PS3 vs PC

Thanks JCMS for pointing out where was my mistake.

 

Ok, as I never got a chance to reply yesterday and the first line suggests it was directed at me...

Well since you brought up the cost by saying you built your rig for the price of a "decent" HDTV, it would seem that you care about cost. Like most of us who aren't millionaires. And I said you can play a PS3 (or xbox 360 for that matter) on your monitor (y'know, the thing you use for your computer) at HD resolution, not SDTV.

And cheers, I'm hardly a braindead consolite. Although if I was, it would be slightly better than using childish remarks like that. I'd prefer it if you kept off the generalisations and personal attacks.

No, it means that you're using a keyboard and mouse on a Console. You have no operating system to go through (technically, you do, but its more firmware rather than a windows scale operation) unless you choose, Fixed hardware, different architecture and in most if not all cases, no installation of games.

Ok, so you've been using HD resolution for a while on a monitor. Well done. Thing is, it was necessary for the applications PC's were designed for. Having a low resolution screen would make even word processing difficult. PC games naturally have to use this resolution because thats the environment they are being developed in.

Its "amazing" for televisions because we're able to broadcast television pictures in that resolution and also able to use that resolution for films (HD-DVD and the like) which we could never do before. Consoles never had to use this resolution before and now they need to to keep up with the trends in the consumer television market.

Maybe you need to sit up and take note of how you are starting to sound. Fanboys of any sort get annoying. I haven't put forward any biased arguments so if that was directed at me, you've got the wrong impression.

Oh and I'm also a fan of FPS's and RTS's. Just because I can enjoy these on a PC doesn't mean I have to hate consoles for what they do well.

 

Depends on how you measure it (and when you bought your PS3)
Most people already have a PC. That means the *additional* cost to make it a gaming PC (basically buy a good GPU) is a lot smaller than that of buying a new PC from scratch.

Not sure what you mean. You'll need to replace it some day. Just like you need to replace individual PC hardware one day.
And games that run well on your PC now will always run well on your PC without spending a single dollar on upgrades. Yes, you may need to upgrade to play new games one day. Just like you'll need to buy a PS4 to play new games one day. I don't think it's so fundamentally different. Both systems will get obsolete over time. The only difference is that the PC does it gradually.

True about Blu-Ray, the PS3 scores there. (On the other hand, can't you get a HDDVD drive for your PC for $99? That'd lessen the advantage abit)
As for upscaling, do I need to mention that the PS3 can't upscale to 1080i? So if you don't have a 1080p TV, you're stuck with old-fashioned low-def resolution.
PC's are generally very flexible with resolutions though, so upscaling isn't really an issue there at all. Not sure how that part is a win for PS3.

How is that an advantage over a PC?

Agreed, if you need all these things, then the PS3 is a great deal. If you have (or plan to buy) a library of blu-ray movies, it's a big advantage. Not everyone does that though.
If you like the games that are on PS3, that adds value. Not everyone do, again.
As for the OS, I'm not sure what the big deal is. What do you plan to use it for? That you couldn't do on your 5 year old PC?
(But again, *if* you need it, the PS3 becomes a fairly good deal)

On the other hand, if you're only interested in one of these offerings, the PS3 is suddenly very pricey. It's a lot of money for *just* a high-def movie player. It's a lot of money for *just* a system to play games on. But I agree it's a good deal for someone interested in *everything* it does.

 

Well, assuming that you have a motherboard which supports PCI-e cards. If not, then thats a change of motherboard, and potentially a new CPU and RAM.

I do agree with this however. Especially if you're willing to play games at less-than-maximum details.

And I also agree about your other points about the PS3 only really being worth it if you're interested in the entire media-centre thang. But then PC's aren't worth it if you're only interested in the gaming. Works both ways.

 

Very well articulated Jalf. I purchased my PS3 the first day it came out. And yes I only use it to play PS3 games. I have no interest in any of it's other features and probably never will. So for me yes it was an expensive purchase.

I get a better bang for the dollar with my PC because I use it for things other than playing games. Again well said.

 

pc for me... ive played my friends ps3 and didnt really care for it. the only advantage to it is the blu-ray player

 

um hello! 720p? im sure it can upscale to that, its considered high def. or is that what you meant in the first place because low def imo is 480i/p.

 

Ah Jalf, you tore my poor little post apart.

Depends on how you measure it (and when you bought your PS3)
Most people already have a PC. That means the *additional* cost to make it a gaming PC (basically buy a good GPU) is a lot smaller than that of buying a new PC from scratch.

Agreed, it does depend on how you measure it. With current GPU prices, it is quite possible to buy just a graphics card for the same price as a console. I was talking about starting from scratch.

Not sure what you mean. You'll need to replace it some day. Just like you need to replace individual PC hardware one day.
And games that run well on your PC now will always run well on your PC without spending a single dollar on upgrades. Yes, you may need to upgrade to play new games one day. Just like you'll need to buy a PS4 to play new games one day. I don't think it's so fundamentally different. Both systems will get obsolete over time. The only difference is that the PC does it gradually.

Very true. I guess what I am getting at here is that a given generation of console can't really be upgraded. Any game will play on it, no need to worry about drivers, tweaking, etc. With a PC this isn't always the case as the latest generation of graphics cards can't even run Crysis maxed out as we have seen in recent times.

True about Blu-Ray, the PS3 scores there. (On the other hand, can't you get a HDDVD drive for your PC for $99? That'd lessen the advantage abit)
As for upscaling, do I need to mention that the PS3 can't upscale to 1080i? So if you don't have a 1080p TV, you're stuck with old-fashioned low-def resolution.
PC's are generally very flexible with resolutions though, so upscaling isn't really an issue there at all. Not sure how that part is a win for PS3.

I don't know how much HD-DVD drivers are for PCs to be honest. I though they were still a bit pricey still. I think you can mod the 360 one to work though.

As for the upscaling, it is true that you need a 1080p monitor (I guess, if it is true, I don't know for a fact), however, even though PCs can upscale easily, you also have to have a 1080p monitor there as well. Also, if it indeeds does upscale to 720p, that is a vast improvement over 480i. I guess the upscaling one could go either way, I'd honestly have to look into it more and what the PS3 can really upscale too.


How is that an advantage over a PC?
My bad......I think when I wrote that I was comparing the PS3 to other consoles in my head. Certainly you can run any OS on a PC.

Agreed, if you need all these things, then the PS3 is a great deal. If you have (or plan to buy) a library of blu-ray movies, it's a big advantage. Not everyone does that though.
If you like the games that are on PS3, that adds value. Not everyone do, again.
As for the OS, I'm not sure what the big deal is. What do you plan to use it for? That you couldn't do on your 5 year old PC?
(But again, *if* you need it, the PS3 becomes a fairly good deal)

I agree, and that was what I was trying to get at more than a direct PC comparison (and I aplogize for that, I was thinking more of a cost standpoint if you are interesting in feature other than gaming). I think it is a bargain really if you consider using it for anything other than gaming, especially if you want to do blue-ray movies.

On the other hand, if you're only interested in one of these offerings, the PS3 is suddenly very pricey. It's a lot of money for *just* a high-def movie player. It's a lot of money for *just* a system to play games on. But I agree it's a good deal for someone interested in *everything* it does.
Again, agreed. IMHO, a PS3 is most justified from a cost standpoint if you are doing things other than gaming. Other wise $400 is a lot to pay to game, especially when I new AMD based system could be built easily for similar cost.

 

My only complaint about Blu-Ray is that you don't see it's advantages unless you have an HDTV. Thats why Blu-Ray wouldn't be a selling point for me; I don't want to buy an HDTV. Maybe one day....

 

I couldn't agree more. I don't have an HDTV yet......I mostly got the PS3 for the Blue-ray player though as I plan on looking for one in Jan-Feb when the prices should be real nice.

This also supports what has been stated several times here is that the PS3 isn't neccesarily cost effective if you only plan to use it for gaming. Of course, everything is just opinion though.

 

Well, I haven't really kept up with it either, but I did see something about HDDVD players being sold for $99 a month or two ago. But can't remember if this was standalone players, or PC drives.

As for the upscaling, let me clarify (after googling it because I couldn't remember the details

If you have a TV that can output 1080i, but not 720p (which isn't all that uncommon), your content will *not* get upscaled to 1080i. It will get downscaled all the way to 480p! That's just not cool.

 

On the PS3 or with HD-DVD playuer? They fixed it in a PS3 firmware

 

Yea, that is/was lame........but..........

.........if it is fixed, life is good.

 

I'll trust my own eyes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk

And guys... No offense to anyone in this thread but, holy crap you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.

For what its worth my brother is building what I consider to be a very nice computer for under 1000$.. 2.4 ghz, with an 8800 gpu 2 gigs of ram and 250 gig hard drive all under 1k. It is sli capable but, he isn't going to at the moment because a single 8800 (excluding crysis) should be able to play pretty much anything just fine.

He is having one hell of a merry x mas when he can finally put all the stuff sitting around together. I wonder how much he is gunna over clock the cpu...

I *might* be gettin a ps3 for x mas. I have joked about wanting one with my mother and she made a comment that kinda leads me to believe I might be getting one. And realistically I can't complain.

Is he gunna have the more powerful machine? yep no doubt. Its hard to beat the sense of satisfaction I"m sure he feels for shopping around and getting that comp fairly cheap. I somehow doubt many people can argue that its a good machine.

But, realistically you have to look at the situation. He is 14 and saved up money all his life to do it. I'm in college with a laptop. Its not a "gaming laptop" but, I got the highest specs I could at the time (which are quickly becoming obsolete). So while I will always play games on this laptop.. I can't say I have much hope of being able to play Assassins Creed or Crysis on it very well. So a ps3 really wouldn't hurt because I know it will last until I'm done with college and I won't have to worry about upgrades.

I must say I find it ironic people are trying to wage this savage blood war over whats "best".

Like everything else in life its all about what you want. As an athlete you have a high maintenance body meaning you have to work harder just to keep it running properly and in shape. If your the average person you can do far less maintenance to get your desired affect. A comp is far higher maintenance to keep it running and up to date. If your in it for the visual experience get aquianted with computers. Learn whats compatible with what and prepair to shell out money if your really determined to stay ahead of the curve and get the best visual experience.

That being said if your a *gamer* and not in it just because you want to see eye candy.. Then you should realistically be able to appreciate consoles and computers. But, what do I know XD.

 

Considering we´re talking price worthy here, then I would say the 360 is more priceworthy and cheaper than the PS3. For me the PS3 is still too expensive for being a console, for me Blu Ray doesn´t matter. What will be the future format anyway? So far Sony has failed with every single format they have put out, Beta Max, Mini Disc, UMD so what´s next? Now I´m not saying HD-DVD will the format, but all this hype about Blue Ray and the PS3 just makes me laugh when I think about former Sony media formats

Also this talk about the PS3 is so superior, which console has the best shading power out there? That must be the 360 with it´s GPU with 48 unified shaders and free 4xAA through the EDRAM.

Actually another moot point for the PS3 is that Sony always makes it tough for developers to develop games for it, here I would say Microsoft has more experience. Ah well continue arguing.

 

I just wanted to weigh in on this argument.

Before I post my thoughts, I want to get the funny comments out of the way.

That's funny because the big name games the Playstation3 fanboys are trying to push off as superior games only run at 30fps, or even less in most cases. UT3 is locked at 30fps as is Resistance: Fall of Man. Half-Life 2: Episode 2 can't even achieve 30fps in most cases.

You just contradicted yourself. You say that 30fps is not playable for FPS, but then you mention two FPS that are locked at 30fps as having great graphics.

