PS3 vs. Xbox 360 ports: The cold, hard truth

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

O RLY?

Maybe you should re-read as well.

Oh FFS.

Miss out the most important points in what I said to start a bitchslap contest over words.

I can see you really care about discussing this as opposed to just kicking up a fuss.

[Budious]

The install time is a mute issue to me, you install the game once, you can leave it and come back to it later when its done, just like downloading updates for these same titles. Handling the controller is more important because you're gonna spend hours upon hours with it in your hands. Most of these titles graphics are so similar I wouldn't probably wouldn't take notice to the differences on either console, and coming down to the better overall system value I have to put that in PS3's corner with Blue-Ray, non-proprietary storage, and free online. So PS3 can only achieve 90% of the visuals of the X360 (arbitrary number pulled from my arse much like this article) ... I still would label the PS3 a better value and the choice consumer purchase.

[ToastedJellyBowl]

Like others have mentioned, the PS3 is harder to program for (thanks to the poorly designed Cell processor, also note that Sony has given up on the Cell processor and has passed it on to another company, that tells me it blows). I have yet to see a company announce the PS3 as their lead console platform for multiplatform games, but if any do exist, the reason isn't because the PS3 is a better system or developers favor the PS3 over the Wii or the Xbox 360 -- instead, it's because Sony is more pushy than Microsoft or Nintendo and forces developers to rush their games out the door (*cough* UT3 for PS3 having less features than the Xbox 360 release *cough*). Microsoft's only requirement is games to at least have 720p, which is something they are fairly relaxed on. Several games have not had true 720p support -- instead, it is emulated. The reason behind making UT3 for the PS3 is to open the game to a wider range of audiences, and it was released sooner because Sony forced them to release the game by a certain time -- something Microsoft and Nintendo doesn't do.

If you truly believe developers are releasing multiplatform games for the PS3 before the Wii and the Xbox 360 because the PS3 is their lead console, then you have been blinded by The Failure of the PS3?>.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Like others have mentioned, the PS3 is harder to program for (thanks to the poorly designed Cell processor, also note that Sony has given up on the Cell processor and has passed it on to another company, that tells me it blows). I have yet to see a company announce the PS3 as their lead console platform for multiplatform games, but if any do exist, the reason isn't because the PS3 is a better system or developers favor the PS3 over the Wii or the Xbox 360 -- instead, it's because Sony is more pushy than Microsoft or Nintendo and forces developers to rush their games out the door. Microsoft's only requirement is games to at least have 720p (eventhough they are fairly laid back on this -- see Halo 3 and Project Gotham Racing 2) *cough* UT3 for PS3 having less features than the Xbox 360 release *cough* The reason behind making UT3 for the PS3 is to open the game to a wider range of audiences, and it was released sooner because Sony forced them to release the game by a certain time -- something Microsoft and Nintendo doesn't do.

If you truly believe developers are releasing multiplatform games for the PS3 before the Wii and the Xbox 360 because the PS3 is their lead console, then you have been blinded by The Failure of the PS3?>.

Oh my god...

Being a gamer should be a profession like being a doctor. You can't be one unless you sit exams and prove you know what you're talking about.

[ToastedJellyBowl]

Oh my god...

Being a gamer should be a profession like being a doctor. You can't be one unless you sit exams and prove you know what you're talking about.

Are you blinded too? Don't he ashamed, thousands of others are as well; however, there are millions that haven't been blinded.

I don't have to provide any proof, because there is plenty proof out there. Just go look it up for yourself. Sony bought a Toshiba lab to continue development on the Cell processor; there are several statements out there were developers of UT3 stated that the reason development was halted on the Xbox 360 version is because Sony had a strict release timeline for the PS3 release, and announced the Xbox 360 version will have features the PS3 version didn't have at release; last year, developers also stated they would not make PS3 ports because they would make no profiet off of these releases.

What more do you need? Just go search for yourself. There are plenty of articles out there about the PS3's failure. In fact, the majority of PS3 owners bought it for the fact that it is the cheapest Blu-Ray player money can buy. That is it's only strong point.

Also take some time to look up last year's ports, and read reviews and watch video reviews of the PS3 versions vs the Xbox 360 versions. Nearly every PS3 port ran choppy and sluggish, where the Xbox 360 ports were silky smooth. The proof is out there; this is the cold, hard truth.

Edited March 3, 2008 by ToastedJellyBowl

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Are you blinded too? Don't he ashamed, thousands of others are as well; however, there are millions that haven't been blinded.

