Gamespot: Xbox 360 games look better than PS3 ports (for now)

Motorstorm already smokes any 360 driving game. go see for yourself at any PS3 kiosk. The basketball game looks ok, but give Motorstorm some eye candy credit. plus driving with the six axis is sweet.

Yeah it's hype ... stupid Sony hype. Nice reply, fester.

People who claim the 360 is intrinsically "better" by using 360 ports for comparison are simply full of shit. You can blame Sony for being late with the devkits, or you can blame EA, Ubisoft, Activision et al for putting out a weak port. But either way, comparing the same game on both consoles is simply not the way to do it. In fact from all I've read and seen, the graphics on both consoles are close to IDENTICAL. What inconsistencies there were, were minor things such as differing HDR bloom and so on - things you might expect anyway from one graphics card to another. The one persistent problem is slightly lower framerates on the PS3.

This is consistent with the notion that most 1st gen games were rush jobs, where the game was ported from the 3 core 360 to the 1 core PS3 without moving some of the load onto the SPUs. If Motorstorm can have 8-15 vehicles with real time physics, track deformation etc. then there is no excuse that Tony Hawk's Project 8 drops the odd frame except for unoptimized code.

As to the notion that the PS3 is "harder" to program because of the SPUs is nonsense. Certainly it requires people to think how they're going to break up their code in ways to offload work, but then the 360 demands that too. If a 360 game spawns a thread for crunching numbers, the chances are that the code could be reworked to use the SPU instead. SPUs can be programmed in C using a very straightforward API similar to a normal thread lib. With the suitable layer of abstraction most of the rest of the code really doesn't care what platform its running on.

Microsofts launch was more impressive than Sony's. Here is why:

1.) MS shipped more units than the PS3 with better marketing and consumer interaction.

2.) MS gave out a lot of free consoles through Mountain Dew and the like for promotion. This was marketing that benefited us gamers, unlike TV advertising that benefits TV conglomerates.

3.) The launch lineup was far superior to the PS3 lineup. PGR3, COD2, Oblivion

4.) A year later Sony still cant produce better games than the XBOX360 launch lineup. Why is this? Developers had the PS3 specs almost at the same time they had the 360 specs. In fact Sony had an extra year to improve their specs if they wanted to by lets say including more RAM. They were not able to do so because of the cost of their Blu-Ray Drive.

5.) XBOX LIVE is the ultimate online service for gamers. I have never experienced a better online product for games. The way your identity is tied to a gamertag which you take from game to game with a floating friends list is just awesome. It really deserves more credit.

6.) Its cheaper and wont be hacked to run friggin Linux unlike PS3 lol. Thats a damn embarrasment.

7.) It's less expensive and has a better design.

MY XBOX FANBOY COMMENT OF THE YEAR:

The PS2 was ultra popular for casual gamers because it was a ghettoblaster that in most users hands only cycled between the most current Madden and the most recent GTA.

There I said it. And what?

@52, the PS3 hasn't been "hacked" to run Linux. It runs it BY DESIGN. I have no idea why you think this is a bad thing since opens up a world of possibilities for the PS3.

Neither was Oblivion a launch title for the 360. It was meant to be for the PS3 but has been pushed back. The 360 version appeared some 4 or so months after the console appeared. The 360 launch line up was decidedly meh. The PS3 lineup isn't much better but neither is it bad either.

I don't disagree that Xbox Live is a better service. But you appear to think that the PS3 service is set in stone and will never change. It will. And since it costs nothing, and offers much of the same functionality, it's hard to see what your point is.

As for the XBox 360 being a better design, that's highly debateable. I'd say that the huge external power brick, lack of wi-fi, lack of bluetooth, lack of internal Blu-Ray / HD-DVD, proprietary harddrive casing, lack of harddrive (in some games), use of DVD-9, region encoding, lack of HDMI all count against it. Those might be prudent design decisions by MS to push the console out the door but that doesn't make it subjectively better.

47: "Motorstorm already smokes any 360 driving game. go see for yourself at any PS3 kiosk. "

You are kidding me, right? The bushes on the ground in motorstorm are 2D sprites. The crowd is also 2D. Flat. When you fall off the motorcycle and slide over the ground, the bushes actually clip through your player. Lame.

The explosions look good, but they only run them in slow motion. I seriously wonder if they HAD to run them in slow motion to get all the calculations done quickly enough.

52: The PS2 ran Linux, too. Lots of people did that, right?