To be perfectly honest with you, UT3 doesn't look anywhere near as good on the PS3 as it does on the PC, and Resistance pales in comparison to the original Half-Life 2 and falls way short of HL2: Episode 2, which the PS3 can't even run above slideshow frame-rates.

Ratchet and Clank is the only game on that list that looks impressive and doesn't have some kind of short coming that brings your whole graphics argument down.

The mention of Gran Turismo just makes me laugh. I loved those games in the past. But we're on Gran Turismo 5 now and we STILL have trees that are made out of 4 polygons? We STILL don't have car damage? I'm sorry, but the car models can be the best looking ever.. but it's about time they live up to their slogan of "the real driving simulator" and include car damage. How about some trees with blowing leaves? That'd be nice. Xbox racing games had that way back in 2002.

With the obvious exception of Gran Turismo, games only run at 1080p on the PS3 now because Sony opened up its scaling capabilities a few months after launch. Most games are just like those on the Xbox360. Meaning the PS3 renders them at 720p, or lower, and then upscales it to the display resolution.

And we all know Gran Turismo only runs at 1080p thanks to the static environments with the cheesy "people" on the sides that have a couple of frames animation.

Oh yeah? Show me a PC RPG from 2001 that can match FFX.

Anyway, a PC is an overall better value. The PS3 is simply too expensive for what it is. Picking sides in the blu-ray and HD-DVD war will only get you burned. Ask anyone who bought a betamax player, minidisc player, UMD movies for the PSP, or Super Audio CD.

To get the fully functional PS3 (sorry, but $399 and NO backwards compatibility? S T U P I D) you have to put out $499 minimum. Plus you have to buy all of the cables (at least MS is nice enough to include component and/or HDMI cables depending on the model).

What do you get for $499? A blu-ray player.. which is useless. A media center that really isn't any good. The ability to play your old games, which are far better than the current ones available for the PS3. You also get the ability to play PS3 games.

But honestly, besides Ratchet, who cares about PS3 games? Everything the PS3 has is on the PC or Xbox360 and both of them will play the games at better framerates. The "exclusives", besides Ratchet, have all been a joke so far. Resistance is okay, but it doesn't hold a candle to the likes of Gears of War or a properly running Half-Life 2. Lair? Don't make me laugh. Not only did the game PLAY terrible, but it had so many glitches and bugs that you could barely play it at all. Gotta love when the camera starts going through mountains and reveals the horribly low polygon count, or the frame-rate takes a dump on you. Gran Turismo? Sorry, I grew out of bumper cars when I was a child. It's time for some car damage and trees that actually have leaves that blow in the wind. Xbox racing games had that at the beginning of the decade, why can't a 10 year old series have the same finally? Don't give me that "physics" crap either because most people are playing on their controller so it really doesn't make a difference. Final Fantasy 13? The last good Final Fantasy was FF8. FF9 was okay, but the character design and surprise boss at the end killed the game. FFX, X-2, and 12 have all been downright horrible. Not to mention the other junk Square has made, like Kingdom Hearts and all their little kiddie anime games.

Taking into account that most PS3 games have awful frame-rate issues, except for GT, Ratchet, and Resistance, or they look terrible (like Motorstorm), you can easily build a PC that will play games better at 720p (just like how PS3 games, except GT, are all rendered at 720p and upscaled) for about the same cost. And, hey, you can even hook it up to your HDTV via HDMI. Plus you can do more with it!

The PS3 is a terrible joke. It's insanely overpriced, has features most people won't use (especially considering that something like 3/4 of all people in the US still don't have HDTVs), and the architecture is a nightmare for developers. What the hell was Sony thinking? Look at the Cell. The official spec calls for the one main core and 8 "SPEs". But 1 SPE on the PS3's Cell is disabled for redundancy (meaning your PS3 could have a defective processor that has the defective part disabled), and another SPE is dedicated to the XMB. That leaves the 1 main core and 6 SPEs. Let's not forget that the main core is based off the PowerPC G5 technology that Apple dropped because it was getting too hot and Intel was about to leave PPC technology in the dust with the introduction of the Core series. The PS3 also has an inferior GPU compared to the Xbox360. And then you have the RAM. You're limited to 256+256MB, which leaves the developers with problems such as how to fit more than 256MB of textures into system memory, because streaming them off the blu-ray disc is far too slow. Let's not forget that Sony charges as much as 100x more than Microsoft for the basic developer kit.

The PS3 is really just a joke. For consumers and game developers alike. I'll take my notebook over a PS3 anyday. It may only have a GeForce 8400M in it, but my LCD TV is only 720p. The TV has an ATI video processor in it, so games at 720p look amazing. Even at lower resolutions, they still run great. My PS3 owning friend (only 1 out of about 100 people that had owned a PS2 that I know ended up getting a PS3, rest are going PC or Xbox360) was pissed when he saw that I was running UT3 on my LCD TV and, even though the resolution was lower than the PS3 version, it looked every bit as good and ran at a higher frame-rate. He was even more pissed when I switched over to Half-Life 2 Episode 2 and showed him that it didn't hiccup once, with all details maxed.

Oh I forgot to mention.. if I want to watch high def movies, well.. I don't have to take sides. Any PC owner can get a combo HD-DVD/blu-ray reader and play both formats.

 

UT3 looks better on my PS3 than it does my MacBook.

Lack of car damage is a legal issue, not technical.

Welcome to beta testing. Judge the finished product.

Meh, I bought a $700 PS3. It plays games better than my $1500 MacBook. I'm happy with my purchase, and no arguments anyone has given takes away the good value I've found in the PS3 over the equivalently priced Xbox 360 or a much more expensive gaming machine. And besides, I enjoy my UMD movies too.

I do. And I don't care about Ratchet.

Purely personal opinion. State them as such or get the ***** out of this thread.

So what if it is? I got what I paid for. Nothing more, nothing less. Remember some Core Solo processors were damaged Core Duos.

Your precious 360 uses PowerPC as well, is that outdated rubbish?

Well, I for one can notice a difference between 800x600 and 1280x720. I prefer the later.

So can any PS3 owner. Just because they have a Blu-Ray player doesn't mean they've signed a contract saying they'll never buy a HD-DVD. But if I were to buy HD movies, it would most likely be Blu-Ray. It's the more accepted format over here, and titles are cheaper and easier to come by.

 

Think price wise too... how much would you need to build a comp. with nearly the same performance as a ps3? way more then $500

 

Heh, my MacBook can't even play older games like UT2k4 or Half-Life 2 at decent settings.

I really don't even use my MacBook any more.

Actually, Sony used that excuse in the 90s for GT1 and GT2. Now their excuse for no car damage is "it would take too many man hours to write proper physics". It's not a legal issue at all and, realistically, was it ever? With the exception of Gran Turismo, nearly every racing game in the last 10 years that has licensed real cars has had car damage.

Considering how far along the game is in development, you think they're going to suddenly upgrade the entire environment? No.

Well, my $950 (priced before the product refresh) HP dv6500t plays games better than my $1408 "middle" MacBook. Big deal. Macs are awful for gaming and to use them in comparison is ridiculous. You're talking about a system with an integrated GPU that isn't even on par with dedicated desktop GPUs from the beginning of this decade.

"Equivalently priced Xbox360"? Don't try to tell me you use the lame "you have to buy HD-DVD drive, wireless, etc" argument, do you? Because, for one, HD-DVD and blu-ray are totally useless. For gaming, blu-ray is not needed and the 2x blu-ray drive is, on average, less than half the speed of the DVD-ROM drive in the Xbox360. Not to there isn't a single PS3 game that can't fit on a dual-layer DVD without compressing the audio. Why even use uncompressed audio when AAC has been proven to be transparent at low bitrates? Especially when most people are using cheap HTiB audio systems or TV speakers. Wireless? Sorry, I like HD video content on my HDTV, and 802.11g bites for streaming HD content. Wired connections only.

The Xbox360 has better games, better graphics, games run better, the Xbox Live Market Place isn't a joke like the Playstation Store.. oh, and I can actually listen to MY OWN MUSIC while playing games. The original Xbox did this. Why can't Sony make this a standard feature?

Please Every Final Fantasy fan I know of that is above the age of 15 and played them prior to FFX can't stand the post-Playstation era of Square games.

Yes, you're right, you did. You got an overpriced, unpowered, defective system with no games and ridiculously expensive, yet useless features

It has much better overall architecture than the PS3. The Xbox360 has a triple core G5, each core capable of 2 threads and having their own co-processor, with the main cores running at 3.2GHz. While the PS3 has 1 main core and 6 SPEs available for games. Funny thing about Sony.. they love to talk about how much the Cell can do, but in real world performance, the Xbox360 is capable of more threads than the Cell. Plus the Xbox360's big chunk of 512MB of memory really helps developers out, along with faster streaming off the disc. And as its already been mentioned, the Xbox360 basically gets "free" anti-aliasing thanks to the dedicated frame-buffer that the PS3 lacks.

800x600 with the same details and properly upscaled to 720p by an ATI video processor while running at 40-60fps is better than 720p locked at 30fps with a controller and slower gameplay

Even if there were more movies on blu-ray in Australia, the studio support still isn't there. Studio support is still split down the middle.

Considering that most PS3 games can't even hold 30fps (except what? 3? 4?), with many (like HL2 EP2) dropping into slideshows during gameplay, you could easily build a PC that would do the same at the same resolutions for less than $500

 

Hmm SauronMos you gave me a perfect idea, I will get a nice small HDTV that I can have in front of my laptop. My go7800GTX will eat games in the ridiciculous low resolution of 1280x720 well except Crysis.

I agree that the PS3 is way overhyped by Sony. It doesn´t deliever what they said, I have a clip where Sony´s front man mentions that the old PS2 is a supercomputer, couldn´t laugh more. It is exact hype about the PS3 too, it´s a supercomputer but I would like to see that proven first and yes in games. So far my 360 has more and better games than the PS3, though I was keen once in buying a PS3 but I will just hold until I see how it develops.

Uncharted isn´t my cup of tea and "bump cars" not so either since I have played Dirt.

What one is afraid of is if I sold my 360 and went for PS3, most multiplats I have seen so far have framerate issues on the PS3. I looked at a clip of Half Life 2 Episode Two the game shouldn´t have that severe framerate issues like it has.

 

They also so said it would from 2009-2010, not 2007 if I recall

And those are ports, so of course it has all kind of issues. Native 360 games are coded in DX9 for most of them, so windows ports go well but when they port it to the PS3, they have to convert it to OpenGL

 

Since when are we talking about 10 years ago. this really has nothing to do with anything, talk about pulling useless crap out of no where.

so think before you talk much? blu ray is not useless and neither is HD DVD. I love viewing movies on my 60 inch projection on HD DVD, they look phenomenal and blu ray probably does too.

blu ray will be needed in the future, when more storage is needed for gaming, as the trend goes. xbox will still be using its DVD disks and will not be able to get any more games because they will not fit. Unless people are buying that newer on that is coming with the HD DVD drive in it.

Sound compression? again who cares about how they "compress" the sound, how is that possibly affecting your or others gaming experience and it is certainly not a valid point.

Ok so wire your console than.....taa daa...

haha the graphics are pretty much the same on either, each having its own strengths, but Sony has only had a year and XBOX 360 has had like 2.

oh ok, I also love paying for everything I have to download, and paying for XBOX live.

yeah everyone deciding to buy a console will not buy a PS3 but only an XBOX becuase they can play their own music while playing games.

great....they must be as narrow minded as you

$50 more is overpriced? how so? the CPU is more powerful in the PS3. They are many games coming out soon. Blu Ray isnt useless, as you will eventually find out. so it has no games? im quite sure it has atleast one. WI FI isnt useless for soem people, i hate wires....but apparently your opinion should be everyone elses as well.

the memory on the PS3 is WAYYY faster then the 360's it evens it out. the average person going to buy is not worrying about the "architecture" or how many "threads it can run" WHO CARES....if it games it games...jesus

hey everyone, you have to agree with everything he says...its all thats right

i thought blu ray didnt matter?

so the PS3 has no games at all but there are 3 or 4 that can run at 30fps...thats pretty much all of them...great!

ok build me a pc that could that for less than $500. ill buy it

 

Weren't there a lot of limitations in that fix? Like, it required software support from the individual games, and so on? And it still wouldn't be the same quality as if it'd been hardware supported?

I can't check since I don't have a PS3, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't *just* fixed.

 

What is that supposed to prove?

 

I guess you don't remember the Compact Disc then Sony invented CDs in conjunction with Philips.

"Free" 4xAA on the XBox360 is marketing. Very few XBox360 games get more than 2xAA.

Sony doesn't "make things tough for developers" for the sake of making things difficult. Difficulty of game development is a by-product of using custom hardware that doesn't have its roots in a previous architecture, this has been true of every generation of Playstation. Sony has a reputation for providing excellent development tools and support for game devs. The early tools for PS3 were late and lacking, but that has long since been remedied. Several game developers clearly have PS3 development down already. Insomniac (Resistance: Fall of Man, Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction) and Naughty Dog (Uncharted: Drake's Fortune) are proof of that. It can take a game or two before a dev learns the ins and outs of the PS3. I can't think of a single first generation game on any platform that was as graphically impressive or as optimized as games of the last generation for that same platform.

 

The key word there is that they're LOCKED @ 30 fps. Crysis dips to single digits or low-mid teens if you have a beast system.

I believe it's already been mentioned how little TLC the Orange Box PS3 port received, with Valve doing none of the work themselves and simply farming it off to EA (not exactly known for making titles run smoothly).

Steady 30 fps is better than a frame rate that jumps all over the place, often dipping below 30. No, it's not as good as a steady 60 fps, but I'll take a solid 30 fps over one that dips down to slideshow levels any day.

That's funny. I'm not going to debate you on this one, your opinion is your own.

I guess you haven't played Uncharted then...

ROFLMFAO. If the biggest knock you have against a game which is still in development is that its ancillary objects are somewhat lacking in the polygon department then my hat is off to Polyphony Digital, because they truly have an amazing looking game. The phrase "you can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind here IOW: big picture. GT5 looks amazing.

What does this have to do with graphical fidelity? Not a damn thing, that's what.

Car damage is slated to be included in the game once it is completed. This has been documented by the gaming press as coming straight from PD, including Kazunori Yamauchi himself.

Show me an XBox game that looks remotely like this, then we can talk about leaves blowing in the wind.

Low-res digicam photos of the Audi R8 in GT5 Prologue:



Ohs teh noes! Teh trees aren't 100% photo-realistic!
The game's not called "real tree simulator"

When do first generation games ever fully take advantage of a console's capabilities? Never, last time I checked. If by the end of the PS3's life cycle there are no true 1080P games then I will concede this point. Until then however, this is an open book.

That's rasterization for you. In order to simulate scenes in real time, sacrifices have to be made. I'm sorry there isn't a platform that's fast enough to draw a scene in real time with photo-realism yet, but we get closer with each generation of hardware.

Now you're arguing my side for me. Any time a console surpasses PCs it just goes to show the benefits of a closed architecture.

Can I borrow that crystal ball of your sometime? I'd like to pick some lottery numbers so I can hopefully win enough money to build a gaming rig that can out-do my PS3, but I don't currently have the 5 grand or more I'd need to do that...

And then let's just forget about the most successful format of all-time, the Compact Disc, developed jointly by Sony and Philips.

Forest. Trees.

So the B-r movies I've watched since I've owned my PS3 either don't exist or provide no tangible benefit over DVD? Thanks for the info.

So the ability to play divx movies via WLAN on a PSP is useless? Thanks, I'll tell my friends with PSPs & PS3s to stop doing that because it "isn't any good".

My, what a marvelously well thought-out insight you've provided here, thank you for sharing it with us all.

Eh, most of the 6 million or so people that have purchased one so far, I'd imagine...

Yep, I love playing Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, GT HD Concept, Resistance, Warhawk, Lair, Super Stardust HD, Everyday Shooter, Blast Factor, LocoRoco, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, and Heavenly Sword all on my PC.

Oh, wait....

Purely sujective. Resistance has been receiving great reviews universally, and I have yet to meet someone that has played it and not recommended I do the same.

And you know this because you own a PS3 and have played this game, right? Yeah, I'll bet. To be quite honest, for a non-PS3 owner such as yourself to be speaking about PS3 games in such a manner is not only irrelevant but smacks of fanboyism.

I've already debunked this drivel.

You're right. Having what is universally recognized as the best driving physics engine in existance is irrelevant, next to such important things as having higher polygon counts for the trees, and leaves that blow in the wind.

LOL, you're really something man.

Pure opinion here. Totally irrelevant at that, considering you have no intention of purchasing any of these games. Why comment on a game that you have never and will never play? You may as well be telling us about the ugly woman down the hall that you don't want to have *** with, at this point.

Again, you know this from experience, right? Every PS3 game I own plays very smoothly, and looks fantastic. Same goes for all the demos I've downloaded. That's about 20 games in all. How do you top a spot-less record? Could things be better? Always. That's the nature of the business.

Pure opinion again. Motorstorm certainly isn't the best-looking title on the platform, but it's far better than anything from the last generation and it runs buttery smooth with a crapload of detail in the scene. Yeah, they could've used better texture filtering, but they didn't and I'm sure it was with good reason. You have to remember, this was a launch title and on a very short deadline. If there is a Motorstorm2, you can be assured it will look better than the original.

No one here is claiming that a PS3 is an all-around superior solution to a PC. Just that it's a better solution for an entertainment device. Again, show me the PC that can do everything the PS3 does for less money. You can't. Yet.

I'd say the same to anyone that thinks spending 5 grand on a PC is a good value proposition.

Tell me about it. The $500 I spent on my top-of-the-line model has been such a waste. I haven't gotten any value out of it whatsoever. Nope, the ability to play hi def movies on my 42" 1080P LCD HDTV or next-gen games is completely worthless. I haven't enjoyed every single second with my PS3 so far.

Note: the above was sarcasm.

I'd say that's up to them to decide. Last time I checked you're not making anyone else's decisions for them.

HDTV penetration is always climbing. You can be assured that by the time the country goes to all-digital broadcasting in Feb. '09 the HDTV market will have exploded. Also, I'd like to see the numbers on HDTV ownership after this holiday season. You know HDTVs are a hot item every year, and they only get cheaper as time goes by. I'll bet you see a significant spike in ownership come next January. Sure, probably only a few percent, but that's still millions of TVs, which is definitely statistically significant.

And you know this because you're a game developer, right? People said the same thing of PS1 and PS2 when they came out, and look where they ended up. Both were the best-selling platform of their respective generations, having by far the biggest game library of any platform of the same generation. I'm sure facts like that don't matter in your world though.

Again, people said the same thing at PS1 and PS2 launch. Look where they ended up.

Your point being?

Hello, and welcome to the wonderful world of MPU design. This is Standard Operating Procedure in the world of MPUs. Of course, to laymen such as yourself you probably don't know this.

Again, what's your point? The Cell is still more than twice as fast as any PC processor in terms of single precision floating point operations per second. This is like saying "well, Ferrari meant to put a V8 in their latest supercar but they knocked it down to a V6 at the last minute so no one should buy it." Rather irrelevant if it's still the fastest thing on the road

Perhaps if you actually knew what you were talking about you might know that this is irrelevant, but since you don't, I'll explain it for you:
The PPC-derived "PPU" in Cell is little more than a "control" processor. It issues commands to the SPUs, which perform the vast majority of calculations Cell is tasked to achieve. It handles low-level OS interaction. A properly-programmed game will not be slowed by this architectural design decision. Now, if a game developer completely ignores all PS3 design guidelines and "best practices" and tasks the PPU with performing the majority of CPU calculations, you can be assured that game will run poorly, but no developer in their right mind would do such a thing.
Also let's not forget that your beloved XBox360 has a CPU derived from the same ISA (PPC) and resembles a 3-core PPU from Cell. XBox360 games were doing fine on the CPU front, last time I checked, but we can't be bothered with trivial details like that now, can we?

On paper, and if you ignore the fact that Cell's SPUs have GFLOPs of power on tap that are well-suited to many graphics rendering tasks (as many PS3 game devs are finding out), sure. RSX & Cell are designed to work in conjunction with each other. Cell has so much "spare horsepower" that it can handle many tasks that are traditionally performed by the GPU.

XBox360 has the same problem. I don't see you bringing that up. Gee, I wonder why...

If you say so, you are a PS3 game developer afterall. Oh, wait...

I tend to disbelieve nice round numbers like that, as they're often exaggerations or simply fabrications. Feel free to prove me wrong with some sort of source for your claim.

Tell me about it. It's not like there are more console gamers than PC gamers or anything. Oh, wait...

LOL, thanks for the laugh. You keep on playing with your GF 8400M and thinking that it's better than my PS3. Remember that oh-so-pathetic GPU in PS3? Guess, what, it's at least 4x faster than your GPU.

Remind all our readers what such a drive costs again, will you? Or did you just forget to leave the little inconvenient fact that such a drive costs more than a PS3?

And this ends the longest post in forum history.

 

Stop quoting individual sentences please! It is so hard to read and usually leads to the poster misinterpreting what people are really trying to say.

I personally think the 360 runs games much better than the PS3 does, but im only basing this on the 360/PS3 games i've played and the few framerate issues i've heard about on the PS3. I also don't like the way the PS3 handles any sort of AA or shading, it takes the "cheap" way out in my opinion. Basically in most games i've played (NBA Live 08, Heavenly Sword, GRAW2) the character your playing and close surrounding objects look brilliant but if you look somewhat off to the side or in front the shading and AA seem to crap out and there are jagged lines everywhere. I mean the lighting and most textures on the PS3 blow the 360 away (seriously) but when I played heavenly sword today I look at a far cliff and it looks like its growing spikes on it. Maybe it just bothers me more than most but that definitely wouldn't happen on PC gaames if you have a good enough card.

To be honest I believe the PS3 will be better in the long run with BluRay's storage size, hard drive included, and once developers learn to make use of the PS3's cell processor more efficiently (upcoming GT/MGS titles look ridiculously good).

 

Actually, quoting individual parts is easier for debating parties to understand. If you leave the quote as a huge chunk of text at the top, by the time you've read through half the reply, you have no idea what argument they're trying to shoot down.

 

Precisely.

 

8600GTS = $90, e6300 = $140, 2gb RAM = $40, HDD = $60, DVD=$40, Monitor=$170, keyboard/mouse=$20, psu= $50, motherboard/case=$100...so yea basically a $700 computer will be as good as your PS3. How did you come up with 5 grand?

Just write a summary paragraph its easier.

People didn't like final fantasys after #8? (personally I hated #8)

 

8600 GTS is a joke. A $170 monitor isn't worth using. A $50 PSU is likely to catch fire.

 

8600GTS is more like $160

100$ for case + mobo is well, a celeron 133mhz mobo with a micro ATX case?

Keyboard + mouse for $20 is also under priced...


Oh and link, in 2 years the 8600 will be obsolete, the PS3/X360 will have as good graphics as PC because devs will be able to use all of the ressources

 

i think your going to need to get a hd 3850 or an older radeon/GF7 high end series card, not the 8600gts.

 

Well, to point out this small fallacy, you're overlooking that consoles cannot be "upgraded" and new parts, such as graphics cards that come out regularly for PCs, do not occur for consoles. Your only choice is to get a new console if you want to step-up to "next-gen".

Of course a PS3 will be perceived as smoother, games on consoles are optimized to run at smooth framerates, but there is a limit to this. Eventually, developers will have to make compromises (resolution, for example, as Halo 3 didn't run exactly at 720p as advertised) or framerate (like Killzone for PS2...that was a debacle).

The point is, is that PC parts are constantly being "obsoleted" by new parts. Consoles only become "obsolete" when a new console comes out. When you look at high-end PCs playing games with the highest settings and with the latest-and-greatest parts, you will see the difference. You have to pay to play, a PC costs more, yes, but the versatility, upgradeability, and performance of a PC, though it may cost more than a PS3 (remember to factor in the price of the HDTV to run it nice and pretty at HD! ), is much more valuable.

 

And you're overlooking the fact that games continue to evolve through a console's life cycle. This has been demonstrated time and again. Look at the PS2 in particular for excellent examples of this. Compare 1st-gen games to last-gen like GoW2, almost looks like a different console.

 

I've never understood why it has to be one (console) or the other (PC). Why limit yourself? If you can afford a decent gaming laptop or desktop machine, I highly doubt you also couldn't afford a console. Heck, lots of PC monitors now have HDMI inputs built right into them so it wouldn't be as if you needed to invest in a whole other TV.

 

haha, I know right? My poor little GeForce 8400M GS went through Episode 2 at 720p without a single frame drop. I had every maxed at 720p too. It's pretty pathetic, really.

Both systems are using PowerPC technology with DirectX 9 generation GPUs.

The reason for PS3 games having frame-rate issues lies directly with the poor architecture and overall weaker hardware.

Learn to read the entire thread, okay?

It was mentioned that Gran Turismo doesn't have car damage due to "legal issues". I mentioned that Sony used that excuse 10 years ago and it's no longer valid because every other racing game released in the last 10 years with licensed cars (and not developed in conjunction with the car manufacturer) has had car damage.

There is no Xbox360 with an included HD-DVD drive.

Since when will blu-ray be needed for games when most games don't even fill up a full DVD yet? I know Insomniac talked about how they were "filling up" PS2 DVDs, but they failed to mention they were "filling up" single layer DVDs and a good amount of data on those discs just happened to be dummy files.

Can you seriously learn to read? Please?

Sound compression was mentioned because of the whole "blu-ray storage space" argument. If you kept up on your gaming news and the fact that people are using Linux on the PS3 to examine the contents of PS3 game discs, you'd know that EVERY single game so far would fit on a dual-layer DVD, or even a single layer DVD. There are only TWO reasons so far that PS3 games have used more data than a DVD can hold. The first one being dummy files. The second being UNCOMPRESSED audio. For some reason, some game developers are using uncompressed PCM for audio, so you have an extra 4-8GB of audio files. They could use AAC and get it down to 400-800MB instead and 9 out of 10 times (based on double blind tests over at HA) people wouldn't be able to hear the difference.

Xbox360 has a more powerful GPU, easier to develop for and more powerful architecture, etc. "Years available" has nothing to do with it.

Uh.... you pay for the same things on the Playstation store that you do on the Xbox Live Marketplace. You know that, right? Well, I guess not.

It should at least be an option. The original Xbox had it 6 years ago. Most of us PC gamers have been using Winamp to play our own music during games for god knows how long now.

No. They just know that Square has gone downhill and they're tired of kiddie anime games that Square puts out.

$50 more? Um, sorry. $399 PS3 doesn't count because it's GIMPED. No backwards compatibility for PS2 games and a lot of its functionality removed. Sorry. Doesn't count.

rofl you seriously think the Cell is more powerful than the Xbox360? Do you know anything about architecture? You're talking about a single core PPC G5 running at 3.2GHz with 7 co-processors tacked on, that are not as capable as the main processor. The Xbox360 has a triple core PPC G5 running at 3.2GHz, with 3 co-processors, and the main cores are capable of two threads each. On paper the Cell looks more powerful. But real world performance shows otherwise.

Blu-ray is useless. Most Xbox360 games don't even fill dual-layer DVDs, with a lot fitting on single layer discs.

The memory on the PS3 is "wayyy faster"? Got proof? If you do google search, you'll find that Sony's original specs for the PS3 put the PS3's bandwidth at slightly faster than the Xbox360. But those original specs also included Sony's claim for TWO displays at 1080p. Sony has since retracted those specs and specifications.

*sigh* Please learn to read.

Please learn to read. Seriously.

The vast majority of PS3 games canNOT run at a stable frame-rate.

But at least their frame-rates are stable.

Naughty Dog is fully owned by Sony. Also, Drake tends to run like crap. Another example of the PS3's inability to run games smoothly.

Insomniac may as well be owned by Sony. They get much better support from Sony than nearly all 3rd party developers.

So somehow you can't handle a FPS running at 30fps, but it's okay for them to run at 30fps.

Crysis is also ONE GAME. How many PS3 games cannot maintain 30fps? More than 90% of them? Exactly.

Oh don't give me that. The Source Engine is how many years old now? The time of its original release, it ran fine on hardware that was years old. When HL2 was released, I was able to play it at 1024x768 with everything set to high on a Celeron 1.2GHz and GeForce4 MX440. It all boils down to the PS3's awful architecture.

So you're saying you'll take a steady frame-rate over one that dips down into slideshow levels........ yet you're still talking about how great the PS3 is and defending the games, when most of the games DO dip into slideshow frame-rates? Yeah that makes sense. It amazes me that you keep falling back to Crysis and ignore the fact that cheaper and "weaker" hardware than the PS3 can run games like HL2 and UT3 at better framerates and resolutions.

It's not an "opinion" that HL2 (the original) has higher resolution textures and better character models than Resistance. It's not an "opinion" that the PS3 can't even run the game smoothly. It's not an "opinion" that the PC version of UT3 can run at higher resolutions and with better detail settings.

Sorry, I only play games with smooth frame-rates

Oh I got a "roflmfao" from someone who constantly contradicts themselves. Yay!

Gran Turismo 5 hardly looks "amazing". While the car models look nice, the environments look like they're right out of Gran Turismo 4's 1080i mode.

You can still count the polygons on the course in turns for christs sake

The increased polygon count would most likely bring the PS3 to it's knees.

Then why was it him that specifically stated they were not doing it because it would take "10,000 man hours per car"? You can google that if you'd like.

So Sony is backtracking again? Let's not forget all of the "features" that were supposed to be in Gran Turismo 4 that got pulled at the very last minute. Such as online play at 60fps, online tournaments, downloadable cars, etc. I won't believe a word about this "Car damage" being in the final game until its actually there. Especially considering Sony's track record with promising features and then not delivering them. Not just with GT, but with everything else too. Anyone remember the PS2 HDD was supposed to have full multimedia capabilities, CD ripping, etc? Then when it shipped without it, gamespot ran a story on it and Sony pulled all press releases from their site that had any mention of those features.

heheh. Yeah, any game can look good with static environments. Hell, GT4 still looks good if you look at it the same way you do. Meaning you look purely at the car models and ignore the environments.

Because its perfectly okay to stare at the CAR 100% of the time and not pay any attention to the environment you'll be driving it through.

Well, according to Sony, the PS3 was originally supposed to support TWO displays at 1080p. So far they only have ONE game in the pipeline that supports ONE display at 1080p, and thats thanks to the complete disregard for the environment. Most PS3 games can't even hold 720p at a steady framerate.

Considering the graphic quality of the environments, which look only slightly better than GT4 in 1080i, theres no excuse for the lack of animation in trees and such.

rofl since when do you need $5k to build a PC that will outperform a PS3? Any Core 2 Duo above 2GHz paired with 2GB of memory and a GeForce 8800 series will mop the floor with the PS3, with the exception of Crysis.

Oh and stop mentioning Crysis. You act like your PS3 is god because PCs are having trouble running Crysis. But can you show me a PS3 game that even begins to come close to the detail and quality of graphics you see in Crysis?

And let's not forget that Philips did most of the work. Philips basically had the entire system already developed. When Sony came on board, they basically just contributed the method for error correction and helped co-develop the Red Book standard. Wikipedia is your friend Philips did all the work, Sony basically did very little.

They provide no tangible benefit over a properly configured PC running a GeForce 8 or ATI equivalent with FFDshow upscaling the image Head over to AVS for more info. A DVD on a PC like that will make you wonder why you ever bought a blu-ray disc.

How about the ability to stream HD movies over a network? Oh wait, 802.11g isn't good enough for that. Not to mention the PS3 has no hardware support for H.264, etc. (it is running a GeForce 7 after all). So those videos played back on a PC with a GeForce 8 will, again, mop the floor with the PS3. Oh and videos look better on my iPhone and iPod thanks to actual hardware support for the codecs

You mean the 6 million SHIPPED consoles? Sony doesn't provide real sales numbers. Some analysts have actually pegged the REAL sold number as little as half that.

Uncharted? No thanks. Again, only smooth frame-rates. Ratchet? Yeah thats a good game. but not as good as Halo, Half-Life (playable framerates), Gears of War, UT3 at playable frame-rates, etc.

GT? No thanks. I'm old enough to drive a real car and want a real racing game.

Resistance? No thanks. Half-Life 2, Halo, etc. are all better at playable frame-rates.

Warhawk? Please, PC has how many flight simulators? Plus the Xbox360 has Ace Combat now. Lair? Now its my turn to ROFLMFAO. Please, that game is so ridiculously terrible and the graphics, glitches, and frame-rate problems keep it from even being playable. Heavenly Sword? Sorry, don't like lame hack 'n slash thats over a couple of hours after I pop it in. Oh, and Ninja Gaiden will be on the Xbox360 again. Exclusive Not a remake either.

The other games I couldn't care less about.

Well, they obviously haven't played Half-Life 2 at a smooth frame-rate, or Halo. Resistance only gets high marks because even after a year, it's still one of the only half-way decent games on the PS3.

Nah. I know a person with a PS3 and hes a huge fanboy and loves Lair. It was one of the games he tried to use to get me to buy a PS3. He was getting pissed when I kept asking him why the controls sucked, why the frame-rate kept dipping, and why there were so many graphical glitches.

Oh, and theres also a ton of videos online, including reviews, that show Lair's framerate issues and graphical glitches.

Every game you own? So apparently you don't own half the games you've mentioned here? Because anybody with 5 seconds and google can find videos (HD videos no less) showing Lair, Drake, etc. all running very poorly and, in the case of Lair, with constant graphical glitches.

As I said, considering how horrible the framerates are on the PS3, you can easily buy a PC for under $500 that will play modern games just as bad as the PS3 will. Hell, it'd probably have a low end GeForce 8 in it, so while it'd play games just as bad as the PS3, it'd actually play video better!

Again, where do you get this $5,000 figure?

Another thing to remember is that most HDTVs being sold are the ~$500 kind from Wal-Mart and Costco that are only 720p. So my comment still stands about some features being useless, like blu-ray. Whats the point of a down-sampled HD movie? Especially when most blu-ray discs still use MPEG-2 encoding. An Oppo upscaling DVD player, or a sub-$500 PC with a GeForce8, will provide much better image quality and overall value than the downsampled blu-ray movie, and it won't force people to rebuy their entire library. All of the movies they've bought over the years will look entirely new.

Uh.. nobody said that about the original Playstation. In fact, the original Playstation was praised for it's design and the fact that games could EASILY be made for it, and cheaply.

The Playstation2, while slightly more complex, was also powerful for the time. It had a main processor that could handle 4 32-bit threads or 2 64-bit or 1 128-bit thread. It had a standard 32-bit FPU and 2 32-bit vector units. The second VU generally assisted the GPU. It's relatively simple compared to the PS3.

By comparison, the PS3 is a mess. One main core that can handle 2 threads, and 6 co-processors available to the game. The main core is extremely weak by modern standards, and the GPU is even weaker than the one used in the competition's product. The main system memory is broken up, and the storage media is extremely slow. All of that combined presents developers with extreme challenges that will not give results as good as what the competition (PC and Xbox360) will with much less effort.

Haha. According to Sony, the Cell is fast. But, again, it's using PowerPC G5 technology. Go look for reviews of the original Core Duo Macs from a couple of years ago. They run circles around the multi-core PowerMac G5s

I think it's time for you to head over to google and wikipedia

You really think a game developer is going to spend the time it takes to design a game to properly use 6 cores that essentially aren't that powerful when they can head over to the Xbox360 and take full advantage of a multi-core CPU that is more powerful in a real world situation and requires 1/100th the work?

I love how the PS3 fanboys make stuff up. The Cell's SPEs only have this "power" according to Sony. Their real world performance, and analysis by those who know what they're talking about (again, google), show that the real world situation is far different from what you and Sony are saying. The Cell isn't even half as powerful in a real world gaming environment as you or Sony would like us to believe, and the GPU has proven to be far less capable than its paper specs.

The same thing happened with the PS2. Look at it. It was supposed to be a "super computer on a chip" as well (I wonder if Sony realizes they recycle their own marketing phrases). Yet it never came close to what it should have been capable of doing on paper.

Xbox360 has a full 512MB, not divided, plus the 10MB frame-buffer that generally gets used for FSAA. So if a game requires 400MB worth of textures, the developer isn't SOL when trying to figure out how to squeeze all of them into memory.

Again, google. Xbox360 development kits can be had for as low as $99. Sony's cheapest PS3 kit is $10,000.

Yeah, and most of them have PS2s, Xbox360s, or Wiis. Most do not have a PS3. The PS3 is the worst selling console. Why is that?

haha yeah I know the GPU in the PS3 is faster than my 8400M. But you know what? Half-Life 2 (all games) runs better on my 8400M than it does on your PS3. UT3 runs at a higher frame-rate than it does on your PS3. Plus, if I didn't have an Xbox360, I'd be able to play all of those great games your PS3 doesn't have, like Gears of War.

Actually, you can find that LG combo drive for well under $250 at most internet retailers, and even some B&M stores like Fry's.

Whys that? It runs every game thats multi-platform better than your PS3 does.

Why not? Can be used with a PS3 or PC.

Now you're just making things up.

 

Granted, a console can become optimized while PC developers tend to simply fall back to newer technology to run their less-optimized code effectively, however, you have to admit that there is a limit when it comes to a console's graphical and performance capability, and there is no way to circumvent this other than making compromises, such a lower resolution or lower texture compression, to maintain smooth FPS.

 

yeah... the normal macbooks don't even come with dedicated video cards. my roommates macbook lags on minigames with graphics equal to the n64.

And Sony is still in last place in the console war. the Wii, of all things, is in the lead. I won't buy into the PS3 power thing. Not until I see Crysis running at 60FPS with very high graphic details. Another criticism of the PS3 is its game library. compared to the other systems, there aren't very many good new titles for PS3. I jsut find the selection of games for the Xbox 360 more interesting.

 

^

so the point is your bringing useless subjects into the convo, like trees....its a racing simulator when would i ever be looking at trees and being able to play music while gaming.

i also hope you copy and pasted "learn to read" cuzz that would have been alot of wasted typing.

yes obviously you have to pay for those downloads anyways, dont see how its a good thing its easier to waste money on XBOX live though


from wiki "the PlayStation 3 has 256 MB of XDR main memory and 256 MB of GDDR3 video memory for the RSX."

256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz

proved it...

how does the $399 PS3 not count....people would buy a PS3 because they had a good experience with their PS2, they would have a PS2 to play those games on.

 

SauronMOS take it easy, you don't have to insult him in every post. It does not help your argument at all.

I don't know man, if I bought I PS3 the first thing i'd want to do is go buy FFX/FFXII backwards compatibility is important.

On another topic, why are PS3/360/Wii games all $10 more expensive than PC games?

 

English? Please?

You also proved my point about not knowing anything about architecture. Clock speed has nothing to do with real world performance. Ever wonder why a Core 2 Duo at 2GHz running an app that is NOT multi-threaded can beat a P4 at 3.6GHz?

The funny thing here is that, even though Sony claims their memory is running at 3.2GHz, the Xbox360's memory running at 700MHz can push over 22GB/sec. Nearly the same as Sony's original spec for the PS3. But you missed the part of my post where Sony retracted their original bandwidth statements and now only post the clock speed. In fact, Sony retracted nearly all of their original specs. This isn't the first time Sony changed their specs. They did it with the PS2 also.

What does that tell you?

I bring up the trees in Gran Turismo because of the fact that the environments are greatly sacrificied so the car models can look pretty and the frame-rate can be high.

Yet other racing games don't make this sacrifice. Look at Forza on the Xbox360.

Playing your own music is important. If you're like me, and millions of others, we've been listening to our own music while playing games on our PCs for well over a decade now. Why can't Sony finally let us do it? Microsoft made that one of the major features of the original Xbox, so why can't the PS3 finally do it standard?

The PS3 at $399 with no backwards compatibility is an absolute joke. They want me to spend $400 on a game console, which doesn't even include HD cables of any kind, and not be able to play my library of games that I spent hundreds of dollars building? I have to spend $500 to continue playing my older games? No thank you. If I have to continue to buy a PS2 after my current one dies, then I'll just simply buy another PS2 and go with an Xbox360. All models of the Xbox360 are backwards compatible, at least optionally. Most Xbox games run on the Xbox360 now. Better yet, you can BUY and DOWNLOAD Xbox games and play them right off of your Xbox360 HDD. There is absolutely no reason Sony could not have included backwards compatibility. Their official reason for not including backwards compatibility was to get people to buy PS3 games.

Oh look at that. Sony backtracked AGAIN. Just a year ago, everyone at Sony said that backwards compatibility was paramount to their strategy. Now they say backwards compatibility is not important at all?

Does Sony ever pick a position and stick with it? Do they ever keep their word?

I don't see your point with Xbox Live and all of that. Yes, you pay $50 a year for the Gold subscription. But when it comes to online games, you really get what you pay for. PSN is a joke in comparison. Sony has stated that it won't always be completely free. They're going to make "Home" micro-transaction hell, and they also have their own little micro-transaction store just like the Xbox Live Marketplace. The only difference is that the Xbox Live Marketplace has better content, like HD movie rentals and HD TV shows. You can get HD movies on the Xbox360 without having to pick sides in a format war thats bound to leave both sides at a loss.

Gran Turismo 5 has been confirmed to also be another micro-transaction hell title. It'll be released with a portion of the game and the rest will be released later.

 

We all know Lair is ****e, just check out the review here (scroll down on the main page - I trust the opinions of reviewers on here by the way, hence the link to such a small site). Yeah, its written in a strange way but gets the points across.

As for GT5's lack of damage - who cares? Think about it, in all other games (TOCA series excluded, but then those games are awesome) you crash into a barrier at 200mph and your bumper hangs off. Nice... it's hardly realistic is it? I'd prefer to have nice and shiny cars driving around than ones that look like they've been in a sub-10mph supermarket carpark incident.

And I still don't see these framerate dips you keep yammering on about. I frequently visit a mate and we chill out in front of one of his consoles (or his gaming PC (which I built for him, woo!)) with a beer or two and I can't think of any PS3 title that had framerate problems anywhere near to the point of it being unplayable. Even the few hours we sat through of Drakes Fortune I never noticed one dip. Either I was too immersed to notice or they dont exist.

 

Before I respond to each of your individual points, I want to make my feelings known about your intentions, which are clear to me at least. You are trolling. You have nothing meaningful to add to this discussion, and certainly do not possess the technical knowledge to be dismissing anyone else on this forum, least of all me. You hve provided no qualifications, nor reason for anyone to simply take you at your word when you make your baseless accusations. You are stating your opinion, and nothing more.

That's great. My last gen 256MB X1650 XT runs Episode 2 @ 1280x1024 w/6x AA, HDR, 16x HQ AF, reflect all, and all highest options, including vsync. It never tears nor stutters which tells me it runs @ 60 hz for the entire game. Oh, and that's on a freakin P4 3.4GHz. I'm not impressed by your little G86.

Wow. That's the first time I've seen you state a fact and not mix it with opinion, or just plain get it wrong. Good job.

You don't own a PS3, and are therefore not qualified to provide even a subjective analysis of what it can and can't do.

I suggest you simply learn to read.

And as I've explained to you already, the creator of the series has stated several times and it has been documented by the press that GT5 will feature car damage. You have no point here.

My my, could this be a sign of change for you? Two statements of fact in the same post!

I don't know where you get your information from, but it certainly isn't accurate. Resistance: Fall of Man is 22GB. Next time you say something that is seemingly factual, you'd better actually back it up, or it had better be common knowledge.

Just because someone disagrees with your baseless statements of opinion as fact, doesn't mean they can't read.

Explain Resistance taking up 22GB on B-r then.

More powerful GPU? Sure, on it's own. But again there's that pesky little matter of Cell being used to aid RSX... Of course, you can't be bothered with details like that, right?

Ease of development is subjective, and you certainly wouldn't know anything about that. Development needs and difficulty vary from project to project. What is easy to develop on the XBox360 can be difficult on the PS3, and vice versa. I would argue that Cell's monstrous compute power and ability to use up to 18 "heavyweight" threads simultaneously allows for more flexible programming than that of Xenon (XBox360's CPU) which is simply a tri-core PPC that utilizes SoEMT allowing for up to 6 threads. 3x the threads in-flight and almost twice the sheer compute power (204.8 usable GFLOPs vs. 115.2 peak GFLOPs for Xenon) makes Cell the superior processor, clearly.

Last night I downloaded 5 game trailers in HD (including a special feature on the animation in Uncharted), as well as 7 demos for my PS3. Know what I paid for them? Not a damn thing.

Sony's upcoming "Home" initiative for PS3 is due out in the 1st half of next year and brings precisely this feature, among many others.

At this point I have to question your ability to carry on a discussion without resorting to flamebait. Oh, wait. We've already established why you're here

You're right. Something "doesn't count" because you say so. In that case, Crysis doesn't count in this discussion because I say so, and the PS3 wins. /end thread

That was sarcasm, btw.

The 40GB PS3 still has a hard drive (obviously), Wifi, HDMI, and bluetooth. It dropped the flash card reader, SACD support, and PS2 backwards-compatibility. People wanted a cheaper PS3, and Sony delivered it. Since you and others have berated Sony for their use of proprietary formats (and have specifically mentioned SACD), I would think the exclusion of this feature from the 40GB PS3 would be touted by you and your ilk as a "win", but of course you don't actually do any research about this stuff, you just parrot what you read in the anti-PS3 press.

