch by having Blu-Ray built in."

Kamalot

10-05-2007, 05:34 AM

Does having Bluray in the system make it more powerful? For example, if I put a Bluray drive in my PC, is it more powerful?

KidCactus

10-05-2007, 05:37 AM

Does having Bluray in the system make it more powerful? For example, if I put a Bluray drive in my PC, is it more powerful?
If you're talking about CPU processing power, of course not. If not, I guess; yes, you could say that.

menage

10-05-2007, 05:39 AM

I know the argument for multi-dvd's is around and will appear in this thread but you can't use multi-disks for some games. The question is, will there be enough games that actually require the storage space to justify the jump to that technology this generation?

Maybe, but seeing as how DL is becomig bigger and bigger, it's probably only relevant this one time around, which is kind of pointless then.

The 16 GB used in Resistance isn't saying much either, they could have just been sloppy. I refuse to believe Resistance couldn't be done on a DVD9 on 360. Stupid example.

bapenguin

10-05-2007, 05:41 AM

Does having Bluray in the system make it more powerful? For example, if I put a Bluray drive in my PC, is it more powerful?

Actually I'd say it becomes LESS powerful due to the extra processor usage needed to run it vs. a regular DVD drive. ;)

Kamalot

10-05-2007, 05:44 AM

The 16 GB used in Resistance isn't saying much either, they could have just been sloppy. I refuse to believe Resistance couldn't be done on a DVD9 on 360. Stupid example.
I'm all for the executives telling people that the PS3 offers more features because of Bluray, but when compared to the Xbox 360 I have yet to see any difference in the systems power as evidenced by the games, let alone how the power if the system is affected one way or another with the inclusion of Bluray.

In fact, wasn't there an article on here about Resistance being around 6 gigs when all the file redundancy was removed?

The Darkness 360 = 6GB
The Darkness PS3 = 18GB

Enchanted Arms 360 = 6.5GB
Enchanted Arms PS3 = 15GB

Oblivion 360 = 6.5GB
Oblivion PC = 5GB
Oblivion PS3 = 14.5GB

Gott

10-05-2007, 05:44 AM

SalaciousPuck

10-05-2007, 05:45 AM

I mean, really, what else is he going to say when asked that question?

"We are dropping blu-ray as a requirement so that our product can please GAMERS looking for a lower price point"

I don't mind the PS3 price/features....it's the market that doesn't like it. Maybe if the console was released this year or next. Blu-ray in meant less consoles sold, and, ultimately, a lot less developer support on a console that wasn't looking all that great to developers to begin with. Blu-Ray is nice, but just not worth the trade offs.

DangerousDaze

10-05-2007, 05:47 AM

Does having Bluray in the system make it more powerful? For example, if I put a Bluray drive in my PC, is it more powerful?

Great for backups.

Gorvi

10-05-2007, 05:48 AM

Sony shot their load too early. Next generation will be the one where blu-ray and hd-dvd are needed for games. Not to mention I read that whichever format wins the war in laptops will win the whole thing and Hd-DVD beats out Bluray in laptops by a margin of 8 to 1.
It does? I coulda swore that Dell was going Blu-Ray only, as are Sony's Vaios. Is there anything to back up the 8:1 thing?

Also, from recent interviews, Panasonic seems to have gone full swing into the Blu-Ray camp.

Vandenh

10-05-2007, 05:51 AM

Lair : The Game that the 360 Cannot Do!
(Xmas 2006 Edge)

Seriously... the storage of (PS3) Bluray could be great, but it is gimped by the speed for gaming purposes.

The Continental

10-05-2007, 05:52 AM

While I'm no fan of either HD format, I will say the one place the 360 seems to have inadvertently handicapped itself is in the storage department. At this juncture DVD9 is certainly still viable, but later in the life cycle of the console as games start to push the hardware a bit more, who's to say space won't become an issue. I'd like to see MS sell the large hard drive on the cheap and start allowing more games to require the drive in order to be played, thus negating this entire issue, though I doubt that will ever come to pass seeing how hung up on MS is on having a cheap SKU for marketing comparison.

rein

10-05-2007, 05:54 AM

Maybe, but seeing as how DL is becomig bigger and bigger, it's probably only relevant this one time around, which is kind of pointless then.

The 16 GB used in Resistance isn't saying much either, they could have just been sloppy. I refuse to believe Resistance couldn't be done on a DVD9 on 360. Stupid example.
I think there was a story about Resistance using a lot of fluff and duplicate material to fill the disk. They claimed it was for faster loading times but who knows.

As for download content, I can see it for maps and levels but we are talking about 16GB more data. I do not think that if it gets to that point, it would qualify as downloadable material.

DangerousDaze

10-05-2007, 05:54 AM

In fact, wasn't there an article on here about Resistance being around 6 gigs when all the file redundancy was removed?
Yes, there was. But like much of the anti-Sony material around here it was wrong. :p The game takes up more that 20GB even with compression.

/edit - full quote from Ted Price (http://blogs.ign.com/Ted-Insomniac/2006/09/07/30283/p6):Yes it is true - we are currently using more than 20 gigs. And yes, we do compress our level data. The fact that we store so much on disc is actually not that surprising when you look at the numbers. Consider that even with compression, each of our “levels” (or loaded areas) has more than 300 megs of unique data. And keep in mind that we’re also streaming data during level playthroughs. It doesn't take too much level data before you've gone past what can be stored on a dual-layer DVD. And between single player and multiplayer we have a lot of level data (over 40 different large loaded areas) – yes, more than will fit on a dual layer DVD.

We also include a lot of data in the form of game movies in both HD and PAL formats, high quality audio streams for all supported languages and some of those Insomniac “extras” that our fans have come to expect.

I realize that some people will still be skeptical unless we provide an actual layout of the disc. But for now I wanted to give you some better info.

Ancalagon

10-05-2007, 05:57 AM

If Blu ray can use up to 50GB, then why not publish it as such? Why bother with compression, which slows things down? Why publish R: FOM as 16Gb instead of 20?

Sounds like crap to me.

mkelehan

10-05-2007, 05:58 AM

As I've said before, they're just being sloppy. I could make you a 50GB version of Nibbles if it'd prove a point. Just take one look at the Heavenly Sword demo: a full gig, and it's incredibly short.

AeroHudson

10-05-2007, 05:59 AM

Yes, there was. But like much of the anti-Sony material around here it was wrong. :p The game takes up more that 20GB even with compression.

/edit - full quote from Ted Price (http://blogs.ign.com/Ted-Insomniac/2006/09/07/30283/p6):

Actually, they included every language for every territory they were releasing in on the game disc which really ramped up the amount of content. If that game is 20 gigs I'm not what they used it on. The game itself still does not compare visually or from a scale perspective to Halo 3. The game might be good but it is not so good and vast that you could compare Halo 3 and RFOM side by side and say that RFOM was the superior shooter.

I actually think that if you took an unbiased non gamer or casual gamer they would probably choose Halo 3 as the better looking larger scale game than RFOM. Just my thoughts.

Vandenh

10-05-2007, 05:59 AM

The game takes up more that 20GB even with compression.
Dude... we all know this to be false. We just compare RFOM with PC games and, shock horror, PC games with super high res textures and big open spaces do fit on DVDs. Weird isn't it? So you common sense.. there is nothing in RFOM that points to "Bluray required".

Why bother with compression, which slows things down?
STOP RIGHT THERE. Compression speeds things up!!! Don't make me explain that AGAIN :(

Flatpicker

10-05-2007, 06:00 AM

Space != Power.

If the question was directed to Kaz in regards to system power, then he misspoke.
Storage? Yes the PS3 has the edge. I'd just like to see them do something with it.

Doctor Worm

10-05-2007, 06:00 AM

Multiple disks? Good times! I long for the days of 10-disk Amiga epics...

rein

10-05-2007, 06:00 AM

Sony shot their load too early. Next generation will be the one where blu-ray and hd-dvd are needed for games. Not to mention I read that whichever format wins the war in laptops will win the whole thing and Hd-DVD beats out Bluray in laptops by a margin of 8 to 1.

A reference to where you read that would be cool to post. I would like to read it. I'm not sure why laptops would determine the winner. PC's sales combined, or home entertainment devices maybe, but laptops by themselves? I don't see it. Then again, I don't get a lot of things.

rein

10-05-2007, 06:02 AM

Dude... we all know this to be false. We just compare RFOM with PC games and, shock horror, PC games with super high res textures and big open spaces do fit on DVDs. Weird isn't it? So you common sense.. there is nothing in RFOM that points to "Bluray required".

STOP RIGHT THERE. Compression speeds things up!!! Don't make me explain that AGAIN :(

PC games install to the hard drive. How is this a valid arguement? And, look at how many pc games are multi-dvd.

DangerousDaze

10-05-2007, 06:04 AM

Oh, and Heavenly Sword has 10GB just devoted to sound, apparently.

Ancalagon

10-05-2007, 06:04 AM

Multi DVD games? I dont know of any. none at all. even oblivion is single DVD.

even the command and conquer first decade is a single DVD9 disc.

Kamalot

10-05-2007, 06:05 AM

PC games install to the hard drive. How is this a valid arguement? And, look at how many pc games are multi-dvd.

PS3 games install to the hard drive.

If PC games can be successful on multiple discs, then why not PS3?

TeeCakes

10-05-2007, 06:06 AM

Deja vu @ the subject. I'm sure I've commented on at least 3 other threads like this.

Lemme do something different today, I'm gonna quote some random, brilliant SDFer from the Joystiq forums, to simultaneously spread my propaganda, and also to peacefully protest regurgitated EvAv topics:

"Gregory, actually, it's more than just Capcom [referring to a lively debate on DMC4, when Capcom claims that they had to lower their framerate on the PS3 version so it wouldn't have an unfair market advantage over the crappier-looking X360 version-- something I'm sure EA's Peter Moore never thought to do for some unknown reason.]

It's Bethesda with Oblivion, [B]which outperforms 360 significantly. It's Dirt which runs better on PS3. More and more games are coming out running better on PS3. Fact of the matter is, majority of those games with worse performance are often because 360 was the lead console during it's development [again, Petey Moore's EA Sports division can tell you all about this brand of "multi-platform development", if you can legitimately call it that.] You would THINK that has something to do with it. But then again, that requires thinking. [This guy is just an AWESOME SDFer, no?]

And thinking defies a world where SSX Tricky ran much worse on the Nintendo Gamecube than it did the PS2. Hell, even EA has come forward and said the performance difference is based entirely on their PS3 inexperience. More and more companies are saying they are making the systems match and in many cases surpass." - sheppy 2.0

I think it's quite clear that the PS3 is more advanced than the Xbox360. If it's not because of the BR drive, then it's obviously just because the system isn't a faulty-designed POS. I know many angry Xbox 360 owners who have been waiting weeks for their systems to get back from the shop so they can BEGIN playing Halo 3. Just because right now the market supports a crappier system more than a superior one shouldn't change the fact that the 'popular' system is clearly a piece of crap when compared to its better-designed competitors.

In other news, most online forums aren't as pro-Xbot thought as this one, surprisingly. It was nice to get out once in awhile!

PS3 games install to the hard drive.

If PC games can be successful on multiple discs, then why not PS3?

How many games would you have space for if you bought a 40GB system, and had to install 10 gigs for every game?

Well, the answer is '4', but maybe the question is still too difficult for you to answer. I mean, you already ignored common sense by asking that ridiculous question in the first place, so...

DangerousDaze

10-05-2007, 06:08 AM

PS3 games install to the hard drive.

If PC games can be successful on multiple discs, then why not PS3?

And there's another reason why the 360 loses out against both PCs and PS3s. A hard disk as standard.

