Topic: Xbox 360 Versus PlayStation 3 Graphics Comparison

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, I think you guys are completely overreacting.  We've all said that yes, the PS3 is the most expensive, it's also the most expensive to produce, which is the reason.  It's not like it's just Sony overpricing its stuff.  At least not as far as I've seen.  And again, while the 360's only legit version is the most expensive one, which can be interpreted as shady and attempting to get people to spend more in the end after they buy the core version and realize they need to make all the upgrades as they'd have gotten with the premium (and pay more to do it), Sony's versions are actually both perfectly usable as they are and actually cater to the people who would buy them.  I would go the cheaper route with the PS3 and not be forced to make changes.  I went the cheaper route with the 360 and am now going to be forced to spend more money than I ended up saving in the first place (which, to be fair, I kind of expected... it was more the fact that I didn't want to pay it all at once).

And Cobra, while a store is giving you a rebate on the 360, the 360 is older and the PS3 is brand-spanking new.  You can certainly say that because of that you want to get a 360 instead of a PS3 as things stand right now, but you can't levy it as an argument against the starting retail price points of either item.  And that's really what's at issue here.

Like I said, I'm very far from a Sony fanboy, but I think you guys are all completely overreacting and have some vision of this horrible nightmare future in which PS3s sprout legs and crush the populace.  Yes, it's $500 for a console.  So fucking what?  It's now $60 for top-tier 360 games.  Games are getting more expensive and that *really* shouldn't come as a surprise to any of you given how closely you follow this hobby.  I understand the misgivings with the price, and I'm not about to pay it myself; HOWEVER, that doesn't mean it's the most outrageous console price in gaming history (because it isn't) and as Pug said, you have to consider the machine itself, not just price.  To use a different car metaphor -- it makes no sense when comparing a Pinto and a Lamborghini to say that the Lamborghini is a total ripoff because the Pinto is so much cheaper.  Obviously the latter car is *ridiculously* expensive and probably not at all worth it unless you have lots of money to burn, but it isn't even remotely comparable to the former car.  You may not entirely get what you pay for with the latter the way you do with the former, but the former at any price is giving you the bare bones necessities and fuck all else.  This isn't entirely an accurate metaphor as I think the Wii should have great games and plenty of fun, but when you're talking raw hardware, this seems somewhat apt, and hardware is what dictates price for the most part.

Anyway, whatever.  I'm not buying one and neither are any of you, so I think the end result speaks for itself either way.  None of us have any damn money, and what we do is going to something other than the PS3.

[Xessive]

Actually concerning game prices there has been a drop. I'm referring specifically to PC titles (which I keep track of because that's my primary and only platform). I remember when I first arrived in Canada (1999-2000) the average game cost around $30~50. Then they shot up in price for a couple of years, where the average game was $60~80. And over the last year or so they've been dropping to an average of $40~70.

[Quemaqua]

I haven't noticed a remarkable difference in PC game prices really, at least not in the US.  They're about the same as they've been for a while now.  Console ports tend to be cheaper, certain smaller games tend to be cheaper, and there are a few that tend to be a bit more expensive now and again.  Most of them haven't changed much over the last while, though.  Console games, however, are getting more expensive.

[Xessive]

I haven't noticed a remarkable difference in PC game prices really, at least not in the US.  They're about the same as they've been for a while now.  Console ports tend to be cheaper, certain smaller games tend to be cheaper, and there are a few that tend to be a bit more expensive now and again.  Most of them haven't changed much over the last while, though.  Console games, however, are getting more expensive.

Yeah, console games are steadily increasing in price. I imagine the PS3 titles are the most expensive and stay that way for a while, since Sony will be counting on their revenue to balance out the loss on the PS3 unit production.

[Cobra951]

Yeah, I think you guys are completely overreacting.  We've all said that yes, the PS3 is the most expensive, it's also the most expensive to produce, which is the reason.  It's not like it's just Sony overpricing its stuff.  At least not as far as I've seen.  And again, while the 360's only legit version is the most expensive one, which can be interpreted as shady and attempting to get people to spend more in the end after they buy the core version and realize they need to make all the upgrades as they'd have gotten with the premium (and pay more to do it), Sony's versions are actually both perfectly usable as they are and actually cater to the people who would buy them.  I would go the cheaper route with the PS3 and not be forced to make changes.  I went the cheaper route with the 360 and am now going to be forced to spend more money than I ended up saving in the first place (which, to be fair, I kind of expected... it was more the fact that I didn't want to pay it all at once).

