Microsoft Worried About Games Looking Better On PS3

Come on microsoft release your next xbox so that all 3rd party studios can do better looking games.

11 up, 2 down

That may be true, but being a Sony fan (admittingly), I don't want the next Xbox to release too soon cause then Sony would have to release theirs quickly after, unless they want to fall behind again. I want the ps3 to last at least 2 more years.

2 up, 0 down

This is why next year's release of the Wii U is such a positive thing for the PS3.

The Wii U is as powerful as the PS3 and if this console takes off, then developers would need to develop games that take full advantage of its power.

What this means for us, is that developers probably would leave behind the aging 360 and focus their attention on the PS3 and Wii U. Creating games that are too powerful for the 360. And by creating them for those consoles, they can save costs and enhance their chances of making back $$$$

2 up, 0 down

PS3 fans have been saying that the 360 is inferior technology for quite some time. Glad to see someone from the industry actually say something, even if it's just from an analyst.

29 up, 0 down

In all fairness didn't we see a similar situation last generation? The PS2 had the inferior graphics compared to the original Xbox and Gamecube. It all comes down to the software and currently MS seems more interested in its exclusive DLC model than exclusive games.

16 up, 0 down

Not really. The PS2 didn't hold back the Xbox, some developers made use of the extra power and storage space the Xbox had.

9 up, 0 down

..and some developers take advantage of the PS3's Blu-ray and extra power.

12 up, 0 down

Yeah, but did the PS2 had such policies?

To be fair, I don't even know if Microsoft currently has a policy that limits developers like this. It makes sense in terms of business, but errr, I wish they'd be less greedy. It makes me think what kind of game Skyrim will really be if it didn't have to equal the X360 version.

3 up, 0 down

My son is at University working on a degree for video game development and I would like him to have every opportunity possible, so any limitation to development is a bad thing.

---

Last edited by Shepherd Book on 9/8/2011 10:05:55 PM

1 up, 0 down

... Actually, to master those limitations is what he must learn to handle for the rest of his career ;)

---

Last edited by Beamboom on 9/9/2011 1:08:33 AM

8 up, 0 down

I think the landscape for MS going forward will be one fought with exhaustive efforts to maintain control over what they don't have direct control over.
I see so much of their empire built on a sandy foundation. A business model that demands a subscription model online service to maintain positive growth. Something that receives ire from their partners and fans who ask, "why aren't they going free?" A relatively small shift in console ownership away from MS may amount to 100's of millions of lost revenue.
They've also invested ample amounts of resources in 3rd party ventures, rather than grow their base horizontally. Don't think Gear's exclusivity comes cheap. Heck, the game was intentionally delayed because it was made into MS's marquee holiday product. I'd just love to see how much they laid down in front of Activision to maintain that "competitive edge." That move was done out of desperation. No parent should have to bow down to their subordinates to stay viable. MS's empire was built on mimicking the Playstation during Xbox's early days. They're alive today because they succeeded with LIVE and HALO. A culture of online competitive gamer. All it takes is a direct shot at that foundation and they'll crumble like a stack of cards, farming Halo out to the highest bidders. Don't think it can't happen. A generational shift in market share at the dawn of a new generation may be all the leverage necessary to break the back bone that holds them all together.

7 up, 0 down

This is typical Microsoft though, they do not compete through their product. So instead they use contracts, lock-ins and money to stave off real competition that their inferior product cannot stand up to on it's own.

9 up, 0 down

Yup. My assumption is they use most of that extra money from online gaming for advertising and timed exclusivity. And it's working great!

0 up, 0 down

I don't know if anyone can confirm or not, but I do remember reading somewhere that much of their advertising costs are off-set by some of their more popular divisions, like PC development/sales.

0 up, 0 down

Yes, Microsoft do cross subsidize the Xbox division using their other divisions. The original Xbox was a sea of red ink, and the 360 only makes a profit if you completely write off the development costs and the $1+ billion spent on repairing RRODs. Note though that they offered no compensation to those customers.

0 up, 0 down

So... guys. Microsoft holding the industry back? Confirmed.

19 up, 0 down

Not that it needed comfirming, mind you, but it sure is nice to hear an insider say it. :)

3 up, 0 down

So basically all these developers crying out loud about how they want the next generation of coonsoles to come should really be saying, "Hey Microsoft! We can't produce what we want with your outdated hardware."

Seeing as how the PS3 has been untapped by so many 3rd parties and Nintendo has already confirmed that they have a new console on the way.

3 up, 0 down

Apparently it isn't holding their sales back.

2 up, 6 down

wixostrix -

No one said the bulk of consumers were smart either.

7 up, 0 down

Just like I've always been saying right from the beginning....the 360's a console of lesser discabilities!!!!!!


<<<<Microsoft fans will be absolutely furious>>>>

No!!!!! Playstation fans should be the ones who are absolutely furious.....for MS constantly watering down our gaming pleasure causing the dumbing down of multiplats.....& throwing Brinks armored trucks of cash to sway greedy unscrupulous developers who gobble up their cashola payments like there's no tomorrow.

