Although I agree that PS3 has better exclusives, we're looking at this wrong. The concept of exclusive games is to draw customers. In the NES era, Nintendo won because almost every game was exclusive. SNES had Street Fighter (eventually it made it to Sega). In the US online FPS rule; not exclusives. That's why, even with awesome games for PS3, MS leads. For a while it was Halo. But now it's about CoD. I doubt Xbox players care about Uncharted, just like PS3 owners won't buy a ...
Yes it was MS year in the US, the most important market according to developers. I believe it was Sony's year in Europe and Nintendo in Japan. Does anyone have the numbers?
I think he's on to something. Dual GPU PS4 and 720 will first address resolution and FPS. Games will run 1080P. Then you'll realize that improvements on graphics will be evolutionary (not revolutionary). It's like playing BF3 on a dual core GPU today. Yes, it looks awesome. But it's not like going from PS2 to PS3, XBOX and XBOX 360.
The hardware issues with 360 were the result of changes in regulations (for materials used) late in the development cycle. Dual Core GPUs should be enough; keep in mind that console games are maximized for the hardware (PC games are not). Expect Sony to do the same (Dual Core NVidia and a faster version of the cell engine). By the way, AMD usually has the better GPUs (from raw numbers) while NVidia has the cooler running ones (temperatures and noise). Proud owner of PS3, 360 and a 6950.
Yep, I went PC too, but to be honest, these GPUs can do much more than what we get. No matter what Xbox or PS3 (mostly PS3) fans say, these consoles have maxed out. Yes, games like Uncharted look good, but you're getting low resolutions and frame rates. A still picture can also look good; in action things change. Five years for any console is enough, specially with the old GPUs PS3 and 360 have. You can make a better Genesis/SNES game today too (technically nothing maxes out) but the impo...
For those commenting on software sales numbers:
360 sells more games. Yes, PS3 sells some types of games better than 360. But overall, including DLC, 360 sold more units in 2010.
Global:
http://www.gamepro.com/arti...
UK:
5363d ago 4 agree1 disagreeView comment
This is ridiculous; I wonder what people would be saying had MS done this. As an owner of both systems, PS3 was my Netflix player (Blue Tooth remote). Not anymore. I guess it us now just a BR player. It is just like saying: "hey you got a RRoD? No playing your fixed Xbox until you waive any lawsuits." Yes, it's more technical than this, but weren't identities potentally compromised?
and no one bought them. This is the Call of Duty era. Other than Uncharted, the other exclusives don't matter too much to non-PS3 owners. Just like Halo doesn't matter to PS3 owners. I don't think MS and its fans are too concerned about God of War (no matter how good it may be). It's a different industry.
PS3 storage is more advanced.
360 GPU newer/more advanced. The PS3 GPU is based on older NVIDiA technology. The GPU determines graphic quality in most cases, not storage. In addition, most multiplat PS3 games run on lower res. This has nothing to do with MS.
MS has been ahead of even the Wii for a year month by month. KB is funny, but it the campaign is not working. I wrote about this a few months ago. Look at the facts.
This is really about BR vs Kinect. Most don't really care about hard drive size. Yes, 4GB is ridiculous. But when parents shop this holiday season, they'll pick Kinect over memory every day. Wait for NPD. Hard drive size is a way of keeping prices up. Apple does it. Instead of selling you a 80GB iPod classic for cheap, they'll stop producing it, increase memory and keep the price high ($249).
Yes, PS3 has more exclusives, but based on sales, people don't care. My PS3 is my media system; my 360 is my gaming system.
It's not laziness, it's cost effectiveness. Developers would spend more money and resources to make games look identical to 360. Since games sell more on 360, it's not worth it. Don't blame developers. Blame hardware design. Simple, if you want games to look the same, pay more.
It's a business; Sony made it hard for developers. I wonder how many of those who call developers lazy would work more for free.
XBOX is not losing any steam.
PS3 and 360 are using old GPUs. Wii U is not really a step forward in terms of graphics.
PS3 and 360 can produce visuals similar to PC. It's the res and the framerate what will make a difference. Expect PC>360>PS3. It's all about the better GPU. Some like to blame developers for not using PS3's potential. Instead, blame Sony for not anticipating what developers would do. Best bang for the buck is what any business would do.
Nothing new. As I understand this, the stealth-box released last year uses this. Someone probably read an 2010 E3 article and thought it was new.
Sure, 50G discs are better. However, at some point they have to start doing this. Don't you hate games with awesome graphics and sub-HD video? Gears of War 2 had great graphics, but the cutscenes looked like PS1 stuff. Is it the new higher capacity disc?
We want better games but complain when developers make good points. PS3 fans call developers lazy too. If you want better games, don't give your money to Game Stop, etc. Give it to the guy who worked the long hours. I support both Sony and MS doing this. Try to trade in a "new" game and GS will give you next to nothing; then they sell it for $5 under the new price. Try working for free. It sucks.