I don't understand why you would want to run Linux on a computer with just 256MB of RAM, a slow general purpose processor, a slow 5400RPM hard drive, and a mid-range graphics chip. Personally, I think my Core 2 Duo E6700 with 2GB of RAM, 1.1TB of disk space, and a 7900GS video card would probably be a better general purpose computer. ;) Hell, I use Linux every day at work, and I don't see the big deal.

The PS3 just wouldn't make a great computer these days. So I don't really see the possibilities that it opens that a normal PC doesn't do better.

As for XBox live and the PS3's online "service," you said that the PS3's online service will get better. But so will XBox Live. Bluetooth isn't so much a benefit as it is an Achilles heel. The XBox's controllers don't randomly disconnect from the console. ;)

It seems to me that the PS3 graphics a little bit brighter and shows little more detail. Tiger woods golf you can see more leaves/branches on trees, the madden game you can see little more detailed audiences and the racing game you can see a more realistic background. Again it might be just me but then again the gamers will be the judges not those so called "critics"

Conclusion
The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we examined. The 360's biggest victories were in Madden 07 and Fight Night Round 3, where the differences in texture detail and lighting stood out in our comparison shots. We couldn't capture this in the screenshots, but the Xbox 360 games generally offered better framerates too.

Conclusion
The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we examined. The 360's biggest victories were in Madden 07 and Fight Night Round 3, where the differences in texture detail and lighting stood out in our comparison shots. We couldn't capture this in the screenshots, but the Xbox 360 games generally offered better framerates too.

Conclusion
The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we examined. The 360's biggest victories were in Madden 07 and Fight Night Round 3, where the differences in texture detail and lighting stood out in our comparison shots. We couldn't capture this in the screenshots, but the Xbox 360 games generally offered better framerates too.

Conclusion
The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we examined. The 360's biggest victories were in Madden 07 and Fight Night Round 3, where the differences in texture detail and lighting stood out in our comparison shots. We couldn't capture this in the screenshots, but the Xbox 360 games generally offered better framerates too.

Conclusion
The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we examined. The 360's biggest victories were in Madden 07 and Fight Night Round 3, where the differences in texture detail and lighting stood out in our comparison shots. We couldn't capture this in the screenshots, but the Xbox 360 games generally offered better framerates too.

Conclusion
The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we examined. The 360's biggest victories were in Madden 07 and Fight Night Round 3, where the differences in texture detail and lighting stood out in our comparison shots. We couldn't capture this in the screenshots, but the Xbox 360 games generally offered better framerates too.

Conclusion
The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we examined. The 360's biggest victories were in Madden 07 and Fight Night Round 3, where the differences in texture detail and lighting stood out in our comparison shots. We couldn't capture this in the screenshots, but the Xbox 360 games generally offered better framerates too.

It's pretty easy to see why people are getting worked up here.

Xbox 360 = £279.99

Sony's been coming up with all sorts of bullshit like "Xbox 1.5", "real next generation doesn't start until we say so" etc. and people have gone out and dropped 500 quid on one of their consoles after being taken in by the hype.

Then they find out that these "supercomputers" can't even match "Xbox 1.5", let alone beat it.

If I'd spent that much on a console to find that it's getting its head kicked in by a machine 50% cheaper, I'd be pissed off/disappointed too!

Now they're left trying to justify the cost by desperately scrambling for hope that things can only get better. Well guys, if the PS3 really was as powerful as Sony told you, it would be running three different versions of the Matrix simultaneously at 120fps in 1080p in four dimensions... as a launch title!

You really should have wised up after the PS2 Emotion Engine/Toy Story graphics bullshit. You only have yourselves to blame to be honest.

Motorstorm seems to have become the battle cry of Sony fans the world over. Graphically, the game IS beautiful and incredibly sharp, but the framerate is noticeably below 30 fps in this build...I don't know if they plan on improving that. I played it for about 10 minutes, and it is quite distracting for a racing game to have a framerate this low. Let's see how good Forza 2 looks and then we can compare, which I already know runs at 60 fps.

"Yes, the PS3 was delayed. And anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to infer that the PS3 dev kits were also delayed along with the actual retail console.
Seriously, PS3 and 360 gamaes had equal dev time? What the hell are you thinking?"

And if you care to remember, Sony pinned the delay solely on the Blu-Ray format. First it was the finalization of the specs, then it was yields of the laser diode. Neither of which should have had any impact on dev kits or game development. So either the developers had the time and couldn't/didn't bother to make the improvements, or Sony lied about the reasons for the delay. Take your pick.

