Gamespot: Xbox 360 games look better than PS3 ports (for now)
by Blake Snow 
{ Dec 6th 2006 at 7:55PM }
First 1UP compares early PS3 ports to Xbox 360 versions, and now Gamespot takes a stab at the analysis with their fancy rollover pics. The review site compares ports of Need for Speed Carbon, Call of Duty 3, Madden '07, and a slew of others spanning a total of eight cross-platform games. Their verdict? Early PS3 ports don't look as perty as Xbox 360 counterparts. From the article: "You'd think that the PS3 versions would be exactly the same or slightly superior to the Xbox 360 versions, since many of these games appeared on the 360 months ago, but it seems like developers didn't use the extra time to polish up the graphics for the PS3. We found that the Xbox 360 actually had better graphics in the majority of the games we compared."
Gamespot states the obvious saying the "real graphics battle" will likely come next year, however, when hardware potential is more fully realized on second-generation games. But how long will this comparison dispute last despite its ephemeral entertainment value? We know: Until one Katamari-like ball of a console lays dead and bloodied on the floor...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Thatdude_001 @ Dec 6th 2006 9:19PM
Getting your game on store shelves is a higher priority then having it look better then 360. With a huge lack of games for the PS3 people will be more inclined to buy your decent title since there isnt much better. That and the extreme lack of dev/test kits available for launch titles was an effen joke. You think its hard finding a retail PS3? Try working at one of the biggest video game companies and being told sony isnt even shipping test kits to you.
Grendel711 @ Dec 11th 2006 10:26PM
What's that "for now" bs? The 360 has a better GPU and a more gaming appropriate CPU, not to mention a better architecture (RAM anyone?). 360 games will look better.
SmilingAssassin @ Dec 8th 2006 11:40AM
Of course they are!!!
HomeBoy @ Dec 6th 2006 8:25PM
People also need to understand the PS3 was delayed for almost one year. What were the devs doing during that time period??? So both the 360 and PS3 have had equal time periods for the devs to work, its just that the 360 is easier to work on.
SuicideNinja @ Dec 6th 2006 8:32PM
Is anyone surprised? It's obvious that even after Sony's snide "we don't rush a console to the market" remarks, that they did exactly what they were mocking. They can whine about delays all they want, but the truth is that they didn't help developers enough and didn't bother to pay attention to the competition's short-coming so they could improve the PS3 by not repeating them.
Still, we have failed to see proof that the "magical cell" is some vessel for some ridiculously good graphics. The specs have, to date, only proven better on paper in unrealistic situations (all SPE's going and with more than perfect code). Will that change? Hard to say. In the past, they really had to stretch the PS2 to do something that wouldn't have been a hassle on the Xbox. This trend will likely continue, only not for power this time, but rather accessibility to available power.
Pedro @ Dec 6th 2006 9:05PM
I am so sick and tired of people cutting sony slack where another company would be royallt savaged.
When the GC and Xbox launched, they both looked better than what the PS2 was doing. No one asked them to wait a year, they were better looking out of the gate.
Sony has been going on about how powerful the cell is, about how powerful the system is, about how last gen the other consoles are, and now that they can't even MATCH let alone exceed the 360, we are supposed to wait?
Bull.
Right now, PS3 games are allowed to look crappy because they are only 1st generation titles, while xbox is at second gen already.
So in a year, will the ps3tards be complaining that we can't compare the ps3 to the 360 because the 360 is on its 3rd generation and the ps3 is only on #2?
At what point does it stop? When do people grow some balls and finally admit that the ps3 isn't some magical supercomputer, and that it isn't even really better than the 360, just different?
tack @ Dec 6th 2006 9:37PM
comparing a 2006 game and a 2006 game that had a couple months to polish for the ps3 release. Pretty disappointing sony. Lets all run out and spend $200 more for a system with the same graphics and less online capabilities. Soon 120 dutchmen will be needed to make a game look better on the ps3. Oh wait.
B33 @ Dec 6th 2006 8:36PM
Right now, the difference is so small, that you can barely tell the difference. This is just opinion. The real graphics comparisons won't be around until next year, once developers both have had a decent time to develop on both systems.
arch @ Dec 6th 2006 9:35PM
BY THE WAY, PS2 ports to the xbox STILL looked much better on the xbox. so lets have that point on the table shall we? sony fans have no arguments.
