What is Digg?149 Comments
- threepio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+50Can you squelch hardware differences? I don't believe so.
I'm thrilled with my Xbox 360. I'm also thrilled with my PS3. Simple external things like: not having to purchase an upgrade to get high def disc playback (HD-DVD Addon), not having to purchase a wireless adapter, and not having to deal with an external powerbrick - all very small things, but things I enjoy about the PS3 more.
My Xbox 360 can multitask (being able to game while downloading a demo is almost essential). It also has a controller that rumbles as well as a standard voicechat solution (no voicechat in the PS3 version of Marvel: Ultimate Alliance was a bit of a shock). Who's to say what's more important here?
Take a look at Timesplitters or SSX - now take a look at God of War II; we thought the PS2 looked marvelous when it launched and here we are, still impressed by what is probably the last triple A title for the system. While it's lovely that we have plenty of time to write manifestos on the currently underwhelming nature of the PS3 it's worth mentioning that, to use an old adage, we ain't seen nothing yet. And that goes for the 360 too. - joshman5k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38"
It's
for
Playstation
2"
do you mean God of War 2??? - AReallyGoodName, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40The article is just flamebait and you're right, the consoles have plenty of diffences.
Some more off the top of my head...
360 doesn't have a motion senstive controller (only next gen console not to include it)
PS3 doesn't have rumble (only next gen console not to include it)
360 is cheaper
PS3 has a blu-ray drive built in
PS3s all have hard drives, even the budget version (allowing games that use it to work on all PS3s)
360 has better online functionality
PS3 officially supports Linux without a mod-chip
360 allows indy development using Microsoft XNA framework - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34(This article is not a fanboy rant but simply a means to hold Sony accountable for their promises.)
Translation: Fanboy Rant Alert :p Anyone who thinks they have to "hold Sony (or MS or Nintendo) "accountable for their promises" takes this stuff too seriously. :p - redneckblues, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34What
the
*****? - numbnu7s, on 10/12/2007, -16/+43Three words...
Gears
of
war - Light0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28hahah Gears of War on PS2.... hahahah
- 4g1vn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Boring. How does this crap keep making it to the front page?
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Neither console is weak.
The 360 has had time to come to fruitation now, and I believe the PS3 will do the same. I don't think that Sony will catch up to Microsoft in terms of online, after all Microsoft had the original XBox set up, and the 360 is an elevation of that now. Sony don't really have that much practice with it - the same way that Nintendo's online is likewise lackluster.
The PS3 does have a lot of ability that's locked away, although I really doubt that PS3 games will ever look better than the 360 ones - Mostly due to the way that the console has been designed. The 360 is a much better console, while the PS3 is a much better computer.
Of course, the PS3 also has the SIXAXIS and Blu-Ray. The Sixaxis is a good controller, allowing USB charging while playing, etc, and the small amount of motion sensing it has I'm sure will be used well for a few games, in addtion to the standard controls. Blu-Ray, for all that people complain about it, allows for more things to be packed on to games - Whether that is higher defintion audio, movies, etc, it still allows for more.
I think it'll end up with them being mostly similar, with the 360 edging ahead as competitive online play for games like Halo, Pro Evolution, and such will grow - Although not by a huge amount.
Atleast, that's what I think! - hootpie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23It's funny that it says it's not a fanboy article because it sure reads like one.
There should be an option to bury due to idiocy. - Namarrgon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Gee, that's funny. My 360 came standard with wireless controllers, and I don't have to plug them in when the batteries go flat. I just swap in a couple of standard NiMH AAs. They don't even lose sync mid-game like the PS3's do.
I get flawless 720p, 1080i and (yes) full 1080p output, via component. I wouldn't object to HDMI, but I wouldn't pay extra for it either. HDMI 1.3? Tell me again how that benefits anyone? No deep colour, since RSX doesn't support more than 32 bit framebuffers, and TVs can't display it anyway. No "Dolby TrueHD output" (why would it? uncompressed is better).
Wifi, great, 'cept I don't want it, and I don't want to pay for it either - ethernet is faster & more reliable. The HDD *is* removable and upgradeable (at least when MS release more options), though I stream all my media anyway. HD movies of either type are a bad buy-in until the format war is over (regardless of Sony's marketing claims), and I *definitely* don't want to pay for that just now, thank you.
Linux? Great, except without any GPU acceleration, why bother? What can you do that a cheaper PC can't do, or even a modded XBox 1? As for "more power", well, Cell can crunch numbers faster, but that doesn't help games particularly. PS2's "supercomputer" vector processors went largely untapped for most of its life, for much the same reason. RSX is a good chip, but no better than 360's Xenon, or a GF7900.
You do get more with the PS3, but you have to pay more too, whether you want all the extra features or not. I'd rather put my A$350 towards more games, and since 360 games tend to have more mature graphics & real online support, it's an easy choice for many of us. - kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Good point. It will be nice to see how a game with such a lengthy development on both systems turns out.
- DurkaMcDurk, on 10/12/2007, -33/+45@gxcdesign
Sounds like:
A) You have the worst luck imaginable when it comes to consoles.
B) You dont know how to take good enough care of electronics (I mean how hard is it to not kick it and *****?).
C) You're just an asshat.
I've owned numerous regular xbox's and never had any trouble out of them. even out of my modded one which is a launch box. I also know many people with 360's and only 1 has had trouble. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18"But on the other hand, there are little things that really hurt the PS3, like no rechargable battery packs (you have to plug controllers in to recharge them), no rumble, poor 720p support, yadda yadda."
You have to plug PS3 controllers in to charge them because *gasp* they have rechargeable batteries in them. And it has perfect 720p support, EVERY PS3 game supports it. It has poor 1080i support. If you're going to post anti-PS3 stuff, do some bloody research - 1mabu77fac3, on 10/12/2007, -22/+33wake me up in 6 months when the ps3 is beyond its FIRST GENERATION of titles and then we can start the "comparison". k thanks
- naden, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18What a ***** article .. item (1) alone is a joke:
"Free online community and ability to play games ( Match Xbox Live feature for Feature ) This absolutely did not happen. The Playstation network is almost broken when compared to Xbox live. The consensus is people do not mind paying for Live due to the features offered and sense of community. With the coming of "IPTV" Live appears only to be getting better and better."
a) HOW is Playstation Network broken. I honestly wanted to know with you know specific details like no unified gamer lists, voice chat etc, because for some people these may not be huge problems. I mean for it to be broken it would have to completely not work. Is this really the case?
b) WTF does IPTV have to do with gaming. Its hilarious because he completely contradicts himself in item (4) saying of BluRay: "However, how important is this to gaming". Well WTF does IPTV have to do with gaming ?
Im all for giving Sony *****, but at least provide some good specifics. AFAIK no one has written a half-decent critique of PS3 yet. - DJCult, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Hold on now, Hold on now. Maybe he meant PS3. You know, with the file-changing and all.
- KamikazeeDriver, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15"I totally agree. The only reason PS3 is looking similar to Xbox 360 games is because developers dont know how to use it yet. Its going to take developers a year or two to learn how to harness the power of the Cell and use the RSX to its advantage."
I disagree. The "Cell" is just a powerful CPU, but relates in no way to the graphic ability of a system. They could put a mainframe in the box, and it wouldn't make a difference. All that matters is what are people making. If someone makes a great game on one platform, and plan to multi-platform, they don't wanna waste time re-coding the game to run better on a CPU they're unfamiliar with. They just want it to run. More platforms = more $$$. If they can release virtually the same code on 3 platforms (PC, 360, Wii), they're not gonna waste time to rewrite any code, and write any special code to support PS3 so they can reach all platforms. More than likely, they'll just say 3 out of 4 ain't bad, especially considering the market share. - codefidelity, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@icepick314:
Technically, that is 5 words. - nattybohman, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20As a 360 / Wii / PS3 owner, I hope you're right. I'd hate to have shelled out $600 for a system that looks no better than a $400 system and has less features.
So far the 360 games look BETTER. This upsets me since a $600 system should look at LEAST as good as the $400 system right? What happened to "you get what you pay for?"
I already find myself buying 360 versions of cross platform games only to increase my gamerscore.
(I know the gamerscore is stupid and meaningless, but so was Diablo and I loved that too.) - pathy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Because it's impossible to get longer USB cables?
- kinesis8, on 10/12/2007, -23/+32Who cares who has more horsepower? Also, I can't think of a single multiplatform release that had a superior AI on a particular platform simply because it was more powerful.
Down the road, if the PS3 can show the majority of gamers that it has a handful of exclusives that justify its $500-$600 purchase price then it'll have all the advantages it needs to maintain a decent marketshare.
MGS4 is the only worthwhile title I've seen so far but for me, one title alone isn't enough to sway me into shelling out $600 bucks right now. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10http://digg.com/how
- jimek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9i am a complete 360 fan and i still think that article was short, and stupid
it was all still opinion based - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21But the original xbox games looked better than the ps2's right off the bat a year late. The ps3 games should look just a little better but they don't. Most say the games both consuls share the 360 looks better (lighting, frame rate, and textures) This shouldn't be the case if you follow your logic.
- Inverno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11but--in six months won't Xbox be on it's third generation of software?
- taxman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"At every turn aside from online Microsoft has shadowed Sony."
And yet MS released its product a year before Sony did its.
"And when the future came around the 360 looks like the poor cousin"
I believe its the opposite now.
"but I'll skip the achievements for free access to the network."
I am sure Tony hawk fans love their free online play - pathy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10No, I just have a lot of things that use USB...
My MP3 player, my PSP, my camera, my mice, my phone, an external HDD...
However, that doesn't change the fact you can still go out and buy a longer USB cable if you need one. I'd assume that people already have multiple USB cables though. - fujiman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7What in the name of Red Rider and His BB Gun is "Fruitation"
I think you mean fruition? - diblasio, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17I'm all for Sony getting burnt on the PS3 and I LOVE my 360/Wii combo. But I'm pretty bored with articles like this already.
- daridave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I agree with Assassin's Creed being the perfect example.
Is the PS3 powerful? Yeah, it's a monster. But it's got some stupid problems that make you wonder if Kutaragi & co. actually made that machine with gaming in mind.
Cell seems to be made for something else than games. RSX crammed in "at the last minute" because they realised they didn't have the power they needed.
and yes, there are some very stupid memory bandwith "problems" compared to the 360. It's something that has been discussed often by developers and it was even heard a lot here in Montreal thanks to Ubisoft and EA. I didn't get big on the 'net, but I've read about PS3's memory bandwith on several physical prints...
Obviously, SONY went too big on "doing it our way" and totally crashed & burned. - macbookpromat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11That fact has yet to be proven on the processor side because the Cell has yet to show us what it has, but the GPU in the Xbox 360 dwarfs the PS3's GPU.
- topflight, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11GPU versus GPU, X360 wins hands down, both on the vertex and pixel fronts. Well known within developer community. So then the question becomes whether 1PPU + Cell + GPU > 3 PPU + GPU. Even if you harness the CELL, that won't mean you will have realistic graphics. Ultimately, all your data has to go through the GPU, and that's where X360 has the advantage. What will the CELL allow then? Probably more realistic physics, AI, and simulation, but that won't mean better graphics. Memory really really matters in this equation as well. You need more memory to have better looking materials in the world -- this means that you need textures for reflection, specular, normal, noise maps, more memory to do more Post FX, compositing, HDR, etc. And yes, the X360 has more memory because the PS3 system reserves more. Right now, the X360 has advantages on a few fronts.
As well, keep in mind, this whole thing about X360 having a year advantage isn't as skewed towards Sony's advantage as you would think. The PS3 benefits from the technology developers have gained in writing HLSL shaders and learning how to code multi-core systems. As well, you have two options here as to why X360 games haven't looked good as it should be right now, and it is a false notion for someone to say that the X360 is fully tapped compared to the PS3. The first reason being that while the X360 games were being developed for the first year, most developers were struggling with pushing that much resources toward the X360 since the PS2 was their bread and butter. Secondly, while the X360 was being developed, a lot of resources went towards PS3 development since the PS3 was an expected beast to harness. That being said, the X360 has yet to reach its potential and the PS3 isn't as untapped as one would think (though the CELL is very untapped) because a lot of previous work and knowledge learned from the X360 was applied towards PS3 development. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Digg has no shame putting up this astroturf. This article should be forced to have a "Digg paid-off Advertisement" tag.
- yidali, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Greenmage it would be sarcasm if I didn't see that idiot trying to prove to everyone that he can run Gears of War on his PS3 on youtube, only to be removed because everyone proved he's an idiot.
- Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8This site looks like ass.
- ZPWeeks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No, but neither can it spam.
- ecommando, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I own all 3 next gen consoles.
Did you guys know, IBM is building workstations using the cell processor?
Gears of War developer says they pushed the XBOX360 to the limit.
EA is saying they have only used 20% of PS3's power.
I like both consoles, but I think in the end PS3 will have better games.
By the way, my XBOX360 came out to be more expensive than my PS3. I bought the WIFI card and a HDDVD player ($700 total). Oh also the Xbox Live that's another $50. So it's like $750 for my XBOX360.