16 up, 0 down

You don't think Sony would do the same thing if they we're in the same situation? People get all upset about Microsoft using their money to better their brands and ecosystem. But what are they supposed to do, just sit there and hope good things come their way?

4 up, 6 down

@Wixostrix
I bet you that most people here, including myself, would be equally upset at Sony if they were doing the same thing. If I look at my gaming history, this is the first generation I've played -almost- exclusively one console. And I've been gaming for over 2 decades. I am a Sony fan, sure, but only because they've made me a happy consumer and have given me no reason to dislike their business practice. If they ever turn tail and pull some fast ones as Microsoft has done this generation, I assure you I will quickly lose favor in Sony products.

They aren't currently, however, hence the negative looks towards Microsoft and favor towards Sony at this time.

---

Last edited by Underdog15 on 9/9/2011 8:32:49 AM

7 up, 0 down

@wixostrix

You know, there is a very curious thing here. As someone who might be best called an industry watcher, possibly even a professional analyst, I have watched MS in the business and consumer markets since 1985, I've watched Sony for about the same amount of time, and with the exception of perhaps 2 specific instances, Sony has not really done anything to earn consumer dislike. microsoft on the other hand has used business and marketing tactics that have placed business customers and consumers at a disadvantage for nearly all of the 26 year period I'm talking about. Microsoft has stifled competition, they've snuffed out far, far more businesses than they've ever even thought about partnering with, they darn near killed market competition in the desktop OS market, to the point where the only competing systems are either free, or a system that maintains a complete proprietory lock in on the hardware as well. If your only open competition is a free product, you have pretty much killed competition. The same is true in the office productivity market. There's Microsoft Office, and then there's...well...um...Open Office. Which is, um, free. Again, Microsoft killed the competition, or drove it so far from the mainstream market that it only exists in a miniscule niche now.

Microsoft stated categorically that their intention with the original Xbox was to dominate the living room as they had dominated the PC world. The original Xbox sold largely in the US market, and unsurprisingly, the US market has been fertile ground for them this generation too. But that happened despite this generation of Xbox having the worst product reliability and longevity of any consumer electronics device in living memory. Not to mention the fact that they make you pay twice to play with your friends online - once for the game and once for the XBL subscription that's required for their locked in, proprietary network.

Yet despite all this (and *SO* much more I won't mention since this is a comment and not a 5 page article), Microsoft retains the goodwill of their fans and the media in the US.

By comparison, Sony has made consistently excellent consumer electronics, and shaped the entire gaming industry with the original Playstation, PS2 and now PS3. They propelled both DVD and BluRay into the mass market, and have been responsible for hundreds of millions of game consoles, and billions of games sold to consumers. Their two biggest mis-steps (things that they did specifically 'wrong) were the Sony BMG copy protection Scandal - which was completely the fault of, and limited to BMG, not Sony in general; and...um...let's see...

Sony endured horrible publicity when they had to recall millions of Lithium Ion batteries at their expense because of a rare and slight manufacturing flaw, they replaced those batteries for consumers for free BTW. Hmmm...they sold a game console for the blistering price of $500/$600 that included a BluRay player which at the time retailed stand alone for $500/$600, oh and the console was comparable to gaming PCs of the time which retailed in the $1000+ range, and the thing cost $900 to make, so it was sold at a $300 loss (obviously a very anti-consumer action). Oh yeah, and they proactively terminated their own gaming network to protect customers at the cost of $100+ million directly to themselves, as well as at the cost of their partners and consumer goodwill thanks to an extended outage while security was completely revamped.

I mean seriously, gamers, the gaming media and the tech media in the US have tarred and feathered Sony repeatedly over the last decade, over what exactly? In the last 10-15 years Microsoft has been convicted of multiple anti-trust and monopoly offenses in the US and elsewhere, they've escaped judgement on numerous occasions thanks to some very quick footwork and empty promises that were generally not even kept - thanks to 'changing market conditions'. Oh, BTW, organizations investigated in matters of monopolistic behavior or anti-trust matters are universally acknowledged to be acting against consumer interests - almost by definition.

So, why is it that Sony is the target of the Inquisition, while Microsoft still get's away with playing like a member of the tribunal?

Odd isn't it? Believe me, after watching the industry for as long as I have, it still strikes me as odd, and wrong, but sadly, no longer a surprise.

12 up, 0 down

@Highlander

Maybe money bribing people? No idea.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander,

There's one thing that MS does that makes their business structure highly successful.

Their aim is to be the dominant product, and for all people who don't like the product to be forced to use it because other important people in their lives use it as well.

In the 1980's, DOS and eventually Windows were shipped either preinstalled or packaged with all IBM computers. IBM was the leading computer hardware company with cheaper and easier to use products compared to the competition. MS used IBM's popularity to get a very strong foothold on the IT industry in its infancy, and drove Windows to be the most used OS around the world. Many companies used Windows, so more businesses used windows so they could compete on the same levels as the bigshots. The employees got so used to using Windows that it soon crossed into personal computers and the homes of millions of people.

