Gabe Newell of Half Life fame says Ps3 is a total disaster.

http://megagames.com/news/html/console/ps3shouldbewithdrawnsaysgabe.shtml

 

Yeah I would have to agree with him, sort of...

The fact of the matter is that the Playstation 3 (which still has not been released here in New Zealand) is basically a way overpriced Xbox 360. What I am saying is that here you have the Xbox 360, a console that is more powerful than the Playstation 3 and has a far better selection of quality titles that is half the price.

Really that is enough said isn't it? The only reason to pay all those extra hundreds of dollars is for the respected Playstation brand. For me, even though it is a brand that I grew up on and that is encoded into my DNA, this alone is just not enough to justify another 40 hours of my wages.

Sorry Sony, but you we're way off target with this one and that sucks because I like you better than Microsoft...

 

Wii has it right =/

if people wanted graphics they'd buy a desktop =/ . if they want to play/have fun with friends then get a wii.

 

I think they screwed up big time with the PS3 GPU. The Xbox 360 outperforms it. The cell is no big deal either. The tri core on the 360 is more then good enough and easier to program for.

They even have game comparisons, the Xbox games run more fluidly when it comes to ports and sometimes you can see more detail.

Also the Xbox 360 has a scaler for hdtv. All games can go from 480i to 1080p.

Sony hyped the system it would be so much more powerful then the 360. It ended up slightly less impressive at a higher price.

The ps3 launch games suck as well. Only 2 games I would play. GT HD and that fps game with ww2.

anyway i ended up picking up a 360.

 

Good to see you pros baking up x360

 

Calling it a "total disaster" might be an exaggeration. It's a bit early for that conclusion, I think. But yes, it has more than its fair share of flaws and weaknesses, it has performed terribly so far, it's a pain to develop for. It might very well end up a total disaster, but this *is* Sony we're talking about. As Microsoft said, they could put up 50k bricks for sale, and people would buy them solely because of the brand recognition. So it may be too early to count it out, despite its flaws (technological, price-wise and the lack of good games)

 

Problem is, Sony has always had strength of developer support behind them.

When some of the most prolific developers start flat out bashing the console, they may not end up with good games...

 

I'm inclined towards the fact that if they - by any chance - put a simple CPU, say, even a Sempron , and increase the RAM , the PS3 might have a chance.
Anyway, the PS3 version 3 showed what really sony wanted out of it.

 

Sony is also losing $200 for each PS3, even at that high price, much like the Xbox when it came out. I wouldn't say its less powerful than the 360, but developer support is key... the 360 is much more PC based and friendlier for development... the Cell is really not worth it, and they should have stepped up the GPU a little bit for the price. I really don't think that Sony should have included a Blu-Ray player, which would also have lowered the price.

 

Yeah, Sony is very criticized for the effort it put and the time it wasted for the blu-ray drives.
Dunno how the people @ Sony HQ think, because as far as I am reading Sony is experiencing failure after failure.

 

What else is new.

 

NB stated one thing incorrectly and one problem with the Xbox360 (which i own and LOVE, games are AMAZING in 1080I (not P)) - Sony has that advantage over xbox360 - From what I have read the 1080P allows about twice as many pixels as compared to 1080i - which is the MAX that Xbox360 can push - Also spec wise, PS3 is pushing 2Teraflops instead of Xbox360's 1TFP - That makes a huge difference along with the fact that the xbox360 is limited on Disc space to something around 35gb if i remember correctly and the blue ray is capable of much higher space, meaning more room for better detail and much longer games - If I had a 1080P tv I wouldn't have the xbox, but since mine is only 1080i it is pointless to buy the ps3 because it wont look any better than the 360 and I can tie my 360 as an add-on to my pc - You will see in the long run the PS3 pull away utilize its advantages in the future - when games are geared for 1080p - more people have 1080p tvs, sony's supposedly FREE online multiplayer (except for some major titles) and when the games utilize the full BLUE ray dvd capacity (they are only using some 13 - 15 gb right now ) - There are so many difference, but by far the PS3 is NOT a flop - I look forward to when I get my 1080p tv and the ps3 is 299 on investing in one just for that extra resolution, which I beleive (have not seen) will make the biggest difference -

 

Question: How many Gabe Newell/Valve games were produced for consoles? Not a lot, if I recall correctly. And most of that wasn't handled in-house, no? Just ported via a third-party? I guess I'm what I'm trying to say is, is it really that damaging to hear bashing from a person/company that isn't primarily a console developer in the first place? I'd definitely consider it a bad omen if a Capcom/Konami/Square-Enix/insert-prolific-console-developer bashed the system, but to each his own.....