Josh @ Dec 6th 2006 8:43PM
People shouldn't be surprised about this. The graphics chip in the 360 is superior.
And the Cell chip really doesn't do anything for graphics.
StMadnes @ Dec 6th 2006 8:49PM
According to feedback from developers, the common consensus is that the PS3 is a difficult platform for making games. However, this doesn't mean that developers won't learn to adapt. As a matter of fact, i'm sure they will. Besides, the PS3's hardware is still being realized by developers in terms of making games with high resolution. So don't toot your horn just yet Mr.Microsoft. It's still early.
Khash @ Dec 7th 2006 12:19AM
#1
You don't honestly believe that, do you? I mean, you're kidding, right?
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?
the_insider @ Dec 6th 2006 8:49PM
It's not like the time isn't being used to polish the PS3 versions, it's just simply hard to achieve teh same level of graphics on the PS3 with it's slightly more limiting memory and screen draw capabilities.
sploy @ Dec 6th 2006 8:53PM
The problem is that although cell is quite good at 3-d rendering/ physics, its not a graphics centric piece of hardware. IBM developed it for scientific simulations and mathematical modelling, both of which are well suited to multi core processing.
Graphics on the other hand, especially real time 3D, still doesn't take advantage of more than two cores in the most advanced PC games aiming to do just that. So it's going to be a very long time before cell shows its true potential. Lets just hope that sony can figure out what the guys at valve are doing with Half life 2 episode 2, and how the guys working on alan wake are utilising four cores on the pc.
Chances are that despite all the numbers the PS3 has to boast about, developers are probably just going to develop for the 360 and port over to PS3, since it would be too expensive to develop completely separate versions on both platforms.
Izzy-B @ Dec 6th 2006 9:01PM
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!!!
Hunta @ Dec 7th 2006 4:02AM
It all boils down to this: 360 has twice the memory of the PS3... whats the point of having all those CPU cores if you only have 256MB of RAM to push around?
Perhaps the PS3 can push more polygons, but they are plainer, less-textured ones. This is most noticable in Ridge Racer... the PS3 seems crisper (maybe down to HDMI or more poly's?) but the 360 has MUCH richer textures.
I've also noticed that PS3 titles seem to have very little variety in the character models... this is most-likely ALSO down to RAM. Check out the PIT screenshots in GTA-HD preview... there are only about 4 types of "people" model but they are replicated many times (programmers call these "instances").
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=59131
Bottom-line is that the PS3 needs some SERIOUS optimization to get the most out of it.
Mind you, the PS2 didn't have enough RAM either and it seemed to do OK.
]-[
Micro Mame Man @ Dec 6th 2006 9:28PM
But with the huge headstart the Xbox has on marketshare, you can damn well bet that the PS3 will be seeing mostly "ports" for a helluva long time. Anything multi-platform will NOT take advantage of whatever strengths the might PS3 have.
serb @ Dec 6th 2006 10:34PM
"When the GC and Xbox launched, they both looked better than what the PS2 was doing. No one asked them to wait a year, they were better looking out of the gate."
and look who won out of those 3.....
Your Mama @ Dec 6th 2006 9:13PM
PS Own3d!
Pal @ Dec 6th 2006 9:42PM
Izzy-B: "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."
Do you even read this blog?
dude_001 @ Dec 7th 2006 4:30AM
#9 "When the GC and Xbox launched, they both looked better than what the PS2 was doing."
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.
James @ Dec 6th 2006 9:31PM
It's not that "developers didn't use the extra time to polish up the graphics for the PS3". There was no extra time most development companies didn't get hardware until long, long after they needed it. In some cases only a month before shipping. The PS3 isn't a magic box that makes things look better, it's a complicated piece of machinery that requires time to optimize. In this case with little or no support from Sony.
glitched @ Dec 6th 2006 9:45PM
Reminds me of the comparisons between the xbox and xbox 360 versions of KING KONG.
you think EA cares that there games look worse on ps3?
Its not the hardware here folks, its the developer/publisher EA sucks.