MS then used a closed source code with all their products, therefore limiting everyone to use ONLY MS products if they wanted their Office file, games or other programs to work on the majority of the world's PC's.

MS is being incredibly smart with their business plan, even if it is a form of tech bullying and manipulation of the industry. So long as the sheep don't catch wind of this, they're products will sell.

They did the same with 360. The original Xbox had many problems, it was expensive, it was big and loud, it came out later than the competition, it didn't have many games, but there were two things it did have:

Xbox Live and Halo 2

Through Xbox Live, MS knew they had hit a winning formula, particularly with Western gamers. People without an Xbox would want to get an Xbox simply to play games with their friends, even if they really wanted a PS2 instead. The social gaming phenomenon was born!!

But the problems with the Xbox I mentioned before prevented it from dominating. MS knew this and did several things with the 360 to ensure a market lead.

1. Release the 360 console before the competition.

2. Focus on social games with online multiplayer from the very beginning.

3. A Halo game in HD within the first year of the console's life cycle.

4. Pack social gaming hardware (headset) with the console to ensure everyone will want to get one simply to play altogether.

Even if they charged for Xbox Live, MS knew people would pay since it was far beyond the PSN's capabilities at the time of release.

Not only that, but by promoting Americanised culture and beliefs of social gaming, leaderboards and affordability over quality (this is in regards to MS products, not all US products), the 360 would get an early foothold on the gaming industry much like they did in the IT industry in the 1980's.

With so many sheep wanting to play with friends, people were willing to look past the poorer quality of the 360 and were willing to pay less for their product. This, combined with MS being an American-based company, propelled all US gamers and many European gamers to go with the 360 in the first place.

By the time the RRoD problem came to surface, MS had already established a strong foothold in gamers' living rooms. Gamers had already purchased Live Arcade games, disc-based games like Perfect Dark Zero and Gears of War, and had already placed enormous amounts of their social life onto Xbox Live. MS offered to replace the consoles for free, therefore earning the trust of these dedicated gamers.

With cross game chat from the start, a superior online gaming network and an install base much larger than the competition's a year after launch, MS' plan to dominate was already in motion. But then Sony stepped up their game, and MS were hit with some unexpected events...

- Removal of B/C made the PS3 cheaper.
- Uncharted and Heavenly Sword showed what the PS3 was capable of.
- Metal Gear Solid 4 was the first game to pull perfect reviews next to GTA IV.
- Sony sent PS3 dev kits to all developers to improve multiplat performance.
- The PSN was consistantly updated until it rivalled Live around late 2008 (minus cros game chat)
- PS3's were offered for free with Sony Bravia televisions.
- Gone were the weird advertising campaigns that were trying so hard to pull your attention. ENTER KEVIN BUTLER!!
- Kevin Butler introduced the $299 slim model PS3. The world was beginning to struggle with hating PS3.
- AAA exclusive titles began flooding in and dominated gaming news headlines.


MS didn't expect a lot of these moves, so continued to force 360's on the public with special deals, bundles, offers with PC's, laptops, even giving out free slim 360's to everyone at the 2010 E3 conference in an attempt to buy back support!!

And now, after PS3 fans have been screaming for so long, analysts and developers are starting to see the 360's use-by-date drawing closer and closer. PSN allowed social gaming for free, and the number of AAA exclusives meant that there was a bigger choice of game genres for gamers to choose from.

With Vita using cross game chat, video chat, party chat, messaging, Skype, Youtube, Twitter and Facebook all for free on a handheld, MS must now look to "innovative" technologies to use with their social networking service. Enter Kinect and a $200 million marketing campaign to force the sheep to buy it.

As for the future... with PSN growing in quality every year, the PS3 dropping in price every year, the PS3 getting more exclusives every year and Xbox Live becoming more redundant every year with less people paying for online gaming, the future is definitely looking brighter for Sony compared to MS. Halo can't support them forever.

2 up, 0 down

Dance machine, I'm extremely well aware of MS business practice and how they rose to dominance. I was there.

You're forgetting the original PC-DOS which preceded MS-DOS. Your forgetting the horrible early Windows and how MS betrayed their contracts with IBM over OS/2. You described embrace, extend, extinguish - the MS business philosophy, but didn't quire get to the point about that practice. The point being it's entirely anti-competitive.

I don't think MS is being smart, they are being brutal, and that is often effective. They are using their position in other markets as a way to influence some publishers, and of course great big wads of cash when that isn't enough. Brutally efficient, but not terribly smart.

2 up, 0 down

I wouldn't care if it was the PS3 that was the inferior console,sony's black box has hands down the best exclusives which is why i bought a 60gig back in 2007 in the first place....i knew the games were coming.

6 up, 0 down

These guys aren't saying anything I haven't already suspected for years now. This is why third party games rarely utilize the PS3 hardware advantages such as Blu-Ray, the standard HDD and the powerful CELL processor. This is also why most of the games in my collection this generation are PS3 exclusives.