I think one of the biggest problems Sony is facing is its own people. Get a muzzle on, well, everyone.... half the battle is won if you can stop your own people from saying stupid things all the time.

 

i believe valve are developing hl2 episode 2 for the ps3 and 360

 

Well, lack of good games is subjective. I say that even now about the 360.

 

The Xbox 360 offers 1080P over both VGA and component (after an update a few months ago) and unlike the PS3 it will upscale 720P games to 1080p. In many ways the Xbox 360's implementation is BETTER than the PS3's.

 

Ahhh my mistake - yes with update it can push 1080p -

 

Oh please, not that old pile if (discredited) rubbish again.
The PS3 can push 2 teraflops, yes, if you include the GPU which is responsible for the first 1.8!. (Which also means that a decent PC can push about the same)
That said, the Cell can do 200 gigaflops, which is still a lot, but it doesn't matter, because this is a theoretical number, and no, it doesn't show, and no, it doesn't make a difference. It's very powerful for some scientific computations. But for games, no, you are not going to see those 200 gflops utilized.

360 uses DVD's, so that's 4 GB (Or 8 if they use dual-layer, can't remember that)
PS3 uses Blu-Ray, which offers 50GB, yes. And so what? So far, the only game that used that much space, turned out to have the first 40GB filled with dummy data, just so they could *say* they used all the space, and so Sony would be happy with them.

Also, games can come on multiple discs. Wouldn't be the first time it's happened. Sure, it's more convenient to have everything on one disc, but the point is, if you want, you can make a 50GB game on the 360 as well. But there isn't really much to use all that space for. Meshes won't get significantly higher poly counts, and textures won't get significantly higher resolution.
The games also won't increase to 10 times the usual length.

It's a flop if it isn't selling. Which it isn't...

Also, keep in mind that neither console renders graphics at 1080p. They both just upscale from 720p. If you want true hi-res, you need a PC instead.

 

But for some games, 50GB would be perfect. Render a background in an RPG as a CGI movie, render your characters over the top, and you can easily have the most beautiful game created.

Might not be selling well in the US, sells well in Japan, and we'll have to see about the rest of the world.

I put my faith in the US gaming industry last generation, and was rewarded with what? Halo? This gen, from the US, I can get... Hmmm... Hmmm... Halo?

Unfortunately it took me a bad investment (Xbox) to realise I should follow the Japanese market. And, I can just import all those cool Japanese games that don't make it to Australia. I like Sony's approach with this console more than any other single console I've seen. Can't wait until I get mine in two months.

 

The problem lies not in the consoles strengths but in the lack of good games and Sony's poor multiplayer implementation.

The Xbox 360 has several great games out now and several coming up.

The PS3 does not.

But the one major advantage the 360 has over the PS3 is Xbox Live.

XBL is almost perfect, simple, and you may pay $59.99 a year, but its worth it for what you get. All in one place, all their, ready to go, ready to play.

 

And it'd only cost $50 million extra to produce.
There's a reason CGI isn't currently being used for high-end graphics in games. It's ridiculously expensive because it takes so much work and time to do.
And the lousy read speed on the BD drive doesn't help. Nope, you're not going to see this happen in this lifetime. Not unless someone decides to pump, say, $500 million into a game. And even then, there'd be better ways to spend the money.

Japan where 100k units were available at launch? It might sell *better* in Japan than the US, but it's certainly not selling *well* (Of course, the 360 is doing terribly there, but that doesn't make the PS3 do any better). The Wii is what the Japaneses are buying. Just like the Europeans and Americans.

And "the rest of the world?" Well, given that everyone in Europe have already bought a Wii and/or 360 because those *didn't* get two years delayed, and were out for Christmas, I just can't see many people deciding to fork out $1000 this summer for a PS3. (And yes, it will be roughly equivalent to $1k in Europe)

So you want to put your faith in Sony this time, where you get........ Metal Gear Solid. That's pretty much the only exclusive game they have left.

Funnily enough, pretty much every other developer are now making games for *both* consoles.