Yeti2005

10-05-2007, 06:09 AM

I'm really surprised Kaz didn't push the Cell. Isn't that what's supposed to make the PS3 more powerful? I still get the feeling that Sony is more concerned with pushing blu-ray than games for the PS3.

rein

10-05-2007, 06:10 AM

PS3 games install to the hard drive.

If PC games can be successful on multiple discs, then why not PS3?
I could be wrong (and probably am) but I thought PS3 games gave you the option to install a buffer similar to what the orginal Xbox used. I didn't think they required a complete install. Thanks for bringing it up. I am at work but when I get home tonight I am going to read more information and educate myself a little more on the topic. I would be interested in comparing what files get installed on the PS3 for a game vs what is installed for a PC game.

DangerousDaze

10-05-2007, 06:11 AM

Gorvi

10-05-2007, 06:11 AM

PS3 games install to the hard drive.

If PC games can be successful on multiple discs, then why not PS3?
Some PS3 games do a partial install to the HDD. The only game that does a full install (like PC games do) is Warhawk, and that's to keep the balance between the DL version and the disc for online play loading.

Skampy

10-05-2007, 06:12 AM

Later on in the life cycle we will see whether DVD will hurt the x360 in the long run. It may make a difference and there is a chance that it might not make a difference. Microsoft had a plan when the 360 was being designed and the truth of the matter is it has the possibility of being a major pain when it comes to extra content. To say it makes a big deal now is a joke. All of the PS3 games that are near 15-20 Gb's are just uncompressed. It's better to compress the data and have the processor take over. Processors are much faster then BD or DVD drives.

Vandenh

10-05-2007, 06:12 AM

PC games install to the hard drive
For speed (since DVD speeds on PCs vary widely it is hard to optimize for DVD streaming/loading)... most of them probably do not need to install to HDD.

BTW what PC games come on multiple DVDs?

At the moment I see Bluray only as an advantage in RPGs that are non-linear. Mass Effect could probably use Bluray and Oblivion but don't forget that that also implies a LOT more work for the devs to make all this content. Do they really want to do that? Is the investment worth it? At the moment I guess the answer is no. Maybe when PCs, 360s and PS3 all have next gen storage will devs see the financial side. I predict however that procedural generated content will replace the needs for big storage. Faster CPUs will take care of that and will also solve the human work problem. Next gen storage might even become smaller since the XBox 2015 might generate the Oblivion world on the fly (including textures). In the far future 15+ years even voices and sounds could be procedural. In many ways there is no other way forward for games development.

Of course there is also the Wii way. Gameplay first! Works as well IMHO.

SeriousStu

10-05-2007, 06:17 AM

Extra storage space in discs makes me worry about what gamers now expect from developers. I would think that most gamers would assume that with all that extra space then the game should be bigger and better, more sound and music than anything before, have much more graphics and loads of other features not normally found in the last generation. I suppose that's what the idea of next generation is all about, but my worry comes from how difficult and risky it is for developers to make any game now, and with a fixed storage space on the HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs, they will have no choice but to try and fit as many bells and whistles possible on their product.

I also get worried with how lazy it might make developers - more storage space means less need to optimise. So when a consumer is having to pay the premium price to get a hold of a blu-ray game, they might possibly end up with a product that feels less polished and more rough. Next thing you know, you're having to download updates for the game - on a console (something I'm still not totally used to) - to getting working more or less to what the developers had in mind.

Hey, maybe I'm just biased because I don't have a PS3, feel free to completely write off my opinion, but I'm happy and more comfortable to be playing games from DVDs while the format is still relatively young while at the same time much more affordable (both for consumers and developers). I don't think there are any Blu-ray games that are really justifying the need for more storage space, especially not when we're still getting great games on DVDs. Games can still ship on multiple DVDs, I don't see what's stopping them from doing this, and there is still the harddrive to expand on things if needed. Like Oblivions expansion pack. Had that game been originally made on Blu-ray, what's saying the developers didn't decide to think "Hey, ya know what? With all this extra space we can put all this other stuff on. It'll be a bigger game (but everyone will have to wait longer for it to come out).

Furious Wang

10-05-2007, 06:19 AM

since we're over a year in to this generation, I think we can stop calling it "Next-gen".

Rylos

10-05-2007, 06:22 AM

Multi DVD games? I dont know of any. none at all. even oblivion is single DVD.

Blue Dragon? It's on 3 DVD's.

EDIT: Not getting involved in the argument (could care less). Just pointing out there's at least one multi DVD game. :)

Zander

10-05-2007, 06:23 AM

Kaz, even Sony, would never lie to us right?

...

>.>

Right?

Grifter

10-05-2007, 06:25 AM

The only thing that pisses me off about these asinine comments is the fact they keep saying "you couldn't have a game like Resistance on DVD9" yet if you were to put resistance next to CoD 2 a game that is a year older and on DVD I am pretty sure the technological and possibly gameplay differences would be negligible at best. Now in and of itself that is not a bad thing, both games are great, both games look and sound good and both games are fun so where does the Blu-ray advantage come in? It doesn't, there isn't a single thing about Resistance that sets it apart from any other DVD based FPS and this in my eyes is proof that Blu-ray isn't needed quite yet.

If Resistance or any other Blu-ray based PS3 game did something worthwhile with the medium besides just take up more space these comments wouldn't bug me. Seriously, I think it's about time Sony puts up or shuts up about the Blu-ray advantage because at this point they are doing more damage to themselves than good. They don't have to say it's a bad thing because that would be just as stupid and untrue just stop making claims that can't be backed up especially with the PS3 hardware decisions they made.

Sony kind of reminds me of that kid who's parents bought him the nicest most expensive guitar they could find and he would go around bragging about it to everyone who would listen making fun of the kid with the thrift shop hand me down guitar in the process yet for all the bragging he did he couldn't play that guitar to save his life while the thrift shop kid played the music to prove his worth. Eventually the truth comes out and its rarely pretty for the braggart.

Ancalagon

10-05-2007, 06:25 AM

ha ha, reminds me of the penny arcade cartoon about the new sony controller, and their lies.

Virtual Machine

10-05-2007, 06:27 AM

PS3 definitely has the edge. What we're seeing right now is no where close to what the machine is capable of doing. The biggest of the problems is this, the majority of multi-platform software is being developed first for 360, and then ported to the PS3 (which is a machine that is more than capable of running the hell out of a 360 title if the port isn't a sloppy mess - right EA?). The machine will hit it's stride, the install base will grow, probably when MGS4 and Killzone ship out, and you'll see a few devs start cranking out some exclusives, and they will be jaw-dropping. The machine does "pretty" very very well. And the spirit of the PS2 is alive and well in some of the games (Folklore springs to mind).

Right now, Microsoft is killing from a software standpoint, and it's a damn good thing that i love shooters and racing games, but Sony's day will come. I felt Heavenly Sword was a damn good start (and one of the most graphically beautiful and technically brilliant games i've ever seen), but it's nothing compared to the future. Take a look at what's coming for 360, there's a lot of amazing looking stuff, but from a tech standpoint, it's all starting to look alike. Textures, effects, design, gameplay, the works. Now think about God of War III, or whatever the guys behind Shadow of the Colossus are cooking up, or the inevitable sequel to Resistance or Heavenly Sword, or Final Fantasy XIII, and yes, even Killzone. There's a TON of awe-inspiring potential there, and many of the developers will have had time to come to grips with Sony's complex hardware. Top that off with 50 gigs of storage space for higher resolution or more varied texture work, HD video, higher quality sound, and a slew of bonus material.

Aside #1: As an owner of both consoles, the first thing that blew me away was the sound quality on the PS3 - maybe i just hear it more clearly because the thing doesn't have the operating volume of a washing machine.

I'm not a Microsoft hater or a Sony booster, i love both machines dearly, and i know the 360 has a good 5 years ahead of it with some awesome software, but to dismiss the potential of the PS3 is foolhardy. The machine is a beast, plain and simple, and we'll be seeing quality improve dramatically in the coming years.

Aside #2: Wasn't it the PGR4 developers who claimed they had to drop content because they couldn't fit everything they had onto a DVD9? Or was i smoking crack that day.

Goronmon

10-05-2007, 06:29 AM

...maybe i just hear it more clearly because the thing doesn't have the operating volume of a washing machine.Yeah, it's pretty damn annoying.

Vandenh

10-05-2007, 06:31 AM

Wasn't it the PGR4 developers who claimed they had to drop content because they couldn't fit everything they had onto a DVD9?

I believe they said they had to programatically implement night mode instead of use different textures.

which is a machine that is more than capable of running the hell out of a 360 title

We have only Sony's word on that one. At the moment there is nothing pointing in the direction that the PS3 can handle more than 360 (in fact GPU is not as good) so yes, I understand why Bluray is the differentiating factor and Sony like to hammer us with that. I hope they really find some good ways of using it but, like I said before, the read speed is seriously gimped for games.

agentgray

10-05-2007, 06:42 AM

Been a while since I've been able to post this:

http://www.nintendaddio.com/img/spindoctors.jpg

TeeCakes

10-05-2007, 06:43 AM

PS3 definitely has the edge. What we're seeing right now is no where close to what the machine is capable of doing. The biggest of the problems is this, the majority of multi-platform software is being developed first for 360, and then ported to the PS3 (which is a machine that is more than capable of running the hell out of a 360 title if the port isn't a sloppy mess - right EA?).

Ahh, I love it when there's at least 3 of us in one thread! Funtimes, indeed.

Extra storage space in discs makes me worry about what gamers now expect from developers. I would think that most gamers would assume that with all that extra space then the game should be bigger and better, more sound and music than anything before, have much more graphics and loads of other features not normally found in the last generation. I suppose that's what the idea of next generation is all about, but my worry comes from how difficult and risky it is for developers to make any game now, and with a fixed storage space on the HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs, they will have no choice but to try and fit as many bells and whistles possible on their product.

I also get worried with how lazy it might make developers - more storage space means less need to optimise. So when a consumer is having to pay the premium price to get a hold of a blu-ray game, they might possibly end up with a product that feels less polished and more rough. Next thing you know, you're having to download updates for the game - on a console (something I'm still not totally used to) - to getting working more or less to what the developers had in mind.

Hey, maybe I'm just biased because I don't have a PS3, feel free to completely write off my opinion, but I'm happy and more comfortable to be playing games from DVDs while the format is still relatively young while at the same time much more affordable (both for consumers and developers). I don't think there are any Blu-ray games that are really justifying the need for more storage space, especially not when we're still getting great games on DVDs. Games can still ship on multiple DVDs, I don't see what's stopping them from doing this, and there is still the harddrive to expand on things if needed. Like Oblivions expansion pack. Had that game been originally made on Blu-ray, what's saying the developers didn't decide to think "Hey, ya know what? With all this extra space we can put all this other stuff on. It'll be a bigger game (but everyone will have to wait longer for it to come out).

I agree with you on a few points, but definitely not on your last comment. I'd rather wait 2 years for another gaming 'Mario 64'-groundbreaking title to come out that will usher in a whole new genre of videogaming (THIS is what 'next-gen' is all about, IMO) than to simply accept more of the same from developers that refuse to evolve past the limitations of last gen's technology.

If Halo fans can wait years for their bread-n-butter, so can I, right?

It's really a lucky thing for Nintendo that Wii has such a large installed base due to the ridiculous hype, because I can forsee them having real problems when 2nd-year gaming from the PS3 camp starts blowing Wii's SD-limited graphics and niche motion-sensing gameplay options outta the water. (I guess 3rd year Xbox 360 multi-DVD RPGs, and nth year multi-DVD PC FPSes like Crysis will make a similar splash, to remain somewhat objective.)

