Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 2 Jan 2008.
Check out that novel!
600p is the resolution that COD4 was made in for 360. just like Halo 3 was made in 640p. the console has a built in upscaler to up convert it to real HD resolutions.
most all EA Sports ports are horrible. AC? the same glitches are in 360. the PS3 version of Orange Box was made by a totally different dev team (some EA team) and was basically an afterthought.
look at the numbers not a graph for comparing sales. i didnt say a trend. i said slowly its caught up a little and actually pretty good in the holidays.
if only attach rate matters (only if it benefits 360 probly) then COD4 on PS3 has sold about the same COD4 on 360.
high attach rate for halo 3 because lots of people who bought the system bought it for halo 3.
wifi is a very important thing to many people. not everyone can run cables throughout there house. wifi is beginning to be used alot more. on the PS boards there was a poll that if they used wired or wifi on ps3 and like 65%about i think said wifi.
look at sales of the first year for ps2. ps3 is doing just fine. in its first 12 months it sold about the same as 360 in its first 12 months.
most WoW players are not casual gamers.
how does psn load slow? it doesnt. poor navigation? the XMB is a totally amazing interface to use. works just fine to me.
we could nitpick at the other systems but it wont change each others opinions. neither will stating opinions as though thats how everyone feels. i am totally happy with my ps3 and all the people i know with one are too and i hear like no complaints yet i hear alot about 360. so whatever. if 360 continues to stay in the lead by like 8M i dont care. i know PS3 wont fail and will continue to improve and give me quality games for a long time.
lol! huuuuuge posts. lol
COD4 was made in 600p for PS3 as well, so I'm not sure where exactly you are going with that.
I've never heard of AC locking up and causing a 360 to freeze, also if you look at the game side by side, it looks better on 360 but just barely.
If you only play one game, you're not really a gamer. So that would make a lot of WoW users casual.
The poor nav is in the PSN and PS Store not XMB itself, XMB is quite similar in the way that the original and current xbox operate as well. Although I do prefer the 360 setup there is no real problem with how the xmb looks and functions.
It's not only attach rates that matter, but they are an indicator of how well the game is generally liked. And even with similar attach rates, 360 sold double what PS3 did on COD4, which is important because the game industry is at the core a business, and companies want to make money. They made more money with the 360 users, so it would make sense that they ensure to make the best game possible for 360, and then worry about the PS3 version. That's just smart business. Take care of the customers that spend the most money with you, and do your best to help the others.
I can't really explain why Halo 3 has such a high attach rate. It's not the best game in the world, the multiplayer is a blast though. IMHO Bioshock was the best game to come out this year, which sold remarkably well considering the nature of the game, but I can't quite put my finger on why Halo 3 is selling as well as it has. If I had to say one thing, it would probably be herding nature, and because everyone thinks everyone is playing it, or will be, everyone bought it. Either that or Oprah endorsed it.
It's not that EA makes shitty ports, it's that they are a business, and in order to make profits they are not willing to spend the extra money and time it takes to make the PS3 version on par with the 360 version. You either take a gimped version of the game, or you don't take it at all. EA or any dev/publishing company cannot be held accountable for Sony choosing hardware that is difficult to program for. I'm not saying coding for the 3 cores of the 360 is easy, but it is easier then the 7 active cores of the Cell. The wii is crazy easy to make games for, that's why so many things come out for it, granted a lot of them are crap, but a lot of companies are experimenting new ways to approach games in general and are able to do so without taking a huge financial risk because the Wii is cheaper to make games for, and it has the largest market.
Again most of my gripes are not with the Playstation brand, it was a better brand than it is now. Sony has really screwed up big time, and lost what the PS brand is supposed to be about; gaming. If they would of approached the Playstation as a gaming machine, they would not have chosen to use Cell, because they would of foreseen the difficulties of programming for it. Blu-Ray could go either way, I still do not see it as a necessity for a gaming machine, and if they would of chosen to go without it, the console would have been priced the same as 360. They would also be in better standing financially because right now Sony is still losing big bucks on every PS3 sold, and with the lowest attach rate ATM they are the slowest to make it back. I really have a hard time believing that Sony was thinking in the best interest of the consumer when they chose to put in Blu-Ray and Cell.
Edit: Also there was a reason that Valve did not make the PS3 version of Orange Box, because Gabe Newell thinks the PS3 is a crap platform to program for. He has been very outspoken about how he doesn't care for it at all.
those with AC and 360 that i know say there are tons of problems with the game. its not just PS3. causing the system to freeze could just be that the system froze and nothing to do with the game. same with all systems. it may not be the game. my friend has AC and dont think has had any trouble.
if you going by attach rate COD4 sold just as well on PS3 as it did on COD4. and it is not a game that will make a person choose one system over the other as they are basically the same on each system. so with that you pretty much need to go by attach rates.
maybe the CELL wasnt the best to choose for developing for but i think in the long run the companies that spend the money working with it will benefit the most from it as even though in the short run it doesnt seem better as time goes by and the devs get the hang of it, it will be able to be used much more effeciently and it wont be that the 360 versions are better.