1 up, 0 down

Once developers figured out how to use the Cell properly as well as using it in tandem with RSX, things started to happen and games on the PS3 started to pull away from the 360. That was the point behind the PS3's more complex hardware design. All those developers whining about it, need to look again at what is possible with the architecture.

But this is exactly what happened with the PS2. PS2 featured a CPU with three 'cores'; a general purpose MIPSII/IV core, custom SIMD execution unit, and two custom vector processors that were custom designed to provide very high floating point performance. It took a while for developers to fully understand how to best utilize the resources of the Emotion Engine, and the GS. The EE and GS shared a dedicated data bus for data transfer directly between the two units, and much like Cell and RSX they could work in tandem.

Once developers understood the PS2 architecture and how to best take advantage of it, the results were awesome. In fact, there is really no better demonstration of the power of that PS2 architecture than the fact that more than 10 years later there is no way to adequately emulate the system in software because emulation cannot yet match the sheer bandwidth involved in the EE and GS chips.

The PS3 is similarly extremely high performance, it uses a general purpose CPU core with multiple floating point units as well as a GPU with custom logic and very wide data bus links to video and system memory, and the CellBE itself. Conceptually, the PS3 architecture is similar to the PS2. Just like the PS2, it's only when designers understand that architecture that maximum performance can be achieved, and look at the results when that happens. Games look far better than games con comparable platforms that do not implement such a deep level of high performance in their design.

The 360 is a powerful system, but instead of building the system architecture around maximizing that power, the 360 design is aimed to make tapping the available power as easy as possible - at the expense of the available performance. So while the Ps3 has what might be called hidden depth, the 360 does not, and the best it can do is well known already. The best that the Ps3 can do is still being established. In many ways the technical capability of the PS3 outstrips the 360 hardware, but only when the software designers use it correctly. Now that more of them are using it correctly, games are looking better and better - even 3rd party multi-platform games are beginning to benefit. This is the problem for MS, they cannot find extra performance in their system because they designed their system to immediately expose more or less all it has to offer.

People can criticize Sony over their approach, but really and truly, the proof is in the pudding. As the life of the PS3 has progresses, games have improved incrementally, and even 5 years into the life of the system, they continue to improve. It's no surprise that MS feels like they have to defend their platform through means other than the capability of their product - they have no other choice.

9 up, 0 down

@TheHighlander

Excellent post and great insight into the hardware of these consoles. Do you think Sony will do anything differently with the PS4? Do you think they might reuse updated versions of the tech in the PS3 in order to cut costs which will allow them to price the PS4 allot more competitively than the PS3 was at launch? I'm thinking they could use an updated CELL processor with 2 or 3 PPE cores and 16 or more SPEs, they could also reuse Blu-Ray instead of making yet another new disk media.

IMO there are 3 reasons the PS3 wasn't the dominant console that the PS2 was.

1) Because of the cutting edge tech in the PS3 Sony had to charge $500-$600 at launch which was too much for allot of people.

2) For almost a year after the PS3 launched there was a dearth of killer app. games, Resistance: FOM was the best PS3 game for quite awhile.

3) Microsoft was allot more aggressive this time around bribing third party developers for timed exclusives and getting once PS exclusive games like GTA and FF to come to their system as well.

With the PS4 I think Sony needs to do 2 things differently at launch. Firstly they need to price the PS4 more competitively and secondly they need to have more quality games early on in the PS4's life-cycle.

3 up, 0 down

I think that the third of the reasons you cite for the PS3's slow start is the most important, the PS2 was very expensive - for it's time, as was the original PlayStation. The biggest change this generation was Microsoft and their year long head start.

Regarding a potential PS3, I think (and have been saying the same since 2008) that they will evolve the PS3 design into a PS3. There are three main reasons I think this. The first is cost. Sticking with the same family of CPU and GPU builds on the existing design and saves on the design and development costs for the hardware.Sticking with the same family of chips makes backwards compatibility easy, and does not invalidate the many 1000's of hours of learning and experience that developers have with the PS3 architecture. The second thing is continuity of service, I think that the PS4 will be part of PSN and services such as Home. It will need to coexist with PS3 and Vita, and so it needs to retain a great deal of compatibility in software and networking terms. Once again this points to evolving the system design rather than wholesale change. Last, the Vita is a quad core CPU and quad core GPU design - in a handheld. It's perfectly clear that Sony is continuing to work with multi-core designs and has substantially improved it's development tools - according to Vita developers.

So I think that the PS4 will maintain software compatibility to build on the library of games and knowledge, reduce costs maintain customer loyalty through compatibility with the PS3 and continuity in PSN services, and finally the PS4 will add many more cores in line with the philosophy that has them building a hand held with two quad core chips in it.

Therefore I expect that the CPU will be either a dual Cell design using the updated PowerXcell8i processor core, but two of them on the same chip with more cache. Or the CPU will be a derivative of the Power 7 architecture, and Sony will add a Spurs co-processor (the Spurs is a co-procssor that consists of only the SPUs from a CellBE). That would provide everything needed to properly emulate the CellBE. The GPU will more than likely be an nVidia design, probably based on their latest Fermi designs. The computing power of two enhanced Cell CPUs, or a Power 7 supplemented by a Spurs married to a Fermi GPU would be extremely high. Possibly sufficient to handle real time ray tracing at an HD resolution.