StMadnes @ Dec 6th 2006 9:49PM
the hell is all this crap about the 360 having better graphics!? Since Gears came out i've been seeing alot of cocky fanboys emerge from the depths of boredom. Gears of War and the anticipation of Halo 3 is the only thing keeping the 360 afloat right now. So i think they should put less focus on the next guy and try to figure out a way to bring more quality games to the platform.
Why is the Wii is selling like hotcakes? Talk graphics to Nintendo and they'll laugh in your face! Again, it's all about the games. BUT.. how gameplay and graphics both compliment eachother will be displayed on the PS3. Think about it.. the 360 has great graphics but a crappy library. Nintendo, while known for putting out great games, has always been on the low end of the graphics totem pole.
However.. the PS3, more powerful than its predecessor, can now boast of graphics comparible -if not superior- to the 360. And as far as games go, MA titles rule! So articles like this won't effect the massive interest that has been generated by the PS3. That Wii 'controller thing' is just a fad and in a few months- or should i say after Halo 3- you won't hear a peep from Microsoft. So it would seem to me that the PS3 is the way to go!
the_insider @ Dec 6th 2006 10:18PM
"you think EA cares that there games look worse on ps3?
Its not the hardware here folks, its the developer/publisher EA sucks."
Hahaha! Yeah right. It has nothing to do with Sony, their lack of support, lack of decent tools, last minute too-few-too-late devkit shipments, or the slightly crippled RSX and memory in the PS3.
Just ride the wave and diss EA for everything that's wrong with Sony's console... Last I checked EA didn't develop or publish NBA2k7, COD3, or THP8.
RogueStorm @ Dec 6th 2006 9:56PM
I am firmly convinced that if I took an Xbox 360 and attached a PS3 controller to it and had people play Gears of War, they would brag about how awesome the PS3 was compared to the Xbox 360, until I broke the news to them. I'm dead serious when I say this too. I think Microsoft should do a "blind taste test" with the general console consumer and I would hands down believe that most people would pick the 360 as a PS3 right now.
Antonio @ Dec 6th 2006 10:09PM
To StMadnes,
The 360 is more than Gears of War and Halo 3. Fable, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Crackdown, PGR4, Blue Dragon/Lost Odyssey. As for Metal Gear Solid - the next Splinter Cell, developed exclusively for 360, is being created by Ubisoft Montreal. It will destroy Metal Gear. All PS3 has is hype at this point and time.
Qtrain2Bklyn @ Dec 6th 2006 10:19PM
" the next Splinter Cell, developed exclusively for 360, is being created by Ubisoft Montreal. It will destroy Metal Gear. "
Dude, i really doubt that. I always viewed Splinter Cell as a Metal Gear knock-off. As a matter of fact, IT IS!
ozzydavid @ Dec 6th 2006 10:25PM
PS2 games never looked better than Xbox games, so why should the PS3 get any slack from the Xbox360
rdj75 @ Dec 6th 2006 10:25PM
To # 18
Dude the massive interest for the ps3 is dropping as each day goes by. Look at ebay for example, you can get a 60gb ps3 for under $800 right now if you wanted, which is only 33% over retail. Now if you compared that to the xbox 360 this time last year they were still getting 100% over retail, that was because of consistant demand for it. Also look at the Wii, its been out just as long as the ps3 with much more in supply and its still bringing about 80% over retail on ebay. Why? Because of a consistant demand for the product.
tkodarkside123 @ Dec 6th 2006 10:54PM
"the 360 has great graphics but a crappy library"
dude, what are you talking about? like the ps3 has a better library? last time I checked, the only game the ps3 has is ROFM. the rest of their games are ports from the 360!!
s7r1k3r @ Dec 6th 2006 10:35PM
Well said Pedro!!!
Josh @ Dec 6th 2006 10:44PM
#18, no really, the XBox's graphics chip really is superior to the PS3's. It is a custom next generation part that uses unified shaders. It has 10MB embedded DRAM for the frame buffer. It has a lot of custom features that are custom to the XBox. ATI's unified shader part for the PC isn't even out yet, and when it does come out, it sure won't have the embedded DRAM feature or the free anti-aliasing that it brings.
The "RSX" is really just a modified current generation PC part. Nothing special at all. It is roughly equivalent to a 7600GT.
My current PC has a 7900GS in it that cost me all of $170 and is faster than the RSX.
