Kccitystar Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 I decided to make this thread because an article had me curious as to why people would want to seriously blow money on a Playstation 3: Blu-ray. The Cell Processor. The RSX graphics chip. The PS3 was supposed to be the most insanely advanced gaming machine ever created. It was supposed to be able to deliver visuals well beyond anything capable on console or PC. According to Sony, the next generation wasn't supposed to begin until PS3 arrived. So why is it, then, that all these PS3 games look just the same as they do on the Xbox 360? When the PS2 first launched, Sony demanded that all games on the system be enhanced visually over their rival platform counterparts. The PS2 represented the next generation of gaming, and software was required to support this notion. With the PS3, Sony seemingly has no such requirements, offering us only that it "expects and encourages publishers working on PS3 titles to take full advantage of the technology and features that PS3 provides." Well, encouraging may not be enough. And promises for better looking games in the future don't really cut it. The PS3 is here now, it costs an extra $200 (at minimum), and the visual difference is questionable. Don't believe us? We put the PS3 lineup to the test. We captured images and video of several games and their Xbox 360 counterparts - using the same exact capture device, with same type of connection cables, running at the same exact resolutions. Now you tell us, are we just missing something or was the next generation here all along? http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3155393 I want to keep this thread as healthy as possible. Keep the flame wars to a minimum if anything. Any PS3, XBOX360 and Wii news can go here also. I'll post my thoughts eventually on all 3 next gen consoles. Until then, comment on the article, I found the similarities between the two systems startling, because I feel people paid $200 USD extra for the same visual quality as an XBOX360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinghernandez Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 I think the PS3 is the most overrated release of a system in a long time. Sony might be in trouble in the future. As for the Wii, i've only heard good things. The 360 was a solid release but there isn't a whole bunch of improvement from the Xbox. The Xbox and PS2 changed gaming but now they are running out of new technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfgiantsflgators Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Going through those screenies, my eyes show a slight improvement on the PS3 versions (except Call of Duty). Whether it's $200 better, I can't say that it is. I'm interested in seeing how the games for both systems look down the road, but as of the current state, I think the 360 is a better value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDom Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Yea, but no one included that it is also the cheapest Blu-Ray DVD Player... the cheapest stand-alone blu-ray player is close to 1000 dollars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kccitystar Posted December 4, 2006 Author Share Posted December 4, 2006 Yea, but no one included that it is also the cheapest Blu-Ray DVD Player... the cheapest stand-alone blu-ray player is close to 1000 dollars... Seriously, why would sony want to trojan horse their newest technology into their gaming system? Then again, they market the console as a computer. 600 dollars for a console? That's about the same price as the old 3DO, and look where that went. 600 dollars for a computer? Nowadays, that's a bargain. Microsoft has played it safe in a way, because they do not want to throw consumers into a format war the way Sony has by forcing Blu-Ray down people's throats. They added HD-DVD as an optional component. The 360 is a DVD based system. They're simply offering an HD-DVD add-on for movies. They're not really worried about pimping out the system as a boarding platform to a new media format, just providing the option. Sony on the other hand is banking on one. I believe the PS3 would be cheaper if not at the same price of the XBOX360 if the Blu-Ray player was sold as an add on instead of being literally trojan horsed into the system. If Sony was making a console devoted to games/entertainment they would not have incorporated Cell/Blu-Ray. The Cell processor, despite how it was built on paper, only performs as well as a low-end G4 Mac computer, according to Linux benchmarks... Sony had invested billions on the development of this chip, and despite the potential processing power it has, the architecture is sophisticated enough to frustrate developers, on top of that, the RSX chip used for graphics is just as good as the XBOX360. I still don't understand how anyone can justify $200 extra dollars for the same kind of quality the other console would provide. Is it the Sony name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav3rek Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 I heard that Sony had very very limited supplies of the PS3 bc they had to recall a bunch b/c of bad blu-ray drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.