the PS2 had the emotion engine. very slow (133mhz i think) and no video card. xbox was way more powerful but for the first few years any multiplatform game was first on ps2 then xbox. but in the last few years it changed and they were made on xbox first. i guess it was because they took advantage of the xbox' hardware. its not the exact same type of scenario but still. devs complained alot of the EE in the PS2 and how it was hard to develop for. but look at the amazing games they got out of it. Socom was i think the first game to ever use a headset for voice chat online. Socom 2 set records for most people playing an online console game (probly broken now) as it had consistently 30k people on a night 2 yeas after release. and way more than that when it first came out.
actually it is that EA makes horrible ports. because they do. if they make bad ports, they make bad ports. if they made better ports they wouldnt get bad reviews and would sell more.
Halo sells so much as that is the main game everyone buys Xbox's for. thats what made the first xbox sell. and many people like it and so they bought 360 for Halo 3. and i think though that could be a problem as that is the thing that people think of when they think of xbox.
oooops. i gotta go to school. post more later.
i dont think COD4 is 600p on PS3 as it doesnt support that resolution and the ps3 wont upscale it. the native resolution of the game is 720p and it also works in 1080p somehow. (no the ps3 doesnt upscale it)
with Blu-Ray i dont think it was a bad decision to use. the only negative impact was the price. and for what it all can do the price was totally fine with me. if anything Blu-Ray is good as you can store more stuff on it for games with lots of in-game HD movie thingys. no need to skimp on quality then. and loading times can be reduced by putting some data on the disc multiple times.
COD4 is 600p on both http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/22/call-of-duty-4-not-hd-only-600p-claim-pixel-counters/2 I'm not sure where you are getting your info that that res is not supported and that the PS3 doesn't upscale....
Load times are limited to hardware, and if it reads at 2x at one point on the disc it will read at 2x for the whole thing, seek time can be limited but that is just a few seconds. The only way to make up for the drive being slow is to install parts of the game. I get the whole we've got more space with blu-ray idea, but whether it is actually needed is another thing. I don't think you are seeing the entire picture I am trying to paint for you, so let me try to reduce it for you. Regardless of whether blu-ray is great to have and really allows the system to perform better; If Blu-Ray was not included, the PS3 launches 4 months earlier, at a much lower cost, and more could be made for launch. If Cell is not used, price is also reduced, and games can be made quicker. More games at launch in combination with a lower cost, and more consoles means more sales. More sales means a larger potential market, meaning Sony doesn't lose all of the exclusives it did, and has more games made at a higher quality. More competition between Sony and Microsoft creates a huge price war, resulting in better deals for consumers, and better content as both sides want to win and the numbers are closer. The PS3 may be a better long term console, but really do I care that my PS3 is still getting games 6 years down the road, when a newer, better console will be available from Microsoft? No I really don't, and most of the people that buy consoles (the core market of 18-34 year old males) will want the latest and greatest as long as they can afford it. And in reality the PS2's longevity has hurt PS3 sales, as games like Madden and Guitar Hero 3 still come out for it, giving in-between gamers no reason to upgrade to PS3 yet.
And I still don't understand how you can blame EA for trying to run a business. If every dev took the time to make the PS3 versions run smoothly like their 360 counterparts they would be in the red on the PS3 versions, and in return they may decide not to make them anymore. The cell makes things take much longer to do, and much much longer if you want them to look great doing it, and for this reason, you the end consumer, get screwed over.
when it was first posted on the net i read on anotehr site it was for 360. or atleast it sound like only 360's version was 600p. but i dont get how it can be 600p on ps3 as the ps3 DOES NOT upscale ps3 games. maybe its programed into the game to display in 720p and 1080p somehow. skate is like that too. its a 720p game yet when i play it its 1080p on my monitor. but cod4 only displays in 720p on my monitor unless i disable 720p and only enable 1080p. i should see if it makes it look better. hmmm maybe....
disc read speed is not the same for the whole disc if i read correct. the center of the disc is a smaller way around than the outer edge. it spins at a certain speed the whole time which averages 2x. the data that is closest to the center will be read fastest.
just like burning a dvd. data closest to center takes shorter and data closest to outside edge is slowest.
but yes installing parts on hdd helps alot and its a good thing sony included the hdd as a standard.
as long as i have Socom im happy
The PS3 has the ability to upscale, so I don't know why it wouldn't be able to do it with PS3 games, it does it with PS1, PS2, and DVD titles.
So instead of worrying about compression, devs have to worry about where and how many times to put textures and other things on blu-ray? If what you are saying is correct, then you are just trading one problem for another.
Never really got into Socom, GRAW is better!
beh on GRAW.
i played the demo for GRAW 2 and although somethings are neat like using sixaxis to control scope i dont like the Over The Shoulder view (OTS). and i dont know why but the movement just seems slow and very restrictive. and cover systems are cheap for online play.
but i dont necessarily like the games everyone else does either. i dont like RPGs or 'Halo' type futuristic shooters.
MGS4+ coming to xbox
Separate names with a comma.