And Cobra, while a store is giving you a rebate on the 360, the 360 is older and the PS3 is brand-spanking new.  You can certainly say that because of that you want to get a 360 instead of a PS3 as things stand right now, but you can't levy it as an argument against the starting retail price points of either item.  And that's really what's at issue here.

Like I said, I'm very far from a Sony fanboy, but I think you guys are all completely overreacting and have some vision of this horrible nightmare future in which PS3s sprout legs and crush the populace.  Yes, it's $500 for a console.  So fucking what?  It's now $60 for top-tier 360 games.  Games are getting more expensive and that *really* shouldn't come as a surprise to any of you given how closely you follow this hobby.  I understand the misgivings with the price, and I'm not about to pay it myself; HOWEVER, that doesn't mean it's the most outrageous console price in gaming history (because it isn't) and as Pug said, you have to consider the machine itself, not just price.  To use a different car metaphor -- it makes no sense when comparing a Pinto and a Lamborghini to say that the Lamborghini is a total ripoff because the Pinto is so much cheaper.  Obviously the latter car is *ridiculously* expensive and probably not at all worth it unless you have lots of money to burn, but it isn't even remotely comparable to the former car.  You may not entirely get what you pay for with the latter the way you do with the former, but the former at any price is giving you the bare bones necessities and fuck all else.  This isn't entirely an accurate metaphor as I think the Wii should have great games and plenty of fun, but when you're talking raw hardware, this seems somewhat apt, and hardware is what dictates price for the most part.

Anyway, whatever.  I'm not buying one and neither are any of you, so I think the end result speaks for itself either way.  None of us have any damn money, and what we do is going to something other than the PS3.

Lamborghinis are specialty vehicles purchased by a minute portion of the driving public.  That's not the kind of market Sony is pursuing with the PS3.  They want mass-market appeal.  The last console to be priced as outrageously as the PS3 was the 3DO, which died an unlamented death early, before amounting to anything.  Sony has a much better chance of succeeding.  Just not with my dollars.

This debate is all academic to me now.  I broke down yesterday and got a 360 core system, a memory card, Kameo, Dead Rising and Gears of War, and a VGA cable.  (And yes, I got it at Microcenter.  Rebate form will be in the mail on Monday, and I will pay for verified delivery.)  I wanted a wired controller, which is an extra $40 if got the premium system--the same price as a memory card.  And like you, I didn't want to pay for everything at once.  If I feel the need for a hard drive later, it's a lot easier to justify the extra expense then. 

I'm not going to be able to use this right away, though.  I need to bring my computer equipment back home with me, after the holidays.  You had no problems connecting the system to your PC monitor, right?

[Quemaqua]

Long as you've got the VGA adapter you should be good to go.  Mine hooked up with no fuss whatsoever.  Just be warned that it may annoy you to play some games in HD but without fullscreen support.  Gears of War, for instance, is letterbox in HD on my non-widescreen monitor, so I have to set my 360's res to 640x480 (non-HD) if I want the entire screen to be used.  Doesn't matter so much with a movie, but it's pretty annoying for a game.  The up side is that you can do HD and play split-screen coop with a friend and it uses the whole screen, since the HD res just does two letterbox game screens on top of each other, which hence fills up the whole screen.  Not all games have this annoying problem, and it seems mostly up to the developer how to handle it.  I find it really fucking annoying and the only way to avoid it is to get a widescreen monitor.  That said, Gears is fun even letterboxed (I played through half the game that way), and it looks plenty awesome (just slightly lower res) even at non-HD resolutions.  Some games, however, are smarter and will give you what you want.  Viva Pinata, for instance, will play fullscreen at non-HD *and* HD resolutions.

[Pugnate]

This debate is all academic to me now.  I broke down yesterday and got a 360 core system, a memory card, Kameo, Dead Rising and Gears of War, and a VGA cable.  (And yes, I got it at Microcenter.  Rebate form will be in the mail on Monday, and I will pay for verified delivery.)  I wanted a wired controller, which is an extra $40 if got the premium system--the same price as a memory card.  And like you, I didn't want to pay for everything at once.  If I feel the need for a hard drive later, it's a lot easier to justify the extra expense then.

That made me chuckle, because I am really happy you bought one. I haven't seen you discuss gaming in a while, so it is pretty awesome that you are back in the fold! 

Congratulations!

