Heavy Rain is going to be some serious shit. Been watching this for a long time.
Here's a situation for you
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Jak and Daxter: The Lost Frontier
Where the feck did that come from? NOT A CHANCE!
Where the feck did that come from? NOT A CHANCE!
What's this one about?
The game? It's some kind of thriller, but the previews of the tech are out of the ballpark as a Yank might say. YouTube it!
Well there still isn't any piracy in SG for the PS3, but I believe 360 games are easily available across the causeway. For your case I would go for the PS3 when piracy is more available for it, because there's no point owning a console without having much games to play with.
XB360 launch model:
PS3 launch model:
Some serious differences in engineering and build quality there. The XB360 looks like a homemade airfix kit!
PS3 looks better with those solid state capacitors.
Shame on Microsoft.
When will that be though? I'm itching to get a console.
The piracy? Well, nobody has done it yet.
If you wouldn't mind. Just a few would do. I find comfort in making the right descision is all.
If you can only afford one of them, then:
1) XB360 is very bad value for money in comparison to what you get out of the box and what you get out of the box for the PS3. Wii is even worse for the money. PS3 has the same RRP as an XB360 Elite in the UK.
2) XB360 has a very well known high failure rate.
3) XB360 has no HD disc format unless you shell out more cash for what seems to be the now defunct HD-DVD.
4) Games are no longer an issue, most multi-platform titles are now of the same quality on both machines, and the PS3 has a larger and more varied selection of exclusives coming up.
5) Despite being launched a year later, PS3 is now outselling XB360 basically everywhere apart from the USA.
6) When Microsoft see that they are losing ground, they will do what they did to the original XBox and simply dump it, leaving all of their customers in the lurch. Sony have stated that the PS3 will have a lifespan of 10 years and that they will fully support it over that timeframe at least - lies you may say, but this is exactly what they have done with the PS2, which sold 13 million hardware units and millions of software units over the past year. PS2 is still a highly competitive and serious platform, it has not gone away, and is still supported.
7) XB360 extras have always been a total rip-off.
8) XB360 is not very expandable beyond official add-ons.
9) You have to pay Microsoft money to play online and even for the privilege of downloading certain demos.
10) XB360 has probably already hit its technical peak, or is getting very close to doing so. Large budget 1st party exclusive titles such as Halo 3 running in 640p with very little AA or AF, and not being able to keep at 30 frames per second quite a lot is a testament to this probability.
Shall I keep going?
1) XB360 is very bad value for money in comparison to what you get out of the box and what you get out of the box for the PS3. Wii is even worse for the money. PS3 has the same RRP as an XB360 Elite in the UK.
2) XB360 has a very well known high failure rate.
3) XB360 has no HD disc format unless you shell out more cash for what seems to be the now defunct HD-DVD.
4) Games are no longer an issue, most multi-platform titles are now of the same quality on both machines, and the PS3 has a larger and more varied selection of exclusives coming up.
5) Despite being launched a year later, PS3 is now outselling XB360 basically everywhere apart from the USA.
6) When Microsoft see that they are losing ground, they will do what they did to the original XBox and simply dump it, leaving all of their customers in the lurch. Sony have stated that the PS3 will have a lifespan of 10 years and that they will fully support it over that timeframe at least - lies you may say, but this is exactly what they have done with the PS2, which sold 13 million hardware units and millions of software units over the past year. PS2 is still a highly competitive and serious platform, it has not gone away, and is still supported.
7) XB360 extras have always been a total rip-off.
8) XB360 is not very expandable beyond official add-ons.
9) You have to pay Microsoft money to play online and even for the privilege of downloading certain demos.
10) XB360 has probably already hit its technical peak, or is getting very close to doing so. Large budget 1st party exclusive titles such as Halo 3 running in 640p with very little AA or AF, and not being able to keep at 30 frames per second quite a lot is a testament to this probability.
Shall I keep going?
I'd have the PS3 everyday.
