It's time to put the systems in the room to the test and check out how the games look and how the Xbox 360 and PS3 handle upscaling. "If you really wanted to be mean you would have run these tests in 720p or 1080i," I say, referring to the issues that Sony is having with those two resolutions. I appreciate the fact that they wanted to show the PS3 looking as good as possible, and I'm surprised this is something they didn't bring up earlier. They realize what I'm talking about, and Scott Henson opens a small package and shows me what's inside.
"Is that it?" I ask. He nods.
"We call it Ana. This is the scaling chip that's in the 360," he tells me.
It's odd to see it—a tiny little chip—but this may be one of the secret weapons the 360 has against the PS3. The PS3 has no internal hardware scaler, which means games that are 720p native can only be shown in 720p or 480p; there is no scaling up to 1080p or 1080i. This causes people with older HDTVs to have issues with the available resolutions, and keeps them from playing the games in anything but 480p. It's a vexing problem for a system that's supposed to be HD, and this issue is one of the most challenging that Sony faces. I ask the Microsoft guys how important it was for them to include a scaler in the 360.
"It was a critical design decision; we wanted the 360 to be high-definition, not just 1080p or some other standard. That's why we included component cables in the box; there is no HDTV that doesn't have a component in," said Greenberg.
They assume that Sony didn't include a hardware scaler to keep costs down, but get a little cagey when I ask how much it costs to put Ana into the 360. "This isn't a $1,000 scaler," Henson says, "but it's a good one."
It was apparently designed at the same time as the GPU, and the effortless scaling with different televisions was something that was important from the early design stages of the system. I ask if they think this is something that Sony can fix in software.
"It'll be hard," Greenberg answers, "and compatibility testing would be tough with existing software. I think as they update the hardware they'll add a hardware scaler."
I've had the same thought before, but it certainly doesn't make me happy as a first-generation consumer. It will be very interesting to see how Sony ends up fixing this, or if they think it's a problem at all. For the time being, most games will be 720p native, so the majority of HDTV owners will be able to play them. This is an issue that you may or may not care about. Or maybe you have a 1080p set already and this doesn't bother you. It's hard to know just how many people this affects, but you should be aware of which resolutions your television can handle when choosing which system to buy.
Does the lack of hardware scaling affect how games look? We put in a few titles to see.
Resistance: Fall of Man vs. Gears of War
I've played both Gears of War and Resistance: Fall of Man extensively; I gave Gears of War a full review and reviewed Resistance with the PS3. Still, I wanted to see each game on this display to see if a 1080p resolution changed anything.
The first thing it changed was the resolution. When Resistance started, it dumped down into 720p due to the lack of a hardware scaler. Henson turned on the menu of the Bravia to make sure I saw this. I didn't say anything, but the point was made. The game looks great on the Bravia; it's very much a "Call of Duty with mutants"-type of a vibe. I enjoyed the game when I played it, and while it looks great, the graphics are a little on the sterile side. It does have some amazing draw distances later in the game, and is a sharp-looking title. We play for a few moments and chat about the game. Next they put in Gears of War.
The same menu is brought up, and I see that the 360 is upscaling the game into 1080p. Ana is doing a good job, as the game looks fantastic on that display running at that resolution. I find Gears of War a more impressive game graphically; it uses every trick and special effect you can think of to give you some stunning scenes. Of course, this is also a second-generation game and Epic had a very close relationship with Microsoft through the development process—a level of support most developers don't enjoy. It's not a fair comparison at the moment in terms of looking at the power of both systems; we're going to have to wait until the PS3 gets some second-generation games in a year or so. I raise that point.
"Right, but by then we'll have Halo 3. We'll be on the third–generation games. We hope to always be a little bit ahead," Henson counters.
It's clear they hope to use that year-long head start to its fullest. We put in Call of Duty 3 on both systems. Again the PS3 drops the resolution to 720p. We play a bit of the game, and honestly I can't tell a lot of difference between the two versions of the game. The 360 does look a touch better upscaled into 1080p, but it's a subtle difference. They both look great, with only a few differences in coloring. If it wasn't for the resolution advantage of the 360, I don't know if there would have been any real way to tell the difference between the two systems.
They offer to put in Madden, but I decline. I've seen the videos of the game on both systems; I know it'll be about identical.
"Graphics are a wash," Greenberg says, as we compare games. I have to agree; between the multiplatform games there just isn't a difference. I can't wait to see what Sony has coming down the line, but I get the uncomfortable feeling that they will always be a generation behind what the 360 has done. The question is whether or not developers will max out what the 360 can do and if PS3 will be able to pull ahead.
The importance of that scaler is hard to overestimate. It gives the 360 a built-in advantage over the PS3 and it's something Sony needs to work on as soon as they can. Whether it is a software or hardware solution, they're running at a disadvantage on anything but a 720p-native HDTV in terms of games. Movies, on the other hand...
