View Full Version : Playstation 3 improving?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7101791.stm
Sony has halved the price of a software development kit that designers need to make games for its PlayStation 3 (PS3).
The attempt to woo game designers follows last month's price cut on the PS3 itself
With the 360 outselling the PS3 and the Wii topping the pile the PS3 seems less attractive to developers and hence to the public. This might help to get some new and exclusive games onto the PS3 and make it a more attractive console
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7101791.stm
With the 360 outselling the PS3 and the Wii topping the pile the PS3 seems less attractive to developers and hence to the public. This might help to get some new and exclusive games onto the PS3 and make it a more attractive console
The 360 might be outselling it, but thats only because its been out a year longer. Obviously the Wii is a different story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7101791.stm
With the 360 outselling the PS3 and the Wii topping the pile the PS3 seems less attractive to developers and hence to the public. This might help to get some new and exclusive games onto the PS3 and make it a more attractive console
I didn't realise XNA (Microsoft's SDK for the Xbox and Games for Windows platforms) had been that successful. It must have been, if Sony are trying to emulate it.
The 360 might be outselling it, but thats only because its been out a year longer. Obviously the Wii is a different story.
I mean week on week but no doubt the year's headstart has meant more games are out for it thus improving sales.
With the PS1 games on PSP feature. Is FF7 out for that yet?
I mean week on week but no doubt the year's headstart has meant more games are out for it thus improving sales.
With the PS1 games on PSP feature. Is FF7 out for that yet?
Im not sure. Plus thats what I was talking about to. The only reason as far as we can see that its outselling week to week is because its been out longer and its in 2nd year. Im sure we all know consoles get stronger with the more games and cheaper they are.
icestar2
19-11-2007, 21:52
They are making the right moves and heading in the right direction. Plus with the titles comming out now this is gonna be a big boost.
Sounds like a step in the only direction to me. Desperation could be the word.
Sounds like a step in the only direction to me. Desperation could be the word.
People like you really annoy me. You need to get out more.
Guys, chill. No need to needle each other.
I mean week on week but no doubt the year's headstart has meant more games are out for it thus improving sales.
With the PS1 games on PSP feature. Is FF7 out for that yet?
Any game is if you have the open edition firmware although I believe it has a problem with when you get to a point where you need to change discs.
People like you really annoy me. You need to get out more.
My comment wasn't aimed at anyone specific. It was aimed at Sony if anyone so why does that annoy you personally.
Sony says that the price cut is part of its efforts to cooperate with software developers in the hope that they will design more games for the PS3.
Now as it stands, the PS3 has been out a little while now and there's no sign of that killer game as yet, it needs to do something to compete with the sales (wii and 360). So yeah, if Sony carry on the way they are, I can't see them gaining any ground, so it was a wise move to cut the price. Now see the context of my previous post.
My comment wasn't aimed at anyone specific. It was aimed at Sony if anyone so why does that annoy you personally.
Now as it stands, the PS3 has been out a little while now and there's no sign of that killer game as yet, it needs to do something to compete with the sales (wii and 360). So yeah, if Sony carry on the way they are, I can't see them gaining any ground, so it was a wise move to cut the price. Now see the context of my previous post.
No. Your one of these people that whatever Sony do, you will try to put a bad spin on it even when its not.
No. Your one of these people that whatever Sony do, you will try to put a bad spin on it even when its not.
To be fair there aren't exactly lots of great games for the ps3 at the moment.
Hopefully when the next final fantasy and metal gear solid come out that will change
Still hoping for a remake of Final fantasy 7 but it's not looking likely currently.
No. Your one of these people that whatever Sony do, you will try to put a bad spin on it even when its not.
I have nothing against Sony at all. Other than they released an overpriced machine that hasn't really taken off because of the lack of software that's out there.
I don't think I need to spin that in anyway do you?
So this move hopefully might change things, now I'm being positive to the PS3 here as I was before. I would love to see the PS3 suddenly turn into the machine they spoke about before the launch, I'd love it if it wiped the floor with the 360, I might actually see it's worth and buy one. Until something drastic happens, that's not going to happen.
I bought a psx for games like wipeout (launch title) and 2097, and the 360 for games like PGR3 (launch title) (now PGR4), there's nothing out there yet that says anything for the PS3 (yet) that the 360 can't do just as good as. It's not a dig at owners who have paid out for one now.
To be fair there aren't exactly lots of great games for the ps3 at the moment.
Hopefully when the next final fantasy and metal gear solid come out that will change
Still hoping for a remake of Final fantasy 7 but it's not looking likely currently.
Thats a matter of opinion.
What about Resistance, F1, CM Dirt, COD4, Assassins Creed, Ratchet and Clank, Lair, Heavenly Sword, Tekken 6, Warhawk, The Eye of Judgement, Fifa 08, PES 2008 and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Singstar and Haze just around the corner, Id say there was plenty of good games on a console that is 1 year old. Dont forget, what games where out in the 360's first year.
---------- Post added at 23:18 ---------- Previous post was at 23:15 ----------
I have nothing against Sony at all. Other than they released an overpriced machine that hasn't really taken off because of the lack of software that's out there.
I don't think I need to spin that in anyway do you?
So this move hopefully might change things, now I'm being positive to the PS3 here as I was before. I would love to see the PS3 suddenly turn into the machine they spoke about before the launch, I'd love it if it wiped the floor with the 360, I might actually see it's worth and buy one. Until something drastic happens, that's not going to happen.
I bought a psx for games like wipeout (launch title) and 2097, and the 360 for games like PGR3 (launch title) (now PGR4), there's nothing out there yet that says anything for the PS3 (yet) that the 360 can't do just as good as. It's not a dig at owners who have paid out for one now.
There is no way you can try and spin what you said. You were having a dig at Sony, end off. Doing what Sony are doing from the OP is not desperation. And I cant see how it hasnt taken off, launch to launch the PS3 and 360 are level or near enough level on sales. Take out the fact that the 360 didnt have much stock for a few months but was the only next gen on the market at the time and that the PS3 had a high price point and competion from the Wii and 360, its doing no worse than what the 360 is doing.
Lord Nikon
19-11-2007, 23:26
As a neutral party with no affiliation to any console or format since I own none of them, I'll have a dig at sony for the PS3
Sony built a console based around beta HDMI firmware which wasn't compatible with a lot of HD TVs, they even had to demo the PS3 using component cable rather than HDMI due to compatibility issues, they priced themselves at the extreme upper end of the console market, and sales struggled. Even this far into the console's lifespan there's no defining game for the PS3, for the nintendos it was, and still is Mario, for the Segas it was Sonic, for the Xbox it was Halo, what is it for the sony? Tekken? There just doesn't seem to be anything it does better than anyone else, or that defines the console...
I think Sony did hope to do better, they are now hit by reality and finally dropped the PS3 to a fair price and since then it's done better and even outpaced the 360 at one point.
The week on week sales are important since they close and widen gaps in the overall market share. At the end of the day developers care how big a market there is for their games and adjust accordingly. If the PS3 came out first and the 360 a year later then it might be the other way around but, they didnt, and at the moment the 360 has a advantage.
Sony are starting to fix this but dropping the price of the console and hence more units sold and by making it cheaper to develop for the PS3. I think we'll see the PS3 at the level the first xbox was against the Playstation. Maybe closer.
But the real thing both companies will now note is that brand loyalty is not strong in the gaming market (except Nintendo) and getting your console out first is of paramount importance. Both companies will be rushing to be first to the market again.
The PS3 however is looking a lot healthier than it was 6 months ago.
As a neutral party with no affiliation to any console or format since I own none of them, I'll have a dig at sony for the PS3
Sony built a console based around beta HDMI firmware which wasn't compatible with a lot of HD TVs, they even had to demo the PS3 using component cable rather than HDMI due to compatibility issues, they priced themselves at the extreme upper end of the console market, and sales struggled. Even this far into the console's lifespan there's no defining game for the PS3, for the nintendos it was, and still is Mario, for the Segas it was Sonic, for the Xbox it was Halo, what is it for the sony? Tekken? There just doesn't seem to be anything it does better than anyone else, or that defines the console...
Shame isnt it? Didnt stop the PS2 being the bigest selling console ever. Not bad for a console that doesnt have a defining game. What about Metal Gear Solid series, Gran Turismo, Crash bandicoot along with a few more.
If your going to have a dig at one company, have a dig at them all as they have all made stupid mistakes really.
Whats this HDMI firmware you are taslking about?
Lord Nikon
20-11-2007, 00:06
Sony released the PS3 with HDMI1.3 beta firmware present, most TVs sold were using HDMI 1.1 as it was the highest RATIFIED standard, the issue became that the PS3 caused problems with the HDMI handshake. For some the picture blanked after the initial boot screen, for others the picture blinked, and for more the audio shut down. Sony has released firmware updates supposedly to cure this, but apparently on some TV / PS3 combinations there are still banding issues.
Moving on, yes, other companies have had problems, Acorn had an excellent machine with the Archimedes back in 1989, but didn't market it properly, Atari is all but gone, Commodore is gone, all were excellent platforms, but they made mistakes, No-one is disputing that.
southwell
20-11-2007, 09:06
IMO when the xbox first came out the games were rubbish and it was very rarely used for the first year, my ps3 has been used a lot more in comparison!
TheBlueRaja
20-11-2007, 09:43
I see shawty still has the blinkers on and trying to connvince everyone the PS3 is still going to dominate the world.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34258553-post45.html
But for the 4 months the PS3 has been out, it is outselling the 360 when that was out for 4 months. We will see what happens from here.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34258598-post64.html
I believe the launch to launch figures, if that shows in 1 month or 2 months time the 360 is selling more then thats fine with me.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34258742-post89.html
We will see what happens in the coming months, at the end of the day after 4 months of been on sale for both of them the PS3 is slightly ahead. Regardless of price, availability, games ect ect.
There's more but, is there any point...
Thats a matter of opinion.
What about Resistance, F1, CM Dirt, COD4, Assassins Creed, Ratchet and Clank, Lair, Heavenly Sword, Tekken 6, Warhawk, The Eye of Judgement, Fifa 08, PES 2008 and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Singstar and Haze just around the corner, Id say there was plenty of good games on a console that is 1 year old. Dont forget, what games where out in the 360's first year.
---------- Post added at 23:18 ---------- Previous post was at 23:15 ----------
Resistance Yes, ok I'll give it that looks good but I won't be buying a ps3 just for that alone.
Most of those games listed aren't exclusives which means I can get them on a console I already own (the 360) or on pc.
Now I'm not saying I won't buy a PS3 (because I probably will, particularly when the next Final fantasy and MGS games come out) but theres nothing in that line up that makes me want to rush out to the store and buy one this current second. Espcally as I need a new HD tv as well to get the proper Ps3 experience (I cheat with the 360 and use the pc monitor)
I see shawty still has the blinkers on and trying to connvince everyone the PS3 is still going to dominate the world.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34258553-post45.html
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34258598-post64.html
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34258742-post89.html
There's more but, is there any point...
Im really struglging here to see what point you have by doing this?
What I have said is true. From launch to launch the sales figures of the PS3 and the 360 are about the same. Of course the 360 is outselling it week to week as it has been out longer with more games. Im pretty sure most consoles sell more as they have been out longer with more games, thats common sense.
---------- Post added at 20:24 ---------- Previous post was at 20:17 ----------
Resistance Yes, ok I'll give it that looks good but I won't be buying a ps3 just for that alone.
Most of those games listed aren't exclusives which means I can get them on a console I already own (the 360) or on pc.
Now I'm not saying I won't buy a PS3 (because I probably will, particularly when the next Final fantasy and MGS games come out) but theres nothing in that line up that makes me want to rush out to the store and buy one this current second. Espcally as I need a new HD tv as well to get the proper Ps3 experience (I cheat with the 360 and use the pc monitor)
But surely thats your own opinion. At the end of the day, the same thing could be and was said about the 360 when that launched and that only got Gears of War 1 year into the consoles life.
And out of the 16 games I mentioned, 11 of them are exclusives. So most of them actually are exclusive. But that wasnt the point. The point was PS3 does have great games, some people dont have a 360 so the none exclusives also matter.
No one is saying you have to like the games out. But you have to agree the games already out are good/great. I dont really like Gears of War. It just didnt do it for me, but thats not to say its not a great game,
Im really struglging here to see what point you have by doing this?
What I have said is true. From launch to launch the sales figures of the PS3 and the 360 are about the same. Of course the 360 is outselling it week to week as it has been out longer with more games. Im pretty sure most consoles sell more as they have been out longer with more games, thats common sense.
---------- Post added at 20:24 ---------- Previous post was at 20:17 ----------
But surely thats your own opinion. At the end of the day, the same thing could be and was said about the 360 when that launched and that only got Gears of War 1 year into the consoles life.
And out of the 16 games I mentioned, 11 of them are exclusives. So most of them actually are exclusive. But that wasnt the point. The point was PS3 does have great games, some people dont have a 360 so the none exclusives also matter.
No one is saying you have to like the games out. But you have to agree the games already out are good/great. I dont really like Gears of War. It just didnt do it for me, but thats not to say its not a great game,
I never said I bought the 360 at launch, nor did I say my argument was anything other than my opinion ;)
I may have forgotten to state that it was just my opinion but thats all it was :p:
I never said I bought the 360 at launch, nor did I say my argument was anything other than my opinion ;)
I may have forgotten to state that it was just my opinion but thats all it was :p:
I never said you did or didnt buy the 360 at launch.
You said this "To be fair there aren't exactly lots of great games for the ps3 at the moment." All I really have to say is (and all though this is your opinion) that a lot of reviewers disagree with what you say. Not forgetting its only been out 1 year. Its like stating the blooming obvious really.
TraxData
20-11-2007, 22:33
People like you really annoy me. You need to get out more.
For telling the truth? *confused*
PS3 has had bad sales, it was highly overpriced (still is) and they charged waaay too much for dev.
It's a simple fact.
Nowhere did it show he hated Sony.
On the contrary you sound like a huge sony fanboy who thinks they could never do wrong (per reading your posts)
It's only a console.
MadGamer
20-11-2007, 23:18
Both consoles have their good and bad points!
Both consoles have their good and bad points!
Reliablity definatly being one of the xbox's bad points :(
For telling the truth? *confused*
What truth? This is not desperation. Its normal business sense.
PS3 has had bad sales, it was highly overpriced (still is) and they charged waaay too much for dev.
But PS3 hasnt had bad sales. Ok they might not of been high as expected but they are on par launch to launch with what the 360 did. Now dont come back and say but the 360 had launch problems with the amount shipped because the PS3 had to cope with a high price point, compertition and the "not many good games" people like to brand about. Not bad really is it.
It's a simple fact.
No its not.
Nowhere did it show he hated Sony.
Yes it did. It happens to be GOOD PS3 news, not for us but for the devs, so how can this be spun into desperation? Its common business sense.
On the contrary you sound like a huge sony fanboy who thinks they could never do wrong (per reading your posts)
Seeing as I own a Xbox and plan on getting a 360 next year, I find that doubtful. As I have always bought the Playstation franchise first then I take more intrest in them than the others to begin with. I find it really annoying when people start posting that, it has no games, the sales are crap, Sony are going to go bust, every little thing Sony does stinks of desperation etc etc, and to be honest it absolutly stinks and there is no need for it. Esepcially seeing as the majority of things wrong with it also once/still do, hinder the compertion that Sony has.
I know Sony do wrong and always will do as thats Human nature. But the bigger picture is what everyone really moans about like the lack of games was the same as the 360 if people can remember not that long ago.
It's only a console.
Yes, so why the need to say its desperation on Sony's part when clearly it isnt (not you personlly).
---------- Post added at 23:38 ---------- Previous post was at 23:36 ----------
Both consoles have their good and bad points!
Exactly and all I seem to here is bash Sony bash Sony. When Microsoft have a problem with the 360 then 360 fans talk about it (most of the time), when Sony have a problem with the PS3 it seems that the PS3 owners have to always get into a debate as there system has less games etc etc.
I think people are shocked watching Sony go from 1st to 3rd place console more than anything. It's a remarkable development after they led for so long and maintains the fact that no console has dominated for more than 2 generations.
Reliablity definatly being one of the xbox's bad points :(And the noise of the damn thing.
And the noise of the damn thing.
Can't aruge with that!
What did you say...? You'll have to speak up a little.
;)
ShadowTD
22-11-2007, 10:13
I've been into this gaming thingammijig since the Amstrad CPC, so I'll expouse my views.
