backtop

Gadgets Xbox 360 Outsells PS3 in America
Stephen Kamizuru (Blog) - October 20, 2008 7:38 AM
Print 99 comment(s) - last by samoak54.. on Nov 14 at 5:12 PM
Video game industry continues to be healthy despite economic downturn

According to data from market research firm NPD, the Xbox 360 outsold the PS3 in September. Nintendo continued to lead sales charts with 687, 000 Wii and 537,000 DS systems sold. The Xbox 360 sold 347,000 consoles compared to the PlayStation 3’s 232,000 consoles. The PlayStation Portable sold 238,000 units and 173,000 PlayStation 2s were also sold as well.

The increase in Xbox 360 sales follows price cuts made in early September. Compared to September 2007, the overall video game market was down 7 percent according to a Reuters article that summarized the NPD statistics. Several factors contributed to this decline as last September was when the much anticipated Halo 3 was released which had a large impact on software and hardware sales. According to NPD analyst Anita Frazier Halo 3 generated a full 35 percent of software sales for all of 2007.

Frazier’s analysis of the NPD numbers were discussed in a Gamasutra article where it is mentioned that decline in prices of each of the videogame consoles also contributed to the overall decline. According to Frazier, "Hardware unit sales were flat versus last year so the decline in dollars is due to lower prices. The average retail price of hardware across all platforms declined 8% from last September.”

Despite the decline in September sales compared to the previous year, the video game industry continues to be healthy. Frazier states, "Overall, the health of the video games industry remains quite strong despite the rocky economic conditions. Tracking against typical industry seasonality, the U.S. video games industry is positioned to realize $22B or more in revenues for the year."

Overall, the market is at $11.82 billion in sales for January to September 2008, compared to $9.38 billion in sales for the same period in 2007.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sony should consider a price cut...
By Hiawa23 on 10/20/2008 8:10:23 AM , Rating: 5
I own all three consoles, 360 gets played 80%, PS3 18%, & Wii 2%, but that was bought for my 10 year old & the controller & games just don't appeal to me. There is really nothing Sony or MS can do about the Wii, so Sony really needs to consider some sort of price cut to atleast compete, & some higly anticipated games, like LBP, Resistance 2, Home, should help the holiday season.

It is somewhat surprising, considering economic conditions, & the RROD fiasco how well the 360 is doing, & there are some pretty good to great games coming, plus LIVE reloaded should help in the coming months.




By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2008 8:14:42 AM , Rating: 4
I own the Wii and Xbox 360, I to find myself more prone to playing on the Xbox 360 than the Wii, Probably because the Core Demographic of the Xbo 360 Appeals to me more than the Wii. - I'll probably go underground for a long time and never be heard once I get my sweaty hands on Fable 2, FarCry 2 and Fallout 3.

One thing I wouldn't mind is the Cheap Storage Upgrade Offered in America for here in Australia, So I can ditch my 256mb memory card in favor of the 20gb HDD, for when the Mii's with Arms and Legs update appears.
Link located here: www.xboxstorageupgrade.com


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By killerroach on 10/20/2008 8:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is somewhat surprising, considering economic conditions, & the RROD fiasco how well the 360 is doing


It all comes down to the dollar. Or, more precisely, how many fewer there are in the price tag of the 360. If it was equal in price to the PS3, then yes, it wouldn't be a fair match. But when Joe Six-Pack (can we please retire that phrase now already?) sees $199 for a 360 and $399 for a PS3, it's going to be really difficult with him to walk out with a black box with blinking lights over a white box with blinking lights.


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By artemicion on 10/20/2008 11:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
Of course I can't speak for all consumers, but I recently decided to sell my Wii and use the money to buy an Xbox. The reason I didn't go with the PS3 didn't have much to do with money. Simply looking at the exclusives for each console, I decided I wanted the Xbox more than I wanted my Wii and more than I wanted a PS3.

Going on a slight tangent, I will say that I'm surprised that the Xbox did so strong in September when I feel like a lot of people (like me) were holding off buying an Xbox until the Jaspers came out. I guess the population of gamers who actually know what a Jasper is is really tiny. Encouraging for me, since I'm getting antsy waiting for the ignorant masses to clear out the Falcon stock for me. :)


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By Subzero0000 on 10/20/2008 9:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
You're probably right about some gamers doesn't know the difference between Falcon and Jasper.

Even though I knew it, I still bought the Falcon in Feburary. And I have yet to see any red ring.