Also, my brother who is not a gamer (not interested in any games at all) is buying the 20G PS3 for blu-ray movies. - mobislink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This article is not a fanboy rant but simple a means to hold Sony accountable for their promises=This article is a fanboy rant and simply means I am Sony hater and a XBox fanboy.
There is no new information or anything interesting here. It is just the same old ***** rehashed. Sony does have many obstacles to over come. Let's not forget the XBOX 360 has it share of core issues. Namely models with no hard drive and limited to the capacity of a DVD. Yes, I know this is plenty of space for any game. That is what people used to say about floppy disks. - _HAM_, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7The problem I have with the PS3 is the lack of launch titles.
I like PlayStation becuase of the games... where is Grand Turismo and Tekken. I'll buy one when it has some games. It doesn't have to be much... hell I bought a 360 just for Geometry Wars... I bought a DS just for Electroplankton.
- GreenMage, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14Sarcasm is just lost on you isn't it?
- gamemaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>>a) HOW is Playstation Network broken.
In a way that most on this board have not yet considered: there will not be many online PS3 games. Virtua Tennis 3 (online on 360; not on PS3) is just the tip of the iceberg. Why would Sega do this? The superficial reason is that online development is harder on PS3. True, but developers can deal with that. The REAL reason is that online development for PS3 is more EXPENSIVE, and worse it's an ongoing cost after release. Because Sony doesn't pay for matchmaking servers, the game developer either has to provide their own server or rent one from a 3rd party. In either case you have an ongoing money bleed - not something you want in a business where 90% of a game's lifetime revenue occurs within 60 days of launch.
The PS3's "free" online service isn't looking quite so rosy now is it? Yes its free for the console owners, but they've shifted those costs onto the developer. So unless it's a genre that absolutely cannot compete without online (say, an FPS) you are going to see more and more situations like Virtua Tennis 3: online on the 360 but not the PS3.
Who woulda thunk it? There's no such thing as a free lunch after all. - jacksons98, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@knodi Marvel Ultimate Alliance is at 1080p on PS3, 720p on X360.
- cmadach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"(This article is not a fanboy rant but simply a means to hold Sony accountable for their promises.)"
I think the article's craptastic grammar says otherwise - JimmyJJWalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"More of an issue is how the PS3 version of Oblivion won't have the option to download any extra quests or content (yep, no horse armor for you)."
Great job trying to deceive people, obviously you did not watch the developer interview where they said that was left out for game balance, so people did not jump right into things to fast. There was no technical limitation which prevented it's implementation. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you would even read your own link, you'd see that it was Blackley, not Gates, and Ken Kutaragi made the claim the all Ps2 games would look like Toy Story right at launch. Go back to gamespot and argue on your little forum troll..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Stop spamming those specs off a Sony site. They're proveably inaccurate.
- mikemil828, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Digg Law #542:
A digg link tends to exactly be what it's description says it isn't - JimmyJJWalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The site in question is preety 360 biased, look at the homepage of the site...
- Namarrgon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6360's GPU is roughly equivalent to PS3s - unsurprising, since they were developed at the same time with the same process tech. I don't know why people are getting all surprised that PS3's graphics aren't magically far better than 360's. I guess they accepted Sony's marketing at face value.
A few corrections to your list:
The "1.8TFLOPS" figure for RSX includes *all* on-chip hardware - alpha blenders, bilinear filters, Z-comparators, the lot. It's not comparable to Xenos' 240GFLOPS figure (which is for the programmable shaders only).
Xenos does 24 billion dot products per second unassisted, not 9.6B (ref Wikipedia).
Not sure where you get your "average" polygons per second figures from (especially for RSX), but for max vertices/s:
PS3: 1.2 billion
360: 1.6 billion (due to unified pipeline design)
Theoretical max shader operations per second for Xenos is actually 96 billion unassisted (due to unified pipeline design again).
Your texture lookups should actually be quoted in Gigatexels/s, not thousands/s.
Video RAM - yes, RSX can also use Cell memory for textures but access is significantly slower. Your "average MHz" numbers are quite meaningless, you can't average RDRAM and GDDR speeds like that. And you completely forgot the Xenos embedded DRAM - that gives a whole extra 256 GB/s of framebuffer bandwidth (like PS2 had, only bigger), and also includes numerous additional ALUs for blending & Z-buffering, giving 720p 4x anti-aliasing at almost no performance hit. -
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is