Looking back at the previous generation, Sega had a fantastic machine out there. They'd sold a good couple of million and the system was building fast. It could get on the internet and online play was imminent. And then the PS2 came out. Despite the price, lack of true AAA titles for at least the first 6 months and no hint of any online features the PS2 crushed the Dreamcast.
Now we're currently in the situation we were when the PS2 really started to batter the 'cast. There's some decent titles appearing or slated for the PS3 and the system is starting to appear with decent bundles for a reasonable price. Yet the 360 is still going good guns, not to mention the Wii. I think the gaming landscape is going to be different this time. Sony won't 'give up' on the PS3 because of the loss of face (Japanese company, you see - even if it is run by a yank). Microsoft are determined to try and monetise the investment they've made in the Xbox brand so I can't see them giving up any time soon. I can see it being like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, where the market ends up accommodating both, with the Wii being a licence to print money for Nintendo.
As a footnote, I currently only have a Wii. There are finally a few games I want to play that aren't out for it - Skate, Sega Rally and Orange Box. All of these are multiplatform. Yet I've decided to plump for a 360. I'd much rather get a PS3 and have a blu-ray player thrown in as well (even though I think HD-DVD has the edge) as well as better eliability. But look at Eurogamer and their multiplatform roundups. The majority of games available on both systems look and perform better on the 360. Probably because that's what they were coded for first. This is what happened with the Sega Saturn - despite being out first it was a pig to code for. Sony courted devs with cheap devkits and lots of help. Hence people ended up coding for the PS and 'porting' to the Saturn which didn't work very well at all. With the 360 in the position of 'lead' platform (especially for EA) I think it's currently my best option. So I'll be getting one at xmas.
And anyway, it's only a method to play games FFS. I was arguing about CPC vs C64 in the playground at high school - have we not come any further than that? (Speccy was never in the frame! ;))
I almost agree with everything you said there, ShadowTD... until you said that the Speccy was never in the frame. That's blasphemous!!! :D
The demise of the DC was, as you say, because of the success of the PS2, which itself was largely caused by the phenomenal success of the PS1. Sony held the press release for the PS2 almost an entire year before the console was actually launched, which resulted in many people holding-off getting the DC whilst they waited to see what the PS2 could offer. As it turned out, the DC was technically superior to the PS2 but by the time people realised it was already too late, and Sega had failed to get enough interest in the console. Such a shame, because the DC was a fantastic piece of kit - very ground-breaking for the time.
Ironically, the PS1 was originally developed by Nintendo and Sony together, but the CEO of Nintendo didn't like the terms and conditions of the contract and decided they should split... and instead they jumped into bed with Philips. The rest, as they say, is history.
ShadowTD
23-11-2007, 09:41
@Gareth: *chuckle*. Yeah, many hours spent arguing about 'Speckle-drums'... :P We even had one kid who had a BBC B. Nobody spoke to him and he smelled a bit funny... ;)
ISTR that it was Philips that had the first swing of the bat developing a CD system with Nintendo - that's why there are 2 Zelda games on the CD-i (I've got them both and they're hideous). Nintendo 'wasn't impressed' and so went to Sony (the other inventor of the CD). This project got pretty far - prototypes were built and custom silicon cut but by this time the MegaCD was singularly failing to ignite the market. Ninty decided to focus their resources on 'Project Reality' and the T&C's of the 'we don't actually want to bring this product to market' deal they did with Sony meant Sony got the IP for what had been devleoped for SNES CD.
And yes, Sony killed the DC with marketing. I thing this is the basis of a lot of people's negative attitude towards Sony. They've gone from being the plucky upstarts to the arrogant leader who doesn't deliver what they promise. This Stringer fella who's in charge now seems to have a bit of a clue and I think that 2008 will probably be a good year for the PS3. Still getting a 360, though... ;)
icestar2
23-11-2007, 09:57
Wow PS3 has actually outsold the WII for 2 weeks in a row now. Then again it is in japan its home turf but hopefully this is sony turning the corner now. Seems the 40GB model is having a great impact for sony now and is starting to help shift units plus the games comming out are starting to make the investment in the machine worth it.
I hope there remains room for all the consoles as its good for us and its good for dev's. Gives us more choice - each machine is pushing each other to deliver and that can only be a good thing in my book.
Yeah, saw the sales figures... can't believe how badly the 360 does in Japan. There were more PS2s sold during the week than 360s!!! Makes you wonder why Microsoft still bother.
Like you say, having one of the manufacturers fail isn't good for anyone so hopefully this will be a turning point for Sony.
To be fair, the Wii is only getting out-sold because of stock problems ;)
Sony have not really advertised the PS3 since launch on TV, but now it seems to be on every ad break on ITV. I guess it's make or break time!
Tightscot
26-11-2007, 10:38
I guess it's make or break time! .... or Christmas time... :D
keithwalton
26-11-2007, 16:12
The Wii only has stock problems in the UK / Europe, in Japan the PS3 is outselling it on merit.
The PS3 is definitely improving, we're now up to version 2.01 of firmware and it is much better than the 1.5 my ps3 came with.
With regards to the HDMI note, my PS3 has been running on HDMI since day 1 without much of a problem.
It did improve when they added the software scaler option (for dvd's, blu-ray and ps1/2 games) so that the console always outputted at the resolution you wanted rather than what it decided. (It used to want to do 1080i when infact 720p was a much better
match).
They do still have a problem tho, when games are coming out on both multiple platforms the ps3 version is usually later and more expensive than the xbox version (eg Juiced 2, it was originally £40 on the xbox and £50 on the ps3 with the latter being released two weeks later)
I still would not count Japan as a key marker anymore though, There is the gamer drift and the fact that the console market has shifted to the western markets
Resistance Yes, ok I'll give it that looks good but I won't be buying a ps3 just for that alone.
Most of those games listed aren't exclusives which means I can get them on a console I already own (the 360) or on pc.
Now I'm not saying I won't buy a PS3 (because I probably will, particularly when the next Final fantasy and MGS games come out) but theres nothing in that line up that makes me want to rush out to the store and buy one this current second. Espcally as I need a new HD tv as well to get the proper Ps3 experience (I cheat with the 360 and use the pc monitor)
Change probably will to just did... and it will be more accurate ;)
Resitance is pretty neat so far (only game I got for the time being) I like that gun that you can tag them with then shoot them from around corners :p:
In my opinion the 360 is the best for online play and gameplay.
PS3 is slightly better in framerate but not lighting,
The wii is amazing for gameplay but some games are annoying.
MadGamer
03-12-2007, 21:03
In my opinion the 360 is the best for online play and gameplay.
PS3 is slightly better in framerate but not lighting,
The wii is amazing for gameplay but some games are annoying. Ill agree with what you said there :tu:
ShadowTD
06-12-2007, 10:58
After spending Sunday (all of it) playing on my mate's new PS3, I think I'd have to take issue with the statement that framerates are better on the PS3 - I think it's the other way around. I played a demo of Heavenly Sword and was utterly gobsmacked by the super super shiny visuals. I was also appalled by the drops in framerate, especially during the initial cutscene. I played Sega Rally and Jericho and in all honesty couldn't tell much of a difference between the two. Resistance FOM is awesome but there's some surprisingly low res textures in there. The frame rate in Harry Potter was pretty grim in a lot of places.
But a very nice machine. Much stronger on the AV side that the 360 and I think this will win it a place in a lot of homes. It just 'feels' better as an AV unit thanks in no small part to the XMB.
The PS3 has had troubles with framerate, so I was quite puzzled by that comment but decided to let it pass. The PS3 is stronger on the media front than the 360 with better HD, Blue-ray and upscaling.
The big weakness in the PS3 is the online sections. It's no where near xbox live which is fantastic.
Both companies seem to excel at their native industrys. The PS3 and Sony for media and Software (aka xbox live, the dash, and achievements) for Microsoft).
Tezcatlipoca
08-12-2007, 20:40
The PS3 is stronger on the media front than the 360 with better HD, Blue-ray and upscaling.
Better HD?
How so? Both consoles have component & HDMI, & can output at up to 1080p.
Blur-ray?
So? You can get an HD DVD add-on for the 360. (*if* you want it...).
Upscaling?
The 360 also upscales.
--------------
I am getting very tempted, though.
The addition of divx support to the 360 means I can finally retire my XBMC... hmm, space for a PS3 ;)
Still not really enough decent games for my liking, but it's getting better, plus the price is no longer ridiculous like it was at launch.
Pity the 60GB version has sold out though. I'd prefer that to the 40GB version.
May wait 'till the new year to see what deals & bundles there are, or if Sony end up releasing yet another SKU.
ShadowTD
10-12-2007, 11:25
I reckon I'll grab a PS3 by the end of 2008. I'll not pay more than £200 for a 2nd hand 40gb though.
Better HD?
How so? Both consoles have component & HDMI, & can output at up to 1080p.
Beyond more films being available (which is a major advantage, but might change if HD-DVD takes off), is there any real advantage to Blu-Ray? The extra storage is good, but are any studios and authoring companies (apart from the Sony ones) actually using the extra storage?
Not saying that I won't get a PS3. If the price comes down, or Blu Ray really takes off, then I'll probably save up and get one, but can't see the point at the moment.
Actually, there's more features in HD-DVD. Especially if they do the dual disc format (both standard and Hi-Def files on the same disc). They also handle extras features better.
Better HD?
How so? Both consoles have component & HDMI, & can output at up to 1080p.
The PS3 is native 1080p while he 360 is native 720p
I have a PS3, but it has an annoying little glitch when playing standard DVD's. They sometimes freeze or hold between frames, and I am almost manic about making sure my DVD's are clean and scratch free.
Happened on a couple of DS9 disks.
I tried turning upscaling off, not sure if that's the problem though.
I really hope the thing isn't faulty.
Beyond more films being available (which is a major advantage, but might change if HD-DVD takes off), is there any real advantage to Blu-Ray? The extra storage is good, but are any studios and authoring companies (apart from the Sony ones) actually using the extra storage?
Not saying that I won't get a PS3. If the price comes down, or Blu Ray really takes off, then I'll probably save up and get one, but can't see the point at the moment.
For the games?
Surely there is something worth getting out of this list (with huge games to come with some just round the corner like UT3) Obviously this list is better if you dont have a 360 but still good if you do.
Motorstorm
F1 CE
Resistance
Fight Night Round 3
Lair
Heavenly Sword
Assassins Creed
Ratchet & Clank
COD4
Uncharted Drakes Fortune
PES 2008
Fifa 08
Singstar
Guitar Hero 3
Stranglehold
Blazing Angels 2
WWE Smackdown v Raw
Tony Hawks Proving Ground
Skate
Warhawk
The Eye Of Judgment
Ridge Racer 7
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent
Sega Rally
Colin Mcrae Dirt
Virtua Tennis 3
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas
Folklore
F.E.A.R.
GRAW
PAIN
GTHD Demo
Oblivion
I just dont get the statment you said.
---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------
Actually, there's more features in HD-DVD. Especially if they do the dual disc format (both standard and Hi-Def files on the same disc). They also handle extras features better.
The PS3 is native 1080p while he 360 is native 720p
The 360 is also native 1080p. Also isnt profile 1.1? coming out for Blu-ray anytime now making the extra features the same as HD DVD?
Xbox games are not 1080p i meant.
As for the games most of the good ones are cross-platform which tend to do better on the 360. The PS3 needs some very good exclusive games
Xbox games are not 1080p i meant.
As for the games most of the good ones are cross-platform which tend to do better on the 360. The PS3 needs some very good exclusive games
No, not yet but they can be and most likely will be sometime.
They are a lot of good exclusives in that list. Like, Resistance, Heavenly Sword, Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted, Warhawk, Singstar and Lair which most people enjoy, its just the controls that can let it down. Most of the cross platform games maybe are better, but at the end of the day most of the time there is hardly any noticable difference between the two platforms no matter if its the PS3 version that is better or the 360. The PS3 has got good exclusives with more on the way, with proven ones such as MGS4 and GT5 and unproven ones such as LittleBigPlanet, Killzone 2 and Haze. Also the PS3 has UT3 as a timed exclusive. To me and many others these are already massive games. Also to me and many others, the games argument just does not hold up anymore.
TheBlueRaja
10-12-2007, 20:03
My opinions are summarised as follows:-
No 1 Console :- Wii
Wii = Some really good games (although limited in number compared with 360), great sales due to broad appeal and easy control system, VERY innovative and cool and an excellent back catalogue of "old" games. Has some killer titles in the family market combined with family friendly price point.
No 2 Console :- 360
Xbox 360 = LOADS of top games, excellent online options, crap pricing struture for online play / features, looks like crap but kind of cool and a reasonable price, the "gamers" choice.
No 3 Console :- PS2 (Yes i did say PS2)
Still selling very strongly and a huge catalogue of games.
No 4 Console :- PS3
PS3 = Expensive due to it pushing a format nobody really cares about, lacking in / heavily delayed Class A titles, poor sales figures / user base, similar or even sub par graphics compared to 360 which has been out a year longer (i.e. Pro Evo Frame rate) and its just not cool anymore.
The PS3 is still the biggest turkey you could get this Christmas.
Is the HD-DVD worth getting for the 360?
We recently got a HDTV is there much differece (not yet watched a HD movie in)
Did think about getting a blu-ray movie and hooking up the ps3 to see what it comes out like.
Tezcatlipoca
10-12-2007, 20:12
Xbox games are not 1080p i meant.
Neither are most PS3 games.
The most common native res for games on both systems is 720p, although I think the PS3 does have more native 1080p games than the 360.
Also, the PS3 cannot upscale all 720p games to 1080p...it depends on the game.
---------- Post added at 20:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------
Is the HD-DVD worth getting for the 360?
We recently got a HDTV is there much differece (not yet watched a HD movie in)
Did think about getting a blu-ray movie and hooking up the ps3 to see what it comes out like.
IMO, yes. Especially as it's only around £100.
Movies on HD DVD (& Blu-ray Disc) look much better than DVDs.
As for buying the discs, avoid HMV, Gamestation, Virgin, etc. All overpriced IMO.
I buy almost all of my HD DVDs from www.movietyme.com - much cheaper. Importing from the US is no issue as HD DVD currently does not use region coding.
My opinions are summarised as follows:-
No 1 Console :- Wii
Wii = Some really good games (although limited in number compared with 360), great sales due to broad appeal and easy control system, VERY innovative and cool and an excellent back catalogue of "old" games. Has some killer titles in the family market combined with family friendly price point.
No 2 Console :- 360
Xbox 360 = LOADS of top games, excellent online options, crap pricing struture for online play / features, looks like crap but kind of cool and a reasonable price, the "gamers" choice.
No 3 Console :- PS2 (Yes i did say PS2)
Still selling very strongly and a huge catalogue of games.
No 4 Console :- PS3
PS3 = Expensive due to it pushing a format nobody really cares about, lacking in / heavily delayed Class A titles, poor sales figures / user base, similar or even sub par graphics compared to 360 which has been out a year longer (i.e. Pro Evo Frame rate) and its just not cool anymore.
The PS3 is still the biggest turkey you could get this Christmas.
Was once maybe expensive (I dont think it was due to what you got) But now the PS3 is £299 and cheaper in some places which is now comparable to the 360, especially with the extras you get. I paid £350 for the 60GB version with 3 games.
Poor sales figures? Where? Not the most reliable source, but its the most we have - http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=PS2®1=All&cons2=PS3®2=All&cons3=X360®3=All&weeks=156
Its been said that Uncharted Drakes Fortune has the best console graphics on a console at the moment. Also some games on the PS3 look better than on the 360 like Oblivion (although I dont know wether the patch for the 360 version made it look the same?) and Fight Night Round 3 and it just goes to show with COD4 that the same things can be achieved as the 360 version.
It just seems you have nothing good to say about it when there is plenty good to say about it. It hits me as strange as why you would want to do this. I played on Gears of War with a friend and all though it is not a bad game I dont think it was as good as everyone said, but you dont see me shouting this out all the time. Its like you have some sort of contract with Microsoft/Nintendo to try and destroy their compertion and to me its uncalled for. Surely one person cant have so many negative views on a great peice of kit. I have nothing agasint you putting it in fourth place, thats your opinion. But to be honest, to me your just being negative just for the fun of it.
ShadowTD
11-12-2007, 09:28
I think there's the danger that this previously balanced thread might be about to descend into the usual PS3/360 bunfight and that would be a shame.
