| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (18)

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 5:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm always very critical of video game journalism, because I wish it to be taken more seriously. Thus, when an article is "published" on one of my favorite blogs, like this one, and it is not up to my personal standards or has errors in it, I always tear it apart and say my catch phrase, "articles like this are why video game journalism isn't taken seriously." Yet, I found that article informative, concise, to the point, as unbiased as possible, interesting, and it did not have a misleading title and was not based on unreliable information. Good work.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 7:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Microsoft needs to get off Sony's nuts.

Fact PS3 uses a next gen BluRay format for games. That alone means that the PS3 has alot more potential. Unless of course the 360 decides to run games off the hddvd. but add ons are ugly.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 6:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Psst
His name is Ben Kuchera

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 6:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think it's only fair to compare what's available now. The average consumer isn't scour the net looking for previews and screenshots of upcoming games. They are looking at the back of boxes in the store. And, even for us "hardcore" types, it's still valid. What's available NOW is what you are spending your money on NOW.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 9:14PM easo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i have to wonder why its not fair to compare Gears to Resistance. Both games were made with only the specs of their respective consoles in mind, both had 2 year (3 for resistance) developement cycles, and both were delayed a year from their original launch date.

Simply put, Gears looked better than Resistance (I8) when it was shown at E3 2004.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 6:23PM mt1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
well though out article and yes you are right resistance acan be compared to gears of war just as say bioshock will be compared to a ps3 gaame that comes out at the same time, or mass effect int he same way

the reality is the 360 will always be a development cycle ahead

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 6:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Very well written article. Couple of bullet points (unbiased!)

"Xbox 360 is ahead of the PS3 in what the systems in their current incarnations can do."

"the PS3 feels a bit unfinished in comparison."

"the lack of a hardware scaler hurts Sony badly at the 1080p resolution"

"Microsoft has really dropped the ball with the hard drive"

We do really need a bigger hard drive!!

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 7:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Another idiot bought into the bluray lies (#6). This is what sony is counting on.

Do some research the higher capacity of the media does not equal better games. No developer uses the extra room or has plans to use if for anything more than video. The extra development costs to fill that with content and textures, etc greatly outweigh the profit potential for a $60 retail game.

Ever wonder why the ps3 has a bigger HDD? Ever wonder why it takes 12min to load a game the first time you put it in? Its because the bluray loads so slow that they put the game on the HDD to play it off of so ps3 owners are crying about 3min+ load times. There goes that extra HDD space.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 7:36PM Cueil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Please... I'm tired of the "1st generation" excuse... remember that devs have had Development kits nearlly as long as they have had 360 kits. Not only that, but the system was suppose to launch back in spring of last year. If it had then they would have had the 1st generation game.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 7:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
you know, I feel like the 20 gigabyte HDD is actually not a horrible thing. With several dozen albums ripped, a full season of Drawn together, a hand full of game vids, plus 30+ games worth of saves and content, I've not had any harddrive space issues. It's a little tight in there, I admit that, but I'm not absolutely screaming for something bigger. game content doesn't take that much space, and as cool as the television shows are, they still don't replace that which you either view manually, or purchase on dvd (my prefered method of television viewing).

Simply put, i feel like the HDD thing has been overstated. I can understand why people have been very strident about it, as in this day and age, 20 Gigs definitely translates to a tight HDD... but pretty much only in computer terms. I remember the origional Xbox having 40 gigs... and lets face it, that was over the top... cuz honestly... who came even close to filling that?

This is not to say that I wouldn't mind a larger HDD, but then the question becomes, how do you transfer the data, and how do you preserve the registry that's attached to game content, and previously purchased shows?

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 7:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't know what the big deal is. Of course whatever is available at the time is going to be compared. I don't remember seeing people dig up ps2 launch titles when the original xbox launched, why do it now.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 8:00PM nossy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hmm 1st gen vs 2nd gen? I'm sure Resistance went into development about the same time Gears did. Remember it was Sony who delayed the hardware which should've gave the developers extra time to work on games. Realistically you can't really say Gears was 2nd generation title since it was in development before the console was even released.

I do think the 20 GB HDD should've been included (built in) with the option to add additional storage.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 8:09PM aforty said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good point about transfering old things to a new HDD should one be released. Perhaps a USB cable that hooks into the old one and then a dashboard update to fascilitate this "backup." Oh and the original Xbox HDD was only 8GB (or 12?).

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 8:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
BklynKid, I was thinking something like that too, but again, the registry's have become an issue. I don't know if you've ever tried to bring your hdd to another person's house, but it's enraging. purchased content doesn't register. XBLA games are parred down to demos. purchased shows won't play. as much as I love my xbox, and how microsoft has managed the whole affair, this kind of security is simply lazy, as there are much better and more effective ways to insure that we don't break the XBL policies.

and whoops. you were right. I dunno where I got 40 gigs from.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 9:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why would it not be fair to compare 2nd gen 360 games with 1st gen ps3 games? As I recall 1st gen xbox games were way better looking than 2nd and even 3rd gen ps2 games. If a machine claims to be a gazillion times more powerful than then next then there is no excuse for the crappy graphics.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 9:07PM brokenmonkey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When it came to the original Xbox and the PS2, first-generation Xbox games looked better than second-generation PS2 games because the hardware was more powerful. So it would make sense that the PS3 would have better first-generation games than the Xbox 360's second-generation games. Since that is not the case, it proves that Microsoft has built a superior, more powerful console.

Posted: Jan 3rd 2007 11:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"I remember the origional Xbox having 40 gigs."

and what planet do u come from??
xbox one only had a 8 gig HD .... Foo

Posted: Jan 4th 2007 7:12AM jkdoug said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The hard drive is definitely far too small in today's world of digital distribution. I got my Xbox 360 for Christmas and filled the hard drive with demos, videos, and music in only a few days. The larger hard drives are going for between $0.50 and $1.00 per gigabyte of storage these days, so why is the Xbox 360 drive still so small and yet so expensive?

This article says that consumers will opt for the less expensive system, but after spending $400 for the Xbox 360, I then went out and spent about $500 in accessories (camera, extra wireless controllers, remote, batteries, wireless network adapter). If you consider the same accessories to make the Xbox 360 and PS3 roughly equivalent, I think you'll spend about the same. People just see the Xbox 360 as less expensive because they have the option of buying the accessories at a later time, sort of a layaway plan, if you will.

Last, but not least, I had to return my Xbox 360 to my local Best Buy after only one week of ownership. The disc reader quit on me and was making such a horrible sound I thought it would shoot the drawer and disc across the room. I thought my friends were simply unlucky when they had to return as many as three Xbox 360 units. Maybe there is something to this after all...

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW