PS3 vs 360 graphics

wannabedamned · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:09

But half the arguement is, that Xbox 360 can do this that and the other, And the PS3 cant. And the reverse. So dropping the HD from the 360 kinda makes it a lame horse surely, In comparison to a fully equipped PS3

Chrisss · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:09

thedoc46 said:
OK so you don't think having an annoying whooshing sound EVERY time you play a DVD game, detracts from the overall enjoyment? Well I beg to differ. Believe you me any game that is cross platform I will always go for the PS3 version for this very reason. Actually once the PS3 is fully up and running, the 360 may even end up gathering dust. Which is a shame as it's on par with the PS3 graphically.

Can't say I notice the any noise when playing.

Having sound at a decent level blocks out any noise.

Chrisss · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:11

wannabedamned said:
But half the arguement is, that Xbox 360 can do this that and the other, And the PS3 cant. And the reverse. So dropping the HD from the 360 kinda makes it a lame horse surely, In comparison to a fully equipped PS3

Well not really, because Blu-ray isn't really going to make games any better, so the fact that a next-gen movie format isn't included with the 360 doesn't matter.

wannabedamned · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:14

Chrisss said:
Well not really, because Blu-ray isn't recently going to make games any better, so the fact that a next-gen movie format isn't included with the 360 doesn't matter.

But it does. If the HD came in the XBox 360 console, the price of the 360 would likely have been around the same as the PS3.

What if..

360 came out, With built in a HD Player. Around a year after PS3 had been released. But the PS3 didnt have a built in Bluray, It had to be bought extra.

Chances are we would be seeing

£275 for the premium PS3 machine
£140 for the Blu-ray

Thats £415

360 will be £450ish? When released?

--

Would the 360 fans still be annoyed about that sort of price tag?

Emlyn_Dewar · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:16

Yeah but that's not the case, the PS3 costs significantly more for some features that many users will not use.

wannabedamned said:
Would the 360 fans still be annoyed about that sort of price tag?

I doubt the people who complained about the PS3's price would change their mind if the situation was reversed. If the Xbox cost a ridiculous amount because it had an HD-DVD drive integrated into the console, then I know I wouldn't have bought one.

Joebob · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:23

Chrisss said:
Well not really, because Blu-ray isn't really going to make games any better, so the fact that a next-gen movie format isn't included with the 360 doesn't matter.

Of course it will make games better. It has faster access times than DVD and up to 5 times the storage capacity. You can expect to see some software houses in the future wanting to exploit the fact that they now have over 25Gb of data storage to play with.

wannabedamned · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:27

Emlyn_Dewar said:
Yeah but that's not the case, the PS3 costs significantly more for some features that many users will not use.

I doubt the people who complained about the PS3's price would change their mind if the situation was reversed. If the Xbox cost a ridiculous amount because it had an HD-DVD drive integrated into the console, then I know I wouldn't have bought one.

I was under the impression that Bluray for the PS3 is more than a Movie format, Its going to be used for gaming too?

Where as the Xbox 360 is limited to DVD9.

Is that right?

haha, I had my question answered before i asked it

Joebob said:
Of course it will make games better. It has faster access times than DVD and up to 5 times the storage capacity. You can expect to see some software houses in the future wanting to exploit the fact that they now have over 25Gb of data storage to play with.

Mr Latte · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:31

Joebob said:
Of course it will make games better. It has faster access times than DVD and up to 5 times the storage capacity. You can expect to see some software houses in the future wanting to exploit the fact that they now have over 25Gb of data storage to play with.

You havnt got a clue....

Emlyn_Dewar · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:32

Agrees with the above poster.

Mr Latte · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:33

According to specs....

Compared to the 360's 12x DVD drive, transferring speeds at 16MB/second, the PS3's Blu-Ray drive limps along at 2x speed, transferring at 9MB/second.

Still waiting for anyone to give good reasons for buying a PS3 at launch????

Joebob · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:38

Mr Latte said:
According to specs....

Compared to the 360's 12x DVD drive, transferring speeds at 16MB/second, the PS3's Blu-Ray drive limps along at 2x speed, transferring at 9MB/second.

Still waiting for anyone to give good reasons for buying a PS3 at launch????

D'oh! thought I read somewhere that Blu-ray was faster access time tan standard DVD... oh well!

Nogimmix · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:39

Joebob said:
Of course it will make games better. It has faster access times than DVD and up to 5 times the storage capacity. You can expect to see some software houses in the future wanting to exploit the fact that they now have over 25Gb of data storage to play with.

Current games and next gen games do not need 25gb of storage. If it can take a software house a few years to develop a game just to fit on a DVD, just imagine how long and also expensive it will be to develop one that fits on a 25gb blu-ray disc :eek:

Joebob · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:47

Nogimmix said:
Current games and next gen games do not need 25gb of storage. If it can take a software house a few years to develop a game just to fit on a DVD, just imagine how long and also expensive it will be to develop one that fits on a 25gb blu-ray disc

well beleive it or not but there are a few games out there for last gen consoles which have reached the capacity of dual layer DVD's already!!!

The computer games industry makes higher profits than both film and music combined, so why would they put the extra effort in to keep getting customers to buy their products? Obviousley there are companies like EA who just bring out a slightly modified version of the same games every year, but there are others who genuinely try to add more content and depth to their games than consumers might otherwise expect.

Also, you have to remember that these consoles will be around now for quite a few years, so the only way to get more levels etc in later games to come will be to have more data storage.

Imagine if you bought a PC which you knew you would be unable to upgrade for ten years. Wouldnt you want the very best you could get in that PC to make sure it was as future proof as possible?

Johnnytoxic · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:48

The PS3 to me is just a more complete futureproof package. I hate addons and bluray is only an advantage to ps3 in the long run.

Mr Latte · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:50

So much silly nonsense being talked regards storage capacity...
Seems so many of you have been scooped by the Sony HYPE machine.

A Fine Example:
"Resistance" is not in any way superior to "Gears" judging by reviews, although "Resistance" uses 22GB on a Blu Ray against the approx 7 GB that "Gears" has.

Is "Resistance" 3x the size of a game and is it technically superior?
Seems a very lossy compression if any was used doesnt it, mmmm

wannabedamned · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:52

Mr Latte said:
A Fine Example:
"Resistance" is not in any way superior to "Gears" judging by reviews, although "Resistance" uses 22GB on a Blu Ray against the approx 7 GB that "Gears" has.

Is "Resistance" 3x the size of a game and is it technically superior?
Seems a very lossy compression if any was used doesnt it, mmmm

It doesnt use the full 22gb for the game, Its just used up space, Which is common in games

Johnnytoxic · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:52

Mr Latte said:
So much silly nonsense being talked regards storage capacity...
Seems so many of you have been scooped by the Sony HYPE machine.

A Fine Example:
"Resistance" is not in any way superior to "Gears" judging by reviews, although "Resistance" uses 22GB on a Blu Ray against the approx 7 GB that "Gears" has.

Is "Resistance" 3x the size of a game and is it technically superior?
Seems a very lossy compression if any was used doesnt it, mmmm

If you got it flaunt it lol

Mr Latte · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:54

wannabedamned said:
It doesnt use the full 22gb for the game, Its just used up space, Which is common in games

I think the example was to show that storage capacity does not mean technically superior games, As said earlier PS2 , Gamecube and the PC have used multiple disc games in the past with no problem why cant a X360 title be on more than one DVD?

Blu Ray is not an advantage or certainly as yet hasnt been proven to be.

Joebob · 10 Dec 2006 at 19:59

Mr Latte said:
A Fine Example:
"Resistance" is not in any way superior to "Gears" judging by reviews, although "Resistance" uses 22GB on a Blu Ray against the approx 7 GB that "Gears" has.

So you are only left with 2GB for future episodes like Gears II. Looks like your in for more of the same then.

Don't you get fedup with games being released which you can play through just too damn quick? I know I found PREY to be a huge dissapointment as i completed it in little over a weekend!

Oooh, my 500th post... do I get a badge?

Mr Latte · 10 Dec 2006 at 20:06

Joebob said:
So you are only left with 2GB for future episodes like Gears II. Looks like your in for more of the same then.

Looks like you dont read others posts, lol.
"Why cant a X360 game be spread across more than 1xDVD?
HELLO therfore 9GB limit isnt a problem"