Coming from someone who as both the PS3 and XBOX 360 too, if that counts.
Coming from someone who as both the PS3 and XBOX 360 too, if that counts.
How much does it currently cost to add wireless networking to the XB360 Elite?
60 fecking quid!
70 quid for a 20GB hard disk!
130 quid for a 120GB hard disk!
60 fecking quid!
70 quid for a 20GB hard disk!
130 quid for a 120GB hard disk!
Weaste, how does the online feature of the ps3 work? Do you have to pay for downloading stuff and do you have to pay for playing online?
You don't have to pay to play no.
But as much as I can gather, every game developer has it's own servers you play off. There is no central hub for everything ala Xbox Live.
Live is probably the only thing Xbox has over PS3 at the moment. You do have to pay of course, which sours the deal somewhat.
But as much as I can gather, every game developer has it's own servers you play off. There is no central hub for everything ala Xbox Live.
Live is probably the only thing Xbox has over PS3 at the moment. You do have to pay of course, which sours the deal somewhat.
The PSN will handle the routing of you to specific dedicated servers if the game has them. PSN is totally free, and many downloads are free (all demos and trailers for example). Some content you do have to pay for, for example full games, game add-ons, ps1 games, etc. It's up to the content providers to decide what they charge or whether it is free, Sony leave it up to them. Playing online is totally free, although I can envisage someone making a WoW type game in the future where you would have to pay to play it rather than pay to buy it.
I heard a rumour a few months back that Sony were considering charging a small monthly fee to use PSN so they could improve it, doubt it is true though.
Prototype is not a PS3 exclusive. I went for an Xbox 360. The reason i did so was because i paid around 180 pounds for a 360 with hard drive and two controllers with two games. Was second hand but i dont care.
PS3 has its merits although i have heard there have been problems with speed on the Home internet thing. Not sure if its true only what i have read in a few places. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid are the main exclusives that i wish i could get.
Problem is when you ask these questions you will get fanboys of either console telling you that the other console is crap. However both have merits and both have faults. Its really up to you what you buy. I love my 360.
Gears of War (1&2 when it comes out),
Dead Rising (2 will also come out),
Halo 3,
Fable 2,
Halo Wars,
Too Human,
Alan Wake,
Splinter Cell Conviction and probably a lot more.
But for everyone i have listed the PS3 will also have the same amount. Personally i would say for the future (as it is a big commitment because of the money ) maybe the PS3 is a better choice, but as i say i still love my XBox 360. Im not a hardcore gamer so the PS3 was to expensive. Im a casual gamer so he 360 was perfect price and had just as good games.
On a side not yes you have to pay to go on the net for the 360 but it is only 30 pounds a year. Free is better obviously but for me i dont think its a mssive sticking point.
PS3 has its merits although i have heard there have been problems with speed on the Home internet thing. Not sure if its true only what i have read in a few places. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid are the main exclusives that i wish i could get.
Problem is when you ask these questions you will get fanboys of either console telling you that the other console is crap. However both have merits and both have faults. Its really up to you what you buy. I love my 360.
Gears of War (1&2 when it comes out),
Dead Rising (2 will also come out),
Halo 3,
Fable 2,
Halo Wars,
Too Human,
Alan Wake,
Splinter Cell Conviction and probably a lot more.
But for everyone i have listed the PS3 will also have the same amount. Personally i would say for the future (as it is a big commitment because of the money ) maybe the PS3 is a better choice, but as i say i still love my XBox 360. Im not a hardcore gamer so the PS3 was to expensive. Im a casual gamer so he 360 was perfect price and had just as good games.
On a side not yes you have to pay to go on the net for the 360 but it is only 30 pounds a year. Free is better obviously but for me i dont think its a mssive sticking point.
It is when it doesn't work, for example over Christmas.
Well im not on the net so i dont know but i was just saying that the 30 pounds is not massive, but obviously if it doesnt work then its pretty shite.