So if I were you, I wouldn't put my faith in "the US" or "the Japanese" gaming industry. I'd put my faith in the console that seems to be getting the good games. The PS2 certainly got lots of those. The Xbox got quite a few too, imo, though. But this generation? Wii and 360 both have lots of unique and really good games. The PS3 doesn't. That is what matters to me, rather than whether they're supported by the US or Japanese "gaming industry".

That's the Wii.
Or even better, the DS. That is selling like mad there.
Anyway, I could name quite a few XBox games I'd love to own. I'd see it s a pretty good investment despite everything. Maybe not as good as a PS2, but still worthwhile.
However, another perspective might be that last time, you bought into the second-place console. So shouldn't your lesson be "Don't pick the non-winners"? Pick the #1 console this time. That's where the good games will show up. On the console that most people own. So buying a PS3 (one million units shipped) instead of a 360 (10 million units shipped) or Wii (~3 million units shipped, I believe), you'd buy into what could be a *really* bad investment. Much worse than the Xbox.

Wait, what exactly is Sony's approach? Do they have one? Not sure what you mean here. I mean, it's pretty clear what MS'es approach is (Fork a truckload of money into buying developers and games, until people buy your console), and Nintendo is pretty obvious too (Make a cheap and fun console with innovative hardware, so people that for the unique experience it offers).
Sony? "Do everything as last gen, only without the strengths we had back then"?
What is their approach that you like so much?

 

Sony also has Gran Turismo and God of War. But a lot of their exclusive games have jumped ship, including GTA and Tekken. The PS3 isn't selling nearly as well as the other two. While I agree that that's a shame, it's not surprising. It isn't that it isn't a powerful system. It's also much more multifunctional than the other two, but most people just don't see how that's worth $600. And to be honest, the Wii sits right where most people want it. It's cheaper than the other two and it's something the whole family can enjoy. But to be honest, I see a lot of developers jumping ship for the Wii. It features great sales, awesome publicity right now, and low development costs.

Oh, and he speaks about a lot of other stuff in that interview too, including Vista. He says XP users should switch to Mac before they upgrade to Vista... no joke.
http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0116.1324.31632.htm

 

Despite the fact the Xbox has better graphics, the most popular first person shooters in Halo and Halo2 for consoles, better online gaming in Xbox Live, and comes standard with a 8 to 10GB hard drive?

The only reason the Xbox did not outsell the PS2 was because MS released it after the PS2, letting Sony saturate the market for a good year and a half. When presented with the choice of buying a more advanced gaming console a year after they just spent hundreds on the PS2, a lot of kids just didn't have any money left.

Sort of like what's happening now with the Xbox360 and PS3, except this time MS got the jump on Sony.

Sheesh, tone down the Xbox bashing Jalf. Exactly what part of buying an xbox would be considered a bad investment?

Hype the market up for the release of the PS4 in 2008, of course.

 

Over here, in Australia atleast, the PS2 continued to outsell the Xbox after it's release. It wasn't because they jumped on the market faster, the PS2 just had better games. The Xbox didnt even get Killzone.

I said the Xbox was a bad investment. There were only 3 games I forked out the cash to buy. Halo 1 & 2, and OFP: Elite. Had I purchased a PS2, I would have enjoyed it's game library much more than the Xbox's. I'm a more Japanese style gamer.

And, I like the decentralised network system the PS3 has. It doesn't limit devs to what the hardware manufacturer wants. And I like the fact that the user of the PS3 can do whatever they like on it, and still keep their warranty.

 

Ps2 outsell xbox because it's well known more well known than xbox..soo when ppl hear the word PS and xbox they would obviously choose the PS

 

The Xbox 360 is also getting HDMI and possibly a larger HD.

If anyone cannot achieve 1080p on their Xbox 360 it's time to update it. You can get that signal via Component, VGA and for new Xbox's coming soon, HDMI cables.

The difference between now and then is:

PS2 was a well known name last gen (PSX). There was a bulk of more games offered as well (Thanks to the lead). Backwards compatibility. BUILT IN INSTANT DVD PLAYER. PS2 also had some good exclusives (so did the Xbox). The Xbox was not well known, it was a new runner up. Good games, power, but it didn't have that fan base, that name. However the Xbox had about 3x the power of the PS2 and it showed. All ports looked and ran better on the Xbox. Exclusives were very impressive, even until recently. Ever play Ninja Gaiden?