Ancalagon

10-05-2007, 06:43 AM

(in fact GPU is not as good

I find that quite interesting, because the Cell processor, as good as it is, isnt a graphics processor. Could be interesting to see what happens. The 360 will likely at the very least get 4x FSAA for free (because of its daughter die), which makes for interesting comparisons.

DangerousDaze

10-05-2007, 06:49 AM

The 360 will likely at the very least get 4x FSAA for free (because of its daughter die)

I think it's about time we put that one to bed because it's obviously not true in the general case.

Atorak

10-05-2007, 06:50 AM

The biggest of the problems is this, the majority of multi-platform software is being developed first for 360, and then ported to the PS3 (which is a machine that is more than capable of running the hell out of a 360 title if the port isn't a sloppy mess - right EA?).
Erm, no offense, but the "technical" differences between the PS3 and the 360 have been discussed ad nauseam on this site (and many others), and most people would agree that while there are superiorities with the PS3, there are equally as many with the 360. I don't think you'll ever see a PS3 port "running the hell of a 360 title".

But I will agree that developers really need to step up and take multi-platform games more seriously. The comparisons are going to be made, and to this date, not a single multi-platform game for the PS3 and the 360 has looked or ran "better" on a PS3.

TeeCakes

10-05-2007, 06:55 AM

Erm, no offense, but the "technical" differences between the PS3 and the 360 have been discussed ad nauseam on this site (and many others), and most people would agree that while there are superiorities with the PS3, there are equally as many with the 360. I don't think you'll ever see a PS3 port "running the hell of a 360 title".

I could name muliplat titles like Devil May Cry 4, Oblivion, and Dirt here as clear examples of the falseness of this comment, as I did in on a previous page in this thread, but you obviously wouldn't read it anyway.

bean19

10-05-2007, 06:57 AM

So is anyone surprised that they're still supporting Blu-Ray? It's a major part of the console. I'm not sure how this really qualifies as news.

Damn, I haven't said that in a while. :p

Well, I see where you are coming from, but I think it qualifies because it shows the direction of their advertising strategy. They want people to buy into the idea that the PS3 is a more advanced gaming machine because of the Blu-Ray and thus feel that the extra money they spend on it is worth it.

The statement is extremely disputable because 9 GB is enough for most games as there are so many really big and wonderful games for 360 that somehow manage to work on one DVD, and, of course, there is always the option of printing games on more than one DVD.

So it's not as big a deal with gaming (not like having a strong game library, for instance), but the rhetoric WILL fool some people, and the Blu-Ray player simply as a device to play HD movies IS a bonus, so it does get people talking about an ACTUAL strength of the system though it is tacked on as a "bonus" to bull-poop.

Sure, it's the same old song that no one but a minority of their existing user base seems to be buying, but look at US politics. "Cut and run" was crucified as harmful rhetoric that obscured the very real and important debate about forming an exit strategy from Iraq, but they stuck with it so long that it is now used by even the news media and not just pundits. Could they be hoping that eventually the game media will subscribe to their rhetoric if they stick to it long enough?

Kamalot

10-05-2007, 06:58 AM

I could name muliplat titles like Devil May Cry 4, Oblivion, and Dirt here as clear examples of the falseness of this comment, as I did in on a previous page in this thread, but you obviously wouldn't read it anyway.

Both Oblivion and Dirt had extra development time for the PS3, and it shows. Extra development time goes both ways, as games like Virtua Fighter 5 looks better on the Xbox 360.

I think his statement that "to this date, not a single multi-platform game for the PS3 and the 360 has looked or ran "better" on a PS3." should be changed to read...

To date, not a single simultaneous multi-platform game for the PS3 and the 360 has looked or ran "better" on a PS3.

Jack B

10-05-2007, 06:58 AM

He's right about Blu-Ray, IMO. I'd rather have it than DVD-9. Do I want to be forced to pay for it? No.

Sounds like he's admitting it's not worth the Xbox 1.5 vs the Supercomputer bullshit anymore and is focusing on Blu-Ray. Refreshing.

TeeCakes

10-05-2007, 07:01 AM

Both Oblivion and Dirt had extra development time for the PS3, and it shows. Extra development time goes both ways, as games like Virtua Fighter 5 looks better on the Xbox 360.

I think his statement that "to this date, not a single multi-platform game for the PS3 and the 360 has looked or ran "better" on a PS3." should be changed to read...

To date, not a single simultaneous multi-platform game for the PS3 and the 360 has looked or ran "better" on a PS3.

Given.

Still, when DMC4 comes out next year, that statement will no longer be accurate.

Kamalot

10-05-2007, 07:02 AM

Given.

Still, when DMC4 comes out next year, that statement will no longer be accurate.

We will see. Frankly, I have grown quite weary of PS3's power materializing sometime in the future. I want to play games today, not wait for them. Perhaps when/if this amazing amount of PS3 power shows up, THEN Kaz can start talking about the PS3's power, but frankly I don't see it.

If the PS3 is really ORDER OF MAGNITUDES more powerful than the 360, it keeps that power a secret.

Grifter

10-05-2007, 07:03 AM

I could name muliplat titles like Devil May Cry 4, Oblivion, and Dirt here as clear examples of the falseness of this comment, as I did in on a previous page in this thread, but you obviously wouldn't read it anyway.

What the fucks a muliplat?

I haven't played Dirt so I don't know about that one.

No ones played Devil May Cry 4 so that's bullshit until proven other wise.

After the 360 patch Oblivion runs and looks just as good as the PS3 version and considering Bethesda stated that they were unable to have a lot of the extra content the 360 users got in the PS3 version, do to the limited amount of RAM the PS3 has access to, I would say the better version is still on the 360.

Wslove

10-05-2007, 07:04 AM

As I've said before, they're just being sloppy. I could make you a 50GB version of Nibbles if it'd prove a point. Just take one look at the Heavenly Sword demo: a full gig, and it's incredibly short.

You actually raise a pretty good point. With Blu-ray's space breeding lazyness in development practices you are going to take a hit when it comes time for the demo. The larger the game the larger the demo file and though broadband penitration is getting out there the US isn't running on fat 45mbs per second pipes like South Korea or Hong Kong is (thanks Telcos!). So what you have is incredibly short demos like Heavenly Sword or no demos at all like Lair.

In fact it's likely due to developers having to control bloat to fit onto a DVD for the 360 version that the PSN has 90% of the demos it does have as they aren't sporting 3GB file downloads.

Gorvi

10-05-2007, 07:12 AM

After the 360 patch Oblivion runs and looks just as good as the PS3 version and considering Bethesda stated that they were unable to have a lot of the extra content the 360 users got in the PS3 version, do to the limited amount of RAM the PS3 has access to, I would say the better version is still on the 360.
You do know all of that content will be in the PS3 GOTY edition of Oblivion, right? So that myth is completely incorrect, they just never did it as DLC.

menage

10-05-2007, 07:13 AM

Given.

Still, when DMC4 comes out next year, that statement will no longer be accurate.

Cool, you have a crystal ball.

I seriously doubt a Capcom game is going to show the difference. Japanese have never been the people to push a machine to the max, even if Lost Planet looks great. And Capcom has far more experience with 360 now than with PS3, so the differences will be quite unnoticeable I think. (I have a Crystal ball as well:P).

Chris_D

10-05-2007, 07:15 AM

If Blu ray can use up to 50GB, then why not publish it as such? Why bother with compression, which slows things down? Why publish R: FOM as 16Gb instead of 20?

Sounds like crap to me.

You can't just go nuts with uncompressed stuff on blueray because the read speeds are comparitively slow for the disc size.

Apart from that, any suggestion of PS3 being significantly more powerful than 360, outside of storage capacity, is really pie in the sky atm. Maybe another 2 years will tell a different story, but by then we'll be talking about Xbox 720 and Wii2, so who's to say anyone will care anymore. Anyway, the thread title pretty much sums it up IMO.

Grifter

10-05-2007, 07:18 AM

You do know all of that content will be in the PS3 GOTY edition of Oblivion, right? So that myth is completely incorrect, they just never did it as DLC.

It's not a myth if it's true and I am just going by what Bethesda said. once the game of the year edition is released both versions will be on pretty even footing...again making his original statement wrong.

Chris_D

10-05-2007, 07:21 AM

Given.

Still, when DMC4 comes out next year, that statement will no longer be accurate.

Huh... There's actually more likely a couple of other possibilities.

DMC4 looks better on PS3, because it's had significantly more development time. At least at the time of '06 Tokyo game show DMC4 PS3 demo I don't think 360 work had even started.

OR

DMC4 looks better on 360, because Capcom has more experience developing on 360.

As you can see, neither case proves anything about which platform is more powerful, and the average MS/Sony fanboy is hardly in any position to know the truth anyway. Give it up..

TeeCakes

10-05-2007, 07:24 AM

What the fucks a muliplat?

I haven't played Dirt so I don't know about that one.

No ones played Devil May Cry 4 so that's bullshit until proven other wise.

After the 360 patch Oblivion runs and looks just as good as the PS3 version and considering Bethesda stated that they were unable to have a lot of the extra content the 360 users got in the PS3 version, do to the limited amount of RAM the PS3 has access to, I would say the better version is still on the 360.

Heh, it's just a lazy way to write.

Actually, the devs ("developers") of DMC4 themselves have said, verbatim, that the PS3 ("PlayStation 3") version they've releasing simultaneously with the X360 ("Xbox 360") version LOOKS AND/OR PERFORMS BETTER. And that they basically had to 'dumb down' the PS3 version to match the X360's limited specs.

"Itsuno also shared some details on how the game is tapping the power of the PS3. The visuals attempt to deliver a satisfying feel of being in the air. Nero's right arm actions are, according to Itsuno, something that could not be done on current machines."

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/730/730818p1.html

This feature has been taken out of the final game, because X360 couldn't handle it. The PS3 doing something that the Xbox 360 simply can't? Sounds like it's been 'proven' to me. Know your facts before you make an ass outta yourself. Or just continue coming across as an uninformed slunt (combination of "slut" + "cunt"), I don't really care.

As for your points on Oblivion, I've only played the PS3 version, yet have been told by friends who have the 360 version (which I agree after seeing the game in action on the 360 myself) that it looks/plays better on the PS3. I've yet to hear anything about a lack of content for the PS3 version, but if you have any semblance of reading comprehension skills, we were simply talking about the looks/playability of a game.

And I daresay with PS3's BD-drive, the lion's share of extra content will go towards the system with larger storage space. In this case, it went to the platform that was developed for first (Xbox 360).

So saying, you may be justified in feeling that 360's version is overall better. Hell, even IGN gave it a 9.3 (compared to a 9.2 for the PS3 version). Hope that extra tenth helps you sleep at night, doesn't change the fact that the game is still graphically/interactively inferior on the 360.

Cool, you have a crystal ball.

I seriously doubt a Capcom game is going to show the difference. Japanese have never been the people to push a machine to the max, even if Lost Planet looks great. And Capcom has far more experience with 360 now than with PS3, so the differences will be quite unnoticeable I think. (I have a Crystal ball as well:P).

You're right. It won't show the difference. It does show that Capcom has more class than EA does as a third-party developer, though. And it doesn't change the fact that the PS3 version is gimped because of a less-impressive Xbox 360 version.

However I guarantee that a FF game would bring a blue ray disk to its knees if all the FMV was in 1080p.

This is practically why I own a PS3.

Chaos Machine

10-05-2007, 07:26 AM

A big reason why pc games can still fit on a single dvd is memory, when you can cache more stuff to ram you dont need redundant files to speed up loading times. In addition to this larger games can be compressed and unpacked during the installation process. In fact, most pc games now stay within the boundaries of a dvd5 due to this. The only games that really break this rule are rpgs and mmos, rpgs tend to contain alot of FMV and art assets that cannot be compressed well. In an mmo there is just such a huge amount of content that its impossible to fit on one disk. Hell vanguard was 18gigs iirc. I am in agreement that currently developers are sloppy when working with blue ray because they arent even close the the storage cap yet. However I guarantee that a FF game would bring a blue ray disk to its knees if all the FMV was in 1080p.