Simply my point is that for the casual gamer the PS3 was way to expensive when i was looking to buy a console. Hardcore gamers may see it as an investment but i didnt. Sometimes i think for the 400+ pounds you could do up your PC but its all down to your own choice. Only reason i didnt do up my PC with the money was because i would need to buy a whole new one.
Which is ironic, considering the PS1 arguably spawned the casual gamer and was definitely when style and amount over substance game to the fore.
At the moment you get some bloody good deals on PS3's in the UK so I'm sure there'll be priced similar in the States too. Also, you get a lot more "out of the box" with the PS3 then you do with the 360. Wireless being the main for me. The fact that it cost an extra 60-70 quid to get a wireless adaptor for the 360 is shocking. Its been that price since it was released too. Bastards should drop it now.
You'd be happy with either I think. However, I think the PS3 will outlive the 360 and also Blueray seemed to have all but won the battle of HD format. Which maybe something to think about also.
You'd be happy with either I think. However, I think the PS3 will outlive the 360 and also Blueray seemed to have all but won the battle of HD format. Which maybe something to think about also.
I totally agree. The PS3 is a baby compared to the 360 and it will improve and the bluray will probably outlive DVD so the PS3 will probably win in that fight as well.
As for the deals on the PS3 they are far better than when i was looking but i still think they are a bit to expensive.
Its RRP is exactly the same as the XB360 Elite model in the UK.
Yes but im talking about when i bought my 360 compared to the Xbox. Plus in my opinion the elite is a fecking rip off. Doesnt really do anything that more special than the usual xbox360
The 20Gb XB360's RRP is still only 20 quid cheaper than the PS3 and the XB360 Elite. But that's Microsoft making you pay 80 quid for a 20Gb hard disk!
How are the graphic differences between the two consoles though. From alot of videos I have seen, the 360's graphics seem to have more texture and look more sharper. The ps3's is brighter though.
Been checking on ebay and i found some 360s for pretty cheap but i find it hard to find the same deals for the PS3. Maybe that says something about the PS3 (no one wants to resell) but i dont know. As i said 180 pounds for a console with 2 games and controller (with hard drive and all that). Pretty good deal wouldnt you say. And as i kept saying before im basing it more on when i bought my console (around a year ago). But as i have said before for an investment for the hardcore gamer i cant really fault the PS3 (with bluray and all).
The reason for this is because up until recently, most games were very poorly done ports to the PS3. You have to do things differently on the PS3, that's never been denied. Look at Uncharted for example, they are not poor quality textures, in fact some of the best you'll see on a console up to now.
Aside from a few lighting and filtering differences, most games across both systems are/will be identical.
If it is done correctly on PS3, yes multi-platform games will be. But remember, because of the way that PS3 works, and because it has two seperate memory pools of 256MB each (which you MUST use to get full bandwidth performance from RSX), a straight port will not come out that way. Many developers have reduced texture quality on the PS3 version.
Also, videos are not the best way to compare due to video compression artifacts. Uncompressed stills coming out of HDMI (not easy to get these on a PS3 due to HDCP) are also not ideal because then you can't see how it runs in motion.
True, but you also have to remember that engines are used more and more nowadays (like Renderware, Alchemy, etc...) and those are more and more specifically tuned to the hardware.
I've not had access to either machines hardware, but I'll be very surprised if the differences are not evened out as this year goes on.
We are already seeing it with titles such as COD4, Burnout, and Devil May Cry.
Classic example:
Much harsher things are being said behind the scenes, I can tell you. It's a similar situation to the one that faced developers with the PS2 (awful to work with, that beast was!). Shite compared to Xbox and the GCN.
It will come though.
Asda are doing a decent deal on the PS3 at the moment for anyone who's interested. 40GB model with Fifa 08 and Fifa Street (I think) for £299.
Essentially getting the games for free.
Also, with regards to graphics, I think the differences are minimal. And since I got my PS3 I've tended to get duel format games on the PS3 too. Although that might be because its newer.
Essentially getting the games for free.
