Comparing the Xbox 360 and PS3 side-by-side
Why do most PS3 launch games look about the same as second-year Xbox 360 games? That's what the peeps over at 1UP are trying to unearth via side-by-side screen comparisons in an attempt to justify the PS3's $200 premium. And the first batch of results don't make the PS3 look so "high tech" when contrasted with the Xbox 360's year-old hardware. But before any Microsoft loyalists flex muscle and exchange respect knuckles, keep in mind the screens and vids are comparing first-generation and second-generation software. Sony is also betting the Cell is more scalable in the long run, however, so while the screens look near identical now, it's to be determined if subsequent graphics stay this comparable. But yeah, those considering early adoption of the PS3 can now do a double take.
[Thanks, Embassy]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Jeremy Gray @ Nov 29th 2006 1:36PM
"keep in mind the screens and vids are comparing first-generation and second-generation software"
No.
They are comparing 2006 and 2006 software, and that's all that matters.
wizzle @ Nov 29th 2006 1:36PM
Joysticks tis By-assed agenst da Sonies@@@21!11!1
I hate gamers @ Nov 29th 2006 1:38PM
That is a bullshit argument to say the least. If anything the PS3 games SHOULD look better, you know with all the "superior tech" it's supposed to have. Keep in mind that the PS3 versions for these games have been in development for a lot longer and not only that it's not MS fault that Sony had to push back the realease date for the PS3 because they couldn't get the shit to work.
What's going to be the excuese next year and the year after next? I guess we can find the answer to that when Dan Shu does his interview of Krazy Ken, if that ever happens...
CakeOrDeath @ Nov 29th 2006 1:44PM
"keep in mind the screens and vids are comparing first-generation and second-generation software"
That works untill you look at Gears of War and see that the PS3 is actually currently trailing the 360 graphically. Maybe we will see a marginal difference in performance but what is there encouraging developers to put in the extra work to get the best out of the PS3?
When the Xbox came out there was nothing on the PS2 that could even touch DOA4.
Sollord @ Nov 29th 2006 1:44PM
Hard to tell since only 2 of the screens are of remotely the same thing and for some reason the gamma looks to be off on one of them
nero @ Nov 29th 2006 1:45PM
The games will only look as good as the developers make them, no matter what the system is...especially for games that are for multi-platforms. Why would a company like EA spend extra development time in building better art assets for the PS3 when it's already been done? Aside from minor tweaks, you're not gonna get drastic changes no matter how powerful one system is over another.
It's all about the bottom money line. You're better off comparing Forza or Project Gotham to Sony's Gran Turismo.
Joe Smith @ Nov 29th 2006 1:45PM
I'm sorry -- the "PS3 is more scalable" argument doesn't cut it. They are charging $200 more NOW, not two years from now. On top of which, most developers say that the scalability argument applies equally to both consoles -- there simply isn't a significant performance difference.
At E3 2 years ago, Sony promised the moon. They called Xbox 360 "Xbox 1.5" and claimed "4D" experiences unlike anything seen before. This was supposed to be the 2nd coming. And they did not deliver. All the fanboys came down like a ton of bricks on Microsoft for daring to post fair hardware comparison numbers to counter Sony's outrageous claims. Well, outrageous claims require a VERY high level of proof. And they haven't met it. As an example, seen many 1080p gmaes supporting multiple 1080p monitors lately?
So far, I have seen NOTHING on PS3 that can't be done on 360 and I include in that all the unreleased and upcoming titles.
Spore @ Nov 29th 2006 1:47PM
This is a waste of time to think about. Until developers start leveraging the PS3's strengths/weaknesses specifically, any multi-platform game is going to be very similar looking.
And until those games come out, no way I'm going to fight, bite, and shoot people to get a PS3.
Flash @ Nov 29th 2006 1:47PM
Ps3 is truly amazing, software looks as good/better on launch hardware, than software on year old hardware. Sony did a great job, once again M$ has to play catch up.
