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

By PiracyX
in Gamers' Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted
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".

Bias is always accepted as long as it's pro-ps3. ;)

Grand Master

sn00pie

Posted
Posted

What a surprise! A thread that shows PS3>360 and the first thing that catches my eye is "this article is biased", all I can say is go back into your X360 forum.

The article points out pros and cons for both consoles regarding the same games, and from my experience with these games, most of what they've said is pretty much spot-on. It's obviously someones OPINION on the games on each console, but from what I've read in the article, the author is not showing a bias at all.

Just because the article says the PS3 versions are superior then the X360, the fanboys come out and call the article biased. :sleep:

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted
What a surprise! A thread that shows PS3>360 and the first thing that catches my eye is "this article is biased", all I can say is go back into your X360 forum.

The article points out pros and cons for both consoles regarding the same games, and from my experience with these games, most of what they've said is pretty much spot-on. It's obviously someones OPINION on the games on each console, but from what I've read in the article, the author is not showing a bias at all.

Just because the article says the PS3 versions are superior then the X360, the fanboys come out and call the article biased. :sleep:

Please read my last post.

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted
What a surprise! A thread that shows PS3>360 and the first thing that catches my eye is "this article is biased", all I can say is go back into your X360 forum.

The article points out pros and cons for both consoles regarding the same games, and from my experience with these games, most of what they've said is pretty much spot-on. It's obviously someones OPINION on the games on each console, but from what I've read in the article, the author is not showing a bias at all.

Just because the article says the PS3 versions are superior then the X360, the fanboys come out and call the article biased. :sleep:

When it's an opinion - you don't call it "cold, hard truth". His opinion has some weird logic as discussed earlier in this thread. This is what people have problem with and not because it is pro-ps3.

And this is not in ps3 forum - thank you very much.

Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted (edited)
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.

Nobody was getting worked up about anything until you came along claiming that they were and arguing about how it's everyone else's fault and that the writer of the article couldn't be at fault.

Unfortunately in this day and age, good professional journalism is very had to come by and when people like you defend them, it just makes the situation worse.

Edited by Kushan
Mentor

EnzoFX

Posted
Posted

I don't believe Audio was defending them..... He simply said that he respected his opinion, and knew better to ignore the bias. Which we all agree is undeniable when reviewing/starting an article like this.

And to the toastedjellybowl guy...... you have no idea what your talking about. I mean, I completely discredited you when you said that sony forced epic to release UT3 early. LOL, NO ONE, and i mean NO ONE forces epic to release anything, that they don't feel is ready.

And regarding where these discussions go...

should everyone simply have posts like: it's a little biased, yeah, I agree, I respect his opinion and all, but its biased.... etc. etc

That'd be rather boring, but its also what makes the most sense , I don't like it when fanboyism starts spewing for no reason. Seems its mostly the 360 people, who apparently married their MS console. JK JK, there's some uninformed PS3 owners out there too. Geez, to think, that it'll only get worst as the PS3 gets more popular.

Grand Master

Andrew Lyle Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted
(Y) Very fair... ha.

LOL nice catch. This is just another opinion article, from a fanboy who wants his console to be the best for some strange reason.. Can't people just be happy with their purchase, and accept people for what they buy?

I love having triggers. Ever since the Dreamcast trigger controller, I've been a fan of it. Why he said pressing the R1 shoulder buttons is easier.. I don't know

Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted

*Throws fuel on fire*

Microsoft made a response themselves...

We have to disagree with your conclusion that the trend of Xbox 360 versions of games being best is changing, especially when you look at the entire catalog of multiplatform titles available. We also feel there were some key features of Xbox 360 games that deserved a little more play in your reviews. For multiplatform console owners, Achievements and Gamerscore have to be listed as an influencing factor to purchase the Xbox 360 version; their success and popularity is undeniable. The fact that other consoles have not implemented anything like this across every game should not be a reason to leave these features out of consideration. Plus, with Xbox 360 the capability for controller rumble comes standard, not as a future option and you get all the benefits of Xbox LIVE and its community of more than 10 million members.

"The cold, hard truth" is that Xbox 360 has the best games - and industry reviewers and consumers agree. Xbox 360 has more games with an aggregate review score of 90 or higher than the competition combined and multiplatform titles regularly sell better on Xbox 360. The majority of games are still lead developed for Xbox 360 and Xbox LIVE simply makes games better. The competition between platforms is great for gamers and in 2008 we are going to continue to work with developers to push the boundaries of our platform and the LIVE service to make sure the best game experiences continue to be on Xbox 360.

When you cut out all of the marketing guff, he's pretty much saying what a lot of people in this thread have been saying - the comparison is woefully unfair.