Also, with regards to graphics, I think the differences are minimal. And since I got my PS3 I've tended to get duel format games on the PS3 too. Although that might be because its newer.
Agreed. PS3 is awesome. I bought mine last summer and haven't looked back since.
I may get called a Sony fanboy but i don't care. PS3 shits all over the Xbox 360 several times over!
The graphics are similar, or should be, because there is not that great a difference between the raw real-world horsepower provided by both GPUs (RSX and Xenos), yet there are serious differences however in their graphics architectures both internal to the GPU chips and externally in the environment in which they are placed. The PS3 graphics system however consists of Cell+RSX, and if you do not use the Cell to feed and help RSX then you will probably get slightly worse performance than the same XB360 game (especially if it is using its eDRAM on its GPU). This is assuming that you are of course using RSX on both its buses, not just the one to "VRAM". Then we have to get down to the fact of if the developer actually ported the code correctly from the XB360, or simply dumped the PPC code running on 3 Xenon cores on the XB360 onto the single PPC core that is the PPE on the PS3 Cell expecting it not to degrade in performance (WTF!).
This entire situation mirrors what RedLambs was saying about the PS2, it that developing for it required techniques quite alien to the way it would say be done on a PC (strangely enough, the bus architecture of the PS3 actually is more akin to that on a PC than the XB360's is - but that's where it ends). The PS2 has a weird central processor and an even weirder graphics processor. It wasn't until about 6 years into its life however that most people actually found out how the feck to use it properly. Most of that was however down to the Graphics Synthesizer (the PS2 GPU) rather than the Emotion Engine (its CPU). Many developers seriously complained about it, but could not really do much about it, because it sold, and is still selling, like hotcakes. That didn't mean that many of them didn't hate it however and thus didn't really bother trying to get their hands really really dirty with it. PS3 isn't anywhere near as whacky, even though many developers think that it is.
It has a standard shader based GPU (Sony dropped their idea of a modified Cell with ROPs in it to do this job, probably because it would have made many a developer consider committing suicide, or maybe it was cost), but a different type of CPU. I don't know what developers such as Valve and ID are complaining about with the Cell, well I do, it's new and different, but they had better get used to it, because the entire computing industry (including Intel) will go down this design route. Cell isn't complex to code for, but it is very very different to what people are used to, and does not have such refined toolsets as even more traditional multi-core processors have. Developers need to be inventive in how they use the Cell to stream data to RSX, and how to get data back from RSX into the Cell; when to do it, how to do it, and possibly even why they are doing it. NB. RSX is not a standard out of the box nVidia GPU, it has had its caches highly tweaked, including support for a Cell SPE to stream data directly into the cache.
PS3 is a much more complex beast than the XB360, but mastering it will provide you with far more horsepower. Failing to master it, or even following the basic rules of how to use it, will make your game look like shit in comparison the XB360 version.
On a final note, I would have preferred it if Sony hadn't gone to nVidia for a standard GPU. They should have build a Cell hybrid (Toshiba was working on this for them - very similar to their own Spurs Engine, but a different aplication) with say 16 ROPs and had XDR memory on both buses. So many tears in the game development community would have been shed over that.
The graphics are similar, or should be, because there is not that great a difference between the raw real-world horsepower provided by both GPUs (RSX and Xenos), yet there are serious differences however in their graphics architectures both internal to the GPU chips and externally in the environment in which they are placed. The PS3 graphics system however consists of Cell+RSX, and if you do not use the Cell to feed and help RSX then you will probably get slightly worse performance than the same XB360 game (especially if it is using its eDRAM on its GPU). This is assuming that you are of course using RSX on both its buses, not just the one to "VRAM". Then we have to get down to the fact of if the developer actually ported the code correctly from the XB360, or simply dumped the PPC code running on 3 Xenon cores on the XB360 onto the single PPC core that is the PPE on the PS3 Cell expecting it not to degrade in performance (WTF!).
