Two words

Uncompressed audio

two words

***** YEAH!!!

...

Developers will expand their games to fit the space provided. Give them more space, and they'll give us more game. Filesize limitations are why we moved away from carts. And why we should never go download-only

Download good for

portable devices (PSP, DS, iPhone, etc), but yeah, never for home consoles

indeed... however...

Kojima wanted uncompressed audio in MGS4, but he ended up having to compress it, due to the game getting larger than expected. so the audio IS compressed, even though that wasn't the original plan. but yes, other games (some atleast) have uncompressed audio, as the actual game doesn't take up any space anyways.

~~

I don't like how some people talk as if the PS3 and BluRay is a failure.. =\

exactly

blu ray is the hi def standard now. Why would he regret putting blu ray in the ps3 now?

agreed

I kind of agree with ~~. The gap between PS3 and 360 is really just a year's worth sales right now, and the gaps not getting any bigger. Once a price cut hits, that gap is going to close really quickly. But then that'll probably pressure Microsoft to start selling 360's at a ludicrously cheap price. Blu Ray in general does need to get a tad cheaper though.

WHAT AN EFFIN JOKE

When you download something, you have an account it is linked with, so if you ever accidentally delete it or your storage fails you can go back, log in and re-download it. Some places have restrictions, but thats BECAUSE a physical medium is still thriving. Sony did not HAVE to .... they could have had a much more safer DL option, and stuck with a cheap DVD drive. In which case, they could have bundled the PS3 with a 500GB HDD and offered more space to accommodate cheaper, 3.5" SATA drives. There is Kojima's solution right there, its exactly what the 360 is doing with Forza 3 (2 discs, second one downloads to the HDD). At 300-400 launch, the PS3 would have blew away, or at least met Microsoft in sales by now(mostly due to large fanbase). Also, they could have made the Wifi as an optional, much cheaper upgrade than 360's(I use and prefer wired connections for data transfer). The MCR was also useless as you could have just bought one, if you actually needed it. This way we would have likely still had the ps2 hardware inside as well. So yeah, there were a lot of things Sony COULD HAVE EASILY DONE to make the PS3 cheaper, they just think we the consumer are THAT STUPID, that we will take their word for it.

actually..

there are still tons of people who still do not have high speed internet and/or dont play online. also, there tons of people who like having a physical collection of games. if sony where to do what you proposed, there would be huge market they would be outcasting. in fact, the ps3 sold at a loss. so, if we want to talk about sacrifice for the sake of the consumer, sony has plenty. here's the thing though, ps3 is the best value; you can trust that when you buy one, you are getting the best bang for you buck (especially now with the price drop) considering the high standards and quality of the system. and the more intelligent consumer will invest in quality.

are you serious???

2 discs games? this ain't PS1 or PS2. i dont wanna sacrifice my HDD memory just to download the other discs data. surely the ps3 installs the game data but that's just a small part(5gb more or less). MCR was removed on new PS3 models anyways. and i agree with truk on this one.

Nut job.

badasspc1 I don't see your point at all. 1. even with a High speed 15Mbit Line downloading a game thats 50Gigs would take like 14+ hours to download and thats at about 30mins per 1gig going at about 1.70mbs 2. there are 1,000s of people who does not even have a ISP or even High speed like a 15MBit line. 3. I know if i Pay 60+$$ for a game they better give me something other then just a download, i like Somethen that's real. 4.from the Looks of your post your just a 360 fan bot posting hate on a PS3 post 5. i have a 360 and PS3 and ALL my Ps3 game Look 100times better then the 360 games, it should when a True HD game is being played over a DVD game. 6. I will give it to you that the price of the PS3 could have been dropped if they mayed some changes (like Why did it need wifi?) or (Linux support? when you can't even have the full power of the Ps3 on the Linux +( just dumb)

...

they should have made both download and bluray ...Psp Go

??yea

TouchDaSkeleton There is Download and Blue-ray, there are Many games that can be downloaded from the sony Store.

I agree with truk

@ zzk2001 Your points are well said . I gotta disagree with your point six though" (like Why did it need wifi?) or (Linux support? " I love that it has linux support. Not fully supported BUT better than nothing (OMG snes on a 52). Plus Linux didn't make the PS3 cost more, it just made the PS3 release date a little longer. I also agree that the wifi should of been optional, and I thought personally I would never used it but I ended up using it for media server etc.

I don't get it zzk2001

You said "i dont wanna sacrifice my HDD memory just to download the other discs data. surely the ps3 installs the game data but that's just a small part(5gb more or less)." But full 360 disc is 7GB, so I don't get why you would completely against _up_to_ 7GB install for one 360 game, and yet you're more than happy for up to 5GB installs for so many PS3 games. I kind of see where you're coming from, but you're not consistant here, either large HDD requirements for console games are acceptable or they're not.