As far as the praise for Motorstorm. The game may make for great still shots. Unfortunately, playing the game shouldn't feel like you're looking at a series of them. And that's the distinct impression I got with it. Yeah, the cars coming apart looks really good, but anyone who played Burnout Revenge on the 360 has seen crashes that are more impressive...

i think the ps3 looks better in some shots and the 360 in other shots, but again, that's an opinion. what matters is whether that slight graphical difference is worthe the price incremental.

#50.
"Gamecube has always had average graphics at best, the only game that came close was RE4. Everything else was crap. PS2 looked far better then anything on the gamecube."

What were you smoking? The gamecube had many games that showed how good its graphics were. Rogue Leader is a great example. Metroid Prime. Zelda (both of them). Metal Gear. Melee.

Hell, Luigi's mansion has more rounded shapes and better lighting effects than you would ever see on a ps2 game. RE4 is an excellent example. The realtime cinematics in the cube version were used as FMV in te ps2 version because the cube was capable of so much more.

QUOTE > "Now they're left trying to justify the cost by desperately scrambling for hope that things can only get better. Well guys, if the PS3 really was as powerful as Sony told you, it would be running three different versions of the Matrix simultaneously at 120fps in 1080p in four dimensions... as a launch title!"

That's the whole point, it's something the "defenders" of the PS3 are completely overlooking.

If Sony had said "our system will be comparable to the Xbox360 for *GAMES* but for an added premium you get a HD movie playback device also" then most people wouldn't be so negative towards it. They would know if you did choose to spend such a large amount on a console that you were actually getting a very similar (though not quite as powerful) gaming console plus a blu ray player. Which isn't in itself bad by any means.

But they didn't. As the quoted stuff says Sony insulted MS and it's buyers, it was arrogant, over promised (lied) and cut specs continuously because the development funds HAD to be used on Blu-Ray and Cell which are Sony's "great hopes" for the future (and not for gaming I can assure you). They had to get them into the mass market somehow and they used their next console (PS3) as a smokescreen. The Blu-Ray is in effect a parasite on the PS3 and is the #1 source of all it's woes. It's not like the hardware (GPU and RAM) can even make use of the kind of textures/3D Data that a Blu-Ray could hold. It could easily be done on a DVD or multi DVDs but it doesn't make a game better.

All it does is improve the perception to Sonys investors and Blu-Ray partners that Blu-Ray has penatrated the market. And Blu-ray itself is flawed (compared to HD-DVD) but that's another story.

Now, back to games. The reason we *CAN* compared like for like games right now (first gen or not) is because of the PROMISES and LIES from Sony about how POWERFUL the PS3 would be and how they said the 360 wasn't an issue. If the console really was that much more powerful you could take ANY lazily developed port and have it INSTANTLY look better on the new console. If the GPU had been better than the 360 and the console could run in 720p (never mind 1080p) perfectly without frame rate problems, and if it had enough ram to hold the variety and size of textures that the 360 can (or more) then Games like RR7 should have blown RR6 away. It didn't, in some case RR6 looked better and more detailed, only the higher res was a pro graphics wise for the PS3 version and the detail, textures, lod levels (distance detail) suffered on the PS3.

If you think Capcom can not hit a machine with a simple game like RR7 and have it look better a year after it's prequel then you are wrong. They are highly talented and would have had PS3 hardware for almost as long as the 360 devkit, just no blu-ray perhaps.

I've worked in the industry and I know that dev-kits do not = actual retail units. They can be nothing more than a PC running a certain SDK with a custom set of chips. There is no excuse.

And bear in my RR6 came early in the 360's life and yet it looks as good/better than RR7? I would love to see RR8 on both systems and then you will see how the PS3 is bottle necked and can shut the hell up trying to convince the world that "The PS3 is vastly superior because it's got a Sony badge on it".

freaks.

I meant namco of course not capcom ;)

@ #47

Uh.. Motorstorm is not the better looking driving game. The EB Games near me has both kioks (360 & PS3) next to each other, and PGR3 wins hands down. PGR3, a year old game, looks photo realistic and the in-car view is spot on. Motorstorm's floaty car physics, super slow speed and less that photo real visuals do not cut it.

Now I'm told that the downloadable version of the game available on the Sony network is a different, more polished experience. But since I haven't seen it I will reserve judgement. However the version at the kiosks is hardly what you'd call a show stopper.