Marty @ Nov 29th 2006 1:48PM
The thing is, consumers generally aren't going to say "well this is first gen vs. second gen" stuff. They are going to see one console that costs $400, one that costs $600, and the same graphics between the two.
But why should devs focus more on the graphics side of the PS3, when there are far less PS3's out there to sell games for? There's no point in spending extra time on something that will net your company less profit.
WedgeTalon @ Nov 29th 2006 1:55PM
@ Jeremy Gray: Good call.
I came in here to say much the same. It is irrelevant that one is first-gen software and the other second. They are both being released NOW. If they cannot be compared because of that year's difference, then that makes all future multi-console release comparisons irrelevant.
Certainly if some hypothetical filthy-rich person owned both a 360 and a ps3, they would want to know on which system a multi-system game ran best.
Andrew @ Nov 29th 2006 1:58PM
Using Multi-platform games have never been a good way of comparing hardware platforms. Madden was hardly the best looking game on Xbox, and the same will be true of EA sports titles this generation. What we really need to wait for is two games. Halo 3, and Metal Gear Solid.
Gears of War is certainly a beautiful game, but I would bet that Halo 3 is going to be THE GAME that shapes our collective idea of what 360-quality graphics can be.
Meanwhile, for every Playstation console, a Metal Gear Solid has defined it's capablities. There was talk of the PS2 being extremely hard to program for, with limitations such as the 2Mb of video ram. And then Konami released MGS2.
Until those two games are both released, I don't think it's possible to really compare the pros and cons of each system. I certainly don't plan on buying either system until these games come out.
ill trooper @ Nov 29th 2006 1:59PM
This side-to-side thing is still not really going to answer the question - the assets themselves seem to be identical, for example, the shots from COD3 have the same texture maps, so it's not gonna look different. I think we'd have to see the games in person, in motion, on the same tv. The difference will come with enemies on screen, effects, and slowdown.
That's pretty cool - it's matching the graphics of the same 360 titles in it's first week... Why are people so mad? I mean, stop splitting hairs... Both systems are awesome. The 360 has only hit stride in the last 6-7 months... I got mine launch day 2005 and kept my old xbox hooked up too until they made Splinter Cell backward compatible - the only things worth playing for me were CoD2 and Geometry Wars. It's gonna take the PS3 a little while to get to speed, just like it took the 360.
This site's comments are getting soooo drastic. I, for one, like the way the PS3 is quieter than the 360 and has no power brick, using a standard power cord. But that doesn't mean I don't like my 360.
Doctahh Dooom @ Nov 29th 2006 2:03PM
Not to forget the PS3 titles have serious frame rate issues.
Frank N Stein @ Nov 29th 2006 2:09PM
The 360 looks better, big surprise....PS3 is a $600+ paperweight.
Jimmy @ Nov 29th 2006 2:12PM
Did anyone mention how easy/difficult it is to develop for PS3? If consumers can't see the value-add for the extra $200, the console won't sell. But if developers find it difficult to create awesome games for the platform, Sony will have nothing to sell but consoles. I guess only time will tell...
Brian (the REAL Brian) @ Nov 29th 2006 2:14PM
I would imagine that the PS3 version doesn't look any better because it's a direct port of the 360 version, no enhancements.
I wouldn't yet base an opinion on graphical capabilities for the PS3... compared with the 360. Not YET, I said.
I'm a Nintendo fan [read: FAN], so I wouldn't really know the ins and outs of the PS3 or the 360, but from what I know about videogames in general, second and third-generation games on a console are bound to look prettier than first generation games.
Give the developers some time to work with the PS3.
After all, Capcom didn't make RE4 in a day.
Darth Vader @ Nov 29th 2006 2:14PM
Does anyone else think that the contrast on the 360 is set at a darker level than the PS3, more likely a setting on the HDTV that the 360 was on rather than graphics quality etc?
Flash @ Nov 29th 2006 2:17PM
Did everyone forget that the ps3 has a $500 version?