Sorry, I meant rakizta77 ^^^

However, talking about zzk2001. 1. Yes, currently the speed of broadband is still not enough to make discs a thing of the past. 2. Yep 3. I wouldn't mind. It's the experience that counts, not the media it comes on. But yes, it's nice to have something in your hand for such purchases. 4. Possibly, although he does have a point that a cheaper PS3 would have had a great impact against the 360. I just don't think it would have been as easy as he claims. 5. Woah there, you know that's not true if you really did have both consoles. Do most PS3 exclusives look better overall than most 360 exclusives? Yep, and a lot of that is down to the skills and resources of the developers. For the remaining multiformat games, which are the majority, both consoles look about the same graphically, with the 360 slightly ahead overall. 6. Yes, i think we all agree it could have been cheaper, but i don't think dropping wifi would have been the answer. We need look no further than the later models of the PS3 to see what Sony should have done from the start. Unfortunately, Ken Kutaragi was just too stubborn to listen to reason, and he paid for it in the end with his 'retirement'.

True HD

I have to agree with zzk. I have both as well. When I bought my ps3 I thought games would look the same as the xbox. I bought gta4 because gamespot mentioned the "marginal difference". This is not marginal. There is noticeably crisper lines and less drop in framerate. I finished gta4 on my PS3 and now just use my 360 for the Lost and Damned episode. I was exclusively xbox-centric for a bit. LBP though got me...and the $200 60GB I got at the last minute on ebay;)

I disagree, it is marginal. ^^^

The PS3 version of GTA4 runs at a lower resolution (640p) than the 360 version (720p), hence has a slightly blurrier look to it, which some prefer. That said, the 360 version has an odd filtered look to the 720p output. The overall framerate is slightly better on the 360 version, but the HDD helps lessen texture pop-in on the PS3 version. So there are pros and cons to each, but I think they're about even overall, with gamers and reviewers split over which version they prefer. And this is just ONE game. GTA4 doesn't represent PS3 vs 360 games in general, and it certainly doesn't support zzk2001's claim about PS3 vs 360 games in general. Still, it's good to be a multi-format gamer, since you get the 'best of both worlds'. :)

3 words

F*** yeah b!tches!!

Really..

What it really comes down to is how the user sees HD just like with getting Plasma over LCD or DLP For me all the games i have played on PS3 look more alive and Color and fill like it could be real,BUT with the 360 games even them looking Good, Over all they just don't have that wow look where it fills real. the 360 games all look a little cartoony to me, And i mean in the looks not game play. And i believe the 60gig version of the PS3 is Best (it sucks they stopped making it) But i am lucky to have one +P

Some people say the reverse

Some say their PS3 games look less 'real' and washed out compared to the more vibrant 360 versions. So why the difference in opinions? Well some of it is down to personal preference of course, but much of it comes down to how the TV is calibrated to the console. The default brightness, contrast and colour levels vary between video devices, and the 360 and PS3 are no different in this respect. Therefore if your TV is adjusted to make your 360 games look perfect for you (preferred brightness, contrast, colour levels etc), then when you use a PS3 on the same TV, everything looks a bit 'off' in comparison. Adjust your TV for your PS3 games, and now the 360 games don't look quite right. Hence I've seen numerous 360 vs PS3 game reviews/comparisons where they complained about the PS3 version looking washed out and lifeless compared to the 360 version, and yet PS3 gamers don't see that problem. Why? Again, because the reviewers are using TVs setup in favour of the 360 and made no adjustment when they switched to the PS3. Either way, it's far from the exaggerated claim you made in point 5. ;)

Default settings

When i say that i mean Setup the TV on Default settings and hook up the two systems and you'll see. and me just changing the settings of the tv will not take away the cartoon look i see on the 360. I am no where close to a Sony fan/PS3 user as i have many on top of many systems and i like what is best at the time Not just because of it's name. In the past I got a Xbox and PS2 and loved the xbox over ps2 and it looks more real and had better options But Now that has changed where PS3 is better over 360.

^^ But I think you're comparing different games!

I seriously doubt you have purchased a 360 AND PS3 copy of the same game just to compare them, so clearly you are talking about comparing completely different games, which actually makes your point redundant if that's the case. Please name the PS3 and 360 games you are talking about here, since imo, if the 360 game(s) looks like a 'cartoon' then that's probably because it was suppose to look that way, i.e. the graphical style. And for those games that are multi-format, which ones do you have that look like a cartoon on the 360, then we can talk about the PS3 version and whether or not it looks the same.

....

Yeah I am with Jez, in knowing what games. I own a PS3, had a 360 in the past and all my friends have 360's still. In the past (1st gen games) there were noticeable differences between multiplatform games on PS3 and 360. However, games coming out now on both systems look the same. Capcom is probably the best at this as RE5 and SF4 are indistinguishable from one another, as are most EA games and the COD series as well. So ya, knowing the games would help.

just not understanding me

it looks like you just want to Place the 360 as the Best system and most likely a fanboy to the system thus i will never change or mind anyway so why try. i'll keep to what i say as my friend had the same game THPS on 360 and mine on PS3 and his just did not Look as good as the PS3's version (not by much) as games made for All systems will Both look the same as they Need to Be set at a Lower setting for the 360. making your whole point redundant as well, The games made only for PS3 or games Only made for 360 If shown side by side the PS3 games will look better. that's the only point i made this whole time.

