The game looks awesome, why wouldn't it sell extremely well?
I don't really care that much how much it sells, I just want it. I do think it will sell very well though.
I love how all the PS3 fanboys are latching onto the Xbox 360 number, but completely ignoring the fact that according to this survey the PS3 fails more than 10% of the time. That to me is also a crappy failure rate.
What's more, the 360 actually has a good warranty, the PS3 doesn't.
Personally, I would take a console with a 50% failure rate with a great 3 year warranty over a console with a 10% failure rate with a crappy warranty.
My 360 has never had a problem, but the people that I know that did have a problem got it back within two weeks. I have heard it take much longer to get a PS3 fixed. It probably depends where you are at in the world.
Wow, so many 360 bashers in this article. Why am I not surprised.
So, if this survey is correct, more than 10% of all PS3s fail.
I personally think all of these numbers are off, but I will say that I would take a console with a 50% failure rate that has a solid 3 year warranty over a console with a 10% failure rate that has a crappy warranty.
Suuuure man, whatever you say. I guess it must be backwards day...
Quit being such a stupid fanboy. MGS4 doesn't run in HD either, and that game is treated like the second coming by PS3 fanboys. Resolution doesn't define if a game is good or not.
Gintoki, why don't you take that crap somewhere else? This hasn't even been confirmed and it certainly hasn't been proven to be due to Microsoft. It could just be a business decision. Maybe they were having problems with the PS3 development of the game and they decided to focus on the 360 and PC. Who knows. I think it is pretty sad that you actually have people agreeing with you.
Um..where did he say that the 360 is in first place? He was just poking fun at the idea that a slimmer version will automatically result in domination for the PS3.
-That's true, he clearly states that the 360 has a more powerful GPU and a faster rasterizer. He also says that "Processing wise, the main CPU is about the same". In other articles he has also said that the 360 has more available memory. So, if the 360 has more memory, a better GPU and the CPU is about the same, that means that the 360 is indeed more powerful.
Other developers have told us the same thing.
Jason Booth, who was a former Harmonix developer ...
@ThatCanadianDouche
Bioshock looks better on the PS3? What a joke.
"What matters is that the brilliantly realised city of Rapture is diminished on PS3 - first of all with a reduction in resolution - a drop from 720p to 680p, and secondly by the inclusion of an utterly useless, detail-destroying blur effect that kills fine detail. Yup, the dreaded Vaseline effect is back, once again lowering picture quality for PS3 owners with absolutely zero benefit whatsoever....
Except the 360 IS effectively the more powerful machine. The top performance of the two consoles is very similar, but the 360 is much more efficient and easier to get good performance out of.
All reliable sources have told us the two consoles are very close in power. From the lead engineer of the two CPUs to developers that have worked on both platforms.
Did you guys read the Digital Foundry interview at Eurogamer with Tobias Berghoff who is the director of PS3 deve...
Everything I have seen from Mass Effect 2 looks like just as big of a graphical leap as between Uncharted and Uncharted 2.
Pardon, kaveti6616, but the PS3 isn't 20% more powerful than the 360. That is just misinformation.
All reliable sources have told us the two consoles are very close in power. From the lead engineer of the two CPUs to developers that have worked on both platforms.
Did you read the Digital Foundry interview at Eurogamer with Tobias Berghoff who is the director of PS3 development for the game Sacred? He explained that the optimal performance for both consoles is surp...
You're a liar. I have played the 360 version and there are no such issues.
That's the thing that always bothers me about screenshot-only comparisons. Screenshots don't tell the whole story. They don't tell you how the game performs, only how it looks in a static shot. And if there is a difference in a screenshot, the difference is usually much bigger when the image is blown up to the size of a large HDTV (or even a smaller HDTV). The slight blurriness we see in the PS3 shots I can guarantee will be much more noticeable at full size and resolution on my HDTV.
Why do people always say that about Burnout? The game was one of the few games that was truly nearly identical on both platforms. In the eurogamer comparison they said:
"Put simply, this is the first truly 'next-gen' game that truly is 99.9 percent identical across both PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360; the first title I've looked at for these features that raises the bar technically on both formats, offering the complete, full-fat experience, nothing added, nothing taken away." ...
See, that's the problem with screen shots. They often don't show you if one has better anti-aliasing or a better frame rate. Sometimes games look really close in screen shots and then I go compare the games on my own tv and I notice pretty big differences. I have both consoles and I just like to get the best version for my hard earned cash.
Yeah Mart, the textures do look slightly crisper on the 360 version. What really matters to me though is how it runs. I have a feeling it will run better on the 360. I guess we will have to wait for the Digital Foundry analysis to come out before we can find out. For now I am just going to go download the PS3 version and compare it to the 360 version and see how they compare.
You're wrong. Why didn't Halo Wars sell 4 million then?
Most Halo games sell extremely well for one reason: they are extremely good games.