Vandenh

10-05-2007, 07:30 AM

And that they basically had to 'dumb down' the PS3 version to match the X360's limited specs.

ROFL... just let it go m8, now you are starting to look silly.

Kamalot

10-05-2007, 07:32 AM

It's not a myth if it's true and I am just going by what Bethesda said. once the game of the year edition is released both versions will be on pretty even footing...again making his original statement wrong.

So, will PS3 owners that already have Oblivion have to buy it again to get the extras instead of just downloading the add-ons?

Again though, I'll believe it when/if I see it. Pointing to the horizon and saying, "In the future the PS3 will be equal with the 360" ain't doing to much for me any more.

Chris_D

10-05-2007, 07:32 AM

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/730/730818p1.html

This feature has been taken out of the final game, because X360 couldn't handle it. The PS3 doing something that the Xbox 360 simply can't?

Well you provide one article from back in 2006 which doesn't support all your points and of course is completely reflective of how developers always talk about their titles when they are developing exclusively for a single platform.

51|RandoM

10-05-2007, 07:32 AM

This just in: marketing is a profession, people get paid to create it and it often works. People shocked by this are either incredibly naive or pursuing an agenda of some type.

And if we want to split hairs the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 in a number of areas. Ease of programming is not one of them.

Dukefrukem

10-05-2007, 07:33 AM

jadkins555

10-05-2007, 07:36 AM

You do know all of that content will be in the PS3 GOTY edition of Oblivion, right? So that myth is completely incorrect, they just never did it as DLC.

Doesn't it only include knights of the nine and shivering isles?

AeroHudson

10-05-2007, 07:36 AM

Here's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Currently, any game that hits this systems simultaneously on day one currently look better and play better on the 360. You can see that with the numbers from a review score persepctive and you can see it when you play the games. Regardless if the reason is that the 360 has been around longer and the PS3 is still more powerful really doesn't matter. That's one of the many advantages of being first to market and having over twice the marketshare as the other HD console.

Now, of course a game that has 12 months more development time on the other platform will play and look better. It better considering the spent a few million more dollars on the development of that release. This is pretty much a no brainer.

Is the PS3 more powerful? Theoretically, yes. But, we have not seen this power translated into the games themselves which at the end of the day is what counts not some "potential" to be great. Now, if in 2 years that "potential" = "reality" than the PS3 will truly be the most powerful system. Now all Sony has to do is get some great AAA titles out on the darn thing and drop the price and then we can all enjoy it. Until then, the 360 is my primary console and I'll enjoy it until Sony compells me to buy their machine. Granted, that could be when they announce the $399.99 sku. ;)

menage

10-05-2007, 07:37 AM

Itsuno also shared some details on how the game is tapping the power of the PS3. The visuals attempt to deliver a satisfying feel of being in the air. Nero's right arm actions are, according to Itsuno, something that could not be done on current machines.

Did you mean this?? I read the piece but fail to see the point then, maybe I missed something. When talking about current machines he was probably talking about PS2 and such. Because the hanging in the air as not much to do with a machine in general in my book. And the arm thing. The whole article doesn't mention why it was removed. I find it pretty ridiculous that a single move or character animation can't be done on 360. It's too small a thing.

Dukefrukem

10-05-2007, 07:38 AM

karak

10-05-2007, 07:38 AM

Erm, no offense, but the "technical" differences between the PS3 and the 360 have been discussed ad nauseam on this site (and many others),

And ignoring "EXPERTS" like us, you have Carmack, you have Epic, you have almost all of EA stating VERY clearly that they are equal exactly, hell even Sega and Namco have said it. Most of them point out that the PS3 WOULD be more powerful if not gimped by a couple design decisions. And that the 360 COULD be more powerful if not gimped by a couple of decisions. But the experts have spoken and basically state, BOTH companies made compromises and that leveled the playing field.
In fact the best thing you could trully say is Bluray helps PS3, ease of programing helps PS3.
I don't understand how people can keep trying to pretend they don't read that stuff. Its all over the net.

TeeCakes

10-05-2007, 07:38 AM

ROFL... just let it go m8, now you are starting to look silly.

Shut me up if you can... with real arguments, I mean.

Well you provide one article from back in 2006 which doesn't support all your points and of course is completely reflective of how developers always talk about their titles when they are developing exclusively for a single platform.

And you've provided nothing but useless commentary to argue me. Not really working out for ya, is it?

Did you mean this?? I read the piece but fail to see the point then, maybe I missed something. When talking about current machines he was probably talking about PS2 and such. Because the ganging in the air as not much to do with a machine in general in my book. And the arm thing. The whole article doesn't mention why it was removed.

yeah, I meant that. There's a better article out there that explains in more detail what was dumbed down for the retail version of the game, just can't find it atm. But he was referring to the Xbox 360, no question.

Grifter

10-05-2007, 07:39 AM

So, will PS3 owners that already have Oblivion have to buy it again to get the extras instead of just downloading the add-ons?

Couldn't tell you and don't really care, I played it last year on my 360 and have no plans of ever touching it again, I can honestly say I played that game so much I hate it now. :)

Fartacus

10-05-2007, 07:44 AM

I think there was a story about Resistance using a lot of fluff and duplicate material to fill the disk. They claimed it was for faster loading times but who knows.

It's a pretty common technique on consoles (so common that it's practically SOP). If you have extra space on the disc, you duplicate common data (for instance, textures or creature & prop models) to reduce the number of files, and therefore the number of seeks required to load the level. I have no doubt that the claims are true.

Yeti2005

10-05-2007, 07:45 AM

Vandenh

10-05-2007, 07:46 AM

Shut me up if you can... with real arguments, I mean.

Some of us here actually make games and I have stated my experiences here many times... you are not the type I wanne argue with since your original posts do not make any sense.

Oblivion looks/play better indeed after extra dev time, like all software should when tweaked (unless it was already maxed out). Dirt runs better because they removed polygons in the rendering pipeline. Any other games? DMC? Dunno, haven't played it but strangely it runs on the same engine as Lost Planet, a multiplatform Capcom engine. Case closed. Start making sense.

BTW backing into a corner and starting to challenge people doesn't work.

Crowe

10-05-2007, 07:48 AM

I really don't think it matters. Will there ever be a substantial difference between the 2 machines, enough to say.."thats clearly the better machine".

DVD's were a clear step up for gaming when we moved to them from CD's, and I'm sure it will happen with Blu-Ray, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. Still, you can have all the space and the fastest computer on earth, it still wont make a shit game any better.

When we moved from CD's to DVD's did we see the end of shitty games?...hell no. Were great games on DVD always better than great games on CD?...Hell no.

Kamalot

10-05-2007, 07:49 AM

Shut me up if you can... with real arguments, I mean.

The Xbox 360 has a lot of games available for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_360_games). The library of titles is deeper and broader than the PS3's. Yet the only TWO games you can find that are actually better on the PS3 are those that have had significant amounts more development time.

Developers say a lot of things, especially when they are making games exclusive to one platform or another. Pardon me if I actually believe what I see in the available retail games over what some developer said two years ago in order to hype up his product.

Kamalot

10-05-2007, 07:53 AM

When was the last time the most powerful console won the 'generation' as the market leader?

Grifter

10-05-2007, 07:55 AM

Shut me up if you can... with real arguments, I mean.

I read that whole article and no where did it say anything about dumbing things down for the 360, your reading comprehension skills are worse than your typing skills.

I have a basic understanding of the hardware in both machines and of each units strengths and weaknesses and to say the PS3 can run circles around the 360 is just retarded. At the end of the day you will most likely see slightly better particle and post processing effects (motion blur, depth of field...etc) on the PS3 but the texture quality, poly count and level scale will be a bit better on the 360. The differences in either side will hardly be noticed until the end of this generation and even then they will be slight.

The reason why the PS3 seems so underpowered at the moment is because it's such a pain in the ass to develop for and the limited amount of RAM set aside for graphics is more readily apparent to the end user than the 360s hardware shortcomings.

If you're going to paint your self as a flaming fanboy and atleast do some home work first because right now you just sound like an ass who failed freshmen English.

DangerousDaze

10-05-2007, 07:57 AM

When was the last time the most powerful console won the 'generation' as the market leader?

Statistics rule! Here's another one that's equally meaningless. When was the last time Sony didn't win the generation? ;)

Kamalot

10-05-2007, 08:00 AM

Statistics rule! Here's another one that's equally meaningless. When was the last time Sony didn't win the generation? ;)

Prior to them playing in the game.

When was the last time a console manufacturer won more than 2 consecutive generations?

Crowe

10-05-2007, 08:04 AM

When was the last time that console wars made normal everyday gamers look like fucking idiots....

Forget last time, the time would be now.

Grifter

10-05-2007, 08:05 AM

When was the last time you took out the trash? Seriously, something stinks...

TeeCakes

10-05-2007, 08:30 AM

Some of us here actually make games and I have stated my experiences here many times... you are not the type I wanne argue with since your original posts do not make any sense.

Oblivion looks/play better indeed after extra dev time, like all software should when tweaked (unless it was already maxed out). Dirt runs better because they removed polygons in the rendering pipeline. Any other games? DMC? Dunno, haven't played it but strangely it runs on the same engine as Lost Planet, a multiplatform Capcom engine. Case closed. Start making sense.

BTW backing into a corner and starting to challenge people doesn't work.

You obviously did understand my posts, since you confirmed everything I said in your second paragraph. YOU start making sense, ya seem to disagree with me but you haven't really argued me on anything. You've unwittingly supported my stance, quite honestly.

So...thanks!

I read that whole article and no where did it say anything about dumbing things down for the 360, your reading comprehension skills are worse than your typing skills.

I have a basic understanding of the hardware in both machines and of each units strengths and weaknesses and to say the PS3 can run circles around the 360 is just retarded. At the end of the day you will most likely see slightly better particle and post processing effects (motion blur, depth of field...etc) on the PS3 but the texture quality, poly count and level scale will be a bit better on the 360. The differences in either side will hardly be noticed until the end of this generation and even then they will be slight.

The reason why the PS3 seems so underpowered at the moment is because it's such a pain in the ass to develop for and the limited amount of RAM set aside for graphics is more readily apparent to the end user than the 360s hardware shortcomings.

If you're going to paint your self as a flaming fanboy and atleast do some home work first because right now you just sound like an ass who failed freshmen English.

First of all, attacking my typing/English skills isn't even relevant, and shows the strength (or rather, the lack thereof) of your own argument. Add this to the fact that I'm obviously leaps and bounds ahead of you in written communication, and you fail miserably at everything you had set out to do with this comment, especially at prompting a traditional debate or gaining my respect with your well-thought out arguments.

Please read the entire thread, so you can discover why I used the article that I did. It's pretty common knowledge that the Xbox 360 version of DMC4 wasn't as good as the PS3 version, though. If you really were a mover-and-shaker in the dev-world, you'd know this.

I never brought up development issues for the PS3, but despite them, games are obviously capable of looking just as good/better than Xbox 360 games. Maybe you should try coming up with examples where you don't shoot your own argument in the foot. If devs can make games that look better for the PS3 now, imagine what they'll do next year when they actually understand the console as well as they do Xbox 360?

And even despite Bungie having 3 years' development time for Halo 3, it wasn't even in 720p. Things that make (rational, non-biased people) go hmmmm....

By the way, "homework" is all one word, and "at least" is two, Mr. English Professor.