^^^ Oh I do understand you :)

Lets start with THPS. Firstly, I assume that's Tony Hawk's Pro Skater? That was last gen I believe. This gen we have Tony Hawk's Project 8, where you can read a comparison here (page 4); http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/x360-v-ps3-multiformat-face-off-round-three-article And there's Tony Hawk's Proving Ground, where you can read a comparison here (page 2); http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/x360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-seven-article The difference is usually so slight in multi-format games that it doesn't matter in most cases. You said "games made for All systems will Both look the same as they Need to Be set at a Lower setting for the 360". Completely WRONG. Multi-format games look similar between the 360 and PS3 because BOTH have 512MB of RAM and both have similar power in their GPUs. When there's a PC version as well, then a good PC can alway run the SAME game at a higher screen resolution, with higher resolution textures and all at a higher framerate than the 360 and PS3 versions. The fact that the framerate of the PS3 version is often on par or slightly worse than the 360 version shows it isn't being back. If either the 360 or PS3 had more RAM, then THAT console could have higher resolution textures in games, and if either console had a more powerful GPU, then higher framerates would be possible. You said you had a PS2 and XBox last gen, well the XBox had much more RAM than the PS2, it also had more graphical power compared to the PS2, and the result was XBox versions of multiformat games looking and running better than the PS2 versions for 99.9% of games. It's true that multi-format games can rarely push the hardware as much as exclusive games, but a more powerful system is not held back by a less powerful system in the way you claim (as proven by the PC, and the XBox and PS2 last gen). You said "The games made only for PS3 or games Only made for 360 If shown side by side the PS3 games will look better." Great, so let's stop all the excuses about why multi-format games don't look or run better on the PS3 compared to the 360, and focus on the exclusives. I've partially answered this already when I said....Do most PS3 exclusives look better overall than most 360 exclusives? Yep, and a lot of that is down to the skills and resources of the developers. Sony has some of the best game exclusive developers in the industry, and this includes devs who try harder than most to push the hardware as much as they can. Naughty Dog, Konami (MGS team), and now Guerilla are the most obvious examples. However, put these same guys to work on the 360 with equal resources, and they would come up with games which are just as impressive. So by all means say you prefer the PS3 over the 360 because of the quality of the exclusives, and with games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted that's understandable, but saying PS3 games are more realistic than 360 games is a generalization which just doesn't hold up.

really dont care

just a matter of what you like and dislike, It's not that big of a deal to me.

wrong i think not.

You may as well just said they don't scale down games made for PS3/360 for the NDS or PSP LOL Anyways this is a never winning fight over things that are a matter of taste not a matter of what is better. no matter what the 360 can't match the power of the PS3 no matter how you try and twist the facts. If you wish to keep on with the pointless conversion and fill you Need to somehow win in the end then be my guess, But i am done with it.

This is not about winning or losing

You said "If you wish to keep on with the pointless conversion and fill you Need to somehow win in the end then be my guess, But i am done with it." Which imo shows you either had an alterior motive behind your claim, or you know your claims about downscaled PS3 games have no basis in fact (you will not find a single developer or report on game developement which says this, only fanboys on forums!), or you take disagreements personally, which is a shame. But I'll address your comments just the same: "You may as well just said they don't scale down games made for PS3/360 for the NDS or PSP LOL" EXACTLY, and so by your own words you prove my point! Just THINK about what you've said... I'll give you a few moments ... ;) Ok...that's enough time... So when there's a multi-format game on PS3 and 360, you accept that DS or PSP versions will need to be downscaled because they have a fraction of the power and memory. Correct? Of course, but were the PS3 and 360 versions downscaled because of the DS and PSP? Of course NOT. But according to you, this is exactly what happens, since you claim that the more powerful system has to be downscaled to match the less powerful system. So even if it was true that the 360 is as underpowered compared to the PS3 as you believe it to be, then like the DS and PSP example above, it would be the 360 version which is downscaled to run the game, NOT the PS3 version. Same last gen, where PS2 versions were downscaled compared to the XBox version, not the XBox downscaled to match the PS2 (as uninformed gamers will claim for PS3 and 360 games this gen). By your own words, for multi-format games, they will be downscaled to run on a system with less power and less memory, but the more powerful systems are NOT downscaled to match the lower ones. "no matter what the 360 can't match the power of the PS3 no matter how you try and twist the facts." There's no twisting facts, the 360 and PS3 are very similar in memory and power, with the 360 having some advantages over the PS3, and the PS3 some advantages over the 360, and overall the PS3 having a _slight_ edge over the 360.

Ok

So goodbye then, it was a decent conversation whilst it lasted.