Now in the current gen:

Xbox 360 is now known and released first. Great games already released and coming. System turned out to be slightly more powerful then PS3 thanks to GPU and ease of programing. Cheaper.

PS3 claimed to be significantly moe powerful then the Xbox 360. In reality, games on both systems look and play slightly better on the 360. You can see extra details and more solid frame rates. Besides that they are about equal.

I have one more thing to say:

GEARS OF WAR.

 

I think Gears of war was slightly disappointing, but I can't wait for Bioshock/Mass Effect/ many other games.

 

Killzone was a total flop. So much for the "Halo killer"...

As far as the PS3 is concerned, how do you justify the fact that it is a much more expensive console that came out an year later, yet is still less powerful than the 360?

 

I loved Killzone! I wouldn't call it a flop, just because it didn't have as many thirteen year old, squealing fanboys. "Oh noes! Teh recoil!" I enjoy playing Killzone (in both its incarnations) much more than Halo. In my opinion, it's a Halo Killer.

And I justify it because I want a HTPC. I'll be getting one with the PS3. Just plug in a USB HDTV tuner and away I go. I also want to play better games than GoW. I think FFXIII and Resistance will do that for me. I also want to be able to watch videos on my PSP that are stored on my PS3's harddrive from anywhere in the world. I also want a Blu-Ray drive, as I want to be able to make 50GB backups of my stuff and would love it if I could run those backups on my console. I also want to plug in a wireless keyboard and mouse and play some older PC games on my 42" HD television. I also want to go out and purchase Singstar and Guitar Hero and play along with mates at parties.

Until I see the Xbox360 doing all that, the PS3 is more powerful.

 

You will not bet on this one, the PS3 now is in sale in Iran (shipped from an unknown place) and it's selling @ $1200,and you should consider that the poverty line in Iran is getting $120-$180 per month.

Add Gran Turismo to the list,also,the games are coming up, just as I said, the games will probably be splitted between them , there are many "dirty" tricks that you can get convincing results on a machine.
Anyway, Sylvain (why did he switch to this avatar the lastest was better) , is right , I at least cannot trust Microsoft especially when it comes to money or Microsoft being even slightly more dominant.
You can go and read XBOX360's history, I can simply say that M$ has no clue what they were doing, sticking three chips in a die like trolls,A simple example : Core 2 Duo and Athlon X2 and even Intel's first disaster at Dual Cores all can be called Dual Core, but as far as I remember , Some single core CPU's managed to get better performance from those Dual Cedar-Mills.
The architecture inside the XBOX360 CPU is a disaster from many perspectives too.You can go and see Microsoft even wanted IBM to make the GPU, ATI came as a rescuing angle,the design at CELL while it might be fine tuned to do some of the gaming related tasks.You can sqeeze all the performance out of it.Go and read even at the launch Micro$oft set the amount of Ram to 256MB for the console,the when they saw that PS3 had 512MB's they suddenly decided to double the amount of the Ram , causing shortages in the Ram (two companies were supposed to supply to chips to M$,Samsung and Hynix only the memories made by Samsung could actually operate @ 700Mhz.
Yet even when the games are not out,you are comparing the 360 optimized titles ? You should wait a bit...

The simple answer is "wait and see",the more detailed is go and see what Sony did.The licensed PhysX , Collada , the GNU toolchain all are signs that indicate a different approach than PS2 or PS1.

 

Gears of War is good, but there are other good games on the Xbox 360. From Dead Rising to Saints Row, Lost Planet to Project Gothem Racing 3, from Ghost Recon: AW to Rainbow Six: Vegas.

There are only two games I would bother with on the PS3 right now. Resistance and possibly GTHD, only becuase I do not have GT4.

In the future I will pick up Halo 3, GRAW 2, Forza 2, and many more titles. The only game that interest me in the future for PS3 is GTA 4, but that will be on the Xbox 360 as well.

As for Blueray, HDDVD is the Xbox alternative.

Backups, I don't think the PS3 will support backued games out the box. Both systems will need to be modded.