The other thing I expect such a PS4 design to enable is full software emulation of the PS2. If the PS3 had two Cells in it now, it could manage that because I am certain that a CellBE could emulate the GS chip in a PS2, but it would take nearly 100% of the internal resources to manage it, meaning you need a second Cell to handle the EE emulation and the rest of the system tasks. So a PS4 based on a twin Cell design could literally be the one playstation to rule them all.

Of course, Sony could go in a completely different direction and use a scaled up design based on many ARM cores and a Fermi style GPU. Personally I would prefer the Cell or Power7 route.

---

Last edited by Highlander on 9/9/2011 10:22:56 PM

4 up, 0 down

you know what's even more insullting that sony has been beaten by this inferior technology. what does that say about consumers? plus the consoles are pretty evenly matched.the only real difference advantage that sony has in blu ray format. sony don't even totally take advantage of that themselves. kz3 completion time 5-6 frs, r3 7-9 hrs. infamous2 can be banged out in a few days.

2 up, 3 down

It means they're fine with settling. This reminds me of a conversation I had with a relative. He was going on about Xbox perfect online, all the best exclusives. Of course he brought up the Sony hack. He said Xbox v ps3 is classic iPhone v Droid debate. That's when I said he's right u pay more for less with an Xbox

And here u got a guy, a credible analyst and even he is saying Sony should have the upper hand.

3 up, 0 down

Just because the technology is inferior doesn't mean it isn't good. Consumers don't know the internal differences of consoles and why should they? It's not Microsoft's fault that Sony put in such powerful hardware that only made their device wickedly expensive and difficult to develop for early on. If Sony would have scaled back a bit and launched at a more competitive price points they would have more devices out there and more persuasion in the industry.

1 up, 9 down

Wixostrix

i agreee with that. making the hardware so tough to code for and making it so wickedly expensive as you say created a situation where consumers did not even recognize the ps3 as being superior. that is by no means ms's fualt and is real good example of a company shooting itself in foot.

had the ps3 luanched at a more competitive price plus had some games that actually looking better on the ps3 things would have ended up way better for them. the ps3's luanch was just atrocious. the games did not look nearly as good as the 360's and it was way overpriced. that's the main reason consumer's bolted. hell if they love multiplats and ms's exclusives i can't really argue they made the wrong choice.

1 up, 6 down

@bigred

i know exactly the type of gamer you are talking about. all i have to say about that is if the 360 gets a free pass on rrod then surely sony deserves one for the psn debacle.

3 up, 0 down

*rolls eyes, shakes head, and moves on*

---

Last edited by Underdog15 on 9/9/2011 8:35:53 AM

6 up, 0 down

Couldn't agree more. No internet service or computer can remain unscathed forever. Hackers viruses and crashes are always a constant.

4 up, 0 down

I didn't wanna comment on this article cause I could go on for days but I just had to reply to wixostrix's comment.

1st of all, Microsoft had ZERO business trying to enter the console race having ZERO exp developing hardware, they are a software company battling a hardware GIANT and you say Sony should have pulled their punches??? That makes no sense at all seeing as how everytime Sony puts out a new console the tech advances in so many ways, when the PS came out we got CDs when the PS2 came out we got DVDs and when the PS3 came out we got Blu-rays and that's the bare minimum of my argument. I'll admit i don't know much about the internal stuff, but I know enough to know that Sony was gonna bring their A-game and MS should have known it too. That's what Sony does, they continue to push themselves and in turn everyone else grows which is the complete opposite for MS who seem to limit themselves and take steps backwards pulling everyone down with them.

8 up, 0 down

PS3 is definitely the more powerful machine, and that's awesome. But even if it was the least powerful, that doesn't matter as much as we make it out to. The PS2 was the best console last gen, but it was the least powerful. The gamecube is next, as the 2nd most powerful. While it didn't have as many great exclusives, well, they had Metroid and Zelda :P Xbox, which was really far ahead of its competition as far as computer power goes, just had the worst games.

Graphics are important. CPU power is important. Multiplats might be slightly better if the consoles had equal power. Yep, all those things are true. But let's not forget a game should be measured by game design and not its technology - anyone play Starfox recently?

2 up, 0 down

The PS2 was no push over though, infact when MGS2 was put onto the xbox, many of the effects did not translate to the hardware at all. It was older yes, but it still could do more unique things than than the xbox could, just like now.

8 up, 0 down

Exactly. Xbox had more raw power measured by PC standards, but the PS2 design offered hidden reserves which, when used correctly, allowed for surprisingly close results.

Compare GOW 2 to any Xbox game.

Similarly, Splinter Cell 1 was *much* better on Xbox, but SC 3 was nearly identical on both systems.