To pick up my previous point about people not liking Sony due to their marketing fibs and initial 'over-selling' of the machine's capabilities, Damien's statement that the PS3 is 1080p whereas the Xbox 360 is 720p is a perfect case in point. The source of this statement is Sony themselves which we all now know to be a complete lie. Head over to Kotaku and have a rummage around for a post that reveals the 'native' (render) resolution for a number of different titles across both platforms. Sometimes the PS3 render res is higher, sometimes the 360 is. The advantage the 360 has is that extra 10mb of RAM to allow devs to turn on things like 4xFSAA which tends to make games look nice.
At the end of the day it should come down to the games and with the 360 as the lead platform for a number of devs I think this situation will continue through 2008. I do think we'll see some stunning results from some PS3 exclusives and I honestly think we'll still be having this discussion in 12 months time :)
They Both have great games on them, although the 360 has more of them at the moment.
Get them both (if you can afford it) problem solved ;)
Played assasins creed on 360 last night good game so far... Probably get UT3 on PS3 rather than have it run at less than optimal on my PC
I think there's the danger that this previously balanced thread might be about to descend into the usual PS3/360 bunfight and that would be a shame.
Nice quote before you start throwing buns yourself!
To pick up my previous point about people not liking Sony due to their marketing fibs and initial 'over-selling' of the machine's capabilities, Damien's statement that the PS3 is 1080p whereas the Xbox 360 is 720p is a perfect case in point.
The source of this statement is Sony themselves which we all now know to be a complete lie.
I think you will find that there has been confusion over the Xbox 360 and 1080p resolution because the Xbox 360 didn't support 1080p from day 1, example: http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=10494
For the games?
Surely there is something worth getting out of this list (with huge games to come with some just round the corner like UT3) Obviously this list is better if you dont have a 360 but still good if you do.
Motorstorm
F1 CE
Resistance
Fight Night Round 3
Lair
Heavenly Sword
Assassins Creed
Ratchet & Clank
COD4
Uncharted Drakes Fortune
PES 2008
Fifa 08
Singstar
Guitar Hero 3
Stranglehold
Blazing Angels 2
WWE Smackdown v Raw
Tony Hawks Proving Ground
Skate
Warhawk
The Eye Of Judgment
Ridge Racer 7
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent
Sega Rally
Colin Mcrae Dirt
Virtua Tennis 3
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas
Folklore
F.E.A.R.
GRAW
PAIN
GTHD Demo
Oblivion
The only game I see in that list that that I want, and isn't either out or coming out for the PC (I have a good PC) or Xbox 360 is F1. I am not spending £300 to £400 on a console to play one game.
ShadowTD
11-12-2007, 11:49
@Tod: Yes, but they're iced buns, more passed than thrown ;)
The only game I see in that list that that I want, and isn't either out or coming out for the PC (I have a good PC) or Xbox 360 is F1. I am not spending £300 to £400 on a console to play one game.
Well maybe PS3 is not aimed at you, but it is me so I am happy! :)
There are a lots of games on that list I wouldn't mind having. I have Uncharted and personally I think it is the best game out there on any machine.
I also have a large blu-ray collection, and store my media and photographs on my PS3, so I am well happy with it.
@Tod: Yes, but they're iced buns, more passed than thrown ;)
Cheeky! ;)
Orange box seems to have been ruined for the ps3 :erm:
"The remainder of our criticisms are to blame for the discrepancy in scores between the PlayStation 3 version of the game and the 360 version (the PS3 version, after all, wasn't handled entirely by Valve). The PlayStation 3 Orange Box performs far worse, and this fact just isn't up for debate. While framerate issues aren't as problematic in Half-Life 2 and Episode One, Episode Two suffers a great deal, especially during the episode's larger battles. We regret to say that some sections border on being unplayable because of the stutters, which often cause your aim to be thrown off and timing shots to be very difficult. The problem isn't persistent throughout, but when it hits, it hits hard.
More troubling still is the difference in load times. Almost all the PS3 load times are at least five seconds more than the 360, but loading a saved game/loading after death is particularly awful. These clock in at about two to three times as long as the 360 version, which slows down the gameplay considerably. Even though the PS3 Orange Box sports a quicksave feature, any benefit of this option is lost considering the overall abundance of loading.
Even in Portal, a short title that often requires a little trial and error, this problem is massive. The 360 version takes about three seconds to load your last checkpoint if you die. The PS3 version takes seventeen. It hurts.
"
full review at http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/840/840505p1.html
icestar2
12-12-2007, 21:13
Orange box seems to have been ruined for the ps3 :erm:
"The remainder of our criticisms are to blame for the discrepancy in scores between the PlayStation 3 version of the game and the 360 version (the PS3 version, after all, wasn't handled entirely by Valve). The PlayStation 3 Orange Box performs far worse, and this fact just isn't up for debate. While framerate issues aren't as problematic in Half-Life 2 and Episode One, Episode Two suffers a great deal, especially during the episode's larger battles. We regret to say that some sections border on being unplayable because of the stutters, which often cause your aim to be thrown off and timing shots to be very difficult. The problem isn't persistent throughout, but when it hits, it hits hard.
More troubling still is the difference in load times. Almost all the PS3 load times are at least five seconds more than the 360, but loading a saved game/loading after death is particularly awful. These clock in at about two to three times as long as the 360 version, which slows down the gameplay considerably. Even though the PS3 Orange Box sports a quicksave feature, any benefit of this option is lost considering the overall abundance of loading.
Even in Portal, a short title that often requires a little trial and error, this problem is massive. The 360 version takes about three seconds to load your last checkpoint if you die. The PS3 version takes seventeen. It hurts.
"
full review at http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/840/840505p1.html
Thats because the PS3 version was passed off to EA to do and EA always put half assed games together. You only have to look at the battlefeild series on pc and see the amount of patchs there have been to know EA rarely do a good job.
ShadowTD
13-12-2007, 10:00
There are also rumours that the PS3 version isn't using any of the SPE's - just the main chip and the graphics card. If this is the case, this is utterly inexcusable behaviour and the game should have been held back. No-one is suggesting the PS3 doesn't have the power - this is just typical EA lazyness.
TheBlueRaja
13-12-2007, 18:37
There are also rumours that the PS3 version isn't using any of the SPE's - just the main chip and the graphics card. If this is the case, this is utterly inexcusable behaviour and the game should have been held back. No-one is suggesting the PS3 doesn't have the power - this is just typical EA lazyness.
When a games console sells in low numbers, there is less justification to polish a game because the returns are less.
Add to that the PS3's lack of memory causing graphical bottlenecks and as such added difficulty in optimising code and its not hard to see why this an other games suffer.
Looks like the stuffing for the aforementioned turkey has arrived if you ask me.
When a games console sells in low numbers, there is less justification to polish a game because the returns are less.
Add to that the PS3's lack of memory causing graphical bottlenecks and as such added difficulty in optimising code and its not hard to see why this an other games suffer.
Looks like the stuffing for the aforementioned turkey has arrived if you ask me.
Doesn't matter what its on If EA made it its bound to be full of bugs and not work properly..
I can't remember the last EA game I had that didn't need some kind of fix.
icestar2
13-12-2007, 20:52
When a games console sells in low numbers, there is less justification to polish a game because the returns are less.
Add to that the PS3's lack of memory causing graphical bottlenecks and as such added difficulty in optimising code and its not hard to see why this an other games suffer.
Looks like the stuffing for the aforementioned turkey has arrived if you ask me.
TBH thats no reason at all. There have been plenty of PS3 games that have run great - uncharted is an amazing game and runs lovely. Now I know you h8 PS3 or sony or sumthin like that cause every time you make a comment on these threads its always negative to PS3. There was no1 to blame for this other than EA.
Is the PS3 perfect ? Far from it but is the 360 ? No. EA were lazy is the plain and simple truth and theres no reason to blame PS3 this time round.
The PS3s memory, as far as i know, is fine. It's the graphic card that causes the problems. Sony cheaped out on it and went all out on the processor which is pretty powerful.
Unforunality the graphic card problem means that developers cannot take advantage of the 1080p + blu-ray discs to have really really good texures, this properly requires some tricky programming to match the 360 hence why, at the moment, a lot of games on the 360 look better.
When developers get to grips with the PS3 it will balance out. Leaving the giht between better media (PS3) and better online play (360) as the main differences between the two. They are much of a muchness now really.
---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------
Btw, It is possible to dislike Sony and like the PS3. Although I would not get one for a long while, I can now see the appeal of the PS3 yet I still hate Sonys PR (i.e We're gonna wipe out Nintendo, only the PS3 is proper HD, etc etc).
When a games console sells in low numbers, there is less justification to polish a game because the returns are less.
Add to that the PS3's lack of memory causing graphical bottlenecks and as such added difficulty in optimising code and its not hard to see why this an other games suffer.
Looks like the stuffing for the aforementioned turkey has arrived if you ask me.
What is it with you seriously?
The console is selling just as good as the 360 and PS2 did when they launched to a year after, how many times does this have to be said.
What lack of memory? You mean 10mb less than the 360? Surely one of the 256mb superfast ram in the PS3 makes up for that. Or maybe you should ask Naughty Dog (Uncharted Drakes fortune) how they did that, not enough for you? How about Infinity Ward (COD4), maybe ask them?
You do know all this was said about the PS2 dont you. Now we all know that the PS3 isnt going to reach where the PS2 is in the same time frame as the PS3 has better competion this time.
---------- Post added at 22:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:07 ----------
The PS3s memory, as far as i know, is fine. It's the graphic card that causes the problems. Sony cheaped out on it and went all out on the processor which is pretty powerful.
Unforunality the graphic card problem means that developers cannot take advantage of the 1080p + blu-ray discs to have really really good texures, this properly requires some tricky programming to match the 360 hence why, at the moment, a lot of games on the 360 look better.
When developers get to grips with the PS3 it will balance out. Leaving the giht between better media (PS3) and better online play (360) as the main differences between the two. They are much of a muchness now really.
---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------
Btw, It is possible to dislike Sony and like the PS3. Although I would not get one for a long while, I can now see the appeal of the PS3 yet I still hate Sonys PR (i.e We're gonna wipe out Nintendo, only the PS3 is proper HD, etc etc).
Its like fitting a sqaure shape in a circle hole. All it is, is that if games are made on the 360 and ported to the PS3 it takes time to redo everything to ptimize it for the PS3. Ive been saying this since the UK launch. There is nothing wrong with the processor, memory or the graphics card (you will find the 360's graphics card hardly any better). The same happened with the PS2, its just hard to develop for and when its done right its done beautiful like uncharted and COD4.
Gotta remember that the 360 has been out longer than the ps3 meaning they've had longer to get used to programming for it.... Wait did i say that before :dunce: :confused:
There was no1 to blame for this other than EA....and Gabe Newell.
It's hard to say what exactly Sony's console did to get Valve head honcho Gabe Newell's bad side. Did it lose his dog? Hit on his wife? Get drunk and embarrass itself at a party he hosted? Whatever the reason, Newell does not like the PlayStation 3, and he reaffirmed his feelings in an interview with Next-Gen.
When asked whether he still thought Sony needed to do a "do-over," Newell responded: "Absolutely. I think [PS3 is] a waste of everybody's time. Investing in the Cell, investing in the SPE gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think they're going to make money off their box. I don't think it's a good solution."
source: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163601
Valve should have developed all 3 versions themselves, instead of farming off the PS3 version to EA. Yeah, EA are to blame for a shoddy version (allegedly... I've not played the PS3 version yet) but Valve are to blame for choosing EA out of all the companies they could've chosen.
I haven't got one yet, but I know of a couple of people who has bought one, and I also know a couple that have taken it back and swapped it for a 360, they just wasn't impressed with the machine in general.
I must admit I am disappointed so far with the PS3, I hoped for a lot more from Sony, even though I've got a 360 and reletively happy with it since day one, I originally thought (and hoped) the PS3 would wipe the floor with the 360, maybe I was just expecting too much or they over hyped the machine I don't know.
I really do hope things change next year and no matter what platform it's the games that matters, and I've seen too many turkeys already this side of Christmas.
So PS3 improving?? I really hope so, but it needs to do something quickly.
Its like fitting a sqaure shape in a circle hole. All it is, is that if games are made on the 360 and ported to the PS3 it takes time to redo everything to ptimize it for the PS3. Ive been saying this since the UK launch. There is nothing wrong with the processor, memory or the graphics card (you will find the 360's graphics card hardly any better). The same happened with the PS2, its just hard to develop for and when its done right its done beautiful like uncharted and COD4.
Uncharted looks amazing, well done to the team that brought that forward but it's the expection that proves the rule in this case. Very few games, a year into the PS3 lifespan, can boast the same thing. The 360 and Wii both had a handful of classic exclusives by this time and the PS3 does not.
Partly because of the slow start meaning exclusive games become multiplatform and partly because the PS3 is difficult to develop for. The graphic card is slightly worse than the 360 as well, all the reviews and specs seem to confirm this. I am not having a go at Sony here but it is their spin that suggests it dominates in all areas. It has the best processor and the best media capiablitys but it does not have the best online play or the best graphic card.
Not that it's a big deal since the real problem is properly the software. MS provide Live and XNA which developers seem to really enjoy and helps them make great games. The PS3 needs to match that and think more of developers than marketing. (Which they have started to do, refer to post 1).
Of course the PS3 will get more good games and will do quite well this generation even if it has to be 3rd. But there are certainly areas it needs to improve on.
In the end it's the games that matter and currently few seem to think the PS3 has a good set of exclusives games.
Uncharted looks amazing, well done to the team that brought that forward but it's the expection that proves the rule in this case. Very few games, a year into the PS3 lifespan, can boast the same thing. The 360 and Wii both had a handful of classic exclusives by this time and the PS3 does not.
Partly because of the slow start meaning exclusive games become multiplatform and partly because the PS3 is difficult to develop for. The graphic card is slightly worse than the 360 as well, all the reviews and specs seem to confirm this. I am not having a go at Sony here but it is their spin that suggests it dominates in all areas. It has the best processor and the best media capiablitys but it does not have the best online play or the best graphic card.
Not that it's a big deal since the real problem is properly the software. MS provide Live and XNA which developers seem to really enjoy and helps them make great games. The PS3 needs to match that and think more of developers than marketing. (Which they have started to do, refer to post 1).
Of course the PS3 will get more good games and will do quite well this generation even if it has to be 3rd. But there are certainly areas it needs to improve on.
In the end it's the games that matter and currently few seem to think the PS3 has a good set of exclusives games.
Im sorry, but thats rubbish. Im sick of all this. The PS3 has just as good and just as many exclusive games 1 year in as the rest of the consoles did 1 year into the life cycle.
You complain about fanboys and people just wanting to slate the PS3 but you seem very unaccepting to any criticism of the console. If your agurement is basically that the PS3 is the only console not to have any weak points in any areas then stay out of the topic, or at least refrain from criticizing others.
It's a common complaint from developers that the PS3 is hard to develop for.
Xbox Live is, almost without expection, seen as the best online play.
As for games:
Gears of War
Dead Rising
Project Gotham Racing 3
Viva Pinata
Saints Row
also:
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas and Eldar Scrolls but then eventually came to PS3. Still sorta counts.
But games are kind of subjective so i'll let that one pass. Although I cannot think of PS3 games that meet those top 4 360 games
Can you not at least repect those points rather than immeditly dismissing them? Because I can accept the criticism the 360 and Wii face (but then, I do not really associate myself with a console). There is nothing wrong with making comments on where all three companys need to improve and with Sony, It's the Online and Developement software they provide
If you can't then I recommend you do not take part in the debate since it will simply turn in a flame-war.
You complain about fanboys and people just wanting to slate the PS3 but you seem very unaccepting to any criticism of the console. If your agurement is basically that the PS3 is the only console not to have any weak points in any areas then stay out of the topic, or at least refrain from criticizing others.
It's a common complaint from developers that the PS3 is hard to develop for.
Xbox Live is, almost without expection, seen as the best online play.
As for games:
Gears of War
Dead Rising
Project Gotham Racing 3
Viva Pinata
Saints Row
also:
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas and Eldar Scrolls but then eventually came to PS3. Still sorta counts.
But games are kind of subjective so i'll let that one pass. Although I cannot think of PS3 games that meet those top 4 360 games
Can you not at least repect those points rather than immeditly dismissing them? Because I can accept the criticism the 360 and Wii face (but then, I do not really associate myself with a console). There is nothing wrong with making comments on where all three companys need to improve and with Sony, It's the Online and Developement software they provide
If you can't then I recommend you do not take part in the debate since it will simply turn in a flame-war.