I sure as hell do know something about MPU architecture, that much should be apparent by now. You on the other hand seem incapable of doing anything more than quoting spec sheets and attaching adjectives with either negative or positive connotations to them, depending on which suits your opinion best. My, what an expert

I only come to this forum because a friend of mine asked me to, in order to help out the less informed. Then I found out there were several individuals that pose as technically knowledgeable (such as yourself) when they are in fact full of it. I primarily participate at forums like RealWorldTech and Beyond3D. Try visiting one of those some time and I dare you to make a technical post and not be immediately laughed off the forum.

Again with this? Already debunked.

PS3 XDR memory bandwidth: 25.2GB/s
Source: RealWorldTech

"specs and specifications" LOL, why am I even bothering with you?

You are far too immature to be having a discussion of this nature. I suggest you retreat to whatever XBox fanboy site it is that you primarily post.

What is that, 4 times now?

And you know this because you own a PS3 and have played all games available for it, right?

I have played no less than 20 games on my PS3, and have yet to experience anything more than occasional screen tearing. Never has the frame rate dipped to uncomfortable "eye-straining" levels, let alone become unplayable.

Just like every PS3 game I've played. The only PS3 game that has notorious playability issues is the Orange Box, and I've already explained why that is.

How is this relevant to anything at all? Answer: it's not. We may as well discount every Halo game for XBox/XBox360 because MS used to own Bungie then.

Again, you know this because you're a PS3 owner and have completed this game, correct? Answer: no. I can answer yes to both counts however, and UDF does anything but "run like crap".

What's your point? Insomniac's ability to produce visually appealing games that also run smoothly is a testament to their coding ability. So what if Sony helps them out? They do that for a lot of developers. If you want help from Sony creating a PS3 game, all you have to do is ask. Assuming you're not just some random guy in his mom's basement, of course.

I know your inability to comprehend the written English language is apparent, but I didn't think it was that bad. Here, let me make things clear for you:
30 fps with dips to single digits (or teens if you have ~$2k worth of graphics cards): bad
30 fps constant on an HDTV: good
Get it now?

What's your source for this information? Cite me a source that isn't just some random fanboy's opinion, and then we'll continue this discussion. Until then, the onus is on you to prove your claim. No doubt you won't accept my challenge. You're only interested in hyperbole. Fact has no meaning in your world.

No, it boils down to the PS3's DIFFERENT architecture. Different is only bad if you shove your platform porting project off to another developer that is unfamiliar with your codebase and the platform to which they are porting, which is EXACTLY what happened in the case of the Orange Box PS3 port.

Cite a source for your claims, because at this point you have no credibility, and I will not take your word at face value.

It is until you can cite a source for your claims.

Same as above.

I suggest you learn the difference between "can" and "does".

Ooh, more hyperbole. What a surprise Also, thanks for admitting that you haven't played this game. Odd that you would offer your opinion on a game that you admittedly have not played.

:yawn: Troll much?

Well of course you don't think so. Forgive me for not caring what you think about the PS3. I don't base my opinion on those of others.

Whatever you say. Man, I remember when my PS2 put out images like that, which is why I never bought a PS3. Oh, wait... Man, you're so full of crap it must be coming out your ears at this point.

I know exaggeration for effect is sort of "your thing", but it becomes meaningless when you're so far off-base.

Doubtful. Vertex setup is precisely the sort of rasterization task those SPEs in Cell are useful for.

No thanks, I don't care to do your work for you. Car damage in GT5
See that thing I just did there? It's called a hyperlink, and it takes you to an independent source which backs up my claims. I've given you a few already. No doubt you'll just ignore it though.

Show me a better-looking racing game on PS2 than GT4. Show me a better-looking racing game than GT5 on ANY system. What's that? You can't. Hmmm......

Pictures speak louder than words, and the pictures of GT5 I've shown in this thread are like a jumbo jet compared to the buzzing of your gnat wings.

What kind of warped logic is this to think that more realistic trees makes or breaks a racing sim?

Yeah, they threw that one out a long time ago. Guess the realized no one had two HDTVs side-by-side.

No, I've posted a list of 1080P games in another thread on the PS3. Link.

It's funny how you, someone that doesn't own a PS3, is so interested in it. Did Sony rape you in your sleep or something? Also, your claim is baseless. I doubt you've ever even played a PS3, other than perhaps the Motorstorm demo at your local Gamestop

Why do you insist on repeating yourself? Seriously, you just say the same things over and over in response to different comments from others.

Here, I get to use your own line on you:
"learn to read"
I didn't say you need a PC for 5 grand to out-perform a PS3, but that is what it takes to build one that can approach making Crysis playable, the only title that out-shines anything the PS3 has to offer.

There's that pesky Crysis again, the only title on PC that is significantly better than what the PS3 offers. Darn those facts! Why should you have to deal with them anyway? Let's all just live in Sauron's world where trees with movign leaves and high polygon counts are more important in a racing game than the actual cars themselves

Yay! I get to use your favorite line on you again!
"learn to read"
I dare you to re-read what I've actually said on this subject, but I've no doubt you either won't do it, or will simply mis-construe it yet again. Since you have not only an ego problem but issues with reading comprehension, I'll spell it out for you simply:
I've already admitted several times in this very thread that Crysis is by far the best looking game on any platform. Problem is, no one can run it at the settings required to make it look so much better than anything else out there. If you don't see the relevancy of these two facts, then there's no point in continuing this discussion. Of course, I expect that to be the case.

I'm glad you know how to search Wikipedia. It's too bad that Wikipedia is not the definitive source on any subject though, especially since any random internet user can go in and edit an article at any time. The opinions of a few biased Wikipedia users do not make a fact. Fact is that Sony jointly developed the CD standard with Philips. Stating anything beyond that is simply conjecture, opinion, or a mix of both.

Ba F*cking HA! Anyone and I mean ANYONE that has ever seen a blu-ray movie (and isn't some blind f*cking Sony-hater like you) would never say that.

My 46 year old non-technical mother can tell the difference between an upscaled DVD (which my PS3 does automatically) and a Blu-ray movie, as she's seen each.

But, I digress, here's some actual proof of what I'm talking about:
Note: these are screen caps of the same scene from Transformers on DVD (upscaled) and HD DVD.
DVD:

HD DVD:


If you don't see the difference there, you are blind.

Ludicrous. Blu-ray movies transfer data at up to 36Mb/s. Wireless G can reach 54Mb. Once again, facts from the real world prove you not only don't know what you're talking about, but that you simply hate Sony and are on some pathetic anti-Sony crusade.

Do you think about the crap you type, or does it just flow from you like a metaphorical verbal diarrhea?

But I digress. Here's something meaningful: Lack of dedicated processing hardware for a specific CODEC is meaningless, considering Cell is powerful enough to decode any existing CODEC in realtime. All it takes is a firmware update to support the CODEC. For example: Divx playback was just recently added with firmware 2.1.

"some analysts" and some analysts have placed the sell-through numbers at well over 5 million. Depends on your source. Of course, you have yet to cite a source for a single one of your claims, so until you do (and until I scrutinize it) I have no reason to believe a single thing you state.

Uncharted is one of the best games on any platform currently, both in terms of gameplay and graphics. Everyone that I've spoken to about this game that has actually played it agrees.

"Good" is a purely subjective term, and I care not for your opinion, you are just a fanboy with an axe to grind.

LOL, whatever you say. How's that Kia treating you anyway?

More opinion with no value. Great.

You have somehow developed the incorrect impression that I am a Sony fanboy. Let me say again that I am not. I've already had this discussion with Jalf, I suggest you read it.

And again, you know this because you've played the game extensively, right? Wrong.

"Halo? Sorry, I don't like lame FPSes on consoles. Keyboard & Mouse for life, yo." Grow up.

Fantastic. I look forward to it.

I'm surprised you managed to refrain from commenting upon them then, as you've done the complete opposite with everything else involving Sony and the PS3 thus far.

Again, how would you know any of this? You've admitted numerous times (by omission) that you have little to no experience with the PS3. What leads you to believe that your opinion on the PS3 is relevant to anyone other than yourself? At least I have one and am therefore fully qualified to answer most questions about the system and many of its titles. You just parrot the lies and anti-Sony hate-speech you read from other XBox fanboys.

So you admit to not owning a PS3. Well, we can finally put this one to rest. Anything you have to say about gameplay or features of the PS3 from this point on are completely irrelevant, unless you back it up with an independent source.

Show them to me. If you make a statement saying something is so, it's up to you to prove it.

I've never claimed to own Lair, nor do I have any interest in playing it. I do own Drake however, and have already described it's playability. Screen tearing is the worst graphical drawback of this game, and it rarely ever happens. In fact, it happens so infrequently that I notice it even more when it does, and I have only seen it in a couple scenes in the game, and only for very short periods (less than a second) and only in specific areas of the screen (that take up no more than 10% of the screen area). Wow, what a horrible glitch. Definitely makes the game not worth playing, and it certainly can't be visually appealing.

And as I said, you're full of it.

Already explained.

What do cheap HDTVs have to do with anything? If someone chooses to buy a cheap HDTV without doing their research and then complains about the results, well that's their own damn fault. Same goes to anyone that buys a cheap gaming PC and has to suffer the consequences.

Pure B.S., and already debunked. My TV automatically upscales SD cable content for me, and it looks like ass. Same goes for DVDs on the PS3. They don't even come close to Blu-ray. You are purely full of it.

Uh, no. In-depth discussion on this very subject. I'll take the collective knowledge of B3D over anything you have to say, every time.

Thanks for the refresher. I'm sure you have a deep understanding of what you just quoted from Wikipedia/Google.

Each of those SPEs handles up to 8 SP FLOPs/cycle (also multi-threaded).

I've already explained why the PPE is basically irrelevant to PS3 CPU performance, but you continue to harp on this "fact" because it's all you have to cling to due to your complete lack of technical knowledge.

Already debunked. How many times are you going to repeat the same statements? Idle PPEs can be used for vertex setup and particle processing to alleviate workload from RSX. Several devs have already put this concept into use.

The whole pool is accessible by Cell & RSX, so a physical separation in this case means little.

Blu-ray has a maximum transfer rate of over 55Mb/s @ 1x speed. PS3 features a 2x drive.

More baseless asssertions on your part, which have already been debunked. GT5 looks better than anything on XB360, as does Uncharted, as does Ratchet.

You have no understanding of this topic. Please stop commenting on it.

WTF for? I tell you what. I'll spend all day on Google & Wikipedia, if you do the same on B3D & RWT (both already linked). Seeing as how B3D & RWT are two of the premiere tech forums for GPU & CPU discussion, I'd venture a guess they're more valuable than the babbling of Wikipedia users and whatever random websites you can find on Google.

It's already been done, and will be done again. I'm not going to sit here and pretend like Cell is the easiest architecture to program for, but it's far more powerful and flexible than your beloved Xenon.

Already de-bunked. 3x the threads in flight and 200+ GFLOPs compared to 115 peak GFLOPs for Xenon. /end discussion

1/100th? More drivel.

I love how you assume I'm a PS3 fanboy because I disagree with you. Let me reiterate: I am not a PS3 fanboy. It is clear that you are a 360 fanboy with an axe to grind however.

I've already listed the peak compute power of the CPUs in question, there's no way you can deny the cold hard numbers, no matter how much you dislike them.

Once again, you tell me to do your work for you and search Google to prove what you are saying. Once again I will tell you that since you are the one making the claim, it is your job to prove it.
I suggest you read the world's premiere resource for Cell programming @ B3D. The collective knowledge there, combined with the real world examples of Cell's capabilities are superior to anything you can come up with from Google. Also, see RWT's universally-acclaimed best Cell architecture analysis on the net here.