In any event, as WP said, a small margin in power (and 2x is a small margin by computing standards) is essentially meaningless when it comes to game play.

---

Last edited by Fane1024 on 9/9/2011 7:31:02 AM

4 up, 0 down

huh?
what games he been playing?
last time i checked the 360 versions of multiplatform games are FAR better then the ps3 versions!
dead island for example has far less screen tearing and texture pop in on the 360.

2 up, 15 down

Far better? seriously lay off the drugs buddy, theres not a whole lot of games recently that looks much worse on one console or performs much worse like Bayonetta.

Even worse, you pick a game thats plague with bugs across the board, for all systems

---

Last edited by aaronisbla on 9/9/2011 6:35:19 AM

11 up, 1 down

no, not at all so then i guess dead island, deus ex and warhammer 40K dont exist!
rolls eyes.
im done arguing with you idiots, im trying to make a point and id have better luck convincing a 80 year old granny out of her bad habits!
O, and dead island does not have problems on all platforms.
its actually one of the VERY few PC games that actually runs flawlessly!
i have not had any texture pop in that plagues the ps3 version, no freezing, no frame rate drops.
runs perfectly!

1 up, 12 down

Does this mean that us "idiots" won't have to read your posts anymore?

10 up, 0 down

@ " "

So you must own all 4 versions of Dead Island to know this, correct?

8 up, 0 down

Do you mean the pc version that was so buggy on steam that techland had to issue an apology? Nice try

5 up, 0 down

you came to a ps3 website to fight for the xbox 360. nice try.

---

Last edited by thatguy6598 on 9/9/2011 8:20:56 PM

3 up, 0 down

@blankline

far better is harsh but i agree there are noticable differences in a lot of games. i've been lectured to when i've said this, but i would charactrise the differences as small, but definetly noticable. i was at my cousin's a couple of weeks ago and he had just got fallout 3, and fallout new vegas. they are two bug riddled games but i think they look and play noticeably better on 360. they weren't released that long ago, and it would take a blind man not to spot the differences. i was kind of surprised becuase its widely held oblivion was better on the ps3 so i don't know what the deal is with the fallout games on the ps3.

you know what's damn odd? last gen when the xbox was the more powerful system you could usaually see evidence of that in its mutliplats such as max payne, splinter cell, or the ea sports titles. this gen the multiplat titles on the more powerful system look a little worse. i find that very pecular and it makes me look forward to next gen to reverse this strange phenomenon.

---

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 9/9/2011 8:00:59 AM

0 up, 3 down

How can you be happy without looking into -all- the reasons behind all this?

Perhaps you should ask yourself questions that aren't so one sided. Like how a game like FFXIII is not just noticeably better on PS3, but scaled to a much better resolution despite being only on one disc.

When there are design flaws on the PS3 version is one things... but when there are spec differences on one over the other, that's completely different.

If the discussion was one sided and all multiplats were better on 360, you'd have a point. However, that is hardly the case. To me, that indicates flaws in a developer. I'm not sure it's accurate nor fair for you to draw conclusions without observing the whole of the problem.

I could argue, for example, that the PS2 version of FFXI was just as good as the 360 version... But if I decide to be honest, that argument doesn't hold any weight as it doesn't observe the whole issue at hand.

I just don't think you should only look at the stats you want to look at before forming conclusions. It would be worth your while to consider everything at hand.

---

Last edited by Underdog15 on 9/9/2011 8:47:27 AM

6 up, 0 down

i'm well aware of all the superior ps3 multiplats ff13. oblivion, castlevannia los, portal 2. la noire and maybe me2, the problem is i can count them on one hand. it should be way more than that on the more powerful system right? that sounds logical to me but that's not the situation at all. i agree this could represent flaws in the developers(and it probably does) but in the end i have judge the situation by what my eyes tell me. most of the time the differences are only small, but it still bugs a little bit. ofcourse this is just my opinion.

maybe the 360 is holding the ps3 back. the ps3 has advantages with blu ray disc space. would developers opt to fill that up with content if the 360 had equal in storage space? i don't know or would it cost prohibitive? is the ps3's unique architecture holding itself back? i think a case could be made for that. it just seems like its such a squeeze to get great results for a lot of developers. again, that's just my small opinion. maybe i would not care as much if i owned both systems or if i hadn't seen the other games running on the 360 myself. i'm intrerested in skyrim for example. are there going to be differences between the two versions like fallout games? i don't know but for me its a legitmate concern.

0 up, 3 down

I absolutely agree with just about all of that. But I think your concerns are what is misplaced. The concerns are valid concerns, yes, but I think you direct them in the wrong direction.

For me, I see things like developer Valve. Originally, they trashed the PS3 for not being developer friendly, and effectively called it a pile of garbage. As technology and development has been unlocked and discovered, they have completely changed their tunes and almost completely jumped ship. In fact, I think Valve is ticked at Microsoft for not being open to things like Steam. We read about this a lot when Portal 2 was released.

