Save cash and get the better looking game.
360s GPU is more advanced.
PS3 CPU is more advanced.
Most games console/PC are heavily GPU centric.
No one works for free; it costs more to develop an equal looking game on PS3.
Wonder how these GPUs compare to a Radeon 6990.
PS3 is not that powerful in the GPU side of the house. Knowing AMD, it should actually have a decent GPU. Technically, 360s GPU is already better than RSX. CPU is another story however game developers focus on GPU (easier, quicker).
You can probably make a better NES game today, but why bother? Instead of calling developers lazy, give them better GPUs to work with and let's move on. This was the 1080p generation and instead we got upscaled games that barely stay at 30 FPS.
We've been playing with 2005 GPUs.
If what had been disscussed Is correct, this isn't a jump big enough to current HD systems. Don't even mention PC in the same sentence.
We know what's going to happen. Slightly better 360 version, PS3 fans calling them lazy, PC looking waaaaaaay better.
I currently have GPUs that dance in circles around Wii 2.
PS3 550 MHz
360 500 MHz
Most experts agree that Xenon is more advanced than RSX. PS3 has a better CPU (not GPU). Any GPU 80% better than Xenon is at least 81% better than RSX.
It's time to move to true HD graphics and 60FPS. I'm sure developers could have made better NES games exploring the hardware. But getting a SNES was nice. A 10-year strategy is only good for Sony, not the gamer. It's their way to make up the money they've spent. PS3 and 360 are outdated. No matter how nice Crysis 2 looks on 360 or KZ3 on the PS3, the GPUs show their age. They look nice for consoles; hook up a PC to your HD TV and play any popular game and be ready to be blown ...
Comparing the sales number for Crysis 1 on PC with a month old game? There's no question about it. It was the correct financial move.
Yes 360 has a better GPU.
Can't believe some of these post. The PS3 has nothing at all on PC. Even a $100 GPU from NVIDIA or AMD leaves it far behind. It barely competes with 360. Some games look awesome (Uncharted, etc.) But this is console awesome; not PC. Have you seen games running at 70, 80, or 90 FPS on max settings? Frames per second and resolutions on PC are way higher. Also, both the 360 and PS3 GPUs are 2005 technology.
Although really funny, it's not working. I'm surprised they're still using this marketing strategy. It's not selling enough systems.
I hope that when people talk about how KZ3 looks great they understand that it doesn't compete with PC graphics. As far as Crysis 2 goes #1 PC (by a mile), #2 360 (better resolution and frame rate than PS3) and # 3PS3 (almost as good as the 360 version).
Crysis 1 may have been a benchmarking game but it wasn't a fun game. This is just an opinion, of course, but I've had much more fun with Crysis 2 (PC).
PC>360>PS3.
Who cares? The market has changed. Call me if Battlefield 3 or the next CoD is exclusive to x or y console. Not playing Rising. Not playing MGS5. Traded in MGS4. Way overrated (Halo 3 was also overrated).
You would do the same if you were a developer. It sells better on 360 anyway, it's easier to program for, slightly better graphics with less effort, etc. It's funny how many call developers lazy when games look better on 360. Would you work overtime for free? Maybe PS3 games should cost $20 more to motivate developers to max out it's CPU potential.