Xenkylm

10-05-2007, 08:33 AM

I'd rather wait 2 years for another gaming 'Mario 64'-groundbreaking title to come out that will usher in a whole new genre of videogaming (THIS is what 'next-gen' is all about, IMO) than to simply accept more of the same from developers that refuse to evolve past the limitations of last gen's technology.

I absolutely agree. Next-generation should mean "different," and not just "improved." Don't particularly care who does it though.

::fixed::

It's really a lucky thing for Nintendo that DS has such a large installed base due to the ridiculous hype, because I can forsee them having real problems when 2nd-year gaming from the PSP camp starts blowing DS's N64-limited graphics and niche touch-sensing gameplay options outta the water.

Seriously though, unless Wii owners (or 360 owners) start selling their systems in huge numbers, this is a moot point. An installed base is an installed base, and the current numbers aren't going to go down by much (after all, even when you sell a system, it's a wash: someone's gonna buy it eventually, presumably, or the stores wouldn't buy it from you). As far as system sales and game sales are concerned, software developers have no reason to prefer the PS3 until there are about 10 million out there. Is that gonna happen next year? Maybe. For the sake of reasonable competition in the video game world, I hope so.

karak

10-05-2007, 08:36 AM

Add this to the fact that I'm obviously leaps and bounds ahead of you in written communication, and you fail miserably at everything you had set out to do with this comment.

TeeCakes, seriously Grifter is schooling you and your looking like a fool right now.

Telefrog

10-05-2007, 08:37 AM

First of all, attacking my typing/English skills isn't even relevant, and shows the strength (or rather, the lack thereof) of your own argument. Add this to the fact that I'm obviously leaps and bounds ahead of you in written communication, and you fail miserably at everything you had set out to do with this comment, especially at prompting a traditional debate or gaining my respect with your well-thought out arguments.

I never brought up development issues for the PS3, but despite them, games are obviously capable of looking just as good/better than Xbox 360 games. Maybe you should try coming up with examples where you don't shoot your own argument in the foot.

By the way, "homework" is all one word, Mr. English Professor.

Stop. Now. You're acting like an asshat.

You've been called out numerous times by people pointing out that your argument is not only flawed in foundation, but your "evidence" is anything but. The article you linked to doesn't support anything other than the developer at the time the article was written endorsed the PS3 over the PS2. If you have other evidence, please present it.

If you don't have any real evidence, then please shut the Hell up and listen to your superiors.

Crowe

10-05-2007, 08:39 AM

I absolutely agree. Next-generation should mean "different," and not just "improved." Don't particularly care who does it though.

Different in what way?

Ancalagon

10-05-2007, 08:41 AM

TeeCakes = Mega Troll

TeeCakes

10-05-2007, 08:48 AM

TeeCakes, seriously Grifter is schooling you and your looking like a fool right now.

You'll pardon me if I don't take biased opinions seriously.

And I'll stop this here, since everyone's a little ashamed to embrace the first amendment on this forum. My points still stand to the people who are being rational, however.

And it's "you're", Jesus. It's like whenever someone mentions anything about education in their retaliatory comments to me, the weight of bullshit flying off their keyboards onto the screen forces them to make these silly typos. Well, I certainly find it amusing, if no one else does/will admit it.

Kamalot

10-05-2007, 08:50 AM

And I'll stop this here, since everyone's a little ashamed to embrace the first amendment on this forum. My points still stand to the people who are being rational, however.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

UnderHero5

10-05-2007, 08:52 AM

Blu-Ray makes me nipples bleed. Aaarrgh!

TheFlyingOrc

10-05-2007, 08:55 AM

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b350/theflyingorc/nothignatall.jpg
not mine, but about the best troll picture I've ever seen

Telefrog

10-05-2007, 08:55 AM

You'll pardon me if I don't take biased opinions seriously.

Pot? Please meet kettle.

Chris_D

10-05-2007, 08:56 AM

Blu-Ray makes me nipples hard, ahhhh!

Winner of the "Most convincing argument in this thread that PS3 is better" award!!

OK, slight edit there...

karak

10-05-2007, 08:58 AM

And it's "you're", Jesus. It's like whenever someone mentions anything about education in their retaliatory comments to me, the weight of bullshit flying off their keyboards onto the screen forces them to make these silly typos.
u R beeeing DUM.

UnderHero5

10-05-2007, 09:00 AM

Winner of the "Most convincing argument in this thread that PS3 is better" award!!

OK, slight edit there...

Hey, I said "BLEED", and "AAARRGH!", like a pirate, damn it!

You're taking my quote completely out of context!
This is an outrage!!

Aaargh!

BlackPete

10-05-2007, 09:12 AM

Ahhhh.... this reminds me, I should go buy another external HDD to make my computer more powerful!!!

Can't play Crysis? No problem! Buy a bigger HDD!

oldjadedgamer

10-05-2007, 09:14 AM

TeeCakes = Mega Troll

This thread got him a VIP pass on my ignore list.

TeeCakes

10-05-2007, 09:22 AM

This thread got him a VIP pass on my ignore list.

Boo and hoo.

(notice my sig)

@below

For "being a dick"? Really? Or is it because I was making points nobody was willing to hear about the "superior" Xbox 360?

Either way, if I have ever instigated an attack on anyone personally in this thread (try reading through this thread yourself to make that call) I honestly apologize.

But I meant every damn word I've typed here and stand behind it, regardless, so ignore me if you don't approve. No skin off my nose.

TheFlyingOrc

10-05-2007, 09:26 AM

Boo and hoo.

(notice my sig)
When people ignore you for being a dick, it is something to be upset about, just so you know. Very few people on this site get ignored.

UnderHero5

10-05-2007, 09:28 AM

something... something... ignore... something
... oh, what did you say?

I was ignoring you!

TheFlyingOrc

10-05-2007, 09:32 AM

... oh, what did you say?

I was ignoring you!
....hey!

But seriously. Most of you Sony fanboys piss me off to no end. Only one has been a terrible enough poster that I felt the need to use "ignore" on him.

(Irongustav would also be ignored if he wasn't so blasted entertaining)

Chris_D

10-05-2007, 09:35 AM

When people ignore you for being a dick, it is something to be upset about, just so you know. Very few people on this site get ignored.

Cut him some slack, everyone needs something to be proud of!

Crowe

10-05-2007, 09:36 AM

For "being a dick"? Really? Or is it because I was making points nobody was willing to hear about the "superior" Xbox 360?

But I meant every damn word I've typed here and stand behind it, regardless, so ignore me if you don't approve. No skin off my nose.

Everyone should know by now that neither console is truly superior. And there is a very very good chance neither is ever going to be truly superior.

If there is any point to be made it's that both consoles give us the oppurtunity to fantastic games and that's the bottom line.

TheFlyingOrc

10-05-2007, 09:40 AM

Everyone should know by now that neither console is truly superior. And there is a very very good chance neither is ever going to be truly superior.

Yes, nobody can know which is better, but you can know that they are both equal.

Taking a postmodern approach to everything is stupid and contradictory.

UnderHero5

10-05-2007, 09:46 AM

....hey!

But seriously. Most of you Sony fanboys piss me off to no end. Only one has been a terrible enough poster that I felt the need to use "ignore" on him.

(Irongustav would also be ignored if he wasn't so blasted entertaining)
Hey, I'm not a Sony fanboy. I'm a videogame fanboy. I have equal love for all the companies.

For example, I hate my PSP and think about selling it all the time, but my fiance would get mad. If I were a Sony fanboy I'd love the thing no matter what, wouldn't I?

Plus I'm buying a 360 as soon as that new bundle comes out with Forza and M:UA. I even camped overnight for my Wii last year! My DS is probably my favorite gaming system (after my PC).

The fact that I own and enjoy my PS3, and don't feel the need to constantly bash Sony, shouldn't automatically make me a fanboy :p

*candy kisses*

TeeCakes

10-05-2007, 09:56 AM

Cut him some slack, everyone needs something to be proud of!

Affecting anybody enough with simply my onscreen text, enough to have them say "My fragile mind can't handle these opinions! I fear TeeCakes!" is a feather in my ignored-cap! Thanks, jaded, youdaman.

AniAko

10-05-2007, 09:58 AM

I generally steer clear of Sony threads, the hostility is unbearable at times. Today I found a little extra tolerance, and ventured in. This is all I have to say about the "future of technology"

Right now several idealists are wearing their thinking caps, and several idealists are wearing their pants on their heads. Emerging technology is rejected for one of two reasons: It's crap, or the rebels don't understand that this medicine is good for them. I see it all the time in my IT job. It's called Enterprise technology, and it almost always meets resistance. People sometimes don't know that things they perceive as bad is really 1000x better than where their comfort levels are at. It's our job in IT to show them how the change, reluctant as they may be, will improve their situation sometimes 10 fold.

So, the ONLY argument boils down to this: One camp is claiming the PS3 is better because Blu-Ray has a higher capacity. The other camp claims that higher capacity doesn't determine the overall "quality" of the product.

Blu-Ray is a PHENOMENAL idea. BUT Sony is fucking it sideways six ways from Sunday in executing it. It is SONY's burden to convince the status quo that Blu-Ray is "da-shit", which is a case of us not knowing what's good for us. That's fine, I'm humble enough to entertain that idea. Maybe I am wrong, BUT if Sony wants to prove to me that they're right, they have to do a better job than this.

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/04/17/new-sony-dvd-drm-bre.html

Suspect titles include regular (not Blu-ray) releases of "Casino Royale,' "Stranger Than Fiction" and "The Holiday," all of which render nothing more than a brief title screen on certain DVD players (including some Sony models).

AND this
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/10/04/1836249.shtml

As High-Def Digest reports, this week's Blu-ray releases of 'Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer' and 'The Day After Tomorrow' won't play back at all on at least two Blu-ray players, while load times on other players (including the PS3) are delayed by up to two minutes. 'The most severe problems have been reported on Samsung's BDP-1200 and LG's BH100, which are both said to be incapable of playing back the discs at all.

There's so many other examples, but Sony keeps shooting themselves in the foot. How in good faith could somebody justify the move when there's more than a mound of evidence that proves the move means more headaches than staying with current technology? They are trying to convince the world that something more powerful, but less stable is better, and that is FLAT-OUT wrong. You can try to argue that Sony is under the microscope for bad press right now, or that this is the fault of the manufactures. But Blu-Ray is SONY's property and they alone are responsible for the perception of quality it presents to the rest of the world. They gave out those licenses, they're responsible (Remember the Nintendo seal of quality?) This is no different than the rejection of Windows Vista. It is Microsoft's responsibility to convince those comfortable in the stable / proven XP operating system to move. And so far, they've failed to give the world a reason to do that.

Sony is fucking up something that is supposed to be GREAT, and I would hold this logic to ANYTHING so grossly rejected by it's audience. So if Sony's only foot to stand on is "PS3 is better because of Blu-Ray" it's no wonder they're the laughing stock of the gaming industry right behind the Phantom gaming system, they're wrong, but they've eaten so much of their own propaganda, they're blind to the reality of things.

BlackMako85

10-05-2007, 09:59 AM

Affecting anybody enough with simply my onscreen text, enough to have them say "My fragile mind can't handle these opinions! I fear TeeCakes!" is a feather in my ignored-cap! Thanks, jaded, youdaman.

Wow, and to think I went out of my way to get in-the-flesh people to respect me both personally and professionally. You mean I could just troll the internet and feel just as good about myself (nay, better)?

Crowe

10-05-2007, 10:00 AM

Yes, nobody can know which is better, but you can know that they are both equal.

Taking a postmodern approach to everything is stupid and contradictory.

I never said they were equal, I said they both give us the opportunity to play fantastic games.

What makes a superior console anyway?

The one that has:
Superior Graphics?
superior Hardware Specs?
Superior games?
The Brand?
All of these combined?