[Cobra951]

Thanks!  It gets better.  In for a penny, in for a pound.  I got an Acer 22" LCD monitor and Logitech 2.1 speakers tonight.  (I also found the right adapters for connection of the VGA-cable's RCA audio plugs to the speakers.)  For some reason, I can't get the display to center at anything above 848x480.  (Image is off to the left.)  I wonder what the hell is up with that.  I can't imagine the monitor is unable to go up beyond this with a real computer video card attached to it.  Is there something I'm missing here?  Are there some extra settings somewhere on the Xbox?  DVDs look great at this res, though.  The player software handles it perfectly too, giving you full screen on 16:9 content, and black bars on the left and right on 4:3 content, even when mixed on the same disc.  Of the games, I've only tried Kameo so far.  It looks OK, but somewhat artifacted.  I imagine if it has an HDTV mode, it's not being used at this res.

It took me a long time to set it all up, so I haven't put much time at all into using the system.  I'll have more to say about it tomorrow.

Edit:  Woohoo!  Never mind.  I set the Xbox to 1280x720, then futzed around with the "clock" setting on the monitor controls, which stretched the image to the right.  When I exited, the monitor didn't like what I did, so it went into auto-adjust.  A few flashes later, the screen was perfectly centered at this res, which I think is equivalent to 720P.  Yay!  The dashboard looks awesome.  The DVD I was playing still looks awesome.  Now for some HD games, I hope . . .

Edit 2:  Yes!  Kameo looks pristine now.  Phew.  3:15 AM.  I'm calling it a night.

[Cobra951]

This time I'm posting on topic.  While reading up on the 360's hardware, I found what I thought was a good rant, mostly against the PS3.  It goes right along with what Scott and I have been saying.  That article links to "What the Cell is Going On?", a 360/PS3 games comparison which is similar to what started the thread.

It seems the blame for the price excess is being laid squarely on the Blu-Ray hardware.  Whatever, my opinion remains unchanged since last I posted about all this.  If anything, it has solidified.

[gpw11]

I think Sony's era of console dominence might be coming to a bit of an end.  Yeah, it's too early to judge, but there is very little fan support behind it, and that is something that's hard to change.  Now, I'm just judging from what I've seen on digg.com and that may be a bit biased but it seems like these things aren't selling on ebay and barely moving in stores.  The price tag is just too high, and blu ray isn't swaying anyone - it's just too little too soon. 

The system itself may be great, but it's just not as appealing to people right now as the 360 or wii, and I think a lot of gamers realise that most of Sony's top tier exclusives are liable to jump ship if the wii and esecially 360 have a much larger installed base so they're holding off.  Microsoft has Bungie, Rare, their own studio (you know, for Project Gotham and Forza), Mistwalker (hit or miss), and SiliconKnights (I think we all expect great things).  Nintendo has well....Nintendo and that's all it really takes.  Sony has....SCE - Not great, but not as bad as they were during the PSX and start of the PS2. 

Sure, Sony gets a ton of third party games and that's always been their strength...but that's all because of installed base.  If the wii and 360 are doing a lot better this time around, developers will probably just move there, especially since they're both so much easier to develop for and as such you have to move less units anyways for the same ammount of profit. 

But fuck, it's been like 2 months so who knows?

[Pugnate]

I just think of the Smackdown series. Has there ever been a time when a Smackdown game has not been available on a Sony console? It started about 8 iterations ago on the PS1 and has been a Sony exclusive since. While the Xbox fans have been crying for a decent grappler, the PS fans have enjoyed the newer versions of the Smackdown games.

Suddenly the Xbox 360 has the latest Smackdown games (as does the PS2), yet the PS3 doesn't. That is pretty weird.

Anyway I don't think the PS3 will lose. I still think it will take off once the better games roll around.

[Xessive]

Meh I just think it is getting convenient to hate Sony. The games on the PS3 need some time to mature and things will change, but most  games on the 360 do look better and it is something for the owners of the console to feel good about.

edit:

I am just happy that my PC displays those games better than either console. I hope a new console doesn't come out for 5 years.

I just had to revive this, for the memories, and to highlight how Pug's wish came true Man, time flies! haha

[Cobra951]

Ahaha!  2 RRoD replacements later, I'm still on the same platform, 6+ years later (not just 5).  And I still think the PS3 is overpriced, even now.  When they came out with the latest cheapened small form factor, I expected a marked price drop, and my interest peaked.  No such break.  No sale so late in the game.

[gpw11]

Yeah, it really isn't cheap.  Honestly, I have no regrets and think mine was worth every penny, but it'd be a hard sell if I already had a console.

[Quemaqua]

It's not overpriced if you have to buy a 2nd 360 to replace a dead one. Thankfully the only game I really cared about what Deadly Premonition which is finally getting a US PS3 release with the Director's Cut. So I'm almost sorta glad I didn't get all that far before my Xbox died.