Mate, I hope one day you can re-read the things you've said. Maybe when you're a bit older? I hope to god you aren't middle-aged.

Just because it's the internet, doesn't mean you can't embarras yourself.

[Kushan]

Oh FFS.

Miss out the most important points in what I said to start a bitchslap contest over words.

I can see you really care about discussing this as opposed to just kicking up a fuss.

Hey now calm down, you told me to go re-read the article so I did and it said what I thought it said. Don't really see what I did wrong there.

What I don't understand is why you seem to be defending the article and stating that bias is ok, when it's clearly not. There are limits to the amount of Bias that we should accept (Think about the likes of Fox news) and a truly objective view of these 4 games would at best say that both consoles were evenly matched and what version you got came down to your own personal tastes, but instead they just said to get the PS3 version based on their personal tastes, not yours. Therein lies the problem.

And FYI, I'd be saying the same things if it was biased towards the 360 over a stupid thing like the controller. Unless the controls are in some way crippled on another console, it's not really an issue, I certainly had no problems playing it on the 360 and I've yet to see anyone else claim they did, so how does that make the PS3's port better?

EDIT: Also, stop telling people to re-read everything, or someone like me is going to keep telling you to re-read your own posts when you can't spell a word like "embarrass".

[ToastedJellyBowl]

Mate, I hope one day you can re-read the things you've said. Maybe when you're a bit older? I hope to god you aren't middle-aged.

Just because it's the internet, doesn't mean you can't embarras yourself.

I have re-read my post. Just do yourself a favor and search the things I posted. They are all facts -- they are not made up.

It has been directly stated by game developers that the PS3 is a harder platform to develop for simply due to the fact of the Cell processor.

[Coldgunner]

I agree with AB

the PS3 is far from a failure, its beaten ps2 sales records. UT3 is nearly identical to the PC release (I have both). the situation as it looks atm is that the x360 version will be inferior due to difficulties with mods support. the PS2 was also harder to develop for, however it still outsold its rivals.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Hey now calm down, you told me to go re-read the article so I did and it said what I thought it said. Don't really see what I did wrong there.

What I don't understand is why you seem to be defending the article and stating that bias is ok, when it's clearly not. There are limits to the amount of Bias that we should accept (Think about the likes of Fox news) and a truly objective view of these 4 games would at best say that both consoles were evenly matched and what version you got came down to your own personal tastes, but instead they just said to get the PS3 version based on their personal tastes, not yours. Therein lies the problem.

And FYI, I'd be saying the same things if it was biased towards the 360 over a stupid thing like the controller. Unless the controls are in some way crippled on another console, it's not really an issue, I certainly had no problems playing it on the 360 and I've yet to see anyone else claim they did, so how does that make the PS3's port better?

I actually couldn't care less about the results of the article, what annoys me is people going head over heels at someone elses opinion.

It's whats wrong in the gaming world, and why we have such rampant arguments/fanboyism and people like ToastedJellyBowl.

Gamers seem to read something and act like it's the end all and be all at times.

It's also an issue thats fed by the fact journalists can go and post articles like this. They know gamers seem to be such emotionally attached people, an article like this will get their site 10,000 hits.

5,000 Sony guys applauding and saying "damn right", and 5,000 Microsoft guys squealing "BIAS!" and "this part isn't true".

Gaming is all about personal tastes as well, you can't be truely unbiased 24/7 - It's all about what genres you like, how you like to play your games and what else you want in a console. Reviewers have to do their best at it, as a review of a game has to appeal to a whole audience, but a silly "PS3 vs 360" comparison is not going to be taken as seriously as a review.

That's why you probably won't see the big earning reviewers posting articles like this.

[ToastedJellyBowl]

I agree with AB

the PS3 is far from a failure, its beaten ps2 sales records. UT3 is nearly identical to the PC release (I have both). the situation as it looks atm is that the x360 version will be inferior due to difficulties with mods support. the PS2 was also harder to develop for, however it still outsold its rivals.

Maybe not now since they have slashed the prices, but last year, it was a complete failure. There is no denying this. Developers speak louder than the consumers when it comes to things like this, and the fact that several publishers and developers refused to work with the PS3 because they would spend more money in development than they would make on the game's sales tells me it was a failure last year.