You know what?

If Sony had come out saying something like:

"Ok this is out next Playstation. It's about equal to the 360 in power terms so the games will all kinda look the same [but run faster on the 360], but only our machine will have games like... [and then list whatever games here]... and only our machine will play Blu-Ray disks!"

Then they would have been fine. PS3 would have been released, a few people would have been disappointed by the dodgy performance they're getting for 50% more than the 360 sure, but they would have known what they were paying for - Bu-Ray and access to Sony's exclusives.

Instead Sony has been like:

"LOL OMFG call Xbox 360 a console? More like Xbox 1.5! PS3 is gonna eat Xbox 1.5 for breakfast cos it's a fucking SUPERCOMPUTER!!!!11!!!!!"

The fanboys just ran around repeating that more or less word for word.

That really is why Sony and all its fanboys are taking such a kicking now - it's ALL been shown to be bullshit and nothing more. Again.

Anyways, I got to go home now an kick some arse on Gears of War on Xbox Live.

PS3 fanboys... Sucks to be them.

"When the GC and Xbox launched, they both looked better than what the PS2 was doing."

"and look who won out of those 3....."

The one that had a year-long headstart to market, and shipped the largest number of consoles.

Did you MEAN for your argument to be "Xbox 360 FTW!"?

PGR3 amazes me. The online integration with your friends' achievements scrolling across the screen in real time as they happen is an awesome touch. The graphics are AMAZING, especially for a launch title.

The game is a driving simulation with touches of arcade in it with the Kudos system.

This is what EVERY online game should strive for! It makes you feel like you are part of a huge network of players in real time (which, I guess, you are).

I just don't see Sony's online system ever matching this single launch title's features.

They're comparing multiplatform games.. like who really cares? It's the same as Xbox having "better" graphics than PS2. But like I said they're MULTIPLATFORM so they weren't really designed with any one system in mind.
Once we see PS3's best vs 360's best (like Gears, this excludes multiplatform) then we'll know the winner.

They're comparing multiplatform games.. like who really cares? It's the same as Xbox having "better" graphics than PS2. But like I said they're MULTIPLATFORM so they weren't really designed with any one system in mind.
Once we see PS3's best vs 360's best (like Gears, this excludes multiplatform) then we'll know the winner.

"It's the same as Xbox having "better" graphics than PS2."

WTF? This is the case with multi-platform AND console-specific games. What a poor comparison.

8. "It's kinda stupid. With the xbox 360 they just made like some type of HD drive that connects to the xbox 360 to make the graphics look alot better. This is also funny because Wii and 360 haven't been compared with anything, Wii lacks graphics big time.

360 and PS3 kick Wii ass!!!"

-Izzy-B



This my friends is proof that there is a new breed of idiots out there in the world.

p.s. "alot" is two words.

well let me tell u peeps this. I have been playing games since the atari 2600 and i personly have played my way up the console history from the start line. ands its like this sony had abit of a lucky run with ps1. And ps2 was just a cult following to say the least. But ps3 better than 360 i think not i hope sony eat the words they r arrogant

Having played both the 360 and the PS3, I don't even know what kind of comparison you can make. The 360 is superior in any way imaginable for gamers who know games. The lineup coming out on 360 is sick with Gears, Dead Rising, Ninja Gaiden 2, Shadowrun, Lost Planet, Mass Effect, BioShock, Halo 3, etc. So far there are two PS3 games that look like they might compete. Those games are Devil May Cry 4 and the new Metal Gear. That's it. That's all that PS3 can throw at the 360 is two lousing fucking games. Lame...

ive got a xbox360 and i have played the ps3 i think that the xbox360 has a lot more game play and easyier to get on with .the ps3 pad weighs nothing more than a piece of paper .... so my in my eyes buy the 360

Bottom line is... this debate should not be happening, Sony is not the console they said it would be.

Face it. They dont call it the next generation for nothing.

Sony says "the next generation will start when we say it does". Well Sony???? When will that be.

im not a fanboy,i used to be a sony fanboy but now i am older and wiser and i now know its all about the games.when xbox 1 came out i was like yeah yeah microsoft crap wont come close to the fun i had on my ps2.i got a phone call from a freind who had just bought an xbox on launch and i went round to check it out.the next day i traded in my ps2 and games for an xbox and a copy of halo.i bought a ps2 on launch day and to say i was dissapointed with it is an understatement.my wife actually said that it looked the same as the ps1 graphics and thought i was mad driving 35 miles and paying £300 plus for it!the day i came home and switched on my xbox she was impressed.over the next couple of years i actually became a bit of a sony hater(because most games were made for ps2 and ported over).well now the tables have turned!it looks like most games will be made for 360 and ported over to ps3 in fact they say that the ps3 couldnt run gears!!!(no surprise there)i bought a 360 on launch and i am very pleased with it.i would just like to say i fell for sonys bullshit once...never again!the future of gaming is online

You are obviously and idiot LMAO the people at capcome were complaining about making RE4 for the PS2 screaming and yelling that it couldnt be done you need to get your facts straight before you dish out a load of bullshit like that and as far as I see it all of these XBOX fan boys are right the 360 will out do the PS3 in the long run because its very developer friendly and has damn near every single feature the PS3 has other than Blu Ray which is really not needed because when you look at the size and scope of games like oblivion who on Gods green earth would want to make a game bigger than that im still trying to see everything that game has to offer and I must say it is a painful process LOL

I think I might get an Xbox 360, since I only have $530 on me right now. I wanted the PS3 cause I didn't want to be missing on alot of good Sony titles out there like, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Tekken, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, Zone of the Enders(If there's a sequel), and Killzone. Xbox 360 lacks alot of fighting titles, seems like they only got boxing and Dead or Alive. Also, there are too many first person shooters. They need more 3rd person games, like a new Ninja Gaiden or their first Resident Evil title for Xbox only.

Motor Storm looks nice, but doesn't "smoke" even Burnout Revenge, which by the way is the perfect example of porting a game and taking advantage of the hardware.
The XBox 360 has awesome graphics and lighting effects in nearly every game. The library is strong early on. I've had almost every console to come out and have to say it is THE BEST library within the first year and the second year looks good already too.
I downloaded and played the Lost Planet DEMO from Live (200 MB) and it pretty much blew me away enough to get the game. This game is like Halo and Mech Assault put together.
Honestly, I sold my XBox a few years ago and got a PS2 for the games. I loved the control and look of the XBox, but the PS2 had more games and more fun titles. But now the XBox 360 is pretty much the best of both worlds. It kicks even the XBox1 all over the place in terms of fun and interesting titles, let alone the graphics.
This is not just the next XBox, is the next BIG console. I'm sure Sony will have it's share of Japanese style RPGs that will make me buy a PS3 also. But in terms of next gen with online support, it's already here and it's the 360. You can even plug the controller in your PC and use it. Some games like Tomb Raider Legend auto map already. Windows Vista will also support the controller in EVERY TITLE. That could mean (and I think it will) PC gamers vs. 360 gamers deathmatching.
You can also play files on your PC from the 360 (from different rooms even wirelessly). If you have a PC at all and are somewhat geeky, you almost have to get a 360 to play with. When the PS3 catches up, there will be bigger things out already...but hopefully you can still get a mod chip and play the newer Simple 2000 games. I will.

You microsoft idiots, Ps3 has way better graphics, Resistance is way better than any 360 title (yeah like halo 3 anybody), and what has 360 done? nothing you idiots. When Ps3 arrives in stores in 2007 they'll sell out fast.
things to prove me right:
1. Ps3 has more capabilities than 360
2. WAY better graphics
3. The thing GOw and Halo 3 is just a fukin bust
4.fuck the memory, cause o all the good shit the ps3 its not noticable, oh yeah ever heard of get another fucking drive?
5.360 graphics just have that bloom affect, there just xbox graphics
6.Um 49, where did you get this bullshit? hmm its called the game makers not the ps3 you dipshit (just like halo)
7. losing control, how about you charge the goddam thing
8.Buy it, you know you spent thousands on the 360 so shut the fuck up on the price
9.fuck the Hd, I got a 750 and the graphics are way better than 360

XBOX360 VS PS3 (All Things Considered...)

Allright, For Christmas I have been trying to make a very difficult choice: which next gen console to buy. To make the best decision, I have done a thorough review of both systems (specs wise), (graphics wise) and read countless reviews on every site u can possibly imagine. Here are my findings:

Technical Spec Comparison:
When it comes to technical specifications (the major ones) The Processor of the PS3 (The Cell) is believed to be superior to that of the XBOX360'S (Three Dual Threaded Cores) Capable of performing more physics calculations in gaming.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6125087/index.html?type=tech

Graphics:
The XBOX360 on the other hand is believed to have a more powerful GPU (Grapics Card)in its ATI Chip than the PS3's RSX NVidia Card.In a comparison of games played on both systems (NFS Carbon, Madden, NBA2K7, Tony Hawks-Project 8, Fight Night and a few others) gamespot editors noted that the XBOX360 had better overall graphics in these games compared to the PS3 even though it was released a year later and believed to be techinically superior to the XBOX360.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html

Additional Media Options + Prices:
The Major differences in the hardware offered is that the PS3 (20GB Version) comes with BlueRay disc reader built in for $550 (Canadian), wheres the XBOX360 requires the purchase of an HD-DVD attachment at the cost of $200 extra in addition to its console cost(20GB Version $400)to offer its user a rival media option to blueray, bringing its total cost to $600.
Offcourse, it must be noted that XBOX360 has a much better setup 'ONLINE' experience than anything Sony has currently offered or is believed of being capable of achieving in the near future.

Bottom Line:
I have been a sony playstation fan for 8 years now. Bought the PS and PS2 against their competition in their days (Sega Dreamcast, Saturn, N64 etc) simply because they showed more potential for the future, and offered a great experience at the time for its owner. Having reviewed everything on both these next gen consoles to make my decision I decided to go out and buy an XBOX360 yesterday. Here's what convinced me.
1) Even though the PS3 is suppose to me technically superior to the XBOX360, it has not delievered in its performance thus far. Yes it can be argued this is because of its selection of game titles avalible, however I have read that based on the design of the Cell it is going to cost game designers alot more to write their codes in such a way in which the Cell can take advantage of it, compared to the XBOX360 which, while being slightly less technically advanced is still a great machine which makes it very easy for developers to write new game codes for, and exploit its potential much easier than the PS3.
2) Even if, in the future the game designers manage to put the PS3's Cell processor to good use, its graphics card is not as powerful as that of the XBOX360's, meaning its games (no matter how big 50GB's or more) will not be able to be projected too much better than what the XBOX360 will be able to pump out.
3) Given that there is still a year to go for anything substancial (in the way of game selection) to become avalible for the PS3, a current new buyer will make the most of the XBOX360's vast game title selections.
4) If you're looking for an online gaming experience, you can't enjoy the XBOX360's LIVE experience if you go in for a PS3, not to mention, the XBOX360 is compatible with any media center PC (an important note for the computer people out there)
5)Currently HD-DVD sales are far exceeding any blueray sales numbers, and being endorced by many film companies such as Alliance Atlantis, LionsGate in your current new DVD movie trailers.
6)With all the bugs not being worked out of the PS3 yet, a new buyer can breathe easier buying a XBOX360 which has been out for a year now and has all the bugs worked out of it.

Conclusion: If you buy an XBOX360, and the PS3 does better in a couple of years... (which is at least how long its going to take game developers to learn how to get the best out of its current potential) You gain the most out of the XBOX360 which is thought will AT THE VERY LEAST be equal to anything sony will offer in the next 2 - 3 years, whereas if you buy a PS3, and things do not go so well... yes, you can always switch over to an XBOX360, but you will have spent $600 on a console that will have never taken off (much like the Sega Dreamcast) if counterpart (XBOX360) wins the console war. Meaning, while the PS3 may have more current potential for future market dominance, it has way more to loose than the XBOX360 if things do not go its way, (which by the way things are looking right now, seems more likely than not).

I still have not purchased a next-gen system. But I can make a few observations that I think are representative of the large masses. First, I don't care if the ps3 can levitate...I will not purchase it at the current price. I have been a gamer for more than 20 years...and the potential of the new systems are amazing. But, until the Sony and Microsoft lower their prices...I simply will not adopt the new standards. Once the mass market price is offered you will see mainstream sales numbers. Until then, I will simply sit back and enjoy the view.

the xbox 360 is a piece of shit and the ps3 has better graphics already when it came out and they are improving more the xbox360 is not a next gen console its a system that sux big dick so fuck u ps3 rox xbox360 is a piece of goddamn trash ps3 is the next gen mother fuckers

PS3 is sooooooo much beta than xbox come on it has far beter graphics which is blue ray 4 christ sake, BLUE RAY IS BETTER THAN HD built into the PS3. AND the PS3 has 60 gigs memory an download music, games and pics onto it and has wireless controlls with sixaxis which use bluetooth tech. AND the games are far better(just my opinion). also the controlls arn't big chunky things that look like bricks (just like xbox)