The architecture of the XBox's graphics chip is more powerful, and more appropriate for a console, in my opinion, than the part that ended up in the PS3.
biltmore @ Dec 6th 2006 10:57PM
It's funny how we have to keep saying to these sony fanboys that the GPU on the XBOX 360 is more powerful than the PS3 ... the fucking processor on the ps3 does not do jack shit to graphics ...
THE PS3 CANNOT LOOK BETTER THAN THE 360 CAUSE ITS GPU IS NOT AS POWERFUL. Fuck people, how many times do we have to say this?!?!?!
"Gears of War and the anticipation of Halo 3 is the only thing keeping the 360 afloat right now." = That by far is nothing more but a stupid shortsighted comment, made by a Sony fanboy.
Here's the list of games that made me decide to go with XBOX 360 now .... I'd much rather wait to see how the PS3 shapes up next year, plus .. first run of Sony consoles are always problematic ...
========================================================
01 - Lost Planet: Extreme Condition
02 - Grand Theft Auto IV
03 - Fable 2
04 - Bullet Witch
05 - Gears of War
06 - Assassin's Creed
07 - The Darkness
08 - Smash TV - Xbox Live Arcade [X.L.A]
09 - The Club (working title)
10 - Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas
11 -Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
12 - Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
13 - Kane & Lynch: Dead Men
14 - Rogue Warrior
15 - Call of Duty 2
16 - Call of Duty 3
17 - Army of Two
18 - BioShock
19 - Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Double Agent
20 - Dead Rising
21 - Condemned: Criminal Origins
22 - Resident Evil 5
23 - Stranglehold
24 - Avatar
25 - The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
26 - Blue Dragon
27 - Tony Hawk's Project 8
28 - SKATE
29 - Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved
30 - Alan Wake
31 - Alone in the Dark
32 - Mass Effect
33 - Lost Odyssey
34 - Two Worlds
35 - Golden Axe
36 - Huxley
37 - Rockstar Games presents Table Tennis
38 - Too Human
39 - Indiana Jones 2007 (working title)
40 - Shadowrun (working title)
41 - Alien Hominid
42 - Castle Crashers
43 - Crossfire
44 - Metal Slug - X.L.A .
45 - Yie Ar Kung Fu - X.L.A.
nick @ Dec 6th 2006 10:54PM
I don't think a year will matter. The games are going to continue to look equivalent to one another because the graphics capabilities are similiar to one another, and most third party developers will probably develop on one (or a PC) and port to others.
Only first and second party releases are likely to take full advantage of the hardware.
Jeff @ Dec 6th 2006 11:11PM
I'm obviously part of the problem here, but honestly, none of this talk matters in the slightest. People forget history so easily when it comes to game consoles - either they got into the game late (literally and figuratively) or they're honestly too young to remember the good old days, or whatever. But history just repeats itself over and over in this industry, right down to the public reactions and rantings over various meaningless things.
But there was a time when Dreamcast games looked better than the best-looking PS2 games. Oh, yes there was. Heck, there was a time when *Saturn* games looked better than the best-looking PS1 games. In fact, I remember standing there in the store in 1995 and thinking "so, do I buy the Saturn, which has the best-looking games now, or do I buy the PS1, which probably has a better future?" (I bought the PS1, though I did get a Saturn later.)
Straight ports almost never look as good as the original, which was, after all, designed from scratch for the system it originally appeared on. The question is, which system will be getting the originals and which system will be getting the ports 2-3 years from now? Games are always developed for a) the earliest system in any generation, or b) the dominant system in any generation. So which is it going to be in 2009? Right now doesn't matter at all except for those few hardcore gamers that have to be early adopters. The rest of us can wait, or actually use our brains for once and try to predict the future for ourselves. Which is something I'd hope we'd all be considering given the dollar investment for what is, in the end and after all is said and done, a disposable and dispensable entertainment device.
serge @ Dec 6th 2006 11:23PM
PS3 wasnt delayed, its the Blue-ray remember? or u want to say nothing was done, and blue ray was a lame excuse. cell sucked till the last moment, and sony even had to cancel one of the cores in the cell.
Sony was about to release ps3 last spring. Tell me, if the developers couldn't have the hardware without blue ray. Sony lied, i hope they fail miserably for the shit they fed us.