As far as I can tell they both have fantastic graphics. They are both going to have many a fantastic game. Are they equal? They may as well be...I don't think there will ever be a definite answer? Not when there are so many different ways to look at it.

I say something ssomething about the PS3..you return the favor by saying something negative about the Xbox. The cycle is never ending and if anything is stupid..that is.

TheFlyingOrc

10-05-2007, 10:07 AM

I never said they were equal, I said they both give us the opportunity to play fantastic games.

What makes a superior console anyway?

The one that has:
Superior Graphics?
superior Hardware Specs?
Superior games?
The Brand?
All of these combined?

As far as I can tell they both have fantastic graphics. They are both going to have many a fantastic game. Are they equal? They may as well be...I don't think there will ever be a definite answer? Not when there are so many different ways to look at it.
Well, yes, but there WILL be general consensus. While I can ridiculously spin it, stick my fingers in my ears yelling LALALALALA, and claim that the gamecube was the better platform last generation than the PS2, I'd be quite wrong. As only those with pre-existing Sony leanings, or who have purchased the console, seem to think that it is the SUPERIOR platform (most don't even go that far, calling it "just as good"), while those from both Microsoft bias and non Microsoft bias seem to consider the 360 superior (if they are not Japanese), I'd say it's fair to say that the general consensus is that Microsoft's platform is superior.

TeeCakes

10-05-2007, 10:08 AM

Wow, and to think I went out of my way to get in-the-flesh people to respect me both personally and professionally. You mean I could just troll the internet and feel just as good about myself (nay, better)?

9-outta-10 foul-mouthed, pre-pubescent XBL players can't be wrong!

Edit: Crap, I just compared myself to a pre-pubescent XBL player. NOW I'm really done with this thread.

the soUL TRAder

10-05-2007, 10:09 AM

Boo and hoo.

(notice my sig)

@below

For "being a dick"? Really? Or is it because I was making points nobody was willing to hear about the "superior" Xbox 360?

Either way, if I have ever instigated an attack on anyone personally in this thread (try reading through this thread yourself to make that call) I honestly apologize.

But I meant every damn word I've typed here and stand behind it, regardless, so ignore me if you don't approve. No skin off my nose.

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that the really loony fanbois also have a "time of the month"?

I guess this was Cakes time of the month to go PS3 craaaaaaazy.

Anyway, two consoles that both have their strengths and weaknesses.

A great analogy is Autos:

PS3 is a big, powerful SUV, with the BRD being it's extra trunk space, as it's gusslin up the development resources.

360 is a smaller, more efficient model, that is easy on the resources and moves more quickly.

And, of course, the Wii is like a Go-cart controlled by your mind;).

So, in this case, BR only matters if you want to fit all your stuff in the trunk or whether you get one of those travel pods for your roof.

Crowe

10-05-2007, 10:18 AM

Shortened

Is the general consensus also that the Xbox will remain superior? Or is just superior at the moment? Is this superiority based on the games, range of games, well reviewed games? Hardware Sales (Wii)? Software Sales? What is easier to develop for? Longevity? Hardware failure rates? The list goes on.

UnderHero5

10-05-2007, 10:20 AM

Well, yes, but there WILL be general consensus. While I can ridiculously spin it, stick my fingers in my ears yelling LALALALALA, and claim that the gamecube was the better platform last generation than the PS2, I'd be quite wrong. As only those with pre-existing Sony leanings, or who have purchased the console, seem to think that it is the SUPERIOR platform (most don't even go that far, calling it "just as good"), while those from both Microsoft bias and non Microsoft bias seem to consider the 360 superior (if they are not Japanese), I'd say it's fair to say that the general consensus is that Microsoft's platform is superior.

Well, general consensus doesn't mean crap when talking about opinions.
General consensus would actually probably favor the Wii, anyway, considering it has sold more.

General consensus would say that '50 Cent' is a better artist than 'The Planet Smashers', but that wouldn't mean shit to me, would it?

TheFlyingOrc

10-05-2007, 10:20 AM

Is the general consensus also that the Xbox will remain superior? Or is just superior at the moment? Is this superiority based on the games, range of games, well reviewed games? Hardware Sales (Wii)? Software Sales? What is easier to develop for? Longevity?
The waters definitely get muddier at that point. However, my own viewpoint is that no console has ever truly recovered from a mediocre launch. I feel the install base on the Wii/360 will bring more games which will sell more systems which will bring more games, ad infinitum.

TheFlyingOrc

10-05-2007, 10:22 AM

Well, general consensus doesn't mean crap when talking about opinions.
General consensus would actually probably favor the Wii, anyway, considering it has sold more.

General consensus would say that '50 Cent' is a better artist than 'The Planet Smashers', but that wouldn't mean shit to me, would it?

Well, yes, but I was referring to a subset of "the gaming community", not the world at large. The Wii is taking a pretty heavy beating in the community, too, but people don't revile it with the same level of venom. Plus, the great games are coming this spring.

Returner

10-05-2007, 10:24 AM

I can't take any more Sony bullshit.

Crowe

10-05-2007, 10:26 AM

Shodan2020

10-05-2007, 10:26 AM

I think Blu-Ray has more "power" if that means "storage space" on one disc. Has it been proven that Blu-Ray also enables games to have better graphics or better sound?

DangerousDaze

10-05-2007, 10:27 AM

Guys. This isn't a "The PS3 is the best because of Blu-Ray" statement made to gamers, it's a "The PS3 is the best for the audience of your website about HD movies because of Blu-Ray" statement.

TheFlyingOrc

10-05-2007, 10:29 AM

That's my point, "Great games are coming this spring" (Im assuming you mean for the Wii). The PS3 is also going to have it's spring, there will be games aplenty, and I seriously doubt you will be able to call any one console 'superior'.
You're spinning so fast you're likely to fall over. I am in the minority opinion about the Wii, and I accept this.

Even so, you'll see. YOU'LL ALL SEE!!!!*shakes fist in air*

Crowe

10-05-2007, 10:35 AM

You're spinning so fast you're likely to fall over. I am in the minority opinion about the Wii, and I accept this.

Even so, you'll see. YOU'LL ALL SEE!!!!*shakes fist in air*

I own a Wii and a 360...I'll never own a PS3 because they are far to dear here and when the price does go down I wont have enough time to divide between 3 consoles.

I don't want you thinking I'm some Sony nut.

UnderHero5

10-05-2007, 10:35 AM

Well, yes, but I was referring to a subset of "the gaming community", not the world at large. The Wii is taking a pretty heavy beating in the community, too, but people don't revile it with the same level of venom. Plus, the great games are coming this spring.
Ah, I didn't know you only meant the gaming community.
I mean, it will always depend on the specific community. I'd say, overall, you're right. Most hardcore gamers view the 360 as the better platform, at this point... but only because of the 1) Lower price, and 2) Game selection at the moment. Both of those can change, and eventually, I expect gamers to be enjoying both consoles. There will always be those fanboys who think it's only right to own one, however.

That said, the PS3 is getting some very good games this winter/spring as well. More than the Wii, for me.

The only Wii games I'm looking forward to, at the moment, are Smash Bros (winter), Mario Galaxy (winter), and Mario Kart (spring). Which is more than enough games for me, and they will all be awesome.

Meanwhile I'm looking forward to, on my PS3, Uncharted (fall/winter), Eye of Judgment (fall), Ratchet and Clank (fall/winter), LittleBigPlanet (YES! spring).

So, if you can say games for the Wii are coming this spring, you have to say the same thing about the PS3. It has just as many good games coming, if not more. That's not even mentioning some of the "bigger titles", that I'm personally not interested in (MGS4, for example).

Dukefrukem

10-05-2007, 11:41 AM

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b350/theflyingorc/nothignatall.jpg
not mine, but about the best troll picture I've ever seen

LOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL

this is quality, quality inside joke picture troll posting right here.!!!

(you really gotta see the episode to get it but i laughed my ass off)

Achilles

10-05-2007, 11:54 AM

In fact, wasn't there an article on here about Resistance being around 6 gigs when all the file redundancy was removed?

The Darkness 360 = 6GB
The Darkness PS3 = 18GB

Enchanted Arms 360 = 6.5GB
Enchanted Arms PS3 = 15GB

Oblivion 360 = 6.5GB
Oblivion PC = 5GB
Oblivion PS3 = 14.5GBNice stats. The redundancy is there to make up for the slower seek times, and the games still have massive installs. Blu-Ray isn't more powerful, it's just an anchor that's somewhat capable of mitigating its own slow read-speed by having so much spare space that it gives the devs the option to repeat data for faster seek times, which are still slower than the 360's drive.

However, if the PS3, #1 or not, causes Blu-Ray to become the next DVD format than Sony as a whole wins out. I'm sure it's not the stunning success they hoped it would be, but it's still success.

(note: I didn't read the whole thread, so all these points have probably been made before)

Guys. This isn't a "The PS3 is the best because of Blu-Ray" statement made to gamers, it's a "The PS3 is the best for the audience of your website about HD movies because of Blu-Ray" statement.
I'd agree if he had mentioned it being a more powerful platform for movies. It really is a more powerful movie playing box, for the 360 to match it you need the HD-DVD add-on. But he went on at length about how Blu-Ray helped the games on it.

fiercey

10-05-2007, 12:18 PM

It does? I coulda swore that Dell was going Blu-Ray only, as are Sony's Vaios. Is there anything to back up the 8:1 thing?

Also, from recent interviews, Panasonic seems to have gone full swing into the Blu-Ray camp.

They also went Vista-only for a while until their sales dropped. That shit changes like the wind.

-f

Xenkylm

10-05-2007, 01:43 PM

Different in what way?

Well, Super Mario Brothers was 2D, and Mario 64 was in 3D... so 4D games? Smellivision? Games that do your chores for you?

A.I. is probably the next "big jump." The first time someone plays a game and realizes that they're not getting out-aimed or out-god-moded by a computer opponent, but actually getting tricked / out-smarted by one, that'll be something. We ooh and ahh when A.I. goes a full game without running into walls. We should have higher standards.

For example: I will say "holy crap, that's different" if I sneak into a bedroom to shoot a computer opponent, and they've put pillows under the covers to make it look like someone's sleeping in the bed (presumably they'd be waiting behind the door to get me).

On a thread-jacking note? What's the best A.I. anyone has seen in a game?

UnderHero5

10-05-2007, 01:58 PM

On a thread-jacking note? What's the best A.I. anyone has seen in a game?
F.E.A.R. for PC was the most impressive A.I. I've seen. It flanked, and hid well, and actually caught me by surprise a couple of times. Mostly because I've always been so used to A.I. just standing behind cover and firing once in a while. Not actually moving around to my flank, while keeping my occupied in front.

[VSK]BadCRC

10-05-2007, 02:33 PM

In other news...
SONY SUPPORTS THE PS3

Guy Mariano

10-05-2007, 02:41 PM

The 360 will likely at the very least get 4x FSAA for free (because of its daughter die), which makes for interesting comparisons.

Apparently Bungie missed that memo.

Farsight

10-05-2007, 05:41 PM

The problem with Blu-Ray being needed for the "games of tomorrow" is that I want to play games TODAY.

carnage11

10-05-2007, 08:10 PM

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b350/theflyingorc/nothignatall.jpg
not mine, but about the best troll picture I've ever seen

That is probably the funniest thing I've seen all week. Thank you sir/ma'am(?) for the out loud laugh that I've now shared with my whole household.:D

MORGiON

10-05-2007, 09:22 PM

The problem with Blu-Ray being needed for the "games of tomorrow" is that I want to play games TODAY.

I have an old C64 laying around if you are really desperate to play some games TODAY.

Schnoogs

10-05-2007, 10:26 PM

Actually I'd say it becomes LESS powerful due to the extra processor usage needed to run it vs. a regular DVD drive. ;)

Thats only when decoding though...streaming data like geometry and textures takes no more processing power than a DVD.

Wolvie

10-05-2007, 10:41 PM

Oh snap! I got to buy a PS3 now! *assumes sarcastic smile* right after I get a second mortgage.

Micasa

10-05-2007, 11:05 PM

Thats only when decoding though...streaming data like geometry and textures takes no more processing power than a DVD.

It just takes more time, which would be a knock against the overall 'power' of the system. You can't render what you can't get off the disc, after all.

MORGiON

10-05-2007, 11:28 PM

It just takes more time, which would be a knock against the overall 'power' of the system. You can't render what you can't get off the disc, after all.

Not this argument again.

Anyway try this article (http://au.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek).

At 2x Blu-ray can read as fast as 12x DVD's minimum read speed. At just
3x Blu-ray is comparable to DVD at 12x; through the first half of the
disc 3x Blu-ray is faster, through the second half of the disc 12x DVD
is faster.
And at only 4x Blu-ray manages to best a 12x DVD's maximum read speed
by 9%.

So for a full DVD, I don't think it makes much difference as only approx half the disc is read faster, so in the long run it would think it would average out. And yes I know the article is old it was just a quick search.

Micasa

10-05-2007, 11:34 PM

bean19

10-06-2007, 06:20 AM

For "being a dick"? Really? Or is it because I was making points nobody was willing to hear about the "superior" Xbox 360?

The reason so many people turned on you is that you were being a dick. Look at other threads where Sony is supported and you won't see nearly as many negative replies and they are focused on the issues.

Here's the thing. Again and again we've seen comparable games on both systems and often the side-by-side comparisons are favored (ever so slightly) by the Xbox 360. Personally, I can't ever tell the difference that the game editors are talking about. . . I don't think that two consoles have been this similar in power in any previous console war. So, saying that the PS3 is more powerful when we've seen so many examples that they are so equal as not to matter is going to make people disagree with you.

This is an interesting article because it shows Sony's marketing strategy. They KNOW that they do not have a competitive price point and they KNOW that they do not have a competitive game library yet. This means that they need to sell people on the idea that the PS3 is a superior gaming system and not simply a 360 with a mandatory purchase of a Blu-Ray player.

Gamers have shown that we want gaming machines and that the feature of playing HD movies is simply not that important to us (especially when the other system offers an HD movie player add-on that you don't have to buy at onset and that also allows the download of HD movies without having to purchase ANY movie player).

So Sony needs to send the message that the PS3 is technically superior. They need people to believe that in order to get them to choose to spend more money on a PS3 instead of buying a 360.

Kaz can obviously see the too-similar-to-call graphics comparisons and the game library comparisons and the price comparisons. . . but the marketing strategy isn't going to work on hardcore gamers that know better, but it might just work with some of the Madden/GTA only crowd. We'll see.

bean19

10-06-2007, 06:24 AM

MORGiON

10-06-2007, 07:52 AM

That's nice that it compares 3x and 4x Blu Ray speeds, but what's in the PS3? Right, a 2x drive, which is only as fast as the 12x minimum speed.

The only reason people bring up 3x and 4x read speeds when discussing the PS3 is to cloud the issue - it's a slower drive.

Wow, try READING what I stated! which is that its on par for approx half the disc (Yep that would be 2xBlu-Ray). Which to me wouldn't make much difference. If I stated that it was on par for the WHOLE disc or exceeded the speed of DVDx12 then I would have been comparing to 3x and 4x Blu-Ray, but guess what I DID NOT.

I was not trying to cloud any issue, my point was that the difference is not worth bringing up.

I was proberly incorrect on my statment that it would proberly even out in the long run. Yes DVD has the lead by what a few seconds?

EDIT: Thanx Bean19, I should proberly finish reading a thread before replying.

Schnoogs

10-06-2007, 08:37 AM

It just takes more time, which would be a knock against the overall 'power' of the system. You can't render what you can't get off the disc, after all.

Game are already streaming data from the disc during gameplay.

Wolvie

10-06-2007, 10:42 AM

At this point we get it Sony, your system is powerful shut up already! Focus on getting some AAA titles on the damn thing and quit flailing your E-penis in our faces.

Rich1524

10-06-2007, 03:04 PM

Been a while since I've been able to post this:

http://www.nintendaddio.com/img/spindoctors.jpg

I'm a long-time reader of this site but I don't know what this absurd, scary picture is. Please, someone tell me; I must know before I go to sleep tonight!

TYVM,
Rich O.

Achilles

10-07-2007, 08:48 AM

Wow, try READING what I stated! which is that its on par for approx half the disc (Yep that would be 2xBlu-Ray). Which to me wouldn't make much difference.

I was not trying to cloud any issue, my point was that the difference is not worth bringing up.You're acting as if they don't compensate for the outer-inner disc problem when mastering DVDs; they do. They put the things that need to be accessed more quickly on the inside of the disc, and use redundancy in order to get better read speeds. So the very real fact that PS3 games have installs and slower load times is simply because of the hardware. Is this a problem? Maybe not to you, I find it inconvenient, but it certainly doesn't make the Blu-Ray drive more powerful for playing games.

the soUL TRAder

10-07-2007, 09:22 AM

They get around this somewhat by writing the game's data in several places so that the search speed is lowered somewhat. Yes, load times are longer on the PS3, but even if you are loading up a whole new area, it is only about 15 seconds longer (in my experience - we played with this at a friend's house).

This isn't game-breaking.

Exactly! Which proves taking 10 seconds to swap disks once or twice, during the really long games, is even less of an issue.

Jack B

10-07-2007, 09:43 AM

Exactly! Which proves taking 10 seconds to swap disks once or twice, during the really long games, is even less of an issue.

That is a really good point. Swapping disks could take significantly less time than waiting the 10-15 seconds over and over with Blu-Ray.

Kamalot

10-07-2007, 09:46 AM

That is a really good point. Swapping disks could take significantly less time than waiting the 10-15 seconds over and over with Blu-Ray.

Hmm. I hadn't considered that.

Disc swapping - Faster load times overall but you have to switch discs every 10 hours.

Bluray - Consistently slower loading times cumulate into overall more time wasted.

Not saying I agree with it, but I could see how that is a possibility I hadn't considered before.

Guy Mariano

10-07-2007, 09:48 AM

Bluray - Consistently slower loading times cumulate into overall more time wasted.

Haze will have zero load times in the whole game except for the initial one so that's not always true ;)

Kamalot

10-07-2007, 09:49 AM

Haze will have zero load times in the whole game except for the initial one so that's not always true ;)

Oh I understand. Clever developers will find ways to mask their load times, as they should. Load times simply suck.

Jack B

10-07-2007, 09:53 AM

Oh I understand. Clever developers will find ways to mask their load times, as they should. Load times simply suck.

I would imagine it would be case by case, but generally we see longer load times on the PS3, so overall the time spent disk swapping vs waiting for load times should favor the 360.

It would be interesting to see someone do some math for certain games.

DangerousDaze

10-07-2007, 10:11 AM

In an in-game experience the kind of load times we're talking about are irrelevant. Yes, Blu-Ray is a bit slower, but it doesn't matter.

Jack B

10-07-2007, 10:16 AM

In an in-game experience the kind of load times we're talking about are irrelevant. Yes, Blu-Ray is a bit slower, but it doesn't matter.

I have seen tons of complaints about load times from many different games during my time on EvAv. Are you sure load times don't matter to people? It sure seems like a common thing to complain about.

DangerousDaze

10-07-2007, 10:23 AM

I have seen tons of complaints about load times from many different games during my time on EvAv. Are you sure load times don't matter to people? It sure seems like a common thing to complain about.

There are plenty of games where you never notice loading times. It depends on the developer.

Jack B

10-07-2007, 10:26 AM

There are plenty of games where you never notice loading times. It depends on the developer.

Yeah, that's why I said it's case by case. In some games I hear a lot of complaining about load times. I couldn't tell you if it's 90% of the games or 10%, but RPG's and JRPG's seem to be the ones were it matters most.

Also, with Sony talking about filling up 50gb's of data on Blu-Ray, it would seem some of those games would have big levels.

Achilles

10-07-2007, 11:31 AM

Haze will have zero load times in the whole game except for the initial one so that's not always true ;)How big will the initial install be, and do they cover the load times up with cinemas?

I'll believe it when I see it. Even Halo 3 has load times, rather long ones at that.

DangerousDaze

10-07-2007, 11:59 AM

How big will the initial install be, and do they cover the load times up with cinemas?

All you need is a long corridor with bends at each end. When you get a little past half way it starts loading in the new textures and since you're in a small space with no need to render the new area (there's a bend further down the corridor, remember?) the framerate stays up while the load occurs. By the time you turn the corner into the new area the load has completed.

If, however, you turn around and head back the way you came you still have a long corridor to traverse with another bend to block the area you came from. You then spend the time it takes to run back the way you came loading the original textures again.

This is a technique as old as the hills but it works pretty well.

DangerousDaze

10-07-2007, 12:02 PM

How big will the initial install be, and do they cover the load times up with cinemas?

All you need is a long corridor with bends at each end. When you get a little past half way it starts loading in the new textures and since you're in a small space with no need to render the new area (there's a bend further down the corridor, remember?) the framerate stays up while the load occurs. By the time you turn the corner into the new area the load has completed.

If, however, you turn around and head back the way you came you still have a long corridor to traverse with another bend to block the area you came from. You then spend the time it takes to run back the way you came loading the original textures again.

At no point do you ever have to render both sets of textures. This is a technique as old as the hills but it works pretty well.

/edit - obviously it's not just textures you load here. The same applies to geometry and the rest of the level data.

Kamalot

10-07-2007, 01:24 PM

This is a technique as old as the hills but it works pretty well.

More developers should use this technique. Also, this technique can be utilized on any console, not just those with Bluray.

TheFlyingOrc

10-07-2007, 01:50 PM

Metroid Prime starts loading the next room as soon as you shoot the door. That works pretty well, but if you're smart, you start learning to shoot them long before you get there.

DangerousDaze

10-07-2007, 01:53 PM

More developers should use this technique. Also, this technique can be utilized on any console, not just those with Bluray.

Absolutely. They've been using it for literally years. Soul Reaver back in 99 used it on the original Playstation 1, for example. More recently it's been used in the God of War games. Anyway, yeah, the point being that the lack of blinding fast load times on Blu-Ray shouldn't be an impediment.

TheFlyingOrc

10-07-2007, 03:11 PM

Absolutely. They've been using it for literally years. Soul Reaver back in 99 used it on the original Playstation 1, for example. More recently it's been used in the God of War games. Anyway, yeah, the point being that the lack of blinding fast load times on Blu-Ray shouldn't be an impediment. Well, they're going to be slower somewhat, as the other guy is doing the same thing.

Also, the "hallways" strategy is a big part of the reason why Halo 3 didn't look as good as Bioshock.

DangerousDaze

10-07-2007, 03:37 PM

Also, the "hallways" strategy is a big part of the reason why Halo 3 didn't look as good as Bioshock.

That's just an extreme example that dates back 8 years or so. You can "smear" loads in all kinds of places these days.

TheFlyingOrc

10-07-2007, 04:46 PM

That's just an extreme example that dates back 8 years or so. You can "smear" loads in all kinds of places these days.

Well, yeah - but wide open spaces are definitely much more hardware taxing than bioshock's narrow hallways.

Ultima Thulian

10-07-2007, 05:53 PM

So how many times are we gonna have this same dumbass topic, this same dumbass conversation, these same dumbass results, and these same dumbass events.