What are you talking about? I dont mention the other two consoles because I dont really have a intrest in them, all though I will get an elite next year maybe. The point Im making is I can do exactly what you have just done with the games.
F1 CE
Motorstorm
Resistance
Heavenly Sword
Tekken 5?
Uncharted: Drakes Fortune
Singstar
Ratchet & Clank
Warhawk
Lair(some consider this a great game once you get to grip with the controls)
The Eye of Judgement (Eye Camera)
UT3 (still sorta counts because its out in America and not on the 360 yet.)
And plus I enjoy my online play on COD4 just as much as a person on the 360 does. Online play is online play, what you are talking about is achievments and friends list and messages, which supposedly the PS3 is getting anyway.
Plus Ive already stated that the PS3 is hard to develop for, just like the PS2 was. We have had all this 7-8 year ago when the PS2 was first released.
I accept criticism when its due. Not when people say it has no games or the sales are crap etc etc. Its been proved time and time again that this is not the case but yet still gets stated.
TheBlueRaja
14-12-2007, 07:16
What is it with you seriously?
The console is selling just as good as the 360 and PS2 did when they launched to a year after, how many times does this have to be said.
What lack of memory? You mean 10mb less than the 360? Surely one of the 256mb superfast ram in the PS3 makes up for that. Or maybe you should ask Naughty Dog (Uncharted Drakes fortune) how they did that, not enough for you? How about Infinity Ward (COD4), maybe ask them?
You do know all this was said about the PS2 dont you. Now we all know that the PS3 isnt going to reach where the PS2 is in the same time frame as the PS3 has better competion this time.
Im like contestants on Catchphrase, i just say what i see....
Im like contestants on Catchphrase, i just say what i see....
More like "say what you wanna see" ;)
For everyone that thinks the PS3 has a memory problem, and the graphics card is no good - just go play Uncharted. I notice none of the Xbox fans who are always so concerned about anyone thinking anything good about PS3 on these forums are not commenting on Uncharted - strange that. Is it because you cant say anything derogatory about it?
Im like contestants on Catchphrase, i just say what i see....
I reckon you need to go to specsavers then, as your not seeing what most people are seeing.
More like "say what you wanna see" ;)
For everyone that thinks the PS3 has a memory problem, and the graphics card is no good - just go play Uncharted. I notice none of the Xbox fans who are always so concerned about anyone thinking anything good about PS3 on these forums are not commenting on Uncharted - strange that. Is it because you cant say anything derogatory about it?
looks like a new version of tomb raider , explosions look lame , general gameplay from playing it for an hour are ok but not different or "groundbreaking" from anything seen before , similar cover and shoot system to gears of war but just ... not . not saying the ps3 is not worth a buy , just wasted money at the mo , too many good games on other platforms to be wasting time waiting for a game to come out . .... there is always something derogatory to say about a game :)
hows that :)
icestar2
14-12-2007, 20:50
looks like a new version of tomb raider , explosions look lame , general gameplay from playing it for an hour are ok but not different or next gen from anything seen before , similar cover and shoot system to gears of war but just ... not . not saying the ps3 is not worth a buy , just wasted money at the mo , too many good games on other platforms to be wasting time waiting for a game to come out . .... there is always something derogatory to say about a game :)
hows that :)
Agreed that its similair to Tomb raider but in what way is that bad ? Tomb raider was a massive success. Explosions dont look lame dont know why you think that ? Maybe its personal preferance again but I love uncharted and has been best game I've played on PS3.
In any case this thread is just becomming another bash PS3/defend PS3 and I think we have enough of these around already so please lets stop all this back and forth nonsense and just enjoy the consoles for what there good at.
both systems have there pro's and cons , will buy a ps3 when there is a decent price drop and i have a hdtv to benefit from blu-ray (not sure you can play hd movies through a vga cable , please correct me if i am wrong). Resistance and probably drakes fortune are the only games that interest me at present, really can't justify the purchase personally.
both systems have there pro's and cons , will buy a ps3 when there is a decent price drop and i have a hdtv to benefit from blu-ray (not sure you can play hd movies through a vga cable , please correct me if i am wrong). Resistance and probably drakes fortune are the only games that interest me at present, really can't justify the purchase personally.
I think you can on the 360, don't there there even is one for the ps3 is there :confused:
Im getting a convertor from component > Vga but I have no idea if it works and how well.
TheBlueRaja
15-12-2007, 11:15
I reckon you need to go to specsavers then, as your not seeing what most people are seeing.
I love you shawty, if only because your rose tinted specs cant see very far past the end of your nose...
NPD sales figures for November (http://xbox360.joystiq.com/2007/12/13/november-npd-everyones-a-winner/), looky, EXACTLY (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34449668-post57.html) as i predicted, im feeling smug right now, smug as a bug in a VERY smug rug felling particularly smug.
- DS Lite: 1.53m 1.07m (234%)
- Wii: 981K 462K (89%)
- Xbox 360: 770K 404K (110%)
- PSP: 567K 281K (98%)
- PS2: 496K 312K (169%)
- PS3: 466K 345K (285%)
I love you shawty, if only because your rose tinted specs cant see very far past the end of your nose...
NPD sales figures for November (http://xbox360.joystiq.com/2007/12/13/november-npd-everyones-a-winner/), looky, EXACTLY (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34449668-post57.html) as i predicted, im feeling smug right now, smug as a bug in a VERY smug rug felling particularly smug.
- DS Lite: 1.53m 1.07m (234%)
- Wii: 981K 462K (89%)
- Xbox 360: 770K 404K (110%)
- PSP: 567K 281K (98%)
- PS2: 496K 312K (169%)
- PS3: 466K 345K (285%)
Can't deny those stats :)
I love you shawty, if only because your rose tinted specs cant see very far past the end of your nose...
:o:
At least he can see through his rose tinted spec, unlike your blinkers!
I think you can on the 360, don't there there even is one for the ps3 is there :confused:
Im getting a convertor from component > Vga but I have no idea if it works and how well.
:o:
This forum is unbelievable. Why are there so many Xbox fans who insist on spoiling this forum for those who have brought a PS3? Nearly every comment on here has to have someone droning on about the 360.
Just taken a look at the Microsoft forum. Does not seem to be PS3 owners droning on about PS3 there? Maybe they have grown up.
looks like a new version of tomb raider , explosions look lame , general gameplay from playing it for an hour are ok but not different or "groundbreaking" from anything seen before , similar cover and shoot system to gears of war but just ... not . not saying the ps3 is not worth a buy , just wasted money at the mo , too many good games on other platforms to be wasting time waiting for a game to come out . .... there is always something derogatory to say about a game :)
hows that :)
:o:
Simply unbelievable post, the game is ground breaking, there is no way you can't admit that. Again, spot the hidden xbox support quotes "just wasted money at the mo , too many good games on other platforms" - oh, suggesting an xbox by chance?? :o:
TheBlueRaja
15-12-2007, 12:36
:o:
At least he can see through his rose tinted spec, unlike your blinkers!
So your saying the NPD figures are wrong then?
Your not a creationist by any chance are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTD http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/images/xmas/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/18/33624210-playstation-3-improving-page-5.html#post34451150)
There are also rumours that the PS3 version isn't using any of the SPE's - just the main chip and the graphics card. If this is the case, this is utterly inexcusable behaviour and the game should have been held back. No-one is suggesting the PS3 doesn't have the power - this is just typical EA lazyness.
When a games console sells in low numbers, there is less justification to polish a game because the returns are less.
Add to that the PS3's lack of memory causing graphical bottlenecks and as such added difficulty in optimising code and its not hard to see why this an other games suffer.
Looks like the stuffing for the aforementioned turkey has arrived if you ask me.
theres actually a very simple reason for this, and i pointed it out elsewere a long time ago now.
the fact is, given the timescales involved ,any outsourced port of a game will suffer due to were these games are outsourced to.
that being x86 PC venders , and they dont know how to take best advantage of the PPC based machines yet.
the 360 will fair better (and this is ignoring its 1 Year lead time) than the PS3, simply because the 360 has 3 almost generic PPC CPUs and extended Altivec, were as the PS3 has 1 almost generic PPC CPU and standard type Altivec , PLUS the the massive potential of the SPEs.
to put it simply , the x86 coders know that x86 arch best, and are trying to fit their years of x86 programming toolsets and mindset into the PPC arch, and it just doesnt work as they expect.
again, the 360 fairs better at this x86 style of coding purely because its 3 generic PPC cores can balance this style better that the single PPC core of the PS3, as they dont have the skills yet to use the PPC/Altivec never mind the new SPEs effectivly.
the AAA companys should be asking the old MAC PPC coders to do the ports and you would then be seeing a better class of port potentially.
as for 'optimising code' ,the games writers already said after i pointed them to some optimised PPC linux Alitvec code, they dont currently spend the time to specialise in these things as their far to busy porting and re-engineering the old x86 toolsets and making new ones.
working on new engines etc, that take advantage of PPC and SPE in other words, although it seems my comments and leads about the work of the PPC Altivec guys, have made several 360/PS3 game devs take note and consider writing Altivec code...
and OC the compilers dont do as good a job of producing optimised PPC code as the x86 base, hell even the Linux coders havent bothered to better optimise the PPC code generation, and it does'nt even use any Altivec in PPC linux yet.
apparently most of the part time PPC Linux Mac coders didnt see fit to try it, as they didnt want to take anything away from the fully optimised Alivec code inside OSX it seems.
funny enough, its the old school (if it moves, Optimise it)Amiga PPC 3rd party coders that ARE giving you as PS3 users a better PPC linux today,as its they who are working on linux/GLIBC and Altivec optimisations right now.
http://www.powerdeveloper.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1426&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=3f60f75c54014bd0b14e229bdfed9cd5
Altivec is still the best/most effective retail SSE/Vector engine there is, intel have had 4 goes at trying to beat Altivec and still its not there yet with SSE4.
BTW , has anyone hacked a PPC linux into the 360 yet?,it seems strange if someone hasnt .
TheBlueRaja
15-12-2007, 13:41
theres actually a very simple reason for this, and i pointed it out elsewere a long time ago now.
the fact is, given the timescales involved ,any outsourced port of a game will suffer due to were these games are outsourced to.
that being x86 PC venders , and they dont know how to take best advantage of the PPC based machines yet.
Snip...
So what are you saying? That the Orange box and some other PS3 games have been poor because they have been outsourced or because the PS3 uses hardware that programmers aren't used to or capable (yet) of utilizing.
In either case if a company as big as EA cant do it then there is something (seriously) wrong and it really doesn't bode well for PS3 games going forward.
It would also explain why big titles such a MGS4 have been so delayed as if a games company like EA has problems then it doesnt bode well for others. Sony's development suites must be pretty poor.
BTW - why would i want Linux or such on my Xbox, i can do that on my PC (even then i dont want it), my Xbox is a games machine, and in some ways thats WHY the PS3 isnt selling, its trying to be everything, Blu-Ray player, Unix box, Media device etc which all pushes the cost up and takes away from what the Playstation brand was created for - games.
icestar2
15-12-2007, 14:01
In either case if a company as big as EA cant do it then there is something (seriously) wrong and it really doesn't bode well for PS3 games going forward.
Honestly this will be the last thing I say on this subject because of the way its turned yet again.
A company as big as EA mean's nothing - EA are lazy. They create half assed games. Have you seen any of the battlefeild series ? BF2 was on patch 5 or 6 and still aint right and I think its about the same for 2142 now. Even NFS needs patches now. EA are so big because they follow in the footsteps of Microsft and just buy the little companys. I have worked with EA on Game testing and they rarely took anything onboard that was pointed out as a problem. They just wanted to rush most stuff out rather than perfect it.
While you have had valid points in the past I still dont see why everytime a PS3 related thread is up you come and trash it. We all know Sony made mistakes. We all know they had problems, we dont need you telling us again and again. This was a thread about the PS3 improving which it clearly is so why are you comming in again and again and telling us the same old things that have been going round since PS3 was released ?
Just to be clear I own all 3 console (Sad I Know) so there is no bias towards PS3 from me. I am not a fanboy of any console but I say give credit were its due but stop the constant trashing of the poor PS3 lol its not that bad.
Anyways to finish my novel I will just say whats been said a thousand time's (ok maybe not) that all consoles have there pro's and con's and lets just leave it at that if we can rather than making more console war threads.
TheBlueRaja
15-12-2007, 14:32
Snip..
Because the thread title is "Playstation 3 improving?", it is not.. Its had a price cut, the issues remain.
The fact you own all three means nothing.
So what are you saying? That the Orange box and some other PS3 games have been poor because they have been outsourced or because the PS3 uses hardware that programmers aren't used to or capable (yet) of utilizing.
In either case if a company as big as EA cant do it then there is something (seriously) wrong and it really doesn't bode well for PS3 games going forward.
It would also explain why big titles such a MGS4 have been so delayed as if a games company like EA has problems then it doesnt bode well for others. Sony's development suites must be pretty poor.
BTW - why would i want Linux or such on my Xbox, i can do that on my PC (even then i dont want it), my Xbox is a games machine, and in some ways thats WHY the PS3 isnt selling, its trying to be everything, Blu-Ray player, Unix box, Media device etc which all pushes the cost up and takes away from what the Playstation brand was created for - games.
its pritty simple really, no sideing with one or the other, just the HW facts and allowing for the learning curve as it were.
its a combination of both, that works for the 360 in the short term but looses ground to the PS3 over the long term.
when you put the 3 PPC/Altivec up against the 1 PPC/Altivec and 8 SPE.
its clear in the short term, the 3 PPC and Altivec win (and remember i have some idea how good the Altivec can be optimised).
however, as the toolsets progress, and the PPC/Altivec and SPE skills get tuned over say 2 years+ the optimised SPEs are going to far exceed the 3 optimised Altivec, and the real commercial coders know this now.
your average end users dont know this for sure OC, but they will...
now given that currently there are a lot more 360 out there, (yes it could have been different IF..., but its currently not)the main games companys are going to have to eather outsource some PS3 porting, or take on far more internal training programs and new hands to fill the void.
its clear the outsourceing is by far the far cheaper option and its in vouge ATM too.
so, theres these large outsourceing contracts floating about and your mates in x86 land want a slice so you do the deal.
now, your a x86 commercial games coder and have trained your skills and toolsets to that end for years.
this contracted game house are not the AAA class games house, hasnt been training their skills porting to that existing PPC based Mac for years (because we can make more money skimming the x86 userbase and outsourcing to the lesser platform or whatever).
if the contract did/does find its way to one of the old PPC Mac houses then they will have the skills onboard and ready to optimise for PPC/Altivec and so have a far shorter learning curve for the SPE.
infact its quite easy to adapt your optimised Altivec codebase to them as it turn out, you might almost think it was designed that way ;)
--------------------------------------------------
"BTW - why would i want Linux or such on my Xbox, i can do that on my PC (even then i dont want it)"
well thats your choice..., and thats a good point actually,
you do have that official choice on the PS3 to install and easy boot PPC linux.
but you DONT have that choice on the MS 360.
but for other readers it might be,
they want the cheapest PPC Linux based AVC 1080P HD video server/BDplayer etc that just plugs into the HDTV.
sure, a x86 based box can come close in function perhaps, but can you do it for anywere near the price of the PPC PS3 option, nope.
insert your other long list of other PPC linux PC/BD player uses and all in one cheap (relatively speaking) under tv styled box and remote....
---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:14 ----------
ohh
"Sony's development suites must be pretty poor."
LOL, its almost as if your trying to say that the game markets are full of code monkeys that have to rely on the compiler and toolsets to fix all their coding mistakes.
but then again, when you compare the x86 coding style with any other CPUs , not just PPC, perhaps you have a point ;)
TheBlueRaja
15-12-2007, 17:26
"Sony's development suites must be pretty poor."
LOL, its almost as if your trying to say that the game markets are full of code monkeys that have to rely on the compiler and toolsets to fix all their coding mistakes.
but then again, when you compare the x86 coding style with any other CPUs , not just PPC, perhaps you have a point ;)
No what im saying is that their development suites must be pretty poor.
The whole point of development suites are that they provide a high level of access to the fancy architecture below it. Developers should not have to worry about HOW the PS3 does what it does, that's what the API's are for.
Obviously they have to bare in mind the limits of each particular system, but either the development environment of the PS3 is hard to get to grips with (and as such developers need a lot and time and efforts to find workarounds for issues) or the PS3 is lacking in resources needed to run the games other consoles can.