I think that most 3rd party devs want to go multiplat, not because they love Sony or Microsoft, but because they hit a larger demographic by making it available to everyone. Most of the major differences between one system and the other in multiplats is apparent when games are made for one system, then later decide to go to the other. It's why FFXIII is so much better on PS3 (it started on that), and why Bayonetta is so much better on 360 (is was ported to PS3 well into development on 360).

The even par or at least close to even par games appear when games are made multiplat from the start. In those situations, I believe it will tilt one way or the other depending on the skillsets of the developers. Not because one system is better than the other. With Sony experience, a dev will likely make the Sony product better, and vice versa for Microsoft experienced devs.

But when I read comments like what Valve says, or Square Enix concerning FFXIV (back when it wasn't released yet), when they say that Microsoft doesn't give them freedom or control over their games on the network, for example, that raises red flags for me. Clearly Sony has proven to be developer friendly while Microsoft needs to have control of the market. All of Microsofts tactics have nothing to do with quality assurance... it has everything to do with monopolizing any and all services they provide... something they have done for years before gaming.

I'm just not convinced it has anything to do with how Sony has done things. I think devs have to make compromises to survive. But I'm not convinced it's due to any shortcomings of Sony.

3 up, 0 down

Further translation?

"Our hardware is now very dated and we must bribe our way to get the games, exclusives and exclusive items we want."

---

Last edited by Doppel on 9/9/2011 8:30:46 AM

5 up, 0 down

If it wasn't for Kinect, 360 would be dragging way behind right now.

If it wasn't for the incredibly high fail rate, we would have a more accurate number of total 360 console sales.

If MS hadn't bought Halo in 2000 (a Mac game at the time), the Xbox would've been a complete failure and the gaming landscape would be vastly different from what it is today.

Like I said in the last major post about 360 vs PS3, the fact that 360 sales are still so high even though there are far better exclusives on PS3, the PS3 is a higher performing console AND the PS3 has more features for around the same price, something sinister is going on.

What I can't believe is that people are still supporting this dinosaur of a console well after the exclusive well has dried up to a tiny puddle and multiplat games are finally running as well, if not better, on the PS3.

Like I said, Microsoft rushed their console to come out first, gain momentum first and establish itself as the ultimate social gaming device that you must have because your friends have it too.

I can honestly say, nearly half my friends who own a 360 right now have expressed interest in getting a PS3 simply for the exclusives!! Either that, or they wanted to get a PS3 in the first place, but their friends peer pressured them into getting a 360, simply to play with them.

How many 360 gamers out there would prefer PS3 games had they not been peer pressured into joining friends on Halo and CoD?

I was one of the fortunate ones, I got a PS3 first, built up my game collection on that, then saved to get a 360 just for Halo 3 and Gears 2 so I could play with friends.

Sorry, getting off topic...

In regards to the article, I hope there are more comments and articles about this to finally turn the tables on MS and create Fear, Doubt and Uncertainty about the 360's longevity. Sure, it has Kinect and Halo 4 on the horizon, but nothing else!!

People who have previewed Star Wars Kinect said it sucked.

Gears of War franchise has finished. Gears 3 is the last one, so that's one less exclusive for 360.

Fable has turned into a lame Kinect game.

Shooters are popular on the PS3 as well, and while many people prefer the 360 controller design, there are converter cables for 360 controllers and even 360 designed PS3 controller on sale almost everywhere!!

So unless you're a Halo fanboy, a huge Kinect lover, a big fan of Forza (over GT5?!?! Clearly not a real racing enthusiast) or just love cross game chat too much, there isn't a lot of incentive to own a 360 in the future.

Would not surprise me to see MS and Sony reveal their new consoles at E3 2012. MS need a new console, the 360 is just too old, and Sony will be forced to enter the next-gen console race even though the PS3 is still more than capable of delivering this gen.

In all honesty, the PS3 needs more RAM, maybe a 3D graphics card, and Hey Presto!! A $349 launch price PS4 with full backwards compatibility on all PS3 games and PSN content, cross game chat support and enough support from first and third party developers to put Nintendo and MS to shame.

I really can't wait until the next gen now. I feel like Sony and MS have learnt so much about their mistakes this gen, especially Sony after the PS3's launch. With the PS Vita looking this magical now, I can't wait to see what the PS4 will boast!!!

8 up, 3 down

Microsoft's marketing for the 360 is pretty good. If Sony's marketing were on par (realistically it can't be because of the amount MS spends) PS3 should have pretty close to the market dominance it had last generaition. I own both so I don't need to waste time slinging mud at either system, but clearly the PS3 is the more powerful of the two (albeit slightly). However, it seems that the year head start, and MS reliance on purchasing DLC, and certain third-party exclusives vastly helped them this generation.

For instance they clearly saw CoD's popularity the past few years, and threw tons of money at Activision for timed exclusive consoles (see: the new Modern Warfare 3 360 bundle) and timed exclusive DLC. To someone who is unfamilar with videogames, just watching commericals you'd think the Call of Duty games are exclusive to Xbox 360. Its ridiculous how much MS plays up the franchise. Its a pretty smart strategy that appears to pay off.