HoldOn @ Nov 29th 2006 2:21PM
I think that 1up kind of missed the point here with this article. It's great and all to say that your console is capable of much more than the other guy's (poor Nintendo), but side by side comparisons are not a great way to prove it.
Both the Xbox360 and PS3 are very different in terms of architecture, as a result developers have a few options for releasing a multiplatform game:
1) Develop the game exclusively for the X360 and exclusively again for the PS3. The result is a higher quality game on both systems but at a MUCH higher cost to the developer since they essentially developed 1.5 games. (Might even demand a complete rewrite.)
2) Build the game and then swap out various character models, environments, etc. to take better advantage of what each system has to offer. It may not use EVERYTHING each system has to offer, but it will use a fair amount of each.
Sounds great in theory, but this can lead to a lot of unforeseen problems in terms of certain sections of game code or other systems working perfectly on one but causing a massive amount of bugs on the other. Thus trapping a developer into basically trying to do #1 too late in the development cycle. Which would ultimately create a sub-par game on both systems.
3) Lower everything to the lowest common denominator between the two and use that as your "system specs." While not the solution I'm sure people are looking forward to, it can help a developer to create what will be a better game focused more on gameplay rather than pretty graphics. Or so the theory goes. It can also just create a so-so game that doesn't look or play much better than a PS2 title.
And of course there's "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Reviewers will be sure to point out the things that developers don't do and might even ignore completely the good points (that's why it's Metacritic and not Metareview). So far it seems that the only good way to do this is to remain exclusive to one platform or the other (like Gears of War). But this ALSO has problems since it limits the audience to only those who own that particular platform (hence a lot of PS3 exclusives going multi-platform).
So it's up to you how to hang yourself, because there sure is plenty of rope to do it with. The 1up article tries to use side by side comparisons to pit the two systems together. What they (and Joystiq) forgot to mention was that it's up to developers to make use (or not) of the system.
Jason W @ Nov 29th 2006 2:21PM
"comparing first-generation and second-generation software. "
So does this mean that the Xbox 360 will sit out one cyle (generation) so that the PS3 can catch up. No I dout that. So would there not always be the fact that the ps3 is one generation in the software battle behind the 360? One day all the juice of each of these systems will be squeezzzzzzed out but that will be about the time the Xbox 3 and the PS4 comes out.
Dave @ Nov 29th 2006 2:22PM
Both look the same to me. I smell BULLSHIT SONY
Chris in CA @ Nov 29th 2006 2:22PM
I am a 360 owner and once-was-but-no-longer excited to get a PS3 -- but I need to call bullsh*t on this.
The first vs. second generation point is very well and strong -- but more importantly almost all of the games 1UP compares in this article are PORTS of 360 games to the PS3. I have read several places that much of the first batch (and potentially several 'next batches') of PS3 games will be highly leveraging (i.e. porting) much of their content from the easier to develop for 360.
It's totally fair to say that some PS3 games do (and might continue to) look *very* similar to 360 games -- for 1UP to present this as a premise that questions the technological prowess of the Cell processor.. well.. that's a little unfair and, IMHO, no very solid (nor balanced) journalism.
kudos @ Nov 29th 2006 2:22PM
ppl said the same thing about the PS2 vs Dreamcast 6 years ago... and look who won that one
http://news4gamers.com/industrynews/News-15910.aspx
UnmaskedHero @ Nov 29th 2006 2:24PM
One thing I am also noticing, in the screen shot above, is that the 360 version has more going on. There are more people in the background. Why can't the PS3 have the same amount of audience on the screen? It reminds me of what that guy said about Assassin's Creed: the artificial intelligence will be slightly better on the 360.
Usedtabe @ Nov 29th 2006 2:25PM
@ Flash:
And? Thats still $100 more than the 360 for nothing. And I seriously laughed at your previous comment. You're a joke Sony-shill, and nothing more. MS has to play catch-up? Do you believe the shit that comes out of your mouth. If anyone is playing "catch-up" it's sony. They're playing catch up to the 360, Wii, their own production issues, lame launch games (excluding REsistance). On top of that, some developers are taking the "wait and see" route before they even committ to developing for Sony. So again, tell me how MS is playing catchup to the 360?