Huh, The CPU's on the Xbox are easier to program for then the cell. The games are also multithreaded to take advantage of the technology. The Xbox 360 also has more Ram and a more powerful video card. It supports newer technologies the PS3's card lacks. The PS3 screwed up big time the way they matched the hardware. Powerful CPU, although difficult to program for. Already outdated GPU. No scaler, how about all of those with older HDTV's, only 1080i?

 

I wasn't bashing the xbox. I was going along with Sylvain's argument. He said it was a bad investment. I said if that was the case, the PS3 looks to be even worse.

The PS2 still outsells the XBox, pretty much everywhere. No one are claiming the PS2 was a failure, I think.
But why do you think they got the better games? Because it sold well initially. That gave them a huge head start over the XBox, which meant when developers had to decide where to release their game, it was fairly obvious that going for the PS2 was the better deal. They might do an XBox port *as well*, or if they were taking a PC game, it might be simpler to make an XBox port than PS2, but when writing a game from scratch for consoles? It'd be ridiculous not to go for the best-selling console. Which, last generation meant PS2.

This time, it seems to be Wii or 360.

It also doesn't encourage them to use the network as much as the 360 does. So more of them will just be lazy and avoid it.
Still a valid point though, and we'll have to wait and see how this one ends up.

What on earth gives you that idea?

Yep, that makes sense. (At least, assuming Blu-Ray doesn't flop, which is too early to tell). If you want to use it for more than gaming, a PS3 might make sense.

I thought Resistance was cross-platform? Can't remember though, so might be wrong.

You know HD-DVD can do 51GB now?
And the BD discs are very easily scratched. The protective coating has to be much thinner, so it doesn't take much to destroy your backups. It's not a good media for backups.

Er? What deos older PC games have to do with your PS3?

True. That's where I'd get a Wii though, but you're right, the 360 doesn't really have much of that kind of stuff.

Same. But I certainly can't trust Sony either. At least Microsoft doesn't install rootkits on users systems because "they don't know what it is, so it's not a problem". They also don't try to cram a new proprietary media format down consumers throat every 6 months. (Betamax, minidisc, UMD, Blu-Ray. So far, all but the last one have failed, and the last one is still uncertain.). At least Microsoft tends to let you use non-proprietary and established technology.

Saying you don't trust MS is fair, but saying Sony is a better choice is just ridiculous.

MS didn't design the chip, IBM did. And it makes fairly good sense. It is a "proper" triplecore design, not three dies glued together. Three cores may be an odd number, but that doesn't mean it's not efficient. It means there's a corner of the die left over for other stuff. Shared cache, perhaps, redundancy for some components to improve yields, or just to reduce the heat output.

I disagree entirely. The 360 has a fairly elegant and very console-like architecture. It's the PS3's architecture that's a disaster.
You can go and see Microsoft even wanted IBM to make the GPU, ATI came as a rescuing angle,the design at CELL while it might be fine tuned to do some of the gaming related tasks.
[/quote]
No, you got that mixed up. Sony wanted the Cell to be the GPU, and NVidia came to rescue them. That's why it uses a repackaged GF7900.
Microsoft always planned for an ATI GPU. That's why ATI had time to develop a custom chip, which is a pretty **** elegant design. The 10MB EDRAM buffer is very clever, letting the GPU double as memory controller is a nice trick too.

As for the Cell itself, it's another example of Sony cramming proprietary technology down consumers throats. A plain Core 2 Duo would have been a vastly better choice for a gaming console. The Cell is powerful for other purposes, no doubt about that. And it may become a big hit in some markets, but not for gaming.

In fact, I'd say it's Sony who has no clue what they're doing.
Microsoft has shown impressive focus and consistency. They've aimed for a powerful and afforadble gaming console, which means all components have been picked for what is needed in *gaming*, and they've been picked based on what works well together (which is the "console approach").
They've designed it so well that the CPU and GPU can work very closely together, with the GPU doubling as memory controller. That shows a certain amount of foresight and well thought out design.

Sony has... done a bit of everything. Powerful multimedia CPU that sucks at gaming, combined with an off-the-shelf GPU, combined with an expensive and, for gaming, useless Blu-Ray drive. It's the PC approach, if anything. "Pick some completely separate components, and make them each do their job in isolation", without regard to what could be achieved if they were designed *together*.

What's wrong with that? Plans change, and Sony certainly also changed their plans when they found out what MS was doing. Both companies have done that, and it's probably been done with every generation so far.