Sales has picked up, and I would hope it outsold the PS2, considering the gaming fanbase is a lot bigger now than it was back then, but the topic here isn't whether the PS3 is a failure (which was true for 2007 -- again, just look it up like I told your little subscriber buddy) -- the main topic is that developres typically work on multiplatform games and ports on the PS3 before the Xbox 360 and Wii because it is a much harder and time consuming console to develop for, because of the Cell processor.

[Kushan]

I actually couldn't care less about the results of the article, what annoys me is people going head over heels at someone elses opinion.

It's whats wrong in the gaming world, and why we have such rampant arguments/fanboyism and people like ToastedJellyBowl.

Gamers seem to read something and act like it's the end all and be all at times.

It's also an issue thats fed by the fact journalists can go and post articles like this. They know gamers seem to be such emotionally attached people, an article like this will get their site 10,000 hits.

5,000 Sony guys applauding and saying "damn right", and 5,000 Microsoft guys squealing "BIAS!" and "this part isn't true".

Gaming is all about personal tastes as well, you can't be truely unbiased 24/7 - It's all about what genres you like, how you like to play your games and what else you want in a console. Reviewers have to do their best at it, as a review of a game has to appeal to a whole audience, but a silly "PS3 vs 360" comparison is not going to be taken as seriously as a review.

That's why you probably won't see the big earning reviewers posting articles like this.

The thing is, we're all discussing the bias in the article, if you're not paying attention to the results of the article, then I think you've completely missed what the real discussion is about.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I have re-read my post. Just do yourself a favor and search the things I posted. They are all facts -- they are not made up.

It has been directly stated by game developers that the PS3 is a harder platform to develop for simply due to the fact of the Cell processor.

Ok I don't usually stoop this low, but theres a few things you have completely wrong.

UT3 came out on the PS3 first due to the open platform. Epic couldn't and as far as we know still can't get MS to allow user created mods.

Developers have also started lead development on the PS3. Burnout was one game, Lucas Arts have said their games are going to be as well.

The guys who made COD4 I don't think done a lead platform, but they built the game from scratch on both consoles to ensure no porting.

And yeah, it probably is to do with the PS3 being harder to develop for, but I don't see a negative in being the lead platform as it ensures multiplatform titles of the future aren't so one sided.

The thing is, we're all discussing the bias in the article, if you're not paying attention to the results of the article, then I think you've completely missed what the real discussion is about.

I did read and analyze the results.

What I meant by I don't care, is just that, I don't care.

I don't care that the article writer prefers the controls on one console over the other as that is a personal issue. I'll respect the writer as much as I can to the point where I say, it's fine to like whatever controller you want to. I have my opinions, he/she has theirs. I'm not going to lose sleep as Mr Joe Bloggs said DMC4 is slightly better on the PS3 due to the controller used.

Why write an article on how 50,000 gamers might like the controller? You write the article based on how you, the article writer prefers the controller.

Whoever wrote it, done the article in such a way to stir up the emotionally attached gamers with all the "hard cold facts" nonsense. That is totally not needed, but don't get hooked up on it - It's just the glamour/glitz fabrications of the gaming world. Lot's of things are taken by extremes. A game runs at 1~2 FPS better on one console? The next day you'll see 100 gaming news sites reporting the game runs 20x better on the other platform.

Anyway as I said, why put one persons views soo highly on a pedestal?

If I done an article like this would you guys have a 9 page discussion for me discussing MY bias? You know me, a simple student from scotland, a nobody in the gaming industry?

I'd be over the moon if you did :wub:

Shoot me, but I like to poke fun at the immature gaming industry that is currently in place. Gamers/developers/journalists - Soo many of them play a part in the issues we suffer from.

[ToastedJellyBowl]

Ok I don't usually stoop this low, but theres a few things you have completely wrong.

UT3 came out on the PS3 first due to the open platform. Epic couldn't and as far as we know still can't get MS to allow user created mods.

Developers have also started lead development on the PS3. Burnout was one game, Lucas Arts have said their games are going to be as well.

The guys who made COD4 I don't think done a lead platform, but they built the game from scratch on both consoles to ensure no porting.

And yeah, it probably is to do with the PS3 being harder to develop for, but I don't see a negative in being the lead platform as it ensures multiplatform titles of the future aren't so one sided.

I did read and analyze the results.

What I meant by I don't care, is just that, I don't care.

I don't care that the article writer prefers the controls on one console over the other as that is a personal issue.

Why write an article on how 50,000 gamers might like the controller? You write the article based on how you, the article writer prefers the controller.