See above block of text, refer to B3D.

How would you, a laymen that has zero engineering (software or hardware) experience have clue one about what a console is or isn't capable of? Answer: you don't.

RSX has access to the main system RAM to use for texturing if necessary. Also, that 512MB frame buffer Xenos has access to in the 360 is shared by Xenon. It's basically the same thing. Except Cell + RSX have way more bandwidth. Xenos gets its bandwidth from the EDRAM.

Prove it.

What's your point? Mine is simply that consoles as a whole are a larger segment of the gaming market than PCs. I said nothing about PS3's overall sales, which have increased greatly since the recent price drop.

Again with the Orange Box. Already explained. As for UT3, YOUR computer sure as hell doesn't run it better than my PS3 does, and I'll bet I paid less for my PS3 and it even looks better and plays Blu-ray disks.

So you can play one good game I can't (yet). Good for you. Once again, I am not a PS3 fanboy, and actually plan on purchasing a 360 in the next year. I went with the PS3 first because of Blu-ray (which I use to watch movies on a weekly basis), overall technological superiority, and current and upcoming game titles.

Prove it. And then show me that drive playing a video game.

More false assertions from you. Ball's in your court, take it to the hole or go home. In other words: prove it.

You really need me to explain why a $170 monitor is crap?

Not at all. I've witnessed many bad power supplies literally catch on fire. I used to work for a PC shop that was rather shady (I quit because of it) and they insisted on using the lowest quality components they could get their hands on. Cheap PSUs are fire hazards at worst, and just die when any serious load is placed upon them at best.

 

for someone like me who never owned a console and doesn't have any ps1/2 games 399$ ps3 is a very good deal.

 

At times like this I ask myself why they don't allow negative reputations anymore, because techguy and sauron would be swimming in them.

Your both trolls, I'd ban you but since im not a mod the best I can do is report your posts which I have.

 

C'mon guys, let's keep this thread on topic. Take your arguments to PMs if you have to.

 

Ahh... first a little background... I'm a games developer, engine level programming, 10 years experience on some pretty high class titles. I have knowledge way beyond the average user and beyond even the average games engine programmer.

So here goes...

Ps3 has a LOT more processing power (real world) that 360. This is NOT a guess, it is a statement of fact based on years of experience with both consoles.

Games that are written FOR 360 then ported to Ps3 WILL have issues.

Games that are written FOR ps3 then ported to 360 will run nicely.

360 has 3 cores, each with 2HW threads executing from a dual issue instruction pipe.

Ps3 has 1 core with 2HW threads executing from a single issue instruction pipe. It also has 7 SPU's, 5.5 of which are available for use in games.

SPU's are not general purpose, however they are WAY better at almost ALL tasks that games rely heavily upon other than logic. They also execute completely isolated from the main PPU and thus can perform all manner of tasks in a completely parallel manner.

360HW threads will always affect each other (via the cache) simply because they compete for cache lines. It is entirely possible on 360 to run code on 2 side by side threads and see performance of 50% of the original code running on a single thread. Not a normal case by any means but it shows what is NOT possible. 2HW threads side by side does NOT mean code running 2x the speed. In practice 1.4x the speed is a GOOD speedup.

The RSX is a pixel pusher, its Vertex units are somewhat lacking and thus it under performs when data designed for 360 is pushed at it. Use SPU's to massage the data beforehand and the RSX performs much better. Tailor the data specifically to RSX and it will out perform the 360 GPU.

Again it is a matter of tailoring.

BACK ON TOPIC.

The question is both subjective and qualitative. My own personal experience tells me that the Ps3 "should" have the better picture quality however the PC side is heavily dependent on the monitor being used and the type of connection.

It seems the question was somewhat forgotten in the ensuing 15+ page argument.

 

How can a ps3 have better picture quality than a desktop PC with dual 8800 ultras? The OP asked about "a desktop PC with the fastest video card". The PC is definately going to win out on this one.

Don't be such a baby. All you seem to do is report posts. I hope you never become a mod, you can't ban someone just because you don't like them.

 

It's all about Sony's claim that Gran Turismo is the "real driving simulator". Theres no car damage, no damage that affects physics, nothing.

Like in Gran Turismo 4. I have a little 2005 Mustang that can hit 230MPH with nitrous and the engine at peak RPM for more than a minute.

You think that'd happen in real life?

Or the fact that I can bump into a wall at 200MPH, nothing happens, and if I lose a position I can just floor it with nitrous and regain whatever I lost.

Sony can talk about "driving physics" all they want, when it really doesn't even matter. If you're playing on a controller, and you're like me having played every GT game so far, you know that the way you play the game hasn't changed one bit. You can still ride cars or hit walls or even take turns at well over 200MPH without incident.

Then I suggest you read more reviews where they mention it. Seems that, unfortunately, most casual gamers these days have become so used to frame-rate problems that they don't notice them like those of us who have been around for awhile.

Again, this is what I love about the internet. You come into a forum and kill someones argument and they accuse you of being a troll. Why is it that those who "lose" can't just simply admit it and walk away? Be an adult. Don't start calling people names.

This coming from somebody who claims you have to spend $5000 to build a PC equal to that of a PS3

As I said, be an adult and admit you're wrong.

So now you're arguing my side for me? You just proved one of my points. Thank you.

Anyway, I mentioned my "poor little GeForce 8400M GS" for a couple of reasons. Mostly because it proves the point that even low-end budget hardware can game just as good as the PS3 or even better in some cases.

Going back to the original debate of the "PC versus PS3 for entertainment", low-end PC hardware can easily game just as good, or better, than the PS3 and it's far more capable.

My low end GPU and overall PC can play every game out there today on grounds equal to that of the PS3. Plus I can take it wherever I want, I can hook it up to any HDTV and play at any resolution without having to worry about DRM HDCP requirements, I can use it to record TV and watch it later, do actual "work", communicate, etc. And, again, it's even better as a gaming machine. Why? Because I don't have to go and spend extra money to be able to play all of the games I have acquired over the last 5-6 years. Hell, it even plays my old games like Mechwarrior 2.

Whats even better is that as time goes on, PCs will be able to run older games better and better. Yet the PS3 that actually has backwards compatibility will provide no increase in quality other than resolution scaling. No frame-rate enhancements, no increases in detail, nothing.

But let's not forget that Sony backtracked on backwards compatibility. They went from saying "the Playstation will live on forever through backwards compatibility" to "it's not important anymore". So with the PS4, you might not even be able to play ANY of your old games.

So wheres that $5000 PC again?

Sorry, I'm too intelligent to throw money away on a system that is not getting very much developer support, is overpriced, underpowered, and is all around not as capable as the cheaper competition.

But I have played enough of my friend's PS3, the ONE person I know who bought one, to be able to judge it. As I said before, of the 100 or so people I knew that had a PS2, only ONE bought a PS3 and the rest are moving on to the PC or Xbox360.

Let's not all forget how he also said that Gran Turismo 4 would have a very large online community. That there would be online racing at 60fps, voice communication outside of races, downloadable cars, tournaments, etc. etc. etc. And what we ended up with was what GT3 should have been back in 2001.

I honestly don't know a single person offline who was not disappointed in GT4.

Face the fact, Sony has NOT kept a "promise" they have made since the launch of the PS2.

The only reason the PS2 was successful was because it was riding high on the Playstation name and had games like Grand Theft Auto before the competition.

But thats not the case now. Sony screwed up their own reputation with the price points and their arrogance, and Microsoft has done a wonderful job of showing they learned from their mistakes and that they offer the better overall platform.

Sony should have learned from Nintendo's mistake with the N64 that there is no brand loyalty in gaming. That a bad price point or a couple of wrong decisions will literally change the entire market and push your audience away.

Do a google search. You'll find some clever people using Linux discovered that Resistance is about 17GB worth of dummy files

Considering that Resistance doesn't even look as good as Half-Life 2 does, and has enormous amounts of repeating textures and things to reduce overall memory use like similar color palettes, I find it much easier to believe the people who have analyzed the raw data and found that the disc was mostly dummy files.

Again, do you have PROOF other than Sony's own RETRACTED specifications? I mean, you do know that Sony pulled all of their specs, aside from clock speed and a couple of others, right?

And that many developers who have worked on both platforms say the Cell isn't up to what Sony initially claimed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_microprocessor

BTW, I don't see anything there that even comes close to the claims you're making.

All I see is a bunch of marketing fluff that looks good on paper but, so far, has failed miserably in real world performance.

Even Sony has pulled out of future Cell development. http://www.gamespot.com/news/6182641.html

If Sony isn't willing to continue to back the platform they helped develop, what does that tell you?

And you don't pay for that on the Xbox Live Marketplace either. I was referring to game purchases, HD movie rentals, and things like that

Like microtransaction hell?

They didn't have to drop those features to lower the price. SACD was supported in software. Why drop that?

PS2 backwards compatibility.. why drop that? The EE and GS have been on one die for how many years now? It costs how much now?

Plus the blu-ray drive has come down in price. You can already find replacement drives online for under $60.

Again, the $399 PS3 is a joke. It's still too expensive for what it is. And now, it is quite literally too little too late. It's serving the same purpose as the $499 PS3 originally did. An excuse for Sony to say they start at a lower price point when they know that the people who are dumb enough to buy it will go ahead and get the more expensive one.

It's also amazing how confident Sony was with their original price points. Especially with those famous comments like "we want people to think they will work extra hours to buy one". Now they're advertising their "lower" price point.

Sure you do. Which is why you said something that is not backed up by official specs or anything. Even Sony retracted their original specifications and backed out of Cell development.

According to who? A quick google search just displayed all kinds of results talking about how people have used Linux to discover that Resistance was really only 4.7GB and had 17.75GB worth of padding. Of course, Insomniac denied it. But It's hard to deny real evidence.

So you post a link to an article before the Playstation3 was even ANNOUNCED, that goes contrary to Sony's original, and now retracted, specification? Right.

Would you like me to post an article written by someone on Microsoft's payroll claiming Windows XP is more secure than Mac OS X or Linux?

Coming from the person who basically lost the argument and resorted to lying and name calling.

Then I guess all of the reviewers of Half-Life 2, Lair, and others were all lying then?

It is relevant, whether you want it to be or not because it damages your argument. Why? Because Sony's own studios get far better support than 3rd parties do.

Look at GT4 and Tourist Trophy.

How many other PS2 games ran at 1080i? Exactly. You think Sony would have teamed up with say... EA or Rockstar to make NFS or GTA run at that resolution? Of course not.

Then why is it that a quick google search reveals that many developers feel that Sony has been pushing them off?

Sounds like Sony is secretly pulling a Nintendo with the whole "Dream Team" thing again. Might as well call the PS3 the "Nintendo64 2"

Wheres that $5000 PC again?

And you're going back to Crysis again? One game that the PS3 itself is incapable of playing?

The fact that you try to use Crysis is absolutely hilarious and makes you look extremely foolish. You point to PCs inability to run the game at a good frame-rate at max settings, yet the Playstation3 wouldn't even be able to push the game at 720p at lower settings.

You do realize that just about everyone here is laughing at you because of this, right?

Oh, and show me how many PS3 games keep a constant 30fps

You can go here: www.gamespot.com here: ps3.ign.com and basically here: www.gamerankings.com and read countless reviews that talk about how poorly many games run on the PS3, especially compared to their Xbox360 counterparts.

Hell, you can see Drake's bad frame-rate issues in the non-CG portions of the commercial! It's just that bad.