 

One: That is a rumour post.
Two: Of course if your third party product breaks the PS3, Sony wont take responsibility! It's like buying a new Dell desktop, if you decide to water cool it and the water leaks and fries everything, Dell aren't responsible.

I haven't heard of it coming to PC, and I doubt my X1400 would suffice anyways.

I'd love to play Quake 3 on my HDTV. And other games, like Tie Fighter. I can do that on my PS3 without mucking about hooking my computer up.

I don't think any of those type of games are out for Wii.

Indeed, I don't care for RSX's and whatever other technologies they decide to bring out. For me, the PS3 will do more, better. For others, the Xbox or the Wii is more suitable. I for one am glad we as gamers have this choice. We are able to choose (hopefully correctly) the system that will give us the most enjoyment and value for money. I just get a bit fired up when people do useless bashing of a product. Unless it's Microsoft of course, my morals allow me to let people get away with bashing them needlessly. Sony are putting out a great product here, it's just not for everyone.

 

No, you got that mixed up. Sony wanted the Cell to be the GPU, and NVidia came to rescue them. That's why it uses a repackaged GF7900.
Microsoft always planned for an ATI GPU. That's why ATI had time to develop a custom chip, which is a pretty **** elegant design. The 10MB EDRAM buffer is very clever, letting the GPU double as memory controller is a nice trick too

[/QUOTE]
No, they both tried it.Microsoft wanted IBm to make CPU for it,Sony tried to do so.But they found out they couldn't after CELL project taking 5 years and the PC 3d Graphics leaping.The idea was good @ 1999 when the CELL was designed initially, still it's good for both of us,if the price for PS3 drops, it might make a good programming machine or me...
You can go and see, Microsoft went out to nVidia, nVidia had business on it's roadmap and was busy, so they gave out a high price to do the thing.Microsoft who didn't like ATI as their supplier,started asking IBM to make the GPU (I think they hoped they could get something from the AtiVec).Finding this out,ATI ran to Intel trying to convince MS to design the chip for XBOX360 themselves.It worked, ATI pulled out a magnificient design that we know as Xenos know (In fact I like it much more than I like Xenon)

I have to disagree with some parts.IBM G5 shows that IBM cannot make "perfect" things.In fact many people @ IBM suggested a year ago that it'll be good if IBM sold it's Microprocessor division to somewhere.

This also means that Sony's arrogance is fading a bit...

The conclusion for know : Both Sony and Microsoft have little clue to do with gaming consoles, but it worked for Microsoft while it didn't for Sony.

 

So, why do you say the original Xbox is a bad investment then? There's literally hundreds of games available for it, it's newer and more advanced hardware, the Xbox Live service means you can sign in and talk with friends while blasting away at your other friends, hard drive for data and media storage, solid action/fps/adventure titles, and dual port games always look better on the Xbox. Unless you're specifically looking for certain titles exclusive to the PS2, there's quite an argument to be had that the Xbox is a much better investment than the PS2.

In your defense, MS did make typical MS blunders both hardware and software wise on the first generation 360's. In fact, there's still a lot of pissed off 360 owners on Internet forums, with complaints ranging from "Xbox Live update killed my 360!" to "RCD (Red Circle of Death)". Just ugly stuff happening to these poor people who shelled out hundreds for a launch day 360.

 

It was a bad investment, because I would have enjoyed a PS2 a lot more. I don't necessarily go for the uber powerful machine, just what is going to give me the best experience possible. My Xbox didn't do that for me as well as my mate's PS2.

My comment wasn't related in any way to the Xbox 360.

 

"I loved Killzone! I wouldn't call it a flop, just because it didn't have as many thirteen year old, squealing fanboys. "Oh noes! Teh recoil!" I enjoy playing Killzone (in both its incarnations) much more than Halo. In my opinion, it's a Halo Killer.

And I justify it because I want a HTPC. I'll be getting one with the PS3. Just plug in a USB HDTV tuner and away I go. I also want to play better games than GoW. I think FFXIII and Resistance will do that for me. I also want to be able to watch videos on my PSP that are stored on my PS3's harddrive from anywhere in the world. I also want a Blu-Ray drive, as I want to be able to make 50GB backups of my stuff and would love it if I could run those backups on my console. I also want to plug in a wireless keyboard and mouse and play some older PC games on my 42" HD television. I also want to go out and purchase Singstar and Guitar Hero and play along with mates at parties."