Anyway, the point is, if you buy early you get to play more.
Xbox 360 is already 3 years old. There are lots of games people missed out while waiting.


By afkrotch on 10/23/2008 9:57:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyway, the point is, if you buy early you get to play more.
Xbox 360 is already 3 years old. There are lots of games people missed out while waiting.


Explain how ppl missed out while waiting? They can still buy the games and they can still play them. They just aren't paying the higher prices of having it recently released.

Once games become Greatest Hits or whatever else they are called, the price drops can be 50% or higher on games. Can you name a game that came out during 360's release that I can't get now?


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 9:29:27 AM , Rating: 5
Damn right Sony should consider a price cut. The 360 core costs 199$ now, and the BD player in the PS3 is beginning to mean little to nothing, as standalone players can be had 250 or cheaper if you can find a sale.

With the 360 priced lower than all other consoles, it is no wonder that sales increased.


By joemoedee on 10/20/2008 9:51:07 AM , Rating: 1
A price cut = more sales? Wow, never could of saw that coming. :)

Whereas I would be all for a PS3 price drop, I don't see them having to do it. Why?

PS2 is still selling, quite well. 173.5k according to NPD numbers last month. So Sony did 405.9k last month between the PS2 and PS3, not including the PSP. (Compared to the 360's, after price drop, 347.2k)

The numbers show there's really no need to drop the PS3 down to the point it starts to encroach on the PS2 sales price range.


By Aloonatic on 10/20/2008 10:11:14 AM , Rating: 3
The stand alone BD players really are the sticking point for Sony and cutting the PS3 price, as far as I can see.

Even if they are pretty cheap, a cheaper PS3 would eat into that market even more and the third party manufacturers sure won't be thanking Sony for that, especially now.

If they jerk around partners this time, will they be so willing to support Sony next time there's a BD/HD DVD war?

Maybe, maybe not but it certainly won't help Sony if they undercut those who they got on their side because they can afford to due to income that (I assume) they get from game sales leaving BD player manufacturers high and dry.


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By BansheeX on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 11:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well if you charge for netplay, remove the HD, remove wifi, and don't put your games on a next-gen high density format, yes you can make the shelf price $200.
Now if only games were actually developed for the PS3 and not ported from 360. Get more consoles into the publics hands, and thats the console that will have priorety. So its nice the PS3 has all these features, but if games are developed for the 360 without an HD, then its really not going to matter. Not to mention its not like the PS3 takes advantage of the hard drive, it just copies the entire game to reduce load times, just as the 360 will now do with many games if you have an HD.

Its really sad this is how it played out, because I really like the PS3's feature set, but it looks like Microsoft is going to win this one out if the PS3 does not reduce in price. The PS2 is only going to last so long before the 360 starts to eat into its sales too. Games being developed for 360 and ported to the PS3 has killed its appeal for me, I only buy games that are PS3 exclusive, as even though it is more powerful, most multiplatform games still favor the 360.

And just for the record, my PS3 basically collects dust unless I am watching a BD, other than playing The Show baseball(kickass game) every now and then.


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By BansheeX on 10/20/2008 1:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now if only games were actually developed for the PS3 and not ported from 360.


Huh? 100% of PS3 exclusives are developed on the PS3 first, and 80% of the non-exclusives were simultaneously developed.

quote:
Not to mention its not like the PS3 takes advantage of the hard drive, it just copies the entire game to reduce load times, just as the 360 will now do with many games if you have an HD.


It doesn't copy the entire games, it copies load intensive material. It is also required to play xbox1 games, some future 360 games, and to download live content. It's really quite vital, but they don't tell you that because they want to move units and sell you an overpriced MS drive later once you realize it. That's my beef with how MS has chosen to move units, it preys on consumer ignorance by increasing secondary costs in order to lower the upfront cost. A 120gb MS hard drive costs $140 while you can upgrade the PS3 to any name brand 320gb notebook drive from newegg for $90. Tack on $150 for three years of live, and $200 for a blu-ray player down the road, and you've spent well over $700 for what the PS3 is offering for $490. And that's what a lot of 360 buyers did without realizing it. So I don't blame the PS3 for not copying them. If those people weren't so blind to cumulative cost, they'd have bought a PS3 and we'd see much better PS3 sales.


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By MarcLeFou on 10/20/2008 2:10:23 PM , Rating: 1
An HDD is never going to be required to play future 360 games because part of their userbase won't HAVE an HDD.

