UBISOFT was the ones saying that Assassins Creed was "only announced for the PS3." Sony didn't say a thing. Sony hardly even comments on third-party exclusives by name...thats Microsoft's turf (GTA IV, Pro Evo and Fifa etc...and please, don't say that you didn't think PS3 wouldn't have exclusive content for GTAIV after Microsoft announced that they would, that would equate to misleading). and no matter how you slice-n-dice it, Microsoft flatout lied about Pro Evo...and that effec...
it's not even worth commenting about really. trust me, Microsoft isn't stupid enough to take Sony to court over something like this. this engadget article is just the rant of a fanboy, the bait he's dangling to rattle the fishies. like most other flame-bait on this site, this'll be forgotten by Monday.
well, according to Microsoft they had an deal with Konami for Pro Evo to be exclusive to the 360 for 12 months. Konami said the agreement was until the end of this year...aprox. 3-4 months. Microsoft wasn't misleading; they flat out lied. and according to Konami, Microsoft's lies may have damaged Konami's relations with other system manufacturers (namely Sony). we don't see Konami taking Microsoft to court over it do we?
dude, you may as well just give it a rest. this article is swarming with 360 fans who falsly smell the blood of Sony in the cesspool of misled conjecture. there probably isn't a judge in his right mind who would take such a miniscule matter into consideration. Microsoft would do far more harm to their own public-image and credibility by taking Sony to court over this, than this chart itself could ever hope to do.
two market-leading conglomerates are about to go to court over something this trite, and no other gaming site besides engadget reports on it? i mean, this should be industry-shaking news; gaming's two biggest figure-heads going to court, and only engadget is there to vaguely report about it. no ign, no gamespot, no 1up or computerandvideogame, not even gameindustry or next-gen...not even joystiq (JOYSTIQ, we all KNOW how much they like controversy). wow, engadget must be a pretty prestigio...
i'm seeing a lot of 360 fans posting in this article. i thought most 360 fans cared about backwards compatibility as much as Microsoft did...as in they don't? why should this even be news for 360 fans who a) don't care about Sony/PS3, and b) don't care too much about bc on their own system? i'm a staunch supporter of bc, and this news is of little consequence to me. if upgraded graphics are that important, why even bother playing old PSOne, PS2, XBox games? just play PS3/360 games. me m...
oh, my bad. i forgot about that. so, thats $535 for the premium 360 + wireless internet; compared to the $600 PS3 with everything-premium-360, plus HDMI, Blu-ray and 66% more hard-drive space. thats still a comparable price for both, especially since one offers more storage space both optically and hardware-wise. or, i guess you can opt not to buy the wireless adaptor for the 360 and just rearrange your set-up so that you're PC and 360 are close enough together to where they can connect. ...
throw in wireless internet (some people actually need that) and you're talking $535 for the premium 360. the core (CORE) PS3 does the exact same thing, plus it has Blu-ray and HDMI, and it's only $500. for an additional $100 you can get 40 extra gigs of hard-drive space; i wonder how much Microsoft will be charging for that 100 gig HD they just announced? furthermore, how is this article misleading? requires means that to equal what the PS3 is offering, you're REQUIRED to spend that much ...
you are correct. it is the games that matter, which is why this all comes down to preference, which was why i felt topgamer's questioning RSX's power as illogical, especially considering there isn't anything yet seen on the 360 that doesn't have a graphical equal on the PS3, nor was there anything in the article that wasn't factual. nothing is ardently factual about either system's power, cause when it's all said and done its the developers who utilize that power that matters most. when it...
tell you what, you post a screen from the most graphically impressive 360 game (no PC screens) you can think of, and i'll bet you i can easily find a PS3 screen that looks at least as good.
if enough developers are confident that the PS3 is at least as powerful as the 360, and these same developers are developing experiences on the PS3 that are at least equal to the 360, then why do you even care about the RSX's specs? most developers concede that the RSX is slightly (SLIGHTLY) inferior to the 360's custom ATI, but that that difference is so slight that the Cell (which most say is superior--almost significantly so--to the Xenon) more than makes up for it. and also, how is the ...
you keep saying this. they aren't saying anything about cloth(e)s, armor (what would you do with armor in a GTA game?), cars etc. it says, "Apparently this bonus content will come in the form of brand new areas for both the 360 and the PS3. The source explained it like this: 'Think of the world as a large island - the new downloadable areas will be like smaller islands linking into it.'"
with their recent battery woes with Apple, Dell, Toshiba etc., maybe its a good thing to pitch the Sixaxis controllers before they spontaneously combust. ;)
well, the graphics were definately impressive. the gameplay was kinda slow, but i'm guessing that can be attributed to the game's early development. i've never gotten into the Def Jam games, but i'll most definately be keeping an eye on this one.
well, i don't know what McManhon's beliefs are, but i DO know that he wasn't too happy with THQ for canceling the PS3 version of SvR. even back then WWE had threatened to disassociate themselves with THQ...apparently Sony and WWE have a close relationship. i guess i can consider it from both angles. THQ is the developer: unless they had some clandestine dealings with Microsoft to cancel the PS3 version, then it was probably a time-constrained issue. they probably knew what they were doing...
"It's twice the cost of rival game consoles made by Microsoft and Nintendo."
um, PS3's biggest rival is the 360, which costs $299 and $399 respectively. so, unless PS3 is now $599 and $799 respectively, then this article is severely misleading.
yeah! my girlfriend just bought me Splinter Cell Double Agent Special Edition! hopefully they'll have some downloads for it on Live pretty soon.
what i don't understand about this is that Microsoft is saying all this stuff as if it'll all change after Sony make their announcements tomorrow. XBox Live is great: let the service speak for itself. Sony's Ken and Kaz say stupid stuff all the time, but if its one thing i can say about Sony is that they don't let their the angst about the competition show the way Microsoft does.
...there goes our privilage to able to post news on this site.
grandma's/grandpa's and soccer moms don't even know this chart exist. when they go into the store to purchase these products they're gonna go by word of mouth and brand-recognition, and the value for the price. the only people who know anything about this chart is the very people who are arguing nonsensically over it...hardcore gamers (who have a strong tendency to be fanboys), who should already know the difference between "required-by-purchase&quo t; and "required-to-play"....