Grand Master

Andrew Lyle Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted
*Throws fuel on fire*

Microsoft made a response themselves...

When you cut out all of the marketing guff, he's pretty much saying what a lot of people in this thread have been saying - the comparison is woefully unfair.

Good article, and I must admit, gamer points, and the fact almost every game for the xbox360 has Xbox LIVE included in it, which is a huge bonus. With so many games, and millions of users, it's always easy to find someone online to play with. In todays standards not having anyone to play with, or communicate with is just plain boring, the reason many felt games such as Bioshock didn't do as good as it should of.

I personally enjoy xbox360 because of LIVE, marketplace, and it's game selection. Sure it has it's flaws, but game development / porting is NOT one of them.

Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted

Being perfectly fair, though, not every game on the 360 has people playing it. Especially older or less popular games (Fatal Inertia comes to mind, nobody ever seems to play that because it wasn't all that popular). If live was Free, then there would probably be a lot more people on Live.

Still, the PS3 will suffer the same problems, as do every single "online" game out there at some point.

Grand Master

Andrew Lyle Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted

I'm amazed that Sony has not caved on the free online issue yet, from it's expenses of operating online games. I noticed Nintendo is going the way of paying like xbox LIVE, which IMO is better to help improve reliability and development, other wise it will sit in the water watching people pass by. Whatever helps bring in the customers will help I guess

Grand Master

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted
I'm amazed that Sony has not caved on the free online issue yet, from it's expenses of operating online games. I noticed Nintendo is going the way of paying like xbox LIVE, which IMO is better to help improve reliability and development, other wise it will sit in the water watching people pass by. Whatever helps bring in the customers will help I guess

Expenses?

When you're not hosting dedicated servers what "massive" expense do you have?

MS charges for communication/matchmaking features, not for playing games online (well they do charge to play online, but you get what I mean). The gamers "pay" for the connection through P2P.

A few games may have dedicated servers, but the developers host them, not MS.

Couple that with the fact MS have a ton of more priced content on XBLA than PSN, charge for themes/wallpapers and have a marketplace, it's safe to say they are raking in almost pure profit on XLG accounts.

Sony won't charge because it's not a need to charge, it's a want. They do have other areas for income such as microtransactions in home, and advertisment - MS do advertisement as well.

MS have even said themselves they will evaluate the market in the future once Home hits and see if any changes are needed - They could drop prices/charging for gold whenever they wanted.

Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted

Actually Live does have considerable expenses, remember every single 360 out there (with an internet connection) connects to it, logs in, downloads/uploads all of their game info, chats with friends, etc. etc. Most of those services are offered for free, but they DO cost money to run (Think of how many servers you'd need to constantly feed 10million people this information). This is offset by gold members paying to play online, so everyone benefits.

I still think it'd be better if the service was free, however, Id be happy for the dashboard to get a few more ads if Live was free.

Grand Master

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted
Actually Live does have considerable expenses, remember every single 360 out there (with an internet connection) connects to it, logs in, downloads/uploads all of their game info, chats with friends, etc. etc. Most of those services are offered for free, but they DO cost money to run (Think of how many servers you'd need to constantly feed 10million people this information). This is offset by gold members paying to play online, so everyone benefits.

I still think it'd be better if the service was free, however, Id be happy for the dashboard to get a few more ads if Live was free.

That won't cost much at all in comparison to earnings from XBLA, Marketplace, 1st party software, ect. (the youtube of games thing, I honestly forget what it's called, XNA? will also be a new revenue stream)

Especially if the news a few weeks ago about MS taking a bigger piece of the pie from indie developers on XBLA is true.

All im trying to get at is I think our days are numbered of paying for Gold, and it will probably hit free at somepoint this year, or the start of next - Then you'll get people wondering why we paid for all this time?

Competition is the answer really, IMO it may of been justified paying for Live when it first hit, to help with expenses, the fact it was a revelation on the 360 and because there was nothing else like it - But we've been paying for 5 or so years now... Has it been roughly the same costs as well? I dunno as I never had an Xbox. I would of expected costs to come down on MS side for running things, most technology does over time - Hardware gets better/at cheaper costs.

Now, there's no need to attack me, wouldn't a free Live be better for everyone? Probably not, there's no doubt some wise asses out there that will claim they'd rather pay for the sake of starting an argument... :rolleyes:

Grand Master

Ricardo Gil

Posted
Posted
That won't cost much at all in comparison to earnings from XBLA, Marketplace, 1st party software, ect. (the youtube of games thing, I honestly forget what it's called, XNA? will also be a new revenue stream)

Especially if the news a few weeks ago about MS taking a bigger piece of the pie from indie developers on XBLA is true.