Killzone flopped, who knows when the new one is coming out. Guitar Hero is coming out for the 360 in march. GT HD got canned. Rumors are running rampant about MGS4 being ported to 360. So eh, what is left for the PS3 again? Microsoft is selling a HD-DVD drive that you can buy, which will add up to about the same price as the PS3 for the console and the HD-DVD player. Microsoft has one of the best line-ups for 2007 of exclusive titles. The PS3 and the 360 will have many of the same games.

Some good games coming out this year alone (there must be at LEAST 20 that I want, but I can't think of them off the top of my head)

Mass Effect
Too Human
Bioshock
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
Banjo Kazooie 3
Blue Dragon
Halo 3
Crackdown
Medal of Honor: Airborne
Brothers in Arms
Dark Sector
GTA IV
Frontlines: Fuel of war
Alan Wake
Turok (FINALLY)
Black (next-gen)
Army of Two
Assassin's Creed
Kane & Lynch: Dead Men


Also note: Crysis WILL be ported to the 360, Read today in my game informer

 

Killzone: Liberation came out last year for the PSP.

 

This is what makes the 360 so good IMO: the games. Even though many of these are coming to the PS3 also, there are lots of exclusive titles like Mass Effect and Halo 3 and Blue Dragon that are going to be awesome. The history nor the design of the 360/PS3 will not affect this console war, it lies in the games.

 

If I can just go ahead and ask this:

Who the F cares what Gabe Newell thinks? Seriously? "Oh my God, it's Gabe 'Half-Life' Newell!" He doesn't produce for consoles, and frankly he's really only "made" two games. While these are admittedly two of the biggest games in history, they're also just one franchise, and in my personal opinion, they're grossly overhyped. (For the record, the overall best FPS to date in my opinion is still Far Cry.)

And Final Fantasy XIII? Really? That's going to drive the PS3? This isn't the nineties. Final Fantasy X didn't exactly move people in droves to the PS2 like FF7 did for the original PS.

If you want to know which console is making a killing right now, go out and try and buy a Wii. I can go out and get a PS3 or a 360. But the only way I can get a Wii is if I pay for Fry's horrible bundle. Everyone else is sold out.

That said, the PS3 is in my opinion a fiasco. Here's a console that sells for more than twice what the top-selling console is going for, loaded for bear with unproven technology, that was quite obviously rushed out the door. In the eleventh hour they had to go to nVidia for a GPU, changed their controller from the much maligned "batarang" to a Dual Shock that just so happened to have an accelerometer in it ("It's original! It's nothing like the Wiimote at all!") at the expense of getting rid of the rumble feature, have a sorry excuse for an HD implementation that's barely competitive with the Xbox360's, and they still couldn't produce anywhere near enough units for launch because: it's full of unproven technology!

They were hoping they could drive Blu-ray adoption with the PS3 like the PS2 drove DVD adoption, but instead are effectively shooting it in the foot. Developers don't know what the heck to do with it, either. Have you tried the MotorStorm demo they have at Target? It runs at a SCORCHING FAST 15fps. They're demoing the system with a game that's so choppy it borders on unplayable.

The PS3 isn't selling well, and if it's not selling well, it's not going to get a chance to mature, because developers are going to jump ship for the console that is. The PS3 smells an awful lot like a 3DO.

The Xbox360 is most likely going to remain the console of choice for hardcore gamers. Xbox Live is a breeze to use, and it seems like Microsoft learned from their mistakes with the original Xbox. The controller is vastly more comfortable than the original Xbox controller, and there are games I want to play on it. And, AND, Guitar Hero II is coming out for the Xbox360 anyhow, and will have downloadable songs in the future. I never thought I'd like the 360, but having played GRAW on it for an hour and spent some time with some other games, I'm pretty impressed with it.

I don't need to say anything about the Wii. That's one console everyone seems to be in agreement on.

 

What he said...

For once, I have nothing to add...

 

Actually Valve, before being their own company, helped other teams make games.

Try looking at the Duke Nukem 3d credits, you might find Valve on it... Or you should.

Btw, just a personal opinion, you ask who the F Gabe Newell is, a world famous game designer, for giving his opinion, than you start giving your opinion?

The same exact way Gabe Newell gave his?