I know alot of you clearly dislike Microsoft or Xbox 360 by your comments, but keep in mind that competition is always great for the consumer. MS tactics maybe scrutinized (and rightfully so) but without their emergence this past generation, would Sony put as much emphasis on the PSN as they have if there were no Xbox Live....or would they be pumping out all these first party exclusives and marketing them as a reason to own their system over an Xbox 360?

3 up, 0 down

I agree, the marketing for Sony is good, but you don't see it a lot on TV. The commercials for Killzone 2, I've seen them for a week or so and then they just stopped advertising them, if they can keep it up and be aggressive with the advertising I think it should be good, I also don't see a lot of advertising of the PS3 price drop on TV a lot.

0 up, 0 down

I think xbox games run better not all of then look but they run better. Most games on there have very steady framrates.

0 up, 2 down

Microsoft is either blind or arrogant,... I'm leaning toward both. You could tell from the start of the generation that the xbox 360 had inferior graphics capabilities. They had to have seen this coming, but dreading the day when they would have to admit it.

2 up, 0 down

The GPU design absolutely confirms this. The embedded DRAM used for the 'free' anti-aliasing isn't large enough to buffer an entire 720p frame, so you have to use tiling at resolutions in that range.

In what I do not think is a coincidence, the eDRAM is large enough to handle anti-aliasing a 576p frame without tiling, and you see a lot o 360 and multi-plat games rending at about 600p because that's about the maximum resolution you can use the free anti-aliasing on. To me, that reeks of a design decision to support lower resolutions and in Europe, the standard definition resolution just happens to be 576p. The 360's CPU was never designed to be fully HD, it was designed to cater to 480p/576p gaming. Remember they didn't even include HDMI on the original 360s either.

Of course the GPU is capable of handling higher resolutions for rendering, but the eDRAM is curiously small for those resolutions, and the lack of HDMI suggests that wasn't really the initial target.

But here we are 6 years later, and they pinned an HDMI port onto the thing, and use tiling and other methods to achieve rendering at higher resolutions than 600p, but it's a compromise.

The PS3 was always designed with the CellBE and RSX working together in mind. This is confirmed by the recent trend of 1st party devs to build their games that way. They are able achieve good results at 720p or better with anti aliasing and other processing happening on the Cell's SPUs, and the RSX handling other tasks - the way it's supposed to.

3 up, 0 down

Must say Highlander, that is the way all developers should have approached the PS3; it is a shame only the exclusives really unleash the hardware. PS3 is still a more powerful console than the 360 - when push comes to shove, the exclusives prove it...

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

1 up, 0 down

I was thinking about this one today. In my opinion Microsoft did not build a system to go past the normal 5 year console life cycle, yes they do have some excellent exclusives and excellent games, but with Sony they designed the Playstation 3 to break the norm and they designed a system thinking about the future, that is why it was so expensive at the beginning. The funny part is people complained that the PS3 was too expensive in the beginning. I did some math if you wanted to get a Wireless network adapter for the 360 you had to spend $99.99 plus tax, it was built into the PS3, if you wanted to get rechargeable batteries for your controllers, if I remember correctly, you spent $29.99 plus tax which included a dual battery charger and one rechargeable battery, the PS3's controller came with the rechargeable battery built into the controller. When you add in all the extra accessories that you wanted to buy for the 360, that were built into the PS3, the 360 went past the PS3 in price. I have been playing video games since the Atari 5200 days, I did play the Atari 2600, but we owned an Atari 5200. I have seen a lot of awesome changes in the video game industry over the years and I have to say that when Sony designed the Playstation 3 or any Playstation console for that matter, they were making a console(s) that would last and deliver some of the best exclusives and awesome gaming experiences to date. And with the way that Sony designed the Playstation 3 a lot of developers are now see their vision of game creating and storytelling come true. Example: Hideo Kojima: Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of Patriots; Naughty Dog: UnCharted series, Quantic Dream: Heavy Rain, etc.... So in my opinion like I said Sony was thinking ahead when the designed the PS3, look at what the Developers have accomplished with Sony exclusives and the awesome gaming experience that the PS3 has delivered.

3 up, 0 down

i see this comment on many articles and just giggle to myself how this is still there. hehehe

0 up, 0 down

ya see how tha games are being altered for money. almost every comment was about business. this post is something i been telling folks 2 years into the ps3 cycle. nintendo continues to make systems for games sony keeps dropping quality systems with innovation & microsoft to me they purpose is about money.

im not a fan of niether consoles but my money these last couple of console generations been spent on sony cause they offer in depth quality systems & products. i enjoy the xbox but the system & amount of games available hasnt captured me to say i want a 360. sony to me creates systems for devlopers & artist that like alot of detail.

as the gaming market becomes more about competition & money i just hope sony doesnt forget the name Play-station.

0 up, 0 down

Xbox 360 still stale and boring and now develeopers are finally realizing this. Once the new WiiU comes out then M$ will be lost since they won't have the technology WiiU and Ps3 has.

0 up, 0 down