QUOTE(uberwoot @ Apr 10 2007, 02:44 PM)
Yes its more expensive buy you cant forget its also more state of the art. And with that it will coust you money.
What exactly makes it more state of the art? "Cell" based processing, high speed graphic ram, and a blue laser are the only new tech in the box. Cell based processing has so far been more of a headache then it's worth, the extra speed of the ram doesn't seem to matter because it needs that extra speed just to make up for the fact that there is 256MB of it. and the blue laser has pretty much only been useful for watching movies so far as the only game that has taken up more then a DVDs worth of space is Resistance.
By comparison the Xbox 360 uses a multi core processor, unified ram, dual purpose pixel pipes, and a GPU with built in memory to speed up specialized tasks. All of those are state of the art... If you look in the PC market, with the exception of the cell you can get all the PS3's tech in PC parts, you can't with the Xbox 360 it's still too new.
Just because Sony says their tech is more "state of the art" doesn't make it so. Read any technical comparison or devs who speak at the technical level (read: something other then just "I like like this one better") and they almost unanimously cite that the Xbox 360's architecture is designed better for making games.
QUOTE(uberwoot @ Apr 10 2007, 02:44 PM)
Games wont start to shin and be worth the money untill devs take full advantage of the hardware. Look at the early PS2 games compared to the later made games. This is same for the PS3 the games now are just the tip of the ice berg.
Very true... but the same can be said for the 360, launch games looked markedly worse then todays games. So as much as the PS3's games will improve with time... so with the Xbox 360s, and So will the Wiis, and so will every other platform on the planet. What's your point?
QUOTE(uberwoot @ Apr 10 2007, 02:44 PM)
360 is a great system however it was rushed into production causeing all the problems people are haveing. They been good about correcting the problem but the system still has its flaws but then again no system is perfect.
And the PS3 WASN'T rushed to market? Every console is rushed to market, heck almost every product is rushed to market, it's just a matter of how much. there is never enough time to do everything you want to do. When you look at the Xbox 360, yeah it had it's problem but the hardware has remained the same for almost a year. By comparison the PS3 has been out only months and already gone through a few major revisions... from a strictly hardware standpoint which company sounds more confident in the finalization of their launch hardware? Rushing to market and short changing your upgradeable OS and launch games is one thing... rushing to market and short changing your hardware is a completely different problem. the latter cannot be fixed down the road with time.
QUOTE(uberwoot @ Apr 10 2007, 02:44 PM)
bottom line is sony did what the xbox did to the ps2. make there specs so much higher but they went one step ferther and chosen truely state of the art componets for there system.
Not really. On Paper the PS2 theoretically outperforms the Xbox 1.... Go look at some old Sony PR FUD from before the Xbox was released... they were ranting and raving that MS was stupid because they were choosing hardware that was considerably slower then the PS2. In terms of raw numbers the PS2 outperforms the Xbox 1 in nearly every category. I think we all know what the real world performance was in the end.
Nevermind that but the Xbox didn't start design until AFTER the PS2 was already released the tech really did have over a years worth of advantage. The PS3 and 360 started development at the same time, the hardware was finalized at the same time. After the hardware was finalized the PS3 was delayed six months supposedly due to them waiting for HDMI and BluRay spec finalization and then another six months due to blue diode shortages. The hardware is the same era... just because the PS3 was delayed almost a year doesn't make it a year better, the hardware didn't magically change during that time. Both consoles should have launched spring of 06, the 360 was released 1 season earlier then projected and the PS3 was released two seasons later then projected... doesn't change the fact that they're using the same generation of tech in their boxes. The difference in release time might be similar to last generation but the differences in the tech development is a wash.
QUOTE(uberwoot @ Apr 10 2007, 02:44 PM)
so whats a better buy? if your still on a normal tv just get the 360. you wont enjoy any of the PS3 features on that tv or the 1080p goodness.
The Better buy is and always will be... the console that offers the games and features you want at the lowest price. That changes on a person to person basis... but if you look at the general game buying population it would seem that the Wii is the console that meets that metric for most people, and the PS3 is struggling to appeal to people in that regard.
Besides the point that the Xbox 360 is just as capable of 1080p graphics as the PS3. Unless you're sitting 8ft from a 100+ inch screen it's physically impossible for the human eye to determine the differences between 720p and 1080p
Don't believe me?:
http://www.audioholi...of-human-visionQUOTE(uberwoot @ Apr 10 2007, 02:44 PM)
so what has better graphics? none to me they bolth look like crap. to meny jaggies im use to 2 8800GTxXs now and allways been running to of the most state of the art graphics cards in SLI.
Your opinion and you're entitled to it... I'd disagree but that's mine.
QUOTE(uberwoot @ Apr 10 2007, 02:44 PM)
however the 360's graphics are close to as good as they will ever get why the PS3's are not. They still need to optamize things and devs need to take advantage of the hardware. Dispite what people may say devs will do it because thats how great epic games are made.
I agree that the PS3 games will improve with optimization over time... but how do you figure the Xbox 360 has been tapped out... NOTHING ANYWHERE points to that being the case. Even Epic has stated that Gears of War only uses a fraction of the Xbox 360's potential and could have looked worlds better with further optimization. I have not heard 1 dev on either side of the fence even hint that the Xbox 360 has reached it's limit... both sides agree that both consoles could a whole lot further then where they're at right now.