LongshotX @ Dec 6th 2006 11:54PM
Just got my Hanns G 19 inch Widescreen 5ms 1440 X 900 resolution monitor (for 200 bucks!) and played Gears of War on the highest resolution possible. It look ridiculously good. They "new" gen begins with the Xbox 360 hands down.
Pedro @ Dec 6th 2006 11:26PM
"and look who won out of those 3....."
What the hell are you talking about? What does the ps2 being popular have to do with the relative power of the current systems?
When the xbox and cube came out, there was an immediate difference in their graphical abilities. No one cried that they needed a year to understand the ahrdware, because it wasn't needed. If you want to launch later, with more powerful hardware, it means you don't get to take your time. You have to hit the ground running. The ps3 has not done this. For how long did we all have to endure the fanboy rantings of how the 360 wasn't truly next gen? For how long did we hear that the 360 was only xbox 1.5? Well news flash, the PS3 at this point would have to IMPROVE just to be EQUAL inperformance to the 360.
The ps3 is supposed to be more powerful. It launched later, and costs nearly %50 more. There is no gaddomaned reason on this planet that their games should not be better than the 360s. No reason at all. To say different is to be making excuses.
And here is the real kicker: Not only is the ps3 not surpassing the 360, it isn't matching the 360. And considering how many advantagess it had, this is inexcuseable. End of story.
serge @ Dec 6th 2006 11:40PM
Can anyone even say NINJA GAIDEN 2 at last. Another game that will sell like Gears of War. i am just wondering why ppl always forget to bring this game, its like the best of the best. if anyone played the black edition :)
Play @ Dec 6th 2006 11:50PM
Whats funny is that PS3 games will never look as good as 360 games.
The lack of video memory for high res textures is killing the look of PS3 games.
Take a look at Resistance, the "best" game on the PS3 right now. The textures are all low rez pixelated crud. The PS3 can pump out the polygons, but they're useless without huge detailed textures. Welcome to the N64 part 2, folks.
Take a look at Ridge Racer, the textures are all bland on the PS3, yet nice and detailed on the 360. THIS ISN'T A PROGRAMMING PROBLEM. It's a HARDWARE PROBLEM.
What you'll see in another year from now is exactly the same as what you're seeing now. Why do you think Epic Megagames convinced Microsoft to use 512MB of memory instead of 256/256?
This is why. Welcome to your new world.
Pete C @ Dec 7th 2006 12:04AM
"Think about it.. the 360 has great graphics but a crappy library."
This is such BULLSHIT man. God dammit I hate fanboys!! Anyone that says the 360 lineup is "crappy" is a fucking idiot. The 360 has an excellent overall library, and only a rabid, disillusioned fanboy could say otherwise. So you are going to tell me that Call of Duty 2 and 3, Ghost Recon, Oblivion, Gears of War, Rainbow Six Vegas, Splinter Cell, Viva Pinata, FEAR, and Dead Rising is a crappy lineup after 1 year in the game? Here's a little piece of information for you...the WORST game on that list is rated higher on gamerankings than every single PS3 game with the exception of one: Resistance. And since some of these games will be gracing the PS3 early next year, I guess your system will be crappy too for a long time to come. Have a fun time waiting for Metal Gear.
refinedsugar @ Dec 7th 2006 1:03AM
I'm a xbox fanboy and even I know this is an unfair comparison. I'm not surprised so many third party games at launch for the ps3 dropped the ball because it's going to be like this for any console launch. Especially for any system rushed out the door to meet holiday sales hype or some fiscal quarter bullshit.
It's launch after all and early in the console's lifespan. No console in recent memory was sparred sloppy rushed ports not even the 360. The true test for comparisons sake will come sometime next year. We just walk around with the expectation that a system this hyped and powerful to outdo the xbox 360 immediately, but that isn't shades of reality.
serge @ Dec 7th 2006 12:12AM
I also cant wait for the ut2k7 comparison between 360 and ps3, then we'll see for sure, who is the real powerhouse. i just wonder on which system the game will run better and faster, they were showing the game running on ps3 hardware live a year ago lets see them now. haha. They shower the demo running on PC and hype it as ps3. They deserv to fail, just for lies.
fester @ Dec 7th 2006 12:44AM
Equal dev times or not it's all BS on Sony's part.