Who the F are YOU

You could be famous too, we don't know, but I personally think everyone deserves their opinion, no matter how big or small they are.

 

Just a quick note to add in here.... MS didnt up the RAM because they saw Sony doing it ... They did because Cliffy B "the lead designer for gears of war" Showed them what GoW would like with 512 versus 256... it actually had nothing to do with Sony. And that was admitted by MS

 

I dunno man, I mean if John Carmack cared enough to talk about consoles I'd listen. Gabe's the next best choice. That said, you really need to try out all three consoles before you can render judgment. So far, I have (1) Wii (2) 360 (Undecided) PS3, need to try it out first.

 

If there's one game programmer that I'd listen to, it's Tim Sweeney. That guy is a guru if there ever was one.

Gabe? Oh, you mean Gabe "I've never written a line of multithreaded code" Newell?
Carmack? Self-taught garage coder. He's good at maths, and he gets the job done. But it's not pretty, it's not elegant, and it doesn't mean he's qualified to speak about anything other than the hacks he's come up with to make Doom run smoothly. Many of which are obsolete now, btw, and will probably slow down a game, if anything.

But anyway, that's just my opinion...

 

Darn Tootin'! Though I do have my respect for Carmack and his team's business model and views towards the community. I haven't quite seen anything like the Unreal series.

 

when solid AAA list PS3 exclusive titles, like the new metal gear title start hitting the shelves, the ps3 will be declared a sucess, The ps2 was a hard system to code for as well, and it turned out just fine, the ps3 isnt having a spectacular launch, thats a given, and I'm sure sony saw it coming, I know I did. When the ps2 launched, it was very expensive, hard to code, but it was the only new kid on the block, and it had a handful of A titles you couldnt get anywhere else, so it had a decent launch, the ps3 doesnt have that luxury, bottom line, an unsuccesful launch does not = a failed console, the games will come out, and people will buy it, prices will come down and people will buy it, in the console world, the money is in the software, thats what hurt nintendo a few years back when they thought they owned the world, and put all kinds of restrictions and tried to wring too much blood out of the developers pockets, and eventually, they all moved to other platforms. Nintendo is still in the midst of recovering from that, the ps3 might not wind up as big a success as the ps2, but it will be a success, my prediction is that about the time the Wii novelety fades, will be when the true power of the ps3 will start to really shine, it is a remarkable piece of hardware, but with all brand new things, you gotta learn how to use it first

 

The PS3 has two things the PS2 did not. The known quality video game name, Playstation (Xbox is now known for quality and has a fan base as well). Also the fact most people bought the PS2 as a cheap DVD player. This was the plan for Blueray, but it's too early. People already bought their collections on DvD, why switch now?

The PS3 will not sell the way the PS2 did. The Xbox 360 already has great games, a fan base, decent price, and a great lineup of upcoming titles. I hear more about major upcoming Xbox games then PS3. Developers are leaving Sony for Micosoft. It will be the #2 system after the Xbox. Wii is in a different category.

As for the Hardware, if the PS3 was more powerful then the 360, we would have seen it at launch. The 360 games smoother with some more detail. The reality is the PS3 is slightly less powerful then the Xbox 360. Sony claimed the PS3 would be what the Xbox was to the PS2. Didn't happen. It isn't even only about the difficulty of coding, it's about the GPU.

Already have (Xbox 360 one month old):

-Gears of War
-GRAW
-COD 2
-NBA 2K7

I'm planning on picking up for the Xbox 360 (List subject to change, no order):

-GTA 4
-GRAW 2
-Forza 2
-Halo 3
-NBA Street Homecourt
-Def Jam: Icon
-Major League Baseball 2K7
-Crysis
-Banjo-Kazooie 3
-BioShock (Curious)
-Tenchu Z (If it turns out like the original)
-Upcoming UFC game
-Crackdown
-Resident Evil 5
-Dead Rising
-Saints Row

And many more...

 

Why wait for the PS3 to get good games when you can get the 360 NOW and get great games!

 

No, it's the games. We've seen games like Black run on a PS2, and it looked better than 99% of Xbox titles, despite having far worse hardware to run on. On a game that is properly coded, I don't think we'd see much difference, if any.

Out of that whole list I'd probably get CoD2/3 but, I can just get them for PS3 anyways. And, Crysis isn't coming to Xbox360.