Whoever wrote it, done the article in such a way to stir up the emotionally attached gamers with all the "hard cold facts" nonsense. That is totally not needed, but don't get hooked up on it.

Anyway as I said, why put one persons views soo highly on a pedestal?

If I done an article like this would you guys have a 9 page discussion for me discussing MY bias? You know me, a simple student from scotland, a nobody in the gaming industry?

I'd be over the moon if you did :wub:

Finally you admit to the PS3's failure. Good boy.

You are right. They started development on the PS3 version to open the game up to another audience, which I stated.

You are also right. Microsoft is not going to let them do user mods, but does that really mean that much? How many popular servers do you see rely completely on user made mods? I rarely find myself using mods because servers rarely use them, except for maybe a mapvote mutator, or something minor like thar -- which is something Epic would put in in a patch, due to the fact that it's not modable.

I have made success. And I'm glad to see you show your immaturity because someone else's opinion offends you.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Finally you admit to the PS3's failure. Good boy.

You are right. They started development on the PS3 version to open the game up to another audience, which I stated.

You are also right. Microsoft is not going to let them do user mods, but does that really mean that much? How many popular servers do you see rely completely on user made mods? I rarely find myself using mods because servers rarely use them, except for maybe a mapvote mutator, or something minor like thar -- which is something Epic would put in in a patch, due to the fact that it's not modable.

I have made success. And I'm glad to see you show your immaturity because someone else's opinion offends you.

Nothing has failed, and nothing will fail this generation. Yes we will have a traditional 1/2/3 place on hardware sales, but after 5-10 years I doubt any level headed person will be saying any of the three consoles out now failed.

I despise gamers that run around wanting other consoles to fail for no reason. Infact I wouldn't even call someone in this category a "gamer". Opinions don't offend me, but people in this category do. You smite the gaming world with immaturity and give us all a bad name.

As a gamer you enjoy playing games on any platform. PC/PS1/Xbox/PS2/PS3/Dreamcast/N64/Gamecube/360/Atari/Snes/Mega Drive/ect - If the game is good and suits your tastes, you'll want to try it out.

Only you suffer boxing yourself into a corner and only taking advantage of one platform. I don't suffer due to your approach to the gaming world, I own all three platforms.

Now I know everyone can't afford to buy every console, and it must be a hard decision for some who want the best of both worlds - But they probably will get to that in the end, even if they have to wait many years till the console they didn't buy is waaaay down in price. It's not just about buying two/three consoles, once you have more than one, your expense on software almost doubles as well.

All three platforms are great, I love them all, and everyone of them will have great games coupled with additions such as being media servers or helping cure cancer or being a base for indie developers.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Audioboxer

[Coldgunner]

Finally you admit to the PS3's failure. Good boy.

You are right. They started development on the PS3 version to open the game up to another audience, which I stated.

You are also right. Microsoft is not going to let them do user mods, but does that really mean that much? How many popular servers do you see rely completely on user made mods? I rarely find myself using mods because servers rarely use them, except for maybe a mapvote mutator, or something minor like thar -- which is something Epic would put in in a patch, due to the fact that it's not modable.

I have made success. And I'm glad to see you show your immaturity because someone else's opinion offends you.

how exactly did he say PS3 was a failure?

just because a system is hard to develop for don't mean its a failure, anyone remember the PS2???

[Coldgunner]

Nothing has failed, and nothing will fail this generation.

I despise gamers that run around wanting other consoles to fail for no reason. Infact I wouldn't even call someone in this category a "gamer".

As a gamer you enjoy playing games on any platform.

Only you suffer boxing yourself into a corner and only taking advantage of one platform. I don't suffer due to your approach to the gaming world, I own all three platforms.

Now I know everyone can't afford to buy every console, and it must be a hard decision for some who want the best of both worlds - But they probably will get to that in the end, even if they have to wait many years till the console they didn't buy is waaaay down in price. It's not just about buying two/three consoles, once you have more than one, your expense on software almost doubles as well.

All three platforms are great, I love them all, and everyone of them will have great games coupled with additions such as being media servers or helping cure cancer or being a base for indie developers.

couldn't agree more, been gaming since my good ol' Atari 2600, I've had experiences of nearly every format since then. Although I see issues with some, IMO SNES had better gfx but Mega Drive still had great games. I enjoyed games on nearly every format, the poor N64 being the butt of a lot of issues, however having some true gaming gems.