P.S. Search Joystiq, you'll see a nice article about how crappy the PS3 version of RR7 looks compared to the 360's year old RR6
dotun.o @ Nov 29th 2006 2:27PM
Right from the time MS and Sony released the specs of their systems, I already knew the end results would be virtually the same; so similar that the differences would be negligible. There's no point in bickering - you'll get virtually the same thing on both systems.
Personally, I don't see the point in wasting multiple-core processors on mere gaming machines in an age when PCs are still doing amazing things with single and dual-core processors, especially when you still have to take losses to sell these already expensive systems. The Xbox360 would still be a fine machine with a single 3.2Ghz processor (same goes for PS3) but would probably save a lot on manufacturing costs and retail price.
Look at Twilight Princess on the Wii - looks great, especially for a GCN game. Now, does it compare graphically to the best-looking X360 and PS3 games? Not really. But do you see the difference you'd expect between a game running on 729 Mhz and one running on triple-core 3.2Ghz processors or a supposedly more powerful Cell processor? Not really.
MosquitoControl @ Nov 29th 2006 2:28PM
Also worth noting that many of these games had faster framerates on the 360.
Furthermore, worth noting that many of these games are 360 games hastily ported to the PS3.
tcc3 @ Nov 29th 2006 2:28PM
The color on the sony screens looks washed out, and the images a bit burrrier.
Not trying to incite a flamewar - do they really look like that?
hennifer @ Nov 29th 2006 2:33PM
nice options for the survey..
"Sony's way better."
"Sony's marginally better"
"What the cell is going on?"
How about making it 360 > PS3 or PS3 > 360.. two options.. leave it to 1up to suck the fat nut!
And doesn't "Shooting for the sun" make you Icarus? Y'know, the kid who aimed too high and when the sun melted his wings, died? good times.
Matt @ Nov 29th 2006 2:42PM
Developing a next-gen game today costs millions upon millions and to reap the benefit most publishers must release the game across multiple platforms. To do this as cheap as possible they cannot dramatically change the game between platforms because that will simply add to how much the game costs to produce. So that kind of begs the question then right? If the PS3 and 360 are similar in power, there is no point in owning both if identical games will come out for each system, right?
Also, how much would it cost for a developer to utilize all 7 cores in the PS3 for creating a game? What I mean by that is, many developers have said how much (100x fold at least) harder it will be to design a game for multi-core cpus (and we're talking 7 cores here)... And once a game has been optimized for all 7 cores (which won't happen for probably 4-5 years) the game probably won't play on the 360 due to lack of power... So here is my theory: Third-party developers will continue to make games for both systems and never take advantage of the multi-core technology on the PS3 because it would prevent them from releasing a playable version on the 360 and thus reduce their profits. However in-house (or very tight-with-sony) developers will eventually take advantage of the PS3's 7 cores and the games will end up looking slightly better than the 360 but this will come at a cost to the developers and they might not break a profit since so much was invested into development.
My point is, we've reached a point in the industry where it's cost-prohibitive to develop a game for multiple systems AND have the games look dramatically different between those systems. So the result is you will have the same crap coming out for both the PS3 and 360 while having virtually zero visual difference in the game.
adeel @ Nov 29th 2006 2:49PM
Its going to take developers a good year to pump something completely mind blowing out for the ps3, and at taht point i suspect that the ps3 will start to show its advantages over and Xbox...
Did anyone notice how the ps3 shots use far more AA than the 360 shots? ps3 looks softer, 360 looks like pc screenshots.
Oh and finally, im a complete ps3 fanboy, no two ways about it, got myself 3 ps3's, two sold on ebay, the third is right here.. BUT.. It will will stay here, unplayed for a very long time while I enjoy my new 360..
I have been turned, finally, to the larger library of software and untill sony catches up, my ps3 will gather dust. what a shame, it really is a nice console.