WHAT!!11???!!! SONY SEZ DAT BLURAY MOAR POW3FULL DEN COMPETITSHUN!!111!? NO FUCKIN WAY NEVAR HERD DAT B4 LULZ!!111!

HEY!!1 UR ON MY IGNORE LIST OMG

DERRR UR A TROLL HURRRRR!!!111!1

HEY...HEY...LIKE, I'M MOST SMART ROUND HERE. IT IS "YOU'RE" AND NOT "YOUR" WOW U R A AN RTARD KTHNXBYE

DEH 360 IS TEH WINNAR AND DEH PS3 TEH SUXORZ AM I RITE?!!1!

Jesus fucking Christ, we are better than this kind of lameass Gamespot forum drivel. Granted, our grammar/spelling may not be as bad, but the bullshit is the same.

C'mon folks. C'mon.

Kamalot

10-08-2007, 12:06 AM

HEY...HEY...LIKE, I'M MOST SMART ROUND HERE. IT IS "YOU'RE" AND NOT "YOUR" WOW U R A AN RTARD KTHNXBYE
I agree to an extent, but this post is not helping the situation.

Micasa

10-08-2007, 01:09 AM

I have seen tons of complaints about load times from many different games during my time on EvAv. Are you sure load times don't matter to people? It sure seems like a common thing to complain about.

No kidding. Go play Motorstorm, then tell me that loading times don't matter. It was so bad that I wound up using the default vehicle simply to avoid the load time to select a different skin.

DangerousDaze

10-08-2007, 02:37 AM

No kidding. Go play Motorstorm, then tell me that loading times don't matter. It was so bad that I wound up using the default vehicle simply to avoid the load time to select a different skin.

As I said a lot of it depends on the developer. Motorstorm appears to be utter bollocks in this regard. I don't care how slow the drive is it shouldn't take that long just to change the skin while selecting a vehicle. That's just plain bad.

/edit - when did I say loading times don't matter? Of course they matter.

Gorvi

10-08-2007, 04:31 AM

No kidding. Go play Motorstorm, then tell me that loading times don't matter. It was so bad that I wound up using the default vehicle simply to avoid the load time to select a different skin.
The loading for the vehicles was awful in the demo, and that was running off of the HDD (obviously). So in the case of Motorstorm, I'd say that's very poor programming, not so much the BR drive slowing things down.

Dukefrukem

10-08-2007, 04:34 AM

The loading for the vehicles was awful in the demo, and that was running off of the HDD (obviously). So in the case of Motorstorm, I'd say that's very poor programming, not so much the BR drive slowing things down.

its the same in the full game too if i remember correctly...

very annoying

Gorvi

10-08-2007, 04:36 AM

its the same in the full game too if i remember correctly...

very annoying
No, I know, but that was my point: it's bad programming, not the BR drive.

Dukefrukem

10-08-2007, 04:40 AM

No, I know, but that was my point: it's bad programming, not the BR drive.

ah.... ok. roger that. yeh pop in a blu-ray disc and it fires up 10x faster than my HD-DVD player....

the HD-DVD player takes literally about 50 seconds just to turn on

Gorvi

10-08-2007, 04:44 AM

ah.... ok. roger that. yeh pop in a blu-ray disc and it fires up 10x faster than my HD-DVD player....

the HD-DVD player takes literally about 50 seconds just to turn on
That doesn't effect games though, which I think is the point of the conversation. With a movie, if it takes that long to start up, it's really no big deal, as it's only the initial statup, where as with a game, slow load times would be a pain in the ass all the time. Still, I haven't had a problem with PS3 load times yet, but then again, all I own is Resistance, Oblivion, and Warhawk.

Dukefrukem

10-08-2007, 04:47 AM

That doesn't effect games though, which I think is the point of the conversation. With a movie, if it takes that long to start up, it's really no big deal, as it's only the initial statup, where as with a game, slow load times would be a pain in the ass all the time. Still, I haven't had a problem with PS3 load times yet, but then again, all I own is Resistance, Oblivion, and Warhawk.

three games thats it?? get your move on!

Gorvi

10-08-2007, 04:48 AM

three games thats it?? get your move on!
Well, I'll be doubling that at the very least in the next couple of months, with Ratchet, Uncharted, and HL2: Orange Box. More than likely I'll end up with Folklore, too.

Dukefrukem

10-08-2007, 04:52 AM

Well, I'll be doubling that at the very least in the next couple of months, with Ratchet, Uncharted, and HL2: Orange Box. More than likely I'll end up with Folklore, too.

no interest in Heavenly Sword? just beat it last night and i have to say its like being in a movie. the cinematics and gameplay are top notch

Gorvi

10-08-2007, 04:53 AM

no interest in Heavenly Sword? just beat it last night and i have to say its like being in a movie. the cinematics and gameplay are top notch
Total rental. It looks great, but I can't justify the cost of buying it for the length. Of course, I feel the same way about games like The Darkness too. I'm a cheap bastard. :p

Dukefrukem

10-08-2007, 04:56 AM

Total rental. It looks great, but I can't justify the cost of buying it for the length. Of course, I feel the same way about games like The Darkness too. I'm a cheap bastard. :p

Yeh the Darkness was fun after you get the demon arm. Before that it got annoying to shoot out all the lights.

Jack B

10-08-2007, 07:49 AM

/edit - when did I say loading times don't matter? Of course they matter.

When you made post #160 in this very thread.

Originally Posted by DangerousDaze
In an in-game experience the kind of load times we're talking about are irrelevant. Yes, Blu-Ray is a bit slower, but it doesn't matter.

Anyway, it's good we're all on the same page now.

DangerousDaze

10-08-2007, 08:01 AM

When you made post #160 in this very thread.

What I said was that slightly slower loading times on a Blu-Ray drive vs. a DVD are irrelevant because they should be hidden by good developers. Loading times when you directly experience them in-game are often an unnecessary PITA. Basically, if you can hide load times on a CD then there's no reason why you shouldn't also be able to hide them on Blu-Ray disk, in which case the physical reading speed of the device is irrelevant.

/edit - I should not have used the term "loading time" because that suggests what the player sees in-game. I meant device read rate, as in the underlying ability to suck data off the disk which isn't directly related to what the player experiences in-game.

TheFlyingOrc

10-08-2007, 08:09 AM

What I said was that slightly slower loading times on a Blu-Ray drive vs. a DVD are irrelevant because they should be hidden by good developers. Loading times when you directly experience them in-game are often an unnecessary PITA. Basically, if you can hide load times on a CD then there's no reason why you shouldn't also be able to hide them on Blu-Ray disk, in which case the physical reading speed of the device is irrelevant.

/edit - I should not have used the term "loading time" because that suggests what the player sees in-game. I meant device read rate, as in the underlying ability to suck data off the disk which isn't directly related to what the player experiences in-game.
Dangerous, your argument just continues to not make sense. Each trick you've mentioned would still be harder to implement with a slower drive than a faster one.

DangerousDaze

10-08-2007, 08:56 AM

Dangerous, your argument just continues to not make sense. Each trick you've mentioned would still be harder to implement with a slower drive than a faster one.

My point (which I'm obviously failing to adequately convey) is that if you can hide a CD's loading time there's no reason why you can't do the same for a Blu-Ray. Does that help?

karak

10-08-2007, 09:02 AM

I will admit something.
I fucking love the Halo 3 loading screen. I WANT that as a screensaver.

Kamalot

10-08-2007, 09:03 AM

My point (which I'm obviously failing to adequately convey) is that if you can hide a CD's loading time there's no reason why you can't do the same for a Blu-Ray. Does that help?

Yes, that helps. But TFO's point is that you need to hide more with a slower drive than you do with a faster drive. More time/attention and testing needs to be done in order to hide loading screens if the data is coming off of the drive more slowly.

The faster the drive can read data off and feed it to the system, the less the player needs to walk down artificially long hallways.

karak

10-08-2007, 09:05 AM

Well, I'll be doubling that at the very least in the next couple of months, with Ratchet, Uncharted, and HL2: Orange Box. More than likely I'll end up with Folklore, too.
I heard Orange Box is delayed for the PS3. It's not? That's good news.

Kamalot

10-08-2007, 09:08 AM

I heard Orange Box is delayed for the PS3. It's not? That's good news.

I was under the impression that it was delayed until some unspecified time, but that it is probably only 2-3 weeks late... maybe.

Also, I'm not willing to pony up for Drake until I play it and read some reviews. I've been let down with a lot of other hotly-anticipated PS3 titles that failed to ignite.

karak

10-08-2007, 09:14 AM

I was under the impression that it was delayed until some unspecified time, but that it is probably only 2-3 weeks late... maybe.

Also, I'm not willing to pony up for Drake until I play it and read some reviews. I've been let down with a lot of other hotly-anticipated PS3 titles that failed to ignite.
Well 2-3 weeks isn't bad. I heard it was spring of 08 so that's awesome news.
As for Drake. I too am waiting. I am sure the pals will rent it. But lately some of the previews I am reading have been less than steller and it has this strange Lair feeling to it that I can't shake. I hope its nothing more than my own worry but Lair REALLY pushed me away from buying before trying.

TheFlyingOrc

10-08-2007, 09:19 AM

As for Drake. I too am waiting. I am sure the pals will rent it. But lately some of the previews I am reading have been less than steller and it has this strange Lair feeling to it that I can't shake. I hope its nothing more than my own worry but Lair REALLY pushed me away from buying before trying.
The biggest thing for me is how LITTLE we're hearing about it. And Ratchet and Clank, for that matter.
I know things are lost under the Halo 3 Hype-opolypse, but where's the promotion for the key PS3 titles?
Lair completely dropped off the radar when it started to go south...

Dukefrukem

10-08-2007, 09:20 AM

Im no psychic, but im willing to put money on the fact that neither Ratchet, nor Drake, nor Haze will rank in the 90 percentile when reviewed...

Kamalot

10-08-2007, 09:22 AM

Well 2-3 weeks isn't bad. I heard it was spring of 08 so that's awesome news.
As for Drake. I too am waiting. I am sure the pals will rent it. But lately some of the previews I am reading have been less than steller and it has this strange Lair feeling to it that I can't shake. I hope its nothing more than my own worry but Lair REALLY pushed me away from buying before trying.

Yeah. Orange Box would be nice if it makes it out this holiday, but I'm getting the 360 version since all my friends will be playing it there on Live. Also, the fact that you can get it sooner on the 360 is a nice little perk that helps me decide one version over another.

As for Drake, you are right. It has entered the 'spooky silent' space before the release like Lair went through. I hope that isn't foreboding cause I want it to be good. It looks just different enough to be interesting, even if I don't personally like the graphical look of it.

TheFlyingOrc

10-08-2007, 09:25 AM

Im no psychic, but im willing to put money on the fact that neither Ratchet, nor Drake, nor Haze will rank in the 90 percentile when reviewed...
I'll take that bet. How about if one of them makes it, you buy an EvAv subscription, but if one of them doesn't, I buy you an EvAv subscription? ;)

(I can't lose! I either win the bet or watch Sony fail!)

Gorvi

10-08-2007, 09:31 AM

I heard Orange Box is delayed for the PS3. It's not? That's good news.
I'll have it in the next few months, though I would have rather gotten it now. I suppose I could get the 360 version as soon as the console I won gets to me, but the people I care to play with will be playing on the PS3, so I'll wait.
Im no psychic, but im willing to put money on the fact that neither Ratchet, nor Drake, nor Haze will rank in the 90 percentile when reviewed...
I'd take that bet for Ratchet alone, considering the 2 of the 3 main entries in the series (the most recent) have a meta rating of over 9.0.

As far as Uncharted, I have much more faith in that than I ever would have in Lair (re: none) since Naughty Dog is a proven developer with a history of making great games.