Tezcatlipoca
15-12-2007, 17:34
Regarding some of the earlier posts in this thread...
I think some people in this thread really need to chill out.
Also, if people could stop winding each other up & baiting, plus refrain from any personal attacks.
It's just a console. Some people like it, some don't. Some think it's great value, some don't.
If you like it, & someone criticises it, it is not a personal attack on you (unless perhaps you are actually Ken Kutaragi), it is criticism of a games console. So please try not to get wound up, & try not to resort to personal attacks.
And if you don't like it, & you criticize it, don't just do it to wind up other people. Do it constructively, & don't attack or bait others.
Keep it polite & civil.
-----------
COD4 shows that top-notch third party games *are* possible on the PS3. If only all developers put that much effort into each version like IW did.
Just a pity that EA seem to have made such a lame attempt with The Orange Box.
Although, I do remember that when the PS2 came out, it had an awful launch line-up, plus like the PS3 was criticised for being really hard to programme for.... still, it's not exactly the same this time round as the PS3 is the late-comer, unlike last generation when the PS2 had no competition at first. Developers took the time & effort last time 'cos the PS2 was king, but how many will pour extra time, money & resources into really taking advantage of the PS3, when it's got fewer units out there than the 360 & Wii?
My main issues with the PS3 when it launched were the lack of decent games*, & the ridiculous (IMO) price.
[*although, tbh, the 360's launch line up was pretty crap. I still bought one anyway, though...]
It's finally getting somewhere with the games. OK, a lot of the good games on the PS3 are also on the 360 (COD4, Oblivion, Orange Box, The Darkness, Colin McRae, etc.), but it is finally starting to get some decent exclusive games (Uncharted, Ratchett & Clank, etc., with more on the way).
And the price is *finally* sensible now.
£299 for the 40GB PS3 is a bargain, IMO. [ or £269.99 at Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Playstation-Console-40GB-Version/dp/B000WNDP5M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1197723678&sr=1-1) ]
I'd still prefer the 60GB version though, although tbh only really so I could play God of War II. Don't care about the extra USB sockets or the memory card reader, & the extra HDD space isn't an issue as if I did get a PS3 I'd probably whack a nice big 2.5" SATA drive in it anyway.
PCWorld/Currys/Dixons have actually got stock in of the 60GB PS3, although they're only doing bundles.
Instead of £350 for the PS3 + 2 games, it's £380 for the PS3 + three games...Resistance, Ridge Racer, & WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2008. The only one of those I'd want to play would be Resistance, & even then I'm not that fussed about it.
Still, I wouldn't be surprised if, next year, Sony do another u-turn & bring out a new SKU, despite saying the 40GB would be the only one available once the 60GB sells out. Especially if they want to push PlayTV...40GB is a bit small for that!
And then there's the Rumble... Japan has had DualShock3 for a month or two now I think, but the US & Europe aren't getting it 'till "Spring 2008".
One would have thought consoles are easier to code for than PC's
Since every 360 Is essentially the same (ok so theres various SKU's but underneath they are the same cpu/gpu.etc)
Same for PS3 and WII
Where as Coding for PC they have so many hardware variations to account for...
---------- Post added at 17:43 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------
ed about it.
Still, I wouldn't be surprised if, next year, Sony do another u-turn & bring out a new SKU, despite saying the 40GB would be the only one available once the 60GB sells out. Especially if they want to push PlayTV...40GB is a bit small for that!
And then there's the Rumble... Japan has had DualShock3 for a month or two now I think, but the US & Europe aren't getting it 'till "Spring 2008".
I've heard rumors of the 80gb making its way over here.
Resistance is quite good IMO, still not played it online yet though
Tezcatlipoca
15-12-2007, 17:54
I've heard rumors of the 80gb making its way over here.
Resistance is quite good IMO, still not played it online yet though
I'd hope so.
The US has the 40GB version (with no BC), plus the 80GB version (with the same BC as the European 60GB version). The US 80GB replaced their 60GB one.
So I don't see why we don't/can't have the 80GB one here, once the 60GB has gone.
If Sony allegedly no longer care about BC, then why does the US 80GB version have it?
I've had a brief play on Resistance, playing 2 player campaign round a friend's. Was quite fun, although seemed a bit "COD + aliens". Probably would enjoy it more with more time. Wouldn't be my first choice of bundled game, but I wouldn't say no (I would say no to that stupid wrestling game though).
No what im saying is that their development suites must be pretty poor.
The whole point of development suites are that they provide a high level of access to the fancy architecture below it. Developers should not have to worry about HOW the PS3 does what it does, that's what the API's are for.
Obviously they have to bare in mind the limits of each particular system, but either the development environment of the PS3 is hard to get to grips with (and as such developers need a lot and time and efforts to find workarounds for issues) or the PS3 is lacking in resources needed to run the games other consoles can.
:) arr see, thats your mistake,you have spent far to much time in the x86/windows API mindset land , you have forgotten or perhaps you never experienced the old days, but thats OK blue, its not your fault.
other than the microsoft hyperGIG library APIs and the x86 linux for that matter over the last few years.
(windows coder , right lets make a special GUI for our great new wizbang app thats 200k.
ok we need dotnet,directx etc ,etc , right lads its compiled , and the final shipping exe is 2.5meg, well done chaps, i never thought you could get it down that small, heres a bonus)
want to see how small you can make a good GUI, just run any rebol/view GUI script and count the k including the rebol exe not M.
thats from carl of AMIGA OS fame, you remember that and how its apps were tiny and it booted in 20 seconds right?, and much of that wasnt bare metal.
most coders hit bare metal or near as damb it, perfect example (take your pick)as all the best console games , as the learning curve disapeared , they all started hitting the hardware directly or pared down and customised their internal librarys to be as small and fast as possible.
not overnight OC,but even those APIs and toolsets/chains got far better, so no theres nothing wrong with the development suites other then being young but adapting over time, its the dev-users almost baby steps and lack of knowhow in the PPC realm were the current problems are.
the same bare metal will be true of the 360 and PS3 given some time, although in both cases they may just need to pick the right bits to hit directly, after all we are talking game coders here and they mostly want to max the profits for the shorted time spent.
I love you shawty, if only because your rose tinted specs cant see very far past the end of your nose...
NPD sales figures for November (http://xbox360.joystiq.com/2007/12/13/november-npd-everyones-a-winner/), looky, EXACTLY (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34449668-post57.html) as i predicted, im feeling smug right now, smug as a bug in a VERY smug rug felling particularly smug.
- DS Lite: 1.53m 1.07m (234%)
- Wii: 981K 462K (89%)
- Xbox 360: 770K 404K (110%)
- PSP: 567K 281K (98%)
- PS2: 496K 312K (169%)
- PS3: 466K 345K (285%)
As funny as you are, I have already shown you launch to launch sales that are on par with each other for the 360, PS3 and PS2. Where we go from there has yet to be seen but I dont see how you can talk about a console failing when its matched sales (launch) of its compertion (with compertion) of the 360 and PS2.
I'd hope so.
The US has the 40GB version (with no BC), plus the 80GB version (with the same BC as the European 60GB version). The US 80GB replaced their 60GB one.
So I don't see why we don't/can't have the 80GB one here, once the 60GB has gone.
If Sony allegedly no longer care about BC, then why does the US 80GB version have it?
I've had a brief play on Resistance, playing 2 player campaign round a friend's. Was quite fun, although seemed a bit "COD + aliens". Probably would enjoy it more with more time. Wouldn't be my first choice of bundled game, but I wouldn't say no (I would say no to that stupid wrestling game though).
Sony only removed it to reduce the cost, there is no other reason to remove it.
So what are you saying? That the Orange box and some other PS3 games have been poor because they have been outsourced or because the PS3 uses hardware that programmers aren't used to or capable (yet) of utilizing.
In either case if a company as big as EA cant do it then there is something (seriously) wrong and it really doesn't bode well for PS3 games going forward.
It would also explain why big titles such a MGS4 have been so delayed as if a games company like EA has problems then it doesnt bode well for others. Sony's development suites must be pretty poor.
BTW - why would i want Linux or such on my Xbox, i can do that on my PC (even then i dont want it), my Xbox is a games machine, and in some ways thats WHY the PS3 isnt selling, its trying to be everything, Blu-Ray player, Unix box, Media device etc which all pushes the cost up and takes away from what the Playstation brand was created for - games.
Come on, your 32 and at that age you should have a bit of common sense to look at games like COD4, Uncharted and Ratchet & Clank just to name a few and see that it can be done properly with no delays.
Big games always get delayed (Halo 3 was wasnt it?) it has always happened and always will and the sole reason for this, is that tthey are big games and they need to be done right.
Why would you want Blu-ray, why would you want memory card sticks, why would you want blah blah. Because this time round, Sony have decided to go all out and have 1 box that can do almost everything that will plug into the back off a HD TV with 1 lead. Some people want this, some people dont. Wether it remains to be a good or bad decsion is yet to be seen.
Ive noticed this with you before the PS3 even launched, but people are slowly clicking on to what kind of person you are and at the age of 32 its quite scary, you expect it from kids.
---------- Post added at 18:44 ---------- Previous post was at 18:43 ----------
Sony only removed it to reduce the cost, there is no other reason to remove it.
Didnt they say so more people started buying PS3 games?
---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:44 ----------
Because the thread title is "Playstation 3 improving?", it is not.. Its had a price cut, the issues remain.
The fact you own all three means nothing.
What? You are saying the PS3 isnt improving? How strange. The games are getting better, the price is dropping which in return is selling more, updates are making it better and with Home and Divx (supposed to be better than the 360's version) on the way and Blu-ray profile 1.1 how can you say its not getting better.
I have both consoles and very rarely do I play the PS3 simply cause the games that are multi format I buy for the 360 as I think they are better on it and I like the online system better.
The PS3 is slowly(very) improving but will have to go a long way before its anywhere near as good and enjoyable as the 360.
Drake's Fortune is a fantastic game and graphically is very good however I do think the 360 has produced far better games and graphics so far.
Shawty is and has always been a bit of a Playstation fanboy judging by his posts and the blueraja is mostly right but i think he needs to stop trying to provoking Shawty into making such daft posts.
I played Ratchett and Clank the other day and thought that graphically it was nothing special. A lot of the textures weren't as good as the propbably should be and looked pretty similar to the PS2 incarnation and seem to be simply tarted up for using on a HD system.
As funny as you are, I have already shown you launch to launch sales that are on par with each other for the 360, PS3 and PS2. Where we go from there has yet to be seen but I dont see how you can talk about a console failing when its matched sales (launch) of its compertion (with compertion) of the 360 and PS2.
I think TBR's point was that the launch sales of both the 360 and Wii (and the PS2, IIRC) were held back by lack of availability. The PS3 hasn't had a lack of availability.
Regarding the apparent difficulties in coding for the PS3, the PS2 dev kit was also supposedly difficult to use. Developers learnt ways around the difficulties (one of which was a distinct lack of processing power) and eventually produced some amazing games. I suspect that the same will happen with the PS3, assuming Sony are willing and can afford to stay with the technology.
BTW, AFAIK, consoles do use APIs to some extent. The Dreamcast, Xbox and 360 for instance, use variants of Direct X.
One would have thought consoles are easier to code for than PC's
Since every 360 Is essentially the same (ok so theres various SKU's but underneath they are the same cpu/gpu.etc)
Same for PS3 and WII
Where as Coding for PC they have so many hardware variations to account for...
your right , they are, but thats the problem and many people dont realise it.
an over simplyfication but its basicly like this:
MS and x86linux are made, new cpu cames out, MS-Nix release new and improved OS and btw heres new cruft lib and the API and development suites , round and round they go , great you say.
however with each new bit of kit ,comes the new crufty code, so what happens then is intel-AMD add some work arounds to make the crufty code run a little faster, again great you say round and round again.
switch-a-roo, now its the x86 development suites turn, they have got so bulked up with cruft they cant cope very well, so they introduce code to hide the cruft from the developer all in the name of productivity but it make the cpu slow down to much ,so intel-AMD add some micro code to hide the bad programmming and so on........
until we get to todays systems, the x86 developers have got so used to using these crufty development suites and ignoring the fact they are updating the CPU more and more just to keep the codebase speeds up to reasonable.
now today, finally there exists 2 top of the line games consoles that are on paper more powerful than the current PC kit and all these x86 super-duper corporation devs what to cash in on this fact.
however the majority have never used anything but MS or x86 linux if they must all the way back to school days and they have been wrapped in the blanket of the MS development suites and the mega large libs are as common as muck to them so they dont give it a second thought.
theres the problem , these games machines dont work like they have been shown and they dont like it, so complain about how the PC does this and that and the development suites are there to remove your need to be creative mindful of the resources and set limits and most of all, think for yourself ;)
theres a reason microsoft didnt just take a moded version of the CELL on offer , and it wasnt because it wasnt finished or in some way lacking for what they needed.
NO, they know full well , they would have LOADS ( as it turns out, only lots) of windows only developers wanting to dev for the 360 machine , and MS knew that they would need a more friendly CPU that wasnt x86, but could handle being programmed by the x86 windows programers mindset without being crippled.
[edit] some readers might not know, windows NT once ran on the old PPC CPUs many moons ago, so MS know all about its capabilitys way back when.
thats why you have 3 PPC CPUs on board and also why they didnt just take generic Altivec eather.
they couldnt have real easy porting of the 360 PPC/altivec codebase to the PS3 Cell, so they asked for an extension to Altivec be added, AND instructed the devs to use lots of that extra altivec extension.
well thats my speculation any-hoo :shocked: :monkey:
I have both consoles and very rarely do I play the PS3 simply cause the games that are multi format I buy for the 360 as I think they are better on it and I like the online system better.
The PS3 is slowly(very) improving but will have to go a long way before its anywhere near as good and enjoyable as the 360.
Drake's Fortune is a fantastic game and graphically is very good however I do think the 360 has produced far better games and graphics so far.
Shawty is and has always been a bit of a Playstation fanboy judging by his posts and the blueraja is mostly right but i think he needs to stop trying to provoking Shawty into making such daft posts.
I played Ratchett and Clank the other day and thought that graphically it was nothing special. A lot of the textures weren't as good as the propbably should be and looked pretty similar to the PS2 incarnation and seem to be simply tarted up for using on a HD system.
Im not a fanboy, I simply have an intrest in the PS3 more as it suits my needs more. All though I will be getting an Elite next year maybe. I dont have a problem with people picking out problems with the PS3, but they have to be real problems, not just some have got into the head that are made up or are still there from launch.
I dont go into the 360 forums and shout out that there Divx support is crap etc etc which proves my point even more on what some people seem to be doing in here.
---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------
I think TBR's point was that the launch sales of both the 360 and Wii (and the PS2, IIRC) were held back by lack of availability. The PS3 hasn't had a lack of availability.
Regarding the apparent difficulties in coding for the PS3, the PS2 dev kit was also supposedly difficult to use. Developers learnt ways around the difficulties (one of which was a distinct lack of processing power) and eventually produced some amazing games. I suspect that the same will happen with the PS3, assuming Sony are willing and can afford to stay with the technology.
BTW, AFAIK, consoles do use APIs to some extent. The Dreamcast, Xbox and 360 for instance, use variants of Direct X.
The same can be said for the PS3 having big compertion from the Wii and 360 which the 360 never had when it got its head start. Plus the fact the PS3 came in with a high price point. When you look at these it all but levels it out for me and that the only way to compare figures is launch ones. Its like someone saying my cheesecakes are selling better than yours, Id say well yeah of course, thats because you have been int he cheesecake business 1 year longer so your more established, but when you look at my launch sales of my cheesecakes, they match yours. All this means that from this moment the PS3 is matching the trend the 360 is setting and we can only go from that and see what happens in the future. At the moment the trends are similar, yet everyone thinks the PS3 is failing.
Actually, to a large extent, the launch figures for all three consoles are not relevant at all. All the consoles have sold more since then, and the hardware manufacturers and developers are only interested in what they percieve as the current number of consoles installed or being sold.' In all three cases, that will bear little or no relation to the launch sales.
Actually, to a large extent, the launch figures for all three consoles are not relevant at all. All the consoles have sold more since then, and the hardware manufacturers and developers are only interested in what they percieve as the current number of consoles installed or being sold.' In all three cases, that will bear little or no relation to the launch sales.
Very True. It's the installed base that matters to developers
One would have thought consoles are easier to code for than PC's
Since every 360 Is essentially the same (ok so theres various SKU's but underneath they are the same cpu/gpu.etc)
Same for PS3 and WII
Where as Coding for PC they have so many hardware variations to account for...