And go back to the PS2 vs xbox days. When a game was multipatform, for what console was it designed for ? The PS2. Why ? Because it was the least powerful console of the two and you couldn't run a Halo quality game (graphics-wise here, no interest about talking about the actual quality of the game) on the PS2. However, xbox being really easy to program for since it was basically a PC using direct x, they could improve textures slightly. Even that's not the case with the PS3 as its a pain to program for so people make game with the 360 in mind and ensure it works on the PS3 and they're done.

So, yes, the PS3 games (multiplaform) are essentially 360 ports just like xbox games were PS2 ports (multiplatform, again).

And doesn't their new 30$ for a 20 GB HDD basically kill your theory about overpriced HDD conspiracy ?


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By BansheeX on 10/21/2008 12:17:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
An HDD is never going to be required to play future 360 games because part of their userbase won't HAVE an HDD.


Wrong. Microsoft has recently announced that it is allowing some developers to create games that require HD offloading of resources. Most of them are MMORPG-related.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161805

Stop arguing with me about things you do zero research on, and apparently every other member on this site who is rating me down.

quote:
Even that's not the case with the PS3 as its a pain to program for so people make game with the 360 in mind and ensure it works on the PS3 and they're done.


Go into a third-party developer's office sometime and tell them that. They'll be very surprised to hear it. The PS3 being the more complex of the two, and surging sales this year is causing third-party developers to focus on the PS3 first. Because it doesn't compromise either platform when you optimize on the most demanding system first and then work your way down. Burnout Paradise and Force Unleashed are prime examples of cross-platform games that were first developed on the PS3, and the experiences were equally good because of it.

QUOTE: "Scott Steinberg, SCEA's vice-president of product marketing, reinforced Blackman's statement by saying that most every third-party publisher is now developing their games for the PS3 first. "They all are now, since it's just easier," Steinberg said. Well, things have certainly turned around concerning PS3 development, haven't they?"

quote:
So, yes, the PS3 games (multiplaform) are essentially 360 ports just like xbox games were PS2 ports (multiplatform, again).


Uhhh, wrong again. The PS2 was the main developer platform last generation because it sold 140 million to the xbox's 24 million, it was immaterial that it was weaker than consoles released two years later, it was popular for other reasons, mainly the 100 million PS1 fanbase and the DVD drive that the DC didn't have. The PS2 continues to be actively revised and sold by Sony in the millions each year. For perspective, the 360 was launched a year earlier than the PS3 and currently leads just 20 million to 15 million. The xbox1 does not sell in tandum with it.

As for ports, PS3 Bioshock, Oblivion, and UT3 ended up being the best versions. FEAR was really the only noticeably inferior port worth mentioning, other bad ports were on crappy games like Enemy Territory.


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By MarcLeFou on 10/21/2008 10:15:30 AM , Rating: 2
Agressive much ?

Now onto your points.

First, the article you quote is over a year old and based on speculation. The fact that its been a year and we still haven't seen any occurance of a "required HDD" leads me to believe it can be debunked quite easily. I'll believe otherwise when you have a developer stating on record gamers will need a HDD to play their games (apart from MMO which I'll cover later).

The mentioned "storage required" sticker is referring to a memory card as well as a HDD as that is, well, storage. COD4, the very game mentioned in your article didn't require a HDD did it ?

As for MMO than yes, I would tend to agree because of the nature of the games. However, MMO fans should be expecting such a move because of past occurrences (ex: FFXI on ps2 and the hdd add-on). And even then, some MMO might get away with only using a memory card although I doubt it could be a very good one as new content would be very limited. For normal games, HDD will never be mandatory. Not saying it was a good move by Microsoft not to include it by default but what's done is done and game companies won't cut off 20-25% (maybe more - what's the sale breakdown for the arcade/core vs HDD models ?) of their market.

Second point. That's a quote from a Sony executive. That's about as believable as a quote from Peter Moore when he was working for Microsoft. In fact, I'd say its even worse given their past track record of being *very* believable and not biased at all. Please quote me actual developers saying they developed for the PS3 in mind and then "downscaled" to the 360 (unless its a PS3 exclusive going multiplatform like FFXIII as the reason for it is obvious).