I currently have a Wii, PS3 and PC. I've only held of the 360 due to the reliability issues (major factor for me). as soon as I'm happy its reliable enough I'll get one, I know that the games library is larger the the former, but having the games that appeal to me is key. I bought the Wii as a cheap, fun, multiplayer centric console and I bought the ps3 for home entertainment (games and movies). Even then I still stick by PC, even in its current lull in quality titles and my need to upgrade.

[Kushan]

Ok I don't usually stoop this low, but theres a few things you have completely wrong.

UT3 came out on the PS3 first due to the open platform. Epic couldn't and as far as we know still can't get MS to allow user created mods.

Developers have also started lead development on the PS3. Burnout was one game, Lucas Arts have said their games are going to be as well.

The guys who made COD4 I don't think done a lead platform, but they built the game from scratch on both consoles to ensure no porting.

And yeah, it probably is to do with the PS3 being harder to develop for, but I don't see a negative in being the lead platform as it ensures multiplatform titles of the future aren't so one sided.

I did read and analyze the results.

What I meant by I don't care, is just that, I don't care.

I don't care that the article writer prefers the controls on one console over the other as that is a personal issue. I'll respect the writer as much as I can to the point where I say, it's fine to like whatever controller you want to. I have my opinions, he/she has theirs. I'm not going to lose sleep as Mr Joe Bloggs said DMC4 is slightly better on the PS3 due to the controller used.

Why write an article on how 50,000 gamers might like the controller? You write the article based on how you, the article writer prefers the controller.

Whoever wrote it, done the article in such a way to stir up the emotionally attached gamers with all the "hard cold facts" nonsense. That is totally not needed, but don't get hooked up on it - It's just the glamour/glitz fabrications of the gaming world. Lot's of things are taken by extremes. A game runs at 1~2 FPS better on one console? The next day you'll see 100 gaming news sites reporting the game runs 20x better on the other platform.

Anyway as I said, why put one persons views soo highly on a pedestal?

If I done an article like this would you guys have a 9 page discussion for me discussing MY bias? You know me, a simple student from scotland, a nobody in the gaming industry?

I'd be over the moon if you did :wub:

Shoot me, but I like to poke fun at the immature gaming industry that is currently in place. Gamers/developers/journalists - Soo many of them play a part in the issues we suffer from.

So let me get this straight, you're saying that it's wrong for the writer of the article to do what they're doing (cause controversy by appealing to "emotional gamers" by showing their own personal bias), but you're saying we're at fault for getting so worked up about it? That somehow we should accept that people write articles like this and we shouldn't complain about it?

I'm sorry, but I don't think so and I seriously hope I've just misinterpreted what you're saying. ANYONE who claims opinions as facts is simply wrong, there's no two ways about it and it doesn't matter if it's games, films, science or religion or WHATEVER, it's just not acceptable.

[Ayepecks]

The end result is going to be biased whoever answers it, don't you see that?

You let someone compare who likes PS controllers, they'll give a 1up to the PS3. You let someone compare who likes 360 controllers, they'll give a 1up to the 360.

How can you get this "truely" unbiased answer all of you seem to be chirping on about... fact is you can't really. Every person who does one of these comparisons is going to show bias to some extent.

Or at least they're going to be accused of showing bias no matter what. If the result isn't what the end user wants to read, the claim of bias won't be long to come out.

A 5GB install may not bother Bob at all, but it may make Henry chuck a hissy fit and threaten to sue Capcom.

Being equal as possible, I was talking about the test subjects. Everyone of these games has been developed by the one developer and are therefore equal.

The Orange Box for consoles was developed by two different developers, and if you want to go out on a stretch, you could even say they are therefore two "different" games.

That's all I'm saying -- that's my point.

That's what almost everyone is saying. I didn't read all of the last two pages, but you keep saying everyone's getting bent out of shape over this. Well, not really. All we're saying is how can it be "the cold, hard truth" when it's an opinion that the writer of the article ultimately comes down to as the deciding factor?

No one's freaking out about this. It's funny that some people are saying that everyone claiming this article is biased is freaking out, because I don't see anyone getting blue in the face saying how utterly unfair the article is or anything like some people are implying. We're only saying it's biased. Nothing more, nothing less.

I just glanced at the last page and saw there are people trolling and making this about a console's success or failure... just ignore them. :)

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

So let me get this straight, you're saying that it's wrong for the writer of the article to do what they're doing (cause controversy by appealing to "emotional gamers" by showing their own personal bias), but you're saying we're at fault for getting so worked up about it? That somehow we should accept that people write articles like this and we shouldn't complain about it?