Hmm. Both using PPC technology, DX9 era cards, with help from Valve porting an engine that was mostly written at the beginning of the decade. Hmmmmmm. Oh let's not forget that HL2 was Valve's first game on the Xbox360 too, so your whole "unfamiliar with the codebase" argument goes right out the window.

Plus, going by your logic, the PS3 is "so powerful" with its "ability to run 18 heavyweight threads", it should be able to run a 4 year old game engine that was originally written to be able to run on single core PC processors at just above 1GHz.

I have no credibility, yet you've already resorted to immature name calling. And wheres that $5,000 PC again? How about some evidence to prove the Cell's ability to push "18 heavyweight threads"? I mean, I already posted a link that suggests otherwise, and Sony went so far as to retract nearly all of their original specs for the PS3. On top of that, they even backed out of development of the platform.

Aside from the horrible lighting in the first picture, go use GT4's "Picture Mode". You'll see very similar quality graphics The only difference is that the buildings have a slightly higher polygon count. The texture resolution in those GT5 shots is about where Xbox games were a few years ago.

Yeah, and you see all of the links I already posted that prove the rest of your argument wrong?

Would you like me to go and find a hundred links to show all of the times Sony has backtracked on promised features over the last 7 years?

The funny thing is, I just did a google search for that quote about "10,000 man hours per car for proper damage" and I got caught up in a couple of threads at other forums where everyone was recommending "car fans" go buy an Xbox360 and Forza 2.

http://www.fragland.net/news.php?id=16806&page=1 I like one of the replies there: "Ok let's say that 150 of the 180 days were working days. 8 hours per day. So you are telling me that it takes 1200 man hours to design a single car? Whoever buys that load of crap is pretty stupid. Either they have really badly skilled designers, or they're outright lying. Likelihood is the second."

Thats about right. I can't think of a time recently when Sony has been honest.

So, again, we'll see if Sony delivers on this "promise" to keep car damage in GT5. But like the laundry list of promises they made for GT4, I doubt we'll see this one followed through.. and if it is, it won't be done good. They'll half-ass it like they have half-assed everything else in the last few years.

There was no better looking racing game on the PS2 than GT4. But thats thanks largely in part to its dead environments. Most of the environments were made of very few polygons. Not to mention the game had extreme amounts of low resolution textures, and the environments that did look good were so far off in the distance that they were able to mask their low polygon counts.

But GT4's shortcomings were brought into very clear view if you played in 1080i.

Forza 2 looks better IN MOTION than Gran Turismo 5. Subjectively, I like the car models better because they don't look as plastic as those in GT5. But the environments in Forza are *gasp* NOT DEAD.

Just watch the game in action. The lighting, texturing, overall coloring is more realistic than GT5. The car models are on-par. GT5 actually looks too clean and fake, and has too many low resolution textures. And, again, the environments are not dead.

Let's not forget that Forza actually outscored GT4 in most reviews.

And a quick browse through car enthusiast forums show that everyone has moved on to and prefers Forza.

Just like they threw out the rest of their specs

How many of those are actually native? I mean, honestly?

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/824/824785/img_4317550.html

Because its oh so hard to run that at 1080p.

Can we have games that DO NOT look like old Xbox games running at 1080p please?

Changing your argument now I see.

Sorry, but Half-Life 2 on the PC outshines just about every PS3 game. Call of Duty 4 looks and runs better on the PC, as does every other multi-platform game.

The only game that looks even half decent on the PS3 is Ratchet. But one game can never justify the outrageous $500 price tag.

Because we all spend so much time staring at the CAR and not paying attention to the environment we're driving in, right? When you're finally old enough to drive, I certainly wouldn't want to be riding in the car with you because, from the sounds of it, you'll spend far too much time admiring the paint job on the hood rather than paying attention to the environment and whats going on around you.

Let's see your list of PS3 games that "outshines" PC games, shall we? The requirement is that they have to maintain steady frame-rates with no v-sync issues. So there goes Lair, Heavenly Sword, Drake.. What else does the PS3 have thats actually NOT multi-platform? haha

But you seem to be ignoring the fact that the PC has several other games that look and run better than anything on the PS3, while running on similarly priced hardware.

For example, UT3 will run better on similarly priced hardware at the same resolution, Half-Life 2 will run better on lower-end hardware at higher resolutions. Other games aren't even available, like Gears of War and Crysis. Crysis will run on hardware priced around the same as a PS3. It won't look as good as it can on higher priced hardware, but it'll still look better than anything on the PS3 and run about the same as the average PS3 game.

Haha you seem to forget that there are people who constantly monitor wikipedia edits and entries. Inaccurate facts generally get fixed immediately, or the page will get locked with the previously accurate fact until the subject matter has been debated and the new "Fact" is just that.

Sorry, but Sony really didn't do squat with CDs They contributed one portion that Philips could have done on their own.

If Sony did so much, why is it that Philips holds nearly all of the patents for CDs?

Good job with your pictures not showing up.

BTW, was that upscaled DVD show from the actual DVD being upscaled in action, or no?

Still waiting for those pictures.

If you want to debate this topic, you're more than welcome to come over here: www.avsforum.com theres more than half a million people waiting for you

Actually, you're wrong on both accounts. Do some real speed tests on your wireless network through walls and with electronic interference (such as TVs being turned on, and taking your PS3's internal interference into account). You'll find that 802.11g really only puts through between 10-22Mbps in a real world situation.

Again, head over to google. Even though blu-ray during video playback is technically capable of 45Mbps (1.5x) after "overhead", you can find interviews with heads of Sony's movie studios and electronics clearly stating that blu-ray movies, up until the point of bitrate meters becoming available, can and DO run at around 16-20Mbps VBR. Thats with MPEG-2 encoding as well

And people wonder why the videophiles prefer HD-DVD and upscaled DVDs.

*sigh*

Hardware support for a codec in the GPU means you get TRUE upscaling and other features such as DEBLOCKING and the ability to clean up "messy" videos.

Sort of how like Zelda 64 was the best game of all time and every N64 owner agreed with that.

Even if I did drive a Kia (and I don't ) at least it would have damage and realistic physics.

Given the fact that there are more people calling HL2 the best game ever than there ever were Zelda fanboys saying the same thing about Zelda 64.. then yes, Half-Life 2 is definitely better than Resistance. Look at how well Halo has done too. It was a launch title and, looking at the same timelines both it and resistance have been available, Halo sold much better and was reviewed better as well with far fewer complaints.

Did I say that?

BTW, Halo is available on the PC and Mac

Yes, you're "fully qualified" to speak. Considering many of the statements you made never came out of Sony's mouth or they backtracked on their original specifications.

So far I've spent a good 50 hours playing the Playstation3 via the ONE person I know who was unfortunate enough to buy one (and now regrets it).

My experience with it is more than enough to judge it and realize that its a very bad purchase and buying it is essentially throwing money away.

You're hilarious. It's amazing how foolish people act when they've lost a debate.

Again, I've spent a good 50 hours with the PS3. I know it just as well as someone who owns it.

Sorry, again, if I'm too intelligent to throw my money away on one

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/24532.html H.264 HD warning. Your processor might not be up to the task

Sorry, but page tearing is inexcusable. And as I said, the frame-rate in Drake is bad enough so that even someone just watching the non-CG portion of the commercial can see it.

The sad thing is, however, that most Sony commercials don't even show more than 2-3 seconds of gameplay. It's either CG or the PS3 with a bunch of ridiculous things sticking out of it trying to signify it's capabilities.

"Learn to read"

Pointing out that blu-ray was a forced, expensive, and unnecessary feature that most people will not be able to take advantage of because of their HDTV set. Plus, most HDTVs today STILL are NOT HDCP compatible.

www.avsforum.com more than half a million people waiting to laugh you off the forum if you really want to debate that point.

TV upscalers generally SUCK in comparison to true hardware upscaling or a good PC.

You're using cable? No wonder you think the image quality is bad. Run a good (like DirecTV for example) SD signal, for SD channels, into a PC with a good TV tuner, Dscaler, and upscale it. world of difference.

Oh, FYI, the PS3's scaling capabilities fall well short of what a PC or Oppo can do.

So.. a bunch of people at a forum going against what a developer says? Yeah, that makes sense.

According to.... not even Sony, because Sony retracted their specs?

Now thats just funny, considering you're citing specs that simply don't exist or that Sony backed off from, just like they backtrack on everything else they say and do.

According to who? Because you have multi-platform developers saying otherwise.

That's 1.5x Geez, don't you even know the real specs of the hardware you're trying to argue in favor of? Oh wait, you don't. Because you're citing claims that nobody else has made and specs that Sony retracted.

Ratchet looks good. Uncharted runs too bad to be considered "good". GT5 doesn't hold a candle to Forza 2 in a real world setting.

What was that you said about the Cell? "18 heavyweight threads"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_microprocessor

"The PPE core is dual threaded and manifests in software as two independent threads of execution while each active SPE manifests as a single thread. In the PlayStation 3 configuration as described by Sony, the Cell processor provides nine independent threads of execution"

What was that again?

rofl, thats funny because not only were you wrong about the number of threads the Cell is capable of, but SONY backed off from that spec as well!

You're hilarious

Yes the main system memory in the Xbox360 is shared. But as I said, it makes it a lot easier for a developer to deal with texture sets above 256MB.

Oh, and Sony's original spec, which they have backtracked from, put the bandwidth of the PS3 at just above the Xbox360. But seeing as how they backed off from that and most of their other specs, except clock speed, how do we know its even capable of that?

www.google.com

Yes, Orange Box being bad on the PS3 is due to poor architecture. We know this.

I get better frame-rates in UT3 at lower resolutions than the PS3 does at 720p. Mind you I'm not talking about 640x480 or 800x600 either. I generally run it at 1024x768.

Heres the thing with my PC. I can get a combo drive. Play HD-DVD and blu-ray. I can take my PC ANYWHERE and play those same games you play on your PS3.. ANYWHERE. I can also use it for real work, or real communication. I can play ALL of my old games on it, not just a select few. It will play EVERY video I play on it with HARDWARE support. I don't have to hope and pray Sony will finally allow a codec that I want.

I can do a hell of a lot more with my PC than you can with your PS3, and I can play all of the same games almost or the same settings and just as good, and in a lot of cases, better.

Plus I have access to better games than you do, like Gears of War, a working version of HL2, etc.

First you have to show me a PS3 game that actually looks as good as a modern PC game running at a solid frame-rate. Oh wait, you can't

But I'll show you that combo drive. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136133 first link I clicked. $299 for the retail drive. Not bad. You can find OEM cheaper elsewhere.

Not bad considering it reads everything and writes all but the two HD formats.

Yes, because I've seen many good monitors for under $200. Paper specs don't mean crap when the image quality paints a completely different picture.

I've never had any of the sub-$50 PSUs I've used catch on fire or die. You can still get quality PSUs for cheap.

Let's see some proof.

If I wanted to, I could install Tor, make a new alias, and convince everyone I'm Bill Gates you know.

Not to mention what you've said flies in the face of what many respected and experienced game developers have said.

Again, you're going against what most developers have said. I think I'll believe the developers of games that have gone multi-platinum than some guy who comes in and makes a first post without any evidence.

haha but that doesn't stop other mods from doing it. I know I got banned from the Playstation forum for saying the Xbox360 (at the time) for $399 was a better deal than the $599 (only one at the time) PS3 because the Xbox360 came with all the cables you needed to get it up and running. That was all I said. Nothing else. Years of posting and defending Sony in many instances went down the tube the instant I mentioned it was a better deal to buy a whole package at once.