All im trying to get at is I think our days are numbered of paying for Gold, and it will probably hit free at somepoint this year, or the start of next - Then you'll get people wondering why we paid for all this time?

Competition is the answer really, IMO it may of been justified paying for Live when it first hit, to help with expenses, the fact it was a revelation on the 360 and because there was nothing else like it - But we've been paying for 5 or so years now... Has it been roughly the same costs as well? I dunno as I never had an Xbox. I would of expected costs to come down on MS side for running things, most technology does over time - Hardware gets better/at cheaper costs.

Now, there's no need to attack me, wouldn't a free Live be better for everyone? Probably not, there's no doubt some wise asses out there that will claim they'd rather pay for the sake of starting an argument... :rolleyes:

IMO gold fees exist just to pay for the whole service, you know, where the service actually pays itself. That way MS gets to improve the service regularly without actually incuring into great expense (at least in theory).

Like I've said before, I don't play online, so there's no actual bias to my opinion. I like the service I get for free with my silver account.

Free Live? It could go either way... You wouldn't pay to play, but the service could not be as good as it is.

Let's face it, SCE isn't really offering anything special to us directly. All they offer us is free on Live too. They just decided to "throw" the gaming aspect on to the publishers, so they just get the easy and inexpensive part of friends list and messaging.

PSN has a lot of potencial to get better for free, since there are few costs to it, and I really hope it takes off. Lets just wait and see what happens along the year...

Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted
That won't cost much at all in comparison to earnings from XBLA, Marketplace, 1st party software, ect. (the youtube of games thing, I honestly forget what it's called, XNA? will also be a new revenue stream)

Especially if the news a few weeks ago about MS taking a bigger piece of the pie from indie developers on XBLA is true.

All im trying to get at is I think our days are numbered of paying for Gold, and it will probably hit free at somepoint this year, or the start of next - Then you'll get people wondering why we paid for all this time?

Competition is the answer really, IMO it may of been justified paying for Live when it first hit, to help with expenses, the fact it was a revelation on the 360 and because there was nothing else like it - But we've been paying for 5 or so years now... Has it been roughly the same costs as well? I dunno as I never had an Xbox. I would of expected costs to come down on MS side for running things, most technology does over time - Hardware gets better/at cheaper costs.

Now, there's no need to attack me, wouldn't a free Live be better for everyone? Probably not, there's no doubt some wise asses out there that will claim they'd rather pay for the sake of starting an argument... :rolleyes:

You can't directly compare the cost of Live to PSN if you factor in marketplace revenue as well - Sony sells stuff on PSN too, you know. But Live has a lot more to offer (for the moment) than the PSN and that's what you pay for. Sure, they probably make some profit, but I doubt it's as much as you think it is once running costs are factored into it all.

Grand Master

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted
You can't directly compare the cost of Live to PSN if you factor in marketplace revenue as well - Sony sells stuff on PSN too, you know. But Live has a lot more to offer (for the moment) than the PSN and that's what you pay for. Sure, they probably make some profit, but I doubt it's as much as you think it is once running costs are factored into it all.

What I meant with more on XBLA was me saying there is much more to choose from = more people buying things. Less of a choice, less people buying things.

However that's only a theory, with things like Warhawk/Prologue on PSN, titles like that are more likely to sell more than Bomberman on XBLA - Or at least make a lot more profit even if it sells less.

That's why MS really need to start offering full games on XBL - The profit margins will be huge compared to disc sales with no packaging/disc needed/booklets. The bandwith used will not be a large cost for corporations of this size.

The Xbox orginals is a step in the right direction, profit off of them will be a large %.

The running cots for MS will not be colossal at all - They are massive corporation, will have a top end infastructure, top end hardware and should have top end engineers to run everything as effeciently as possible.

How many kb/mb of data need to be transferred to update a gamerscore/games played? Yeah the "biggest" strain is having millions connected at once, but many online services have millions of people connected at once.

It's not some kid in his basement running a webspace server for people.

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted

Well, are you forgetting matchmaking? That must be taking significant bandwidth and massive amounts of processing. I have said it before, one of the advantages of not having dedicated servers is not being at the mercy of the publisher. I will be able to play Halo2/3 10 years from now (as long as Live is still around) but I am not sure about COD4. EA will surely pull the plug on it as soon as the next installment is out.

In the end Live "free" will be a good option but there is not much to complain at current price point.

Grand Master

Kushan

Posted
Posted

Sorry to do it further, but I figure I may as well post this here than make a new thread about it:

Eurogamer compares more 360 and PS3 games.

In short: there's little difference between the two versions of most of the games, but they feel the 360 is still ahead in a lot of cases.

And interestingly, they state that even though DMC4 has very slightly better AA on the 360, both versions are in fact identical. No mention of dodgy controls, either.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.