I'm sorry, but I don't think so and I seriously hope I've just misinterpreted what you're saying. ANYONE who claims opinions as facts is simply wrong, there's no two ways about it and it doesn't matter if it's games, films, science or religion or WHATEVER, it's just not acceptable.

It's not wrong what the article writer done on analyzing the games and coming up with his/her opinion.

It's subjectively wrong in some of the ways they potrayed their article. "Hard cold facts" ect.

However like any area of review/opinion in life, depending on who you deal with, many people do sugar coat their opinion.

What im saying is no, don't get so worked up about it. You'll only waste time in your life going off on tangents about bias. Everyone shows bias to some extents, as if you like a product, you're probably going to favour it over competition - If you don't favour it over competition, why didn't you buy the competitor product in the first place?

An opinion is fact to yourself in some ways. If I say I like racing games, to me thats a fact - As I do like racing games. If I write in an article I bought GT5 instead of buying Halo 3 since it's better then that's where my "factual" opinion, becomes just an opinion to the rest of the gaming world.

Yeah I could write it better by saying since I like racing games better, I choose GT5 as to me it's a better game than Halo 3, but many journalists/article writers won't do that. They'll write what they want blunty. Either just because they think the people will be mature enough to either agree/disagree but not go off on tangents, or because they are trying to purposely create a scene and stir up the emotionally attached gamers - Usually for site hits... as all these comparison articles tend to come from smaller game sites, as opposed to IGN/Gamespot - Although they have been involved in comparisons to some extents.

The problem arises is when others analyze your opinion, as that is where you enter the realm of opinions vs opinions. Not many gamers seem to be able to handle opinions vs opinions without fighting dirty, name calling or slandering a whole console installament base. Like we've seen, some people take a game running 5 FPS slower on one platform to mean that whole platform is going to fail miserably...

Part of it may be to do with age, part of it, I dunno, just maturity itself? You will tend to find older gamers just enjoy the games and get on with it, some of them not though, older people can be raging fanboys as well ;) But a lot of the issues do come from uneducated younger gamers, believing whatever they read online.

[shakey]

wow, i think some people on here need to take a chill pill. doesnt seem like the bickering back and forth is getting anywhere. No ones views are changing. so we should just all agree its biased, and take absolutely nothing from it. Until a totally factual documentation about which console is better, we might as well just hush it up. All that will happen is more arguing over who thinks which system they have is better. Let time tell.

its like the last 4 pages of this thread where done by 3 ppl.

[Coldgunner]

wow, i think some people on here need to take a chill pill. doesnt seem like the bickering back and forth is getting anywhere. No ones views are changing. so we should just all agree its biased, and take absolutely nothing from it. Until a totally factual documentation about which console is better, we might as well just hush it up. All that will happen is more arguing over who thinks which system they have is better. Let time tell.

its like the last 4 pages of this thread where done by 3 ppl.

Indeed, console preference is purely an individual basis, as the two forerunners in the console war are technically very close in their abilities. Ask a typical 'non gamer' (young children, old people, families and anyone who is outside the gamer type) and they'll probably choose Wii, due to the media attention it gets and that its a different experience. your hardcore are likely to choose the more single play/ online multiplayer centric consoles.

personally I thought it was a crap article that was based on a badly executed comparison. who cares if version x is slightly brighter or runs 10 fps faster, so long as the game is playable. Can't gamers just play the damn thing???

[abshack]

I read the article and was thinking, "BIAS!!!". For online integration, XBOX rocks. Hopefully, with the introduction of HOME on PS3, things will get better. I hope PS3 gets better because it's the technically superior platform (6 core @ 3.2 ghz :o ).

Just waiting for FFXIII now... :)

[WelshBluebird]

Hopefully, with the introduction of HOME on PS3, things will get better. I hope PS3 gets better because it's the technically superior platform (6 core @ 3.2 ghz :o ).

:pinch:

As has been said a million times before, its no where near that simple. The cell has one main core, then 6 "sub" cores that are only good at doing certain tasks. In no way does that equal 6 full cores at 3.2Ghz.

Honestly, I can't be bothered to explain it, so:

Click Here

[MrKuro]

:pinch:

As has been said a million times before, its no where near that simple. The cell has one main core, then 6 "sub" cores that are only good at doing certain tasks. In no way does that equal 6 full cores at 3.2Ghz.

Honestly, I can't be bothered to explain it, so:

Click Here

exactly .. good post