I was talking to a coder once (the same one who told me the PS2 was a bitch to code for, and lacked cpu power with the result that the only way you could get some of the more intense processing done is offload it on the GPU). He said that at one company he worked for, they tried to work out how many hardware variations you could get on a PC. They found over 40,000 possible combinations of hardware.
With a console, you generally get a few (less than 10, for instance).
...and Gabe Newell.
source: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163601
Valve should have developed all 3 versions themselves, instead of farming off the PS3 version to EA. Yeah, EA are to blame for a shoddy version (allegedly... I've not played the PS3 version yet) but Valve are to blame for choosing EA out of all the companies they could've chosen.
hehe, he must have lots of hatred eating him up there and for a reason noones told.
regarding this part of your Newell quote, this is very telling:
"Investing in the Cell, investing in the SPE gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture "
he knows full well from a codebase POV thats shall we say porky pies.
once you take the basic part for part away from the core of both 360 and Cell/PS3 , you end up with essentially the same parts, except the extra SPEs of the ps3, the extra 2 PPC cores and the Altivec extensions of the 360 and thats it.
so trying to confuse things and future customers by refering to 'cell' and the part inside it 'SPEs' as two seperate things is OTT at best.
also at a stretch (if your tech)you might think OK the tricks you learn to optimise the SPEs woulnt relate to 360 but you would be wrong.
but thats OK, as your not a programmer or hang around the dev/tech places and off mainsream developers sites and you just took Newell at his word....
in effect the SPEs are just a form of super Altivec and PPC made to do a subsection of these at a very much faster rate.
so any tricks you might use to optimise your code for SPEs use can be translated to the extensions of the 360 Altivec, true not as effectly as if there were an SPE on there but still adding to more the the sum of its parts kind of thing.
Actually, to a large extent, the launch figures for all three consoles are not relevant at all. All the consoles have sold more since then, and the hardware manufacturers and developers are only interested in what they percieve as the current number of consoles installed or being sold.' In all three cases, that will bear little or no relation to the launch sales.
Thats not the point. People are using it as evidence to say the PS3 is selling badly, when actually thats far from the truth. Regardless of what the developers use etc, the only way to compare things equally and get the fairest result is to compare launch to launch figures.
Thats not the point. People are using it as evidence to say the PS3 is selling badly, when actually thats far from the truth. Regardless of what the developers use etc, the only way to compare things equally and get the fairest result is to compare launch to launch figures.
No, it's not. If the Developers don't see good sales, you will not get games for the PS3. Therefore, the sales of the PS3 will start to slip. This bears no relation to the launch figures.
TheBlueRaja
16-12-2007, 09:27
But it IS doing badly. It has nowhere near he same level of total sales as either the Xbox or the Wii and thats all developers give a mokeys about.
How many of Game X can we sell on Platform y.
If the Wii has a million users, the Xbox 800,000 and the PS3 250,000 what console gets the most attention and which gets the least?
No, it's not. If the Developers don't see good sales, you will not get games for the PS3. Therefore, the sales of the PS3 will start to slip. This bears no relation to the launch figures.
Of course it is. This is simple stuff you learn in school. You cant compare things FAIRLY when one has been out a year longer. When comparing things as in debating about them, you have to go by similar things to make it fair, like launch figures. The launch figures show that the PS3 is on target with the 360 and PS2. You cant argue with these facts. What happens in the future is a totally different subject.
We are not talking about developers. We are talking about people saying the PS3 is selling poorly when thats far from the truth.
---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------
But it IS doing badly. It has nowhere near he same level of total sales as either the Xbox or the Wii and thats all developers give a mokeys about.
How many of Game X can we sell on Platform y.
If the Wii has a million users, the Xbox 800,000 and the PS3 250,000 what console gets the most attention and which gets the least?
Come on your 32, not 12. Use some common sense and see that developers can see why the 360 has more sales, thats because its been out a year longer. The Wii is a different story all together.
Its about time you where banned. How can you sit there and type total lies. How is it doing badly if its selling the same (or near enough the same) as the PS2 and 360 did in the same time frame?
What shocks me most is your age. How can someone sit there at the age you are which is supposed to be a mature age and talk total lies about a product you dont even have to buy. This is about the PS3 improving which it is, surely you have gone of topic.
The question was, all that time back "Is PS3 Improving?"
European / Others Charts for Week Ending 09th December 2007
Console Weekly
DS 691,221
Wii 336,154
PS3 220,621
PS2 204,124
PSP 178,791
Xbox 149,016
GBA 19,172
Looking at that I would say it is. PS3 has been leading Xbox since we Oct 14th in this region by between 40,000 and 70,000 units!
Don't worry Shawty, I'm with you, even if most of this forum are obsessed with quoting things about xbox.
I thought one of the moderators asked for personal attacks to be stopped, yet Shawty is being targeted quite badly and being called a fanboy?? Come on mods!
I thought one of the moderators asked for personal attacks to be stopped, yet Shawty is being targeted quite badly and being called a fanboy?? Come on mods!
I really didn't think calling someone a fanboy is a personal attack.:confused:
TheBlueRaja
16-12-2007, 14:45
Of course it is. This is simple stuff you learn in school. You cant compare things FAIRLY when one has been out a year longer. When comparing things as in debating about them, you have to go by similar things to make it fair, like launch figures. The launch figures show that the PS3 is on target with the 360 and PS2. You cant argue with these facts. What happens in the future is a totally different subject.
We are not talking about developers. We are talking about people saying the PS3 is selling poorly when thats far from the truth.
---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------
Come on your 32, not 12. Use some common sense and see that developers can see why the 360 has more sales, thats because its been out a year longer. The Wii is a different story all together.
Its about time you where banned. How can you sit there and type total lies. How is it doing badly if its selling the same (or near enough the same) as the PS2 and 360 did in the same time frame?
What shocks me most is your age. How can someone sit there at the age you are which is supposed to be a mature age and talk total lies about a product you dont even have to buy. This is about the PS3 improving which it is, surely you have gone of topic.
No im exactly on topic. The PS3 has not improved, it has not gained market share on the Xbox or the Wii, it still has the same issues as before i.e. a lack of games, lack of Class A titles, overpriced, pushing technology there's no real desire for, difficult development environment etc and its about a cool as a bum bag on a frenchman.
The PS3 is doing badly, because even though it may have sold the same as the Xbox or the Wii in the same time frame despite stock shortages on both competing consoles (even until now in the wii's case), its still WAY behind in terms of the total units sold, ergo, the developers prefer to spend time developing their games for platforms where they will generate more income and as seen with the Orange box where Xbox owners got the goods but PS3 owners were left with a buggy game as it was outsourced to SAVE MONEY.
In fact you could argue the PS3 has actually got worse as your not even getting the same spec of machine anymore and instead your getting a cut down machine.
You cant ban the truth my friend, that's why i'm still posting.
No im exactly on topic. The PS3 has not improved, it has not gained market share on the Xbox or the Wii, it still has the same issues as before i.e. a lack of games, lack of Class A titles, overpriced, pushing technology there's no real desire for, difficult development environment etc and its about a cool as a bum bag on a frenchman.
The PS3 is doing badly, because even though it may have sold the same as the Xbox or the Wii in the same time frame despite stock shortages on both competing consoles (even until now in the wii's case), its still WAY behind in terms of the total units sold, ergo, the developers prefer to spend time developing their games for platforms where they will generate more income and as seen with the Orange box where Xbox owners got the goods but PS3 owners were left with a buggy game as it was outsourced to SAVE MONEY.
In fact you could argue the PS3 has actually got worse as your not even getting the same spec of machine anymore and instead your getting a cut down machine.
You cant ban the truth my friend, that's why i'm still posting.
You have got so far into your Xbox loving, your even posting wrong facts now. Im sorry but until the mods decude to do something with your constent hate of the PS3 and taking threads of topic, then you are considered a very immature adult, there is just no need for it.
TheBlueRaja
16-12-2007, 15:28
You have got so far into your Xbox loving, your even posting wrong facts now. Im sorry but until the mods decude to do something with your constent hate of the PS3 and taking threads of topic, then you are considered a very immature adult, there is just no need for it.
Please can you point out which facts i have posted are wrong?
I find your stance very strange, as i have clearly said on many an occasion that the wii is also a fantastic console, I own only the Xbox so your a bit misled there in thinking that i am somehow a lover of just the console i own.
I have also never called you a liar or requested you be banned yet it is I who am being accused of being immature.
I would suggest you remember this is a forum, that i am entitled to my opinion and to express it unless i am breaking the forum rules by doing so (and if i am please point out where i did it). Perhaps if you went away for a while, calmed down and had a cup of tea, then came back to discuss this properly we can take it further.
Developers look at the popular consoles in terms of units sold. You think they took into account how long the PS2 was out compared to the xbox and thought "well of course the PS2 is out selling the xbox, if they were released at the same time the gap will be closer! So let's develop for the xbox its only fair!"
No, they only care about units sold and where the biggest market is, its business. Because the Ps3 started late It needs to catch up otherwise it will always be behind. Developers are not going to give it brownie points because it started late
---------- Post added at 15:50 ---------- Previous post was at 15:42 ----------
The PS3 is not failing but it is not winning, Winners get more exclusives and are the lead platform for multiplatform games so they get the advantage
Things are getting a bit heated in here again. I'd suggest people take a deep breath and think about what they are posting before they go ahead and start name-calling and pettiness
Please can you point out which facts i have posted are wrong?
You claimed the PS3 was not improving, this is wrong. As I said in my earlier post (which you ignored as it did not help your cause) the PS3 sold 70,000 more consoles in Europe and rest of world the other week than Xbox.
You claimed the PS3 was not improving, this is wrong. As I said in my earlier post (which you ignored as it did not help your cause) the PS3 sold 70,000 more consoles in Europe and rest of world the other week than Xbox.
Recently or overall? Either way I am not surprised, the 360 is dying a slow painful death in Japan. The Wii stock shortages are really hitting it too so Sony are raking it in there.
Please can you point out which facts i have posted are wrong?
I find your stance very strange, as i have clearly said on many an occasion that the wii is also a fantastic console, I own only the Xbox so your a bit misled there in thinking that i am somehow a lover of just the console i own.
I have also never called you a liar or requested you be banned yet it is I who am being accused of being immature.
I would suggest you remember this is a forum, that i am entitled to my opinion and to express it unless i am breaking the forum rules by doing so (and if i am please point out where i did it). Perhaps if you went away for a while, calmed down and had a cup of tea, then came back to discuss this properly we can take it further.
What about this -
"because even though it may have sold the same as the Xbox or the Wii in the same time frame"
You become so in thrawled in slagging the PS3 of, you dont even know what your talking about.
Ive been a member on these forums long enough to have noticed your love for the 360 and never ending slag of contest of the PS3.
There is no need for it. You twist every nuit and cranny to make out the PS3 is bad and its very imature.
---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------
Developers look at the popular consoles in terms of units sold. You think they took into account how long the PS2 was out compared to the xbox and thought "well of course the PS2 is out selling the xbox, if they were released at the same time the gap will be closer! So let's develop for the xbox its only fair!"
No, they only care about units sold and where the biggest market is, its business. Because the Ps3 started late It needs to catch up otherwise it will always be behind. Developers are not going to give it brownie points because it started late
---------- Post added at 15:50 ---------- Previous post was at 15:42 ----------
The PS3 is not failing but it is not winning, Winners get more exclusives and are the lead platform for multiplatform games so they get the advantage
Developers look at many things one which will be units sold taking into consideration of lifespan. Thats just obvious. All they have to do is look at the PS3 launch sales to that off the 360 launch sales to find that in another year it will be at the same point the 360 was at its 2nd year. I think we are all clever enough (I hope) to know the PS3 is not going to get the sucess that the PS2 did. PS3 has loads of exclusives and also is the lead platform for some games with developers getting a team made just for each console. Its also said to be easier to make the game for the PS3 then port it to the 360 rather than the other way round, if we see that is a different matter.
---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:34 ----------
Recently or overall? Either way I am not surprised, the 360 is dying a slow painful death in Japan. The Wii stock shortages are really hitting it too so Sony are raking it in there.
He did say Europe also.
Developers look at many things one which will be units sold taking into consideration of lifespan. Thats just obvious. All they have to do is look at the PS3 launch sales to that off the 360 launch sales to find that in another year it will be at the same point the 360 was at its 2nd year.
But the 360 will still have another year of sales ;). If the PS3 starts outselling the 360 at a significant pace then it will appeal to developers as it will be about to take the lead.
But the 360 will still have another year of sales ;). If the PS3 starts outselling the 360 at a significant pace then it will appeal to developers as it will be about to take the lead.
Yes of course, but thats not the point. All the developers have to do is look at the sales since launch and if they are similar and the trend looks to continue, they have nothing to worry about anyway.
None of this matters anyway, the PS3 is selling on par when comapring launch to now figures. Why on Earth people still say its selling crap is beyond believe, as thats just totally wrong.
Yes of course, but thats not the point. All the developers have to do is look at the sales since launch and if they are similar and the trend looks to continue, they have nothing to worry about anyway.
None of this matters anyway, the PS3 is selling on par when comapring launch to now figures. Why on Earth people still say its selling crap is beyond believe, as thats just totally wrong.
Well as we have said, people are looking at the total sales. It isnt fair as you point out but all the launch sales show us is that the PS3 is following the trend set by the 360.
This mean's that it's as popular as the 360 was in it's first year. (Stock shortages aside). But, the fact is that the 360 is always a step ahead. If the PS3 is following in the 360s path it will always be behind. In a years time the PS3 will be where the 360 is now. But the 360 will be ahead even more.
So if developers look at the the figures they will conclude the PS3 will always be a year behind in sales...
Of course it is. This is simple stuff you learn in school. You cant compare things FAIRLY when one has been out a year longer. When comparing things as in debating about them, you have to go by similar things to make it fair, like launch figures. The launch figures show that the PS3 is on target with the 360 and PS2. You cant argue with these facts. What happens in the future is a totally different subject.
If you are correct, how come developers aren't still releasing games for the Spectrum? After all, it has a 25 year head start on all of the next gen consoles.
They aren't releasing games because they wont see good sales from them. My point is that developers will NOT use launch figures to judge the success (or otherwise) of a console simply because something that happened 2 years ago (in the case of the xbox) or 1 year ago (in the case of the PS3 and Wii) has little or no relevance to what is happening now. I don't know what will happen in the future. It's possible (although no means certain ) that either the xbox 360 or PS3 will beat the Wii. It's also possible that sales of any of the consoles will tail off. After all, none of the companies involved has backed winners the whole time.
You can go on all you want about the launch sales, but they are NOT relevant, as it's entirely possible that a console will launch with good sales, then those sales will drop (look at the dreamcast - had excellent sales upon launch, but two years down the line it was axed due to Sega making a loss on it).
Well as we have said, people are looking at the total sales. It isnt fair as you point out but all the launch sales show us is that the PS3 is following the trend set by the 360.
This mean's that it's as popular as the 360 was in it's first year. (Stock shortages aside). But, the fact is that the 360 is always a step ahead. If the PS3 is following in the 360s path it will always be behind. In a years time the PS3 will be where the 360 is now. But the 360 will be ahead even more.
So if developers look at the the figures they will conclude the PS3 will always be a year behind in sales...
Well sorry to say but, well durrr. As Ive said MANY times now, when comparing console sales in a debate, you cant just say well the 360 is selling, end off. As thats not a fair comparison. You simply cant compare things that have been out longer and expect to win a debate. As I have said and what you have agreed with is that the PS3 is setting the same trend as the 360 which developers will take into acount anyway. Also why do people always feel the need to add that the 360 had stock shortages, to counter that the PS3 launched with a high price with more compertion, which kind of equals it out.
---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:30 ----------
If you are correct, how come developers aren't still releasing games for the Spectrum? After all, it has a 25 year head start on all of the next gen consoles.
They aren't releasing games because they wont see good sales from them. My point is that developers will NOT use launch figures to judge the success (or otherwise) of a console simply because something that happened 2 years ago (in the case of the xbox) or 1 year ago (in the case of the PS3 and Wii) has little or no relevance to what is happening now. I don't know what will happen in the future. It's possible (although no means certain ) that either the xbox 360 or PS3 will beat the Wii. It's also possible that sales of any of the consoles will tail off. After all, none of the companies involved has backed winners the whole time.