This entire situation mirrors what RedLambs was saying about the PS2, it that developing for it required techniques quite alien to the way it would say be done on a PC (strangely enough, the bus architecture of the PS3 actually is more akin to that on a PC than the XB360's is - but that's where it ends). The PS2 has a weird central processor and an even weirder graphics processor. It wasn't until about 6 years into its life however that most people actually found out how the feck to use it properly. Most of that was however down to the Graphics Synthesizer (the PS2 GPU) rather than the Emotion Engine (its CPU). Many developers seriously complained about it, but could not really do much about it, because it sold, and is still selling, like hotcakes. That didn't mean that many of them didn't hate it however and thus didn't really bother trying to get their hands really really dirty with it. PS3 isn't anywhere near as whacky, even though many developers think that it is.
It has a standard shader based GPU (Sony dropped their idea of a modified Cell with ROPs in it to do this job, probably because it would have made many a developer consider committing suicide, or maybe it was cost), but a different type of CPU. I don't know what developers such as Valve and ID are complaining about with the Cell, well I do, it's new and different, but they had better get used to it, because the entire computing industry (including Intel) will go down this design route. Cell isn't complex to code for, but it is very very different to what people are used to, and does not have such refined toolsets as even more traditional multi-core processors have. Developers need to be inventive in how they use the Cell to stream data to RSX, and how to get data back from RSX into the Cell; when to do it, how to do it, and possibly even why they are doing it. NB. RSX is not a standard out of the box nVidia GPU, it has had its caches highly tweaked, including support for a Cell SPE to stream data directly into the cache.
PS3 is a much more complex beast than the XB360, but mastering it will provide you with far more horsepower. Failing to master it, or even following the basic rules of how to use it, will make your game look like shit in comparison the XB360 version.
On a final note, I would have preferred it if Sony hadn't gone to nVidia for a standard GPU. They should have build a Cell hybrid (Toshiba was working on this for them - very similar to their own Spurs Engine, but a different aplication) with say 16 ROPs and had XDR memory on both buses. So many tears in the game development community would have been shed over that.
Well said, except I have to take issue on you when you talk about 'developers' not liking something new.
Being a fellow programmer, you know we love new technology, it's the pressure from the idiots running the show that ruins things. I could have (and would have) sat there day in day out getting to the bottom of the PS2 architecture if I had the time and space, and I know most people would love the time to run the PS3 through it's paces.
Sony don't help with their software though, they seriously need to think about hiring people who actually can program in a logical way to write their api's in the future. Nintendo make a huge effort to keep theirs close to OpenGL always and even MS have the rather streamlined console version of DirectX. I know it's a different hardware style on the Sony consoles, but that's no excuse not to invest properly in helping the developer get the most out of the machine.
BTW have you seen the new computer, the RETRO? Harks back to the good 'ol days you're used to
Yes, I agree, sorry, I was being a little unfair here. There was a brilliant thread on the Beyond3D forum about just this, and the very strange things that go on. Sometimes it was actually hard to believe, but then again, you could never discount it. I'll try to dig it up.
BTW have you seen the new computer, the RETRO? Harks back to the good 'ol days you're used to
Never heard of it, shall look it up, is it an emulator?
As for the toolsets, I think that it's much better for the PS3 than it ever was for the PS2. You can hit RSX with OpenGL, or (I think here) you can hit it through something called ICE (developed by Naughty Dog) which is the much more down to the metal knuckle way of doing it. I think ICE however is for the 1st party studios only. They have a thing called EDGE, available to all licenced developers, which does the Cell polygon culling stuff etc. There is a podcast somewhere from Criterion saying that the Sony tools are much less familiar than the Microsoft ones (VS basically), and that they had to force their programmers to use the PS3 tools first. This is the same with any software however in whatever industry, people don't like or are uncomfortable with things that are not familiar - it's one of the major headaches in IT in general. Criterion then go on to say however, that the tools are not of lesser quality. I can imagine the IBM SDK however.