The unbelievable thickness/pig headedness of Sony fanboys is just getting stupid. Report after report of the 360 having Better Graphics AND better games (not to mentione better Price, Better Online and most definitley BETTER controllers) and still they think the world is lying and Sony are telling the truth. I can tell you that a lot of developers are running scared from the PS3 right now because if they make a wrong move (by supporting it exclusively) it could spell the end of their companys. Not only is it a pig to develop for (Sony never learn) but it has an unmatched negative backlash that has been going on for almost a year, the launch of the actual units made it even more negative. It didn't "shut anyone up" or say "wow now the next gen really does start".
The simple fact is, anyone with a brain went out and bought a 360 already (or are planning on it) and have been enjoying so called "next gen" titles for fucking ages. Even (and I stress *even*) if devs catch up with the tech on the next wave (2nd gen games) the 360 will be on it's 3rd or 4th. The fact is that PS3 is NEVER going to look as good or run as smooth except maybe for Sony first party stuff (Gran Turismo always tends to look amazing). One game doesn't make $600 a good investment.
Now to all the X360 bashers, go to ANY large game review site and do some fkin research for once and see what is being said by people who have been in the industry long enough to spot an overpriced lemon when they see one.
If it was just a case of the PS3 being a bit crap then fair enough, but to keep trying to make the 360 look bad with pathetic misinformation just shows desperation. If you want a PS3 then great, go buy it, it's your money but don't justify it by kidding yourself for one second that you are buying anything more powerful (as a game machine) than an Xbox360, in most areas it's a weaker machine/system and not just in the tech specs but the all important *gamer orientated* services and periphery.
Cuja @ Dec 7th 2006 1:06AM
#18, you have no life.
fester @ Dec 7th 2006 1:18AM
"We just walk around with the expectation that a system this hyped and powerful to outdo the xbox 360 immediately, but that isn't shades of reality."
No it isn't reality you are correct, but it is exactly what Sony has been promising for far too long (the "next gen starts when we say it does" nonsense). And then all the PS3 fanboys starting reciting Sony PR like some kind of mantra, at the same time putting in snide comments about a perfectly capable (more capable) machine (the 360) so I think the world and his dog just got fed up of these idiots... where did they get their FACTS?
... A Sony marketing/PR guy, that's where.
And now, shock horror it doesn't live up to it again (remember the "Emotion Engine" BS also?).
So, yes it's certain that the PS3 this time next year will be looking stunning, but that isn't the point... the point is it will never look more "stunning" than the 360 by any margin (certainly not the one that Sony have claimed and fanboys have repeated for the last 2 years). And even if they did manage to pull that off (might be hard seeing how the X360 actually has a more capable graphics chip/ram) it is still not just about graphics.
There is STILL:
.Higher Price
.Less Exclusives
.No rumble in controller
.Poor ergonmics on shoulder buttons
.No decent gamer-centric achievements/gamerscore/cards
.Less developers (they are "waiting to see")
.Bluetooth issues (loosing control mid-game must be real fun!)
.Less Ram (Bottle Necked)
.Non unified GPU architecture (Bottle necked)
.Less suited CPU
.Slot loader (teh suxxors)
.Not multitasking (yet)
.No seperate battery packs (whole unit has to be returned if battery goes dead, or knowing sony "explodes"
.Blu Ray loading times (slooow)
.Spiderman font ;)
.Can't turn console on from remote location (on sofa) sounds trivial but I use this a lot on the 360.
.Internal power supply - if it dies the whole unit has to be replaced
.Proliferation of immature fanboys/naieve gamers who attract shovelware and quantity of quality mentality (as on PS2).
serge @ Dec 7th 2006 1:29AM
Fester, well said. thumbs! :P
Cuja @ Dec 7th 2006 1:42AM
Here's a great ideal, let NASA fix the PS3 like they did the Hubble.
T @ Dec 7th 2006 3:08AM
Seems CLiffy was not just blowing smoke when he said gears could not run on a ps3 that it had to have the 512 of video ram for it to look like he wanted
and that's probably why these games are not superior to the 360
and the future probably means the same as the 360 also shows it can update and get better and better
and most of all........ain't not halo 3 coming to a ps3
No gears, no H3......why bother to spend a grand on a ps3