You can go on all you want about the launch sales, but they are NOT relevant, as it's entirely possible that a console will launch with good sales, then those sales will drop (look at the dreamcast - had excellent sales upon launch, but two years down the line it was axed due to Sega making a loss on it).
Im sorry, but being a mod on this site, why is there such a need for the first comment you made.
This is not rocket science. We are (or I wasnt) talking about developers. I was talking about people in these forums using the 360 sales saying that its beating the PS3, when infact when comapring fairly for a debate, the sales are head to head. The PS3 is setting the same trend as what the 360 has. Whatever happens in the future goes on from here. How many more times does this have to be said.
In simple terms for some people on here.
The only reason the 360 sales are better than the PS3 sales is because it has been out longer. When doing a fair comparison and put them head to head from when they launched, they are almost identical sales wise.
Well sorry to say but, well durrr. As Ive said MANY times now, when comparing console sales in a debate, you cant just say well the 360 is selling, end off. As thats not a fair comparison. You simply cant compare things that have been out longer and expect to win a debate. As I have said and what you have agreed with is that the PS3 is setting the same trend as the 360 which developers will take into acount anyway. Also why do people always feel the need to add that the 360 had stock shortages, to counter that the PS3 launched with a high price with more compertion, which kind of equals it out.
---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:30 ----------
Im sorry, but being a mod on this site, why is there such a need for the first comment you made.
This is not rocket science. We are (or I wasnt) talking about developers. I was talking about people in these forums using the 360 sales saying that its beating the PS3, when infact when comapring fairly for a debate, the sales are head to head. The PS3 is setting the same trend as what the 360 has. Whatever happens in the future goes on from here. How many more times does this have to be said.
In simple terms for some people on here.
The only reason the 360 sales are better than the PS3 sales is because it has been out longer. When doing a fair comparison and put them head to head from when they launched, they are almost identical sales wise.
But that's the point, we're arguing about developers and their importance for the future of the consoles. You seem to be rigidly sticking to the launched argument. Yes, the only reason the sales are better is because it's been out longer but whats your point? That it doesnt count and developers will ignore it?
It's business, just because it isnt fair doesnt mean they wont count it.
You'll all find the reason that developers choose the 360 as the lead development platform is that, it has familiar architecture and much better developer toolsets. this allows much better performance/dev time ratios.
I own all 3 next gen systems and I must admit although the PS3 overall is a good system, The 360 is superior as a games system.
as was mentioned earlier in this thread it is easier to port from the PS3 to the 360 than the reverse.
Looking at recent games its clear that when porting from 360 to PS3 the PS3 version is inferior, but if you take burnout paradise (demo) which was developed on the PS3 primarily, the 360 version is identical in everyway. is it a case that porting this way may hold the 360 back performance wise? we may never know, it happened last gen (PS2 + XBOX)
yes the PS3 is improving SLOWLY! but not enough where it matters this generation - OLNINE GAMING, this is where PS3 is severly lacking against the 360, and shows no sign of closing the gap (at least until Home appears).
Overall it seems sony this gen cannot decide on finalised specs for a number of technologies employed in the PS3 - no final online specs before release so some games lack the online functionality of the 360 counterparts and also what about the unfinalised specs for BD - Profile 0 Profile 1.0 profile 1.1 where this will end god only knows - maybe sony should hold out on any new tech releases until they can finalise specs, that way maybe the next playstation could take them back to the top of the console pedestal - and give developers some confidence in their products again.
PS3 is outselling Xbox in the weeklies in the rest of world except America where it is selling the same. You would expect that as Americans are patriotic.
You'll all find the reason that developers choose the 360 as the lead development platform is that, it has familiar architecture and much better developer toolsets. this allows much better performance/dev time ratios.
I own all 3 next gen systems and I must admit although the PS3 overall is a good system, The 360 is superior as a games system.
as was mentioned earlier in this thread it is easier to port from the PS3 to the 360 than the reverse.
Looking at recent games its clear that when porting from 360 to PS3 the PS3 version is inferior, but if you take burnout paradise (demo) which was developed on the PS3 primarily, the 360 version is identical in everyway. is it a case that porting this way may hold the 360 back performance wise? we may never know, it happened last gen (PS2 + XBOX)
yes the PS3 is improving SLOWLY! but not enough where it matters this generation - OLNINE GAMING, this is where PS3 is severly lacking against the 360, and shows no sign of closing the gap (at least until Home appears).
Overall it seems sony this gen cannot decide on finalised specs for a number of technologies employed in the PS3 - no final online specs before release so some games lack the online functionality of the 360 counterparts and also what about the unfinalised specs for BD - Profile 0 Profile 1.0 profile 1.1 where this will end god only knows - maybe sony should hold out on any new tech releases until they can finalise specs, that way maybe the next playstation could take them back to the top of the console pedestal - and give developers some confidence in their products again.
Good Post :)
Im sorry, but being a mod on this site, why is there such a need for the first comment you made.
This is not rocket science. We are (or I wasnt) talking about developers. I was talking about people in these forums using the 360 sales saying that its beating the PS3, when infact when comapring fairly for a debate, the sales are head to head. The PS3 is setting the same trend as what the 360 has. Whatever happens in the future goes on from here. How many more times does this have to be said.
The first comment was an extreme example to illustrate the irrelevance of launch date. My status is also irrelevant.
In simple terms for some people on here.
The only reason the 360 sales are better than the PS3 sales is because it has been out longer. When doing a fair comparison and put them head to head from when they launched, they are almost identical sales wise.
You appear to be confusing installed user base with sales. People aren't going to buy a console because it's been out longer than another. Which is why I say that launch dates and launch sales are not relevant. They will buy a console because it has games they like (which is more likely to happen if more games are released). I bought in developers because developers will only develop games when they can be certain of good sales. More sales means more games developed which in turn should mean more sales.
Well, PS3 is beating Xbox in all regions sales wise except America where they are equal meaning the gap is getting smaller. It may take time, but this is how it is going.
Back to the original post if anyone remembers it "Is PS3 improving" - YES IT IS! In europe the public ARE buying more PS3's than Xbox. In fact the public are buying more PS2's than Xbox as well!
Well, PS3 is beating Xbox in all regions sales wise except America where they are equal meaning the gap is getting smaller. It may take time, but this is how it is going.
Back to the original post if anyone remembers it "Is PS3 improving" - YES IT IS! In europe the public ARE buying more PS3's than Xbox. In fact the public are buying more PS2's than Xbox as well!
And how long do you think this will last when the public realise they are paying a premium for half the experience.
you will probably find that a lot of sales in the EU are due to the fact that the PS3 is a very good Video Player, and probably the only one on the market that could be upgraded to Profile 1.1 when it arrives.
why pay 4-500 or more for a Blu Ray player, when you can have one of the best players for 299. makes sense. pity that Sonys entire BD venture rests upon it being a games console video format!!!!!
But that's the point, we're arguing about developers and their importance for the future of the consoles. You seem to be rigidly sticking to the launched argument. Yes, the only reason the sales are better is because it's been out longer but whats your point? That it doesnt count and developers will ignore it?
It's business, just because it isnt fair doesnt mean they wont count it.
Thats not the point. The whole point was that people are using sales figures to say the PS3 is failing when its not. No one was talking about the way developers use the sales figures, which none the less doesnt matter anyway as most half brained devlopers will realise that if it is on target to where the 360 is in the same time frame, so they wont have a problem devloping on it.
None of this really matters anyway as counter arguments can be made. The likes of UT3 coming to PS3 first and the likes of Saints Row 2 which the first one was only on the 360. The games are coming, they are being made and the only problem the devlopers have is the hardness of devloping for it, which to be honest was a problem with the PS2 and we all know how that turned out.
---------- Post added at 20:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:10 ----------
You'll all find the reason that developers choose the 360 as the lead development platform is that, it has familiar architecture and much better developer toolsets. this allows much better performance/dev time ratios.
I own all 3 next gen systems and I must admit although the PS3 overall is a good system, The 360 is superior as a games system.
as was mentioned earlier in this thread it is easier to port from the PS3 to the 360 than the reverse.
Looking at recent games its clear that when porting from 360 to PS3 the PS3 version is inferior, but if you take burnout paradise (demo) which was developed on the PS3 primarily, the 360 version is identical in everyway. is it a case that porting this way may hold the 360 back performance wise? we may never know, it happened last gen (PS2 + XBOX)
yes the PS3 is improving SLOWLY! but not enough where it matters this generation - OLNINE GAMING, this is where PS3 is severly lacking against the 360, and shows no sign of closing the gap (at least until Home appears).
Overall it seems sony this gen cannot decide on finalised specs for a number of technologies employed in the PS3 - no final online specs before release so some games lack the online functionality of the 360 counterparts and also what about the unfinalised specs for BD - Profile 0 Profile 1.0 profile 1.1 where this will end god only knows - maybe sony should hold out on any new tech releases until they can finalise specs, that way maybe the next playstation could take them back to the top of the console pedestal - and give developers some confidence in their products again.
I dont get your point? The same with Microsoft surely? With the HDMI ports and updates for BC etc etc. One thing to note is, at least we can get these features through firmware releases, where as older technology you are pretty much stuck with what comes out the box.
---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------
The first comment was an extreme example to illustrate the irrelevance of launch date. My status is also irrelevant.
You appear to be confusing installed user base with sales. People aren't going to buy a console because it's been out longer than another. Which is why I say that launch dates and launch sales are not relevant. They will buy a console because it has games they like (which is more likely to happen if more games are released). I bought in developers because developers will only develop games when they can be certain of good sales. More sales means more games developed which in turn should mean more sales.
Im sorry, but your the one that seems to be confussed.
You say that "People aren't going to buy a console because it's been out longer than another." Then go on to say "They will buy a console because it has games they like (which is more likely to happen if more games are released)." Call me thick, but surely the longer the console is out the more games that come out, the more people that buy it. The longer something has been out and the longer it has established itself the better it will sell than a new product that has just launched.
---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:17 ----------
And how long do you think this will last when the public realise they are paying a premium for half the experience.
you will probably find that a lot of sales in the EU are due to the fact that the PS3 is a very good Video Player, and probably the only one on the market that could be upgraded to Profile 1.1 when it arrives.
why pay 4-500 or more for a Blu Ray player, when you can have one of the best players for 299. makes sense. pity that Sonys entire BD venture rests upon it being a games console video format!!!!!
You will probably find, that when talking about PS3 sales, people who are debating about it, cant seem to make their minds up on why it is selling.
At a pure guess I think you will actually find that it is selling as all in one system and not just because it has a Blu-ray player or just because it plays games.
Also you can get a Sony Blu-ray player for under £300 now.
Im sorry, but your the one that seems to be confussed.
You say that "People aren't going to buy a console because it's been out longer than another." Then go on to say "They will buy a console because it has games they like (which is more likely to happen if more games are released)." Call me thick, but surely the longer the console is out the more games that come out, the more people that buy it. The longer something has been out and the longer it has established itself the better it will sell than a new product that has just launched.
Look back a few posts above that. You'll find I bought up the example of the dreamcast. A console which sold brilliantly initially and within a couple of years, was dropped due to dwindling sales and increasing losses. I can't remember exactly when it was axed, but it was certainly within the expected life of the product.
In that case, the console's launch sales were certainly irrelevant.
Look back a few posts above that. You'll find I bought up the example of the dreamcast. A console which sold brilliantly initially and within a couple of years, was dropped due to dwindling sales and increasing losses. I can't remember exactly when it was axed, but it was certainly within the expected life of the product.
In that case, the console's launch sales were certainly irrelevant.
And? That argument can be used for your argument about the sales. The 360 could go the way of the dreamcast still, what would its weekly sales NOW have anything to do with what happens in the future, its the same difference. What your doing is totally missing the point that people are using the PS3 sales to say it is failing, when thats far from the truth as its doing just as good as the PS2 and 360 did. What happens from here is anyones guess.
And? That argument can be used for your argument about the sales. The 360 could go the way of the dreamcast still, what would its weekly sales NOW have anything to do with what happens in the future, its the same difference. What your doing is totally missing the point that people are using the PS3 sales to say it is failing, when thats far from the truth as its doing just as good as the PS2 and 360 did. What happens from here is anyones guess.
I am not saying it's failing, I am saying it's not winning and as a result has a less secure future in terms of upcoming games and exclusives than the 360 does. At the moment. The 360 is the console that developers will target. Simply because there are more 360 users out there at the moment. They are not going to use launch figures to decide which platform to choose.
You keep going back to the same argument that the PS3 is doing as well as the PS2 and 360 did in their first years (also going, "and we all know how that turned out!". The PS3 has two strong competitors this time around. It will not have the dominance of the PS2 which you yourself also pointed out earlier).
I accept they are doing as well as the 360 did a year ago. That does not mean it is on a equal footing with the 360 in terms of it's appeal to developers or in terms of popularity. The 360 used it's early advantage to get a pretty big lead over the PS3 in those areas.
It's not fair to compare a console that's been out for longer, but that what does and will happen. They are competing for the same market and 'fairness' does not come into it. It's a business. Microsoft came late to the last generation and had to accept that the PS2 would get the lion share of exclusives, it did not matter than it was not 'fair' to compare them because that is EXACTLY what the consumers and the developers do. They make a choice between them.
This is what I am asking you, Do you dispute that fact?
This is like half-time at a football match. Microsoft got a penalty they shouldn't have and they are 1 - 0 up. Your arguing that Sony have played just as well, got just as many shots, and if the reference didn't make a mistake it would be 0 - 0. But it's 1 - 0, Because it does not matter if it was fair, or how well Sony played, it's half-time and Sony need to go out and score twice as many to make up for it. Otherwise, they lose the game.
I am not saying it's failing, I am saying it's not winning and as a result has a less secure future in terms of upcoming games and exclusives than the 360 does. At the moment. The 360 is the console that developers will target. Simply because there are more 360 users out there at the moment. They are not going to use launch figures to decide which platform to choose.
You keep going back to the same argument that the PS3 is doing as well as the PS2 and 360 did in their first years (also going, "and we all know how that turned out!". The PS3 has two strong competitors this time around. It will not have the dominance of the PS2 which you yourself also pointed out earlier).
I accept they are doing as well as the 360 did a year ago. That does not mean it is on a equal footing with the 360 in terms of it's appeal to developers or in terms of popularity. The 360 used it's early advantage to get a pretty big lead over the PS3 in those areas.
It's not fair to compare a console that's been out for longer, but that what does and will happen. They are competing for the same market and 'fairness' does not come into it. It's a business. Microsoft came late to the last generation and had to accept that the PS2 would get the lion share of exclusives, it did not matter than it was not 'fair' to compare them because that is EXACTLY what the consumers and the developers do. They make a choice between them.
This is what I am asking you, Do you dispute that fact?
This is like half-time at a football match. Microsoft got a penalty they shouldn't have and they are 1 - 0 up. Your arguing that Sony have played just as well, got just as many shots, and if the reference didn't make a mistake it would be 0 - 0. But it's 1 - 0, Because it does not matter if it was fair, or how well Sony played, it's half-time and Sony need to go out and score twice as many to make up for it. Otherwise, they lose the game.
Right thats it. Im out, im not going to sit here and argue when know one is listening. We were not talking about devlopers, we were talking about people using the PS3 sales to say its failing.
Well i am talking about developers. So were a lot of other people. That and the people who actually buy the consoles. You simply trying to change the argument in order to win. I have said so many times that I do not think it is failing but you do not address that nor do you address the point about installed base
And? That argument can be used for your argument about the sales. The 360 could go the way of the dreamcast still, what would its weekly sales NOW have anything to do with what happens in the future, its the same difference. What your doing is totally missing the point that people are using the PS3 sales to say it is failing, when thats far from the truth as its doing just as good as the PS2 and 360 did. What happens from here is anyones guess.
My point still stands. IF the PS3 is selling well, or Sony are willing/able to take a loss on it, it's future is fairly secure. If it is not doing well, and Sony are not willing/able to take the loss, then it's future isn't. The launch figures bear little relevance to that.
The same argument applies to any console, and I am not intending to argue that one console or another is better or worse than all the others, merely that launch sales figures are irrelevant.
And how long do you think this will last when the public realise they are paying a premium for half the experience.
you will probably find that a lot of sales in the EU are due to the fact that the PS3 is a very good Video Player, and probably the only one on the market that could be upgraded to Profile 1.1 when it arrives.
why pay 4-500 or more for a Blu Ray player, when you can have one of the best players for 299. makes sense. pity that Sonys entire BD venture rests upon it being a games console video format!!!!!