Flash @ Nov 29th 2006 2:49PM
More like the 360 is a 400 paper weight, with just 100 more I can get a good console.
The Intangible Fact @ Nov 29th 2006 2:57PM
@ Flash
Your a fool to think the PS3 is the better console.
Read up
x Man0waR x @ Nov 29th 2006 2:58PM
I have not been impressed by any of the PS3 titles. There has been nothing that I've seen that makes me say "Oh Man, I got to get this!"
I had that reaction when the PSX first came out and I played WIPEOUT for the very first time. Even there flagship title "Resistance: Fall Of Man" is under the gun when it was discovered (and documented by this site but not confirmed as of yet) that Resistance: Fall of Man could fix on a standard DVD after Sony and the Developer calimed the game was 22GB's big! Now it seems that 17GB of that was just "Padding".
WHAT A JOKE!
If this is true then Sony is really ripping it's customers off. As someone mentioned in a eariler post, Sony promised the MOON to justify the PS3's hefty price tag. And they simply haven't delivered the goods! R:FOM looks no better that the 360's GEARS OF WAR. MADDEN looks and plays like a direct port of the 360 Version. Where's the WOW factor you promised, Sony? For $600, I would have expected you have at least one title that would some some glimmer of Sony's "Next-Gen" with the Blu-Ray but so far nothing has lived up to the hype. And as another person here pointed out, how much are developers - like EA - willing to invest in Sony's vision of Next-Gen? Will Madden 2008 for the PS3 be a true "Next-Gen" game by Sony's definition or will it be a simple port over of the 360 version like this year's Madden on the PS3?
Those that know EA's current rep know that answer already.
I feel sad for all those fanboys who wanted to get a PS3 believing Sony's promise of "True Next-Gen" only to discover they could have been there already with a 360!
The Other Jason @ Nov 29th 2006 2:59PM
If you look at the PS3 launch titles like 70% of them are cross platform... even Ridge Racer 7 is kind of cross platform... there would only be one game out for the PS3 right now if it weren't for the 360... developers were working on games like Tiger Woods and Madden, and Ridge Racer BEFORE the 360 was released...
With the 360 developers were taking their first crack at developing NEXT GEN games... with the PS3 many of the developers have already built the next gen engines for the 360 and it is only a matter of porting those engines to the PS3...
Like it or not the 360 started the NEXT GENERATION and when you compare the difficulty of developing games on the 2 platforms you can bet that MOST developers are going to be building the next gen games on the 360 and porting them to the PS3... the tools on the XBOX are just easier to use. Take Assassins Creed for example... I would bet they were building it on the 360 the whole time and porting it to the PS3 along the way... they have had a system to work with in the 360 for the last year and a half (including time with dev kits)...
Unless the PS3 starts selling BIG TIME this trend will continue... why develop a game for the PS3 when you are only going to be able to sell at most 2 million copies by the holiday of next year... and you could potentiall sell the same game on the 360 to more than 10 million people in that same time frame?
Enzo @ Nov 29th 2006 3:00PM
Everyone makes the arguement that "THOSE ARE 2nD GEN 360 GAMES AND FIRST GEN PS3 GAMES, BIIIASSS" but did anyone look at the Full Auto comparison? Those are both launch games and they look exactly the same. Big whoop.
Zac @ Nov 29th 2006 3:02PM
18- I see exactly what you are saying. It seems like when there is a difference in (actually comparable) screens, the Xbox 360 screens have more contrast or like a yellow color burn.
ie. the first Blazing Angels comparison, second Ridge Racer comparison, or either Call of Duty comparison.
It's very noticeable... no clue why that happens though.
Joe @ Nov 29th 2006 3:03PM
What's even more confusing is why does every game for the PS3 get WEAKER ratings than the same games on 360? IGN ratings:
360 PS3
Madden '07 8.5 8.3
Tiger Woods 8.5 8.3
NFS Carbon 8.2 7.9
Marvel UA 8.2 7.9
Tony Hawk 8 7.8 7.0
NHL 2K7 8.9 8.6
So with xbox you get better games AND online services that actually work! All for less money!
@ Nov 29th 2006 3:04PM
This is only an 'issue' if you own both systems... in which case, you're a lucky person to be able to devote the financial resources towards gaming. But, if you only have one or the other, then, just buy and enjoy whatever version is availble for your system.
Joe @ Nov 29th 2006 3:06PM
Maybe this is a little easier to read:
______________360 ______ PS3________
Madden '07 _______8.5 _______8.3_________
Tiger Woods ______ 8.5 _______8.3_________
NFS Carbon _______8.2 _______7.9_________
Marvel UA ________8.2 _______7.9_________
Tony Hawk 8 ______7.8________7.0_________
NHL 2K7 _________8.9________8.6_________
a @ Nov 29th 2006 3:07PM
How quickly everyone forgets.. When xbox 1 came out its graphics looked slightly better than ps2. But over time the ps2 graphics got better and better.
Sony makes significantly more complex, push the edge of the envelope hardware. MS is much more conservative in its designs (xbox 1 was a pc, xbox2 is essentiall a power mc). Both chips are variants on the "power" line of IBM chips. One of the reasons the PS2 was successful, is because of the "custom" chips , Sony was able to reduce the number of chips used in each mini-generation of machines, making them cheaper.
We won't see the ps3 "cell" work its magic or fail to deliver for some time. Complex chips need complex compilers (see intels itanium as an example of a complex chip that never hit its stride). I work with hardware so find the differences interesting from an academic standpoint
Also graphics cards do matter as well, Sony= Nvidia MS=ATI.
I agree with ill trooper, whats with all the fan bouys.. All the new machines are decent, can't everyone stop worrying about the hardware and have fun. I get the feeling half the commentors wouldn't touch a Ps3/360/WII because its not their brand of choice.
Aleman @ Nov 29th 2006 3:08PM
http://ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=44216
^^ high resolution side-by-side video comparisons there.
Mike @ Nov 29th 2006 3:08PM
NOTE TO JOYSTIQ EDITORS: Please give users the ability to filter out news entries based on the poster so that I never have to see another lousy Blake Snow post. Every time i see one, I get closer to ignoring Joystiq entirely.
Seriously.
Flash @ Nov 29th 2006 3:17PM
Y is it taking so long for my post?
James @ Nov 29th 2006 3:19PM
i guess you M$ fanboys are forgetting that your beloved 360 charges $200 extra for the HD-DVD, whereas PS3 has it included in the 20gb model, making an equivelant PS3 $100 cheaper.
keep hating though... it's the in thing
Mazzani @ Nov 29th 2006 3:21PM
This is really not a good way to compare the capabilities of each system. When game developers are creating games that will be playable on multiple systems, they have to be a bit more broad and generic when coding to ensure compatibility on multiple hardware. Of course there is going to be very little difference between the two systems when comparing the same game. If you really want to make a comparison that shows of the differences, look at two games that are similar, not the same, on each system: One exclusive to the X360 and the other to the PS3.
TexRob @ Nov 29th 2006 3:23PM
http://www.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6-7-comparisons-27828.phtml
If anyone thinks Joystiq is just being biased, check this out. I don't care which console you favor, there is no denying these side by side comparrisons. PS3 is powerful, but they obviously don't know how to code for it yet. I don't think PS3 will every look drastically better than the Xbox360, but I think it will look as good or a little better in a year or two. Right now, it does not.
D-Nice @ Nov 29th 2006 3:23PM
I bought the Wii. I like it, my son likes it, the people who come over my house like it. The Wii remote makes a huge difference in game play. Nintendo brought "fun" back like Timberlake brought "sexy" back.
lordroba @ Nov 29th 2006 3:23PM
"That's what the peeps over at 1UP are trying to unearth via side-by-side screen comparisons in an attempt to justify the PS3's $200 premium."
ps3 and xbox 360 are basically the same in power. The reason it (PS3) costs $200 more is because of bluray. If you haven't figured that out by now, go shoot yourself in the face.