Half the experience? Bull. Why is it wrong for people to want the PS3 for its video playing properties? I have the PS3 not just for its games console abilities, but also the fact it plays DVD's, Blu-rays, SACD, MP3 etc etc. Why is it so manys people's mission to belittle my choice? Live with it, there are people who are not just playing games.
If there are people buying PS3 just for blu-ray - why the hell not?
Well i am talking about developers. So were a lot of other people. That and the people who actually buy the consoles. You simply trying to change the argument in order to win. I have said so many times that I do not think it is failing but you do not address that nor do you address the point about installed base
Sorry, but all you wonderful people trying to slate PS3 owners decisions to buy their console are trying to change the argument. "Is PS3 improving".
In sales it is improving, amount of games it is improving, quality of games it is improving.
My point still stands. IF the PS3 is selling well, or Sony are willing/able to take a loss on it, it's future is fairly secure. If it is not doing well, and Sony are not willing/able to take the loss, then it's future isn't. The launch figures bear little relevance to that.
The same argument applies to any console, and I am not intending to argue that one console or another is better or worse than all the others, merely that launch sales figures are irrelevant.
The launch figures do show that the initial interest of the console is the same as PS2 and Xbox 360, and they are improving now the consoles price has gone down. Meaning that potentially the PS3 will get to where Xbox is now in terms of how many consoles it has in the field. We are seeing the result of this now in terms of the amount of games now appearing for the console.
Again - improvement.
Of course whether anyone can see my post is another matter, no doubt you will just all pick on shawty again.
The fact that there is a dividance, and there are many factors to why people can slate the PS3 in general so be it being the price, the games, the development etc is a shame, still isn't good whatever way you look at it.
Sony are to blame, it was a bit of a farce from the start from the late release and then the price and lack of games on release. It's got a lot of catching up to do. And whilst everyone has their opinion, I personally haven't heard enough good to warrant a purchase, even coming from people I know that have 'had' one.
At the end of the day, if the console was better than the 360 then most people here would already own one, as a games machine it just doesn't warrant the price, and most don't need all the extra features that come with it either.
Why people are spouting sales figures and shouting my console is better than yours is a bit over the top, Sony do have a fanbase, and I reckon it's those people that make up most of the sales. Gamers would opt for the 360 because of price and the larger catalogue of games available and not because it's a M$ product.
The fact that there is a dividance, and there are many factors to why people can slate the PS3 in general so be it being the price, the games, the development etc is a shame, still isn't good whatever way you look at it.
Sony are to blame, it was a bit of a farce from the start from the late release and then the price and lack of games on release. It's got a lot of catching up to do. And whilst everyone has their opinion, I personally haven't heard enough good to warrant a purchase, even coming from people I know that have 'had' one.
At the end of the day, if the console was better than the 360 then most people here would already own one, as a games machine it just doesn't warrant the price, and most don't need all the extra features that come with it either.
Why people are spouting sales figures and shouting my console is better than yours is a bit over the top, Sony do have a fanbase, and I reckon it's those people that make up most of the sales. Gamers would opt for the 360 because of price and the larger catalogue of games available and not because it's a M$ product.
Soooooo.......... is it improving?????????
Personally, no, not yet, not in the sense that it's a must have console. The longer it stays like that the harder it's going to pull through. It's still in the 360's shadow for gaming and it's going to stay that way until something happens like a price drop, better development, better games (and cheaper games).
You are still avoiding the answer to the question - is it improving. To improve it does not automatically have to be a "must have console".
It has had a price drop, there are better games and better development, and cheaper games. Admittedly not as much as some would like, but it is getting better.
Only time will tell, that's the only answer I can give. I hope it does do a turn around. I ain't against the PS3 at all, but at the moment there's just no reason to go out and buy one.
I said, when I started this topic, that is was improving. I also said it is not at the level of the 360 yet but since I dare to suggest that the PS3 is anything but great I have been accused of being attacking. TBR was told he should be banned.
I said, when I started this topic, that is was improving. I also said it is not at the level of the 360 yet but since I dare to suggest that the PS3 is anything but great I have been accused of being attacking. TBR was told he should be banned.
No one has said PS3 is "great", or really over played how good it is, but there are plenty of people, who in most cases don't have a PS3 or have "taken it back", who endlessly say the console is, in so many words "rubbish".
TBR's post are only made with one goal - to wind people up. And doesn't he do a good job of that:
I see shawty still has the blinkers on and trying to connvince everyone the PS3 is still going to dominate the world.
The PS3 is still the biggest turkey you could get this Christmas.
Looks like the stuffing for the aforementioned turkey has arrived if you ask me.
I love you shawty, if only because your rose tinted specs cant see very far past the end of your nose...
Your not a creationist by any chance are you?
Perhaps if you went away for a while, calmed down and had a cup of tea, then came back to discuss this properly we can take it further.
To me these are insults / belittlements, just because he adds them to the end of objective comments does not change this so I can see why someone complained about him.
TBR's post are only made with one goal - to wind people up. And doesn't he do a good job of that:
Then the answer is simple: Don't help him achieve his goal. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I find that the best way to deal with people who deliberately wind other people up is to ignore them.
So, as you have been told before, if you have an issue with a post, don't respond in the thread, report it or ignore it.
---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------
To me these are insults / belittlements, just because he adds them to the end of objective comments does not change this so I can see why someone complained about him.
TBR was expressing his opinion of the console. Why is that so personally insulting? He obviously doesn't like the console, you obviously do. Good for both you. You are both entitled to your opinion.
TBR was expressing his opinion of the console. Why is that so personally insulting? He obviously doesn't like the console, you obviously do. Good for both you. You are both entitled to your opinion.
He has not insulted me, it's just the "over and above it all" attitude of certain posters opinions. Shawty is not wrong in his opinion now is he?
So...
I see shawty still has the blinkers on and trying to connvince everyone the PS3 is still going to dominate the world.
I love you shawty, if only because your rose tinted specs cant see very far past the end of your nose...
Your not a creationist by any chance are you?
These are not personal and just opinions on the PS3?
You are like a pack of wolves on shawty, why not let him have an opinion? Surely you are all intelligent enough to realise what he is trying to say, rather than interpreting it that way you want to shoot him down so he has to explain himself over and over.
You are like a pack of wolves on shawty, why not let him have an opinion? Surely you are all intelligent enough to realise what he is trying to say, rather than interpreting it that way you want to shoot him down and twist it?
You're right in a way, but fairs fair, he's the first one in line to attack when anything bad is said about a console even though it's not a personal attack in anyway. Things do get taken out of context all so easily here and to be honest I don't think anything that's been said has been an 'attack', but if small things like that gets your goat up then you shouldn't be on a discussion board in the first place. If someone can't take (or listen) to critisism then unfortuantly it's bound to feel personal in some way and more often than not ends up a bit heated.
I took TBR's posts as his opinion and he's intitled to it and I also agree with what he says. But I too find Shawty's posts here very acutely opinionated to the point of no matter what you say he won't listen, therefore it's going to be neverendingly backward and forth.
Sorry Shawty this post ain't aimed at you in anyway. I like a good discussion but there ain't going to be an answer nor winners over this subject.
You like, we like, doesn't matter really does it.
I took TBR's posts as his opinion and he's intitled to it and I also agree with what he says. But I too find Shawty's posts here very acutely opinionated to the point of no matter what you say he won't listen, therefore it's going to be neverendingly backward and forth.
OK TBR is entitled to his opinion, but why the "but" for shawty? TBR is as much, if not more one sided than shawtys - in my opinion.
but if small things like that gets your goat up then you shouldn't be on a discussion board in the first place.
Playing that card on me huh? You're right - I'm leaving then....
As If!
I love discussion boards, and I am enjoying taking up this thread. My goat is firmly at the base of the mountain my friend, he 'ain't going up anywhere!
Playing that card on me huh? You're right - I'm leaving then....
As If!!
I didn't aim at you, it's aimed at anyone who takes something like that personally, the over opinionated, ones calling for heads on a plate (banned) etc. I think you know full well and I ain't going to get heated or anything over it either.
I didn't aim at you, it's aimed at anyone who takes something like that personally, the over opinionated, ones calling for heads on a plate (banned) etc.
Leave him alone! You just can't help it can you! hehe ;)
Maybe the "heads on a plate" button could be added in the next feature update on the forum? I wouldn't mind beta testing it! :D
You're right in a way, but fairs fair, he's the first one in line to attack when anything bad is said about a console even though it's not a personal attack in anyway. Things do get taken out of context all so easily here and to be honest I don't think anything that's been said has been an 'attack', but if small things like that gets your goat up then you shouldn't be on a discussion board in the first place. If someone can't take (or listen) to critisism then unfortuantly it's bound to feel personal in some way and more often than not ends up a bit heated.
I took TBR's posts as his opinion and he's intitled to it and I also agree with what he says. But I too find Shawty's posts here very acutely opinionated to the point of no matter what you say he won't listen, therefore it's going to be neverendingly backward and forth.
Sorry Shawty this post ain't aimed at you in anyway. I like a good discussion but there ain't going to be an answer nor winners over this subject.
You like, we like, doesn't matter really does it.
If you look back at TBR posts you will see never ending hate towards the PS3. Ok he is entitled to his own opinion, but opinions can be wrong and Ive got to say they are. The PS3 is improving, through the likes of better games and more games, also through the likes of home and Divx support which are due out and through the sales. The PS3 is not just a console, its an all in one system, if people dont want that then thats fine, why come on a forum saying the sales are crap etc etc. I dont want a Wii, but I dont go on forums saying the graphics are crap etc etc. There is no need for what some people type on these forums wether its opinion or not.
Maybe the "heads on a plate" button could be added in the next feature update on the forum? I wouldn't mind beta testing it! ;)
Now that would be cool, haha.
I didn't aim at you, it's aimed at anyone who takes something like that personally, the over opinionated, ones calling for heads on a plate (banned) etc. I think you know full well and I ain't going to get heated or anything over it either.
But they should be banned. They are doing it for one reason alone. There is no need for TBR posts, as he has no intrest in the PS3, it has got to be questioned why he is on a PS3 forum telling lies and uneducated opinions.
If you look back at TBR posts you will see never ending hate towards the PS3. Ok he is entitled to his own opinion, but opinions can be wrong and Ive got to say they are. The PS3 is improving, through the likes of better games and more games, also through the likes of home and Divx support which are due out and through the sales. The PS3 is not just a console, its an all in one system, if people dont want that then thats fine, why come on a forum saying the sales are crap etc etc. I dont want a Wii, but I dont go on forums saying the graphics are crap etc etc. There is no need for what some people type on these forums wether its opinion or not.
Well I can say they are crap, but it's not aimed at you, as it's solely based on my own opinion for what I've seen, heard, read, watched, etc etc
So I can go all day going on about why they are rubbish and argue my point, doesn't mean I hate the PS3, just disappointed. But I can also agree with and against why people would buy one, but it won't be for the same reasons you might be thinking.
And on a discussion board you will get opinions, that's obvious. So just be prepared to take the rough with the smooth, as long as you're happy then that's the main thing ain't it.
Well I can say they are crap, but it's not aimed at you, as it's solely based on my own opinion for what I've seen, heard, read, watched, etc etc
So I can go all day going on about why they are rubbish and argue my point, doesn't mean I hate the PS3, just disappointed. But I can also agree with and against why people would buy one, but it won't be for the same reasons you might be thinking.
And on a discussion board you will get opinions, that's obvious. So just be prepared to take the rough with the smooth, as long as you're happy then that's the main thing ain't it.
Your missing the point totally. His opinions are lies and uneducated. He said its failing, it isnt, etc etc. He comes here for one reason alone. If you hate something that much, you dont go into a forum about it.
Maybe we should all stop and have a cup of tea.
Ahhhh, that's better!
Your missing the point totally. His opinions are lies and uneducated. He said its failing, it isnt, etc etc. He comes here for one reason alone. If you hate something that much, you dont go into a forum about it.
So are mine because I've never actually played on a PS3, yet I don't want one (unless someone gives me one for free). And I've never played on a wii either but I WANT one of those. So you could say I'm biased too in a way, but it's still an argument at the end of the day and it says something regardless about the way things are just ...are. And it's sad that it is that way, I should want the PS3 over a wii but I don't why is that??
So are mine because I've never actually played on a PS3, yet I don't want one (unless someone gives me one for free). And I've never played on a wii either but I WANT one of those. So you could say I'm biased too in a way, but it's still an argument at the end of the day and it says something regardless about the way things are just ...are. And it's sad that it is that way, I should want the PS3 over a wii but I don't why is that??
Again your missing the point. I dont care what you want or dont want, I couldnt give a stuff. I dont want a Wii BUT I dont go around forums slagging it of because I think its a peice of crap.
But if you have no intrest in the PS3, why would you come and start lying, here are a few from TBR -
"The PS3 has not improved"
Yes it has, the sales are better, the games are better and the console has and is getting more features as the months progress.
"it still has the same issues as before i.e. a lack of games,"
In your opinion, there might not be any games you like (all though I wouldnt call you much of a gamer if thats the case) but the truth is, it has many games, the lack of games argument is wearing very thin now.
"overpriced,"
Its £269 at Amazon at the moment or £300 with a game or two. Thats not overpriced, thats an excellent price for a next gen console that plays a lot more than just games. Its hardly any more expensive than a Xbox 360 now.
"The PS3 is doing badly,"
No its not, games are getting better, improvments being made through updates and better sales, how is that doing badly.
"because even though it may have sold the same as the Xbox or the Wii in the same time frame despite stock shortages on both competing consoles"
He gets so carried away, he doesnt even know what he is saying. He is saying the PS3 is selling just as good as the Wii in the same time frame.
"its still WAY behind in terms of the total units sold"
No **** sherlock, its only been out a year. If the Wii was the same price as the PS3 then the Wii would not be where it is now.
"the developers prefer to spend time developing their games for platforms where they will generate more income and as seen with the Orange box where Xbox owners got the goods but PS3 owners were left with a buggy game as it was outsourced to SAVE MONEY."
Are you sure it was out sourced to save money? Or was it the developer didnt want to take the time to learn how to code it to the PS3, because he likes working on a PC type system. We already know the PS3 can good games (COD4)
See, thats from one post of his, with hardly any truth in it and an uneducated opinion of the console. As I said, he is here for one reason only and some of us know what that is.
I've no need to defend TBR but now I can say you've ignore everything I've posted as you just label it 'missing the point' and you're done with it. It's the same old.
I've no need to defend TBR but now I can say you've ignore everything I've posted as you just label it 'missing the point' and you're done with it. It's the same old.
But you have missed the point. The reason I ignore your point is because you just miss mine totally and come out with something different.
Now you know why people can't take you seriously. Your point is obvious and there is no real discussion about it. The only thing in this thread that way over the top is your desire to right everyone's wrong opinions they have about a console.
dilli-theclaw
17-12-2007, 15:33
You will ALL stop it with the personal stuff NOW and return to the topic before it is closed.
You will ALL stop it with the personal stuff NOW and return to the topic before it is closed.
Havent some of us already stated that may times, also with a moderator saying "TBR was expressing his opinion of the console. Why is that so personally insulting? He obviously doesn't like the console, you obviously do. Good for both you. You are both entitled to your opinion" So apprantly there is no personal stuff? At the end of the day, this was what I was talking about, this topic is here for a reason, some people just come here to wind people up, shouldnt they the ones to be taking action off?
---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------
Now you know why people can't take you seriously. Your point is obvious and there is no real discussion about it. The only thing in this thread that way over the top is your desire to right everyone's wrong opinions they have about a console.
Of course, as I have the PS3, if someone starts telling lies about it and having uneducated views, I will correct them. The whole point to the argument was to look at TBR past about the PS3 and you will see that he comes in topics like this for one reason.
You will ALL stop it with the personal stuff NOW and return to the topic before it is closed.
So no I don't think it's improving. Sure there will be a cracking good game out or two on the format but will it be enough to make it better? For every good game there will be a good game on the 360. I think the PS3 at as it stands is going to be the 3rd choice of the consoles that are out.
Will it get better? Probably, as I said, I hope so. But it's been out a while now and just about everyone I know are still not convinced. The less people are on that version of live (online), the less attractive it's also going to be.
It's like bring out a new version of World of Warcraft (which there has been in some way or another), anything new just ain't Warcraft.
dilli-theclaw
17-12-2007, 15:49
.....Obviously not, so I will close this thread for now, and POSSIBLY reopen it later when people have calmed down.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.