Third point. I have to admit I've never compared side by side most titles. I have however seen comparison articles (namely from gamespot - the latest article being around Assassin's Creed release time) comparing games on both platforms and both platform had their strengths and weaknesses. But overall, per title, either the PS3 was equal to the 360 version or slightly inferior. And even PS3 exclusives were not significantly better than other games on the 360 so why weren't developers able to tap into the PS3's full potential ? Perhaps because its too hard to take full advantage of its capabilities and since developers are there to make money they don't want to spend that amount of money to get diminishing returns ? My personal experiences with both consoles also push me toward the "no real difference in graphical power" camp.

That's not really important however. My point is that you program for the lowest common denominator, not the technically superior machine. And if you want to take the sales argument for last generation then why is it overlooked this generation as last time I looked the PS3 was way behind the 360 and the lead is not shrinking but growing ?

If you want to attack the 360 and favour the PS3 then please use factual arguments. They both have strengths and weaknesses. The failure rate of the 360 is its biggest one. It's also the reason I don't personally own one as I'm waiting for the Jasper revision. But while the 360's biggest flaw can be fixed with a die-shrink/redesign, the PS3's isn't as its lack of games won't be fixed until a few years as games take time, especially HD games. And by that point, we'll be nearing wii-HD and xbox 720.

Now, please use credible facts in the future and not some quotes from Sony executives and some speculative articles. You don't see me using quotes from Bill Gates to back my points up as they're about as objective as editorials on global warming from Jason Mick/Masher.


By samoak54 on 11/14/2008 4:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
Its a fact that hdds will be required soon, look at GTA 4, because the xbox does not have blu ray compatibility or a mandatory hdd, Rock Star had to postpone it for months. Fitting a game that detailed and expansive onto a dvd was nearly impossible, thats why GTA 5 will probably be a ps3 exclusive, unless of course Microsoft buys Rock Star or pays them another boat load of money to keep the game on the same scale.


By afkrotch on 10/23/2008 10:09:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
An HDD is never going to be required to play future 360 games because part of their userbase won't HAVE an HDD.


I'd never say never. There will always been developers that will go their own direction.

quote:
And doesn't their new 30$ for a 20 GB HDD basically kill your theory about overpriced HDD conspiracy ?


That's $20 for a REFURBISHED 20 GB hard drive, which applies to only Arcade/Core models. Might as well go onto Ebay and buy a cheaper one.

Still overpriced for a Brand New hard drive.


By Alexstarfire on 10/20/2008 2:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm, all companies prey on consumer ignorance, to some degree anyways. I have yet to see a company excluded from this quite obvious rule. Nintendo is no exception either. Pay $50 for a 2GB SD card from Nintendo... or go buy a regular 2GB SD cad for less than $20. Both work just fine with the Wii.

Also, you can't really compare the price of the PS3 + HDD to a 360 + blu-ray player + HDD. First off, not many people really need the bigger HDD. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nicer... but that isn't the point. You're comparing two fully loaded cars when most people only care about the base price. The facts are this... you can walk away with a 360 for $199 + tax.... you simply can't get a new PS3 that cheap. There is nothing more to it. You can't just assume that people are going to play Blu-Ray movies. Many people really don't care about them too much because they are so expensive.

I have to say though.... if you have an HDTV I don't know why you wouldn't.... but that's just me. Obviously the PS3 is a better package deal.... but many people don't like/want the package. If the games don't appeal to them.... like many say about the Wii.... then price will never be the issue. If the PS3 cost $50 but had only 1 game for it.... no one would get it. Just because a console costs less than the sum of it's individual parts (ie. gaming console, blu-ray player, and Wifi) doesn't mean it'll sell well if the main feature is essentially castrated. That's not the case... but the extra features have to overcome the price difference.... and they simply aren't as the sales numbers would point out.


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 4:48:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Huh? 100% of PS3 exclusives are developed on the PS3 first, and 80% of the non-exclusives were simultaneously developed.
Almost all multiplatform games are developed first for 360 and then ported to PS3.. almost none are the other way around, and a few are joint development. And although I did not specifically say it, i pointed out that I only buy PS3 exclusive games because of this.
quote:
It doesn't copy the entire games, it copies load intensive material. It is also required to play xbox1 games, some future 360 games, and to download live content. It's really quite vital, but they don't tell you that because they want to move units and sell you an overpriced MS drive later once you realize it.
The Arcade version comes with a flash card, you can still save your games, and download online content. Also microsoft has stated that it is going to allow third party developers to make hard drives manditory if they please, but they also said in house games would not require it, and that target audiences would be much smaller if they choose to require the hard drive. Of course none of this has to do with the fact that games are mainly ported to PS3.. but ok..

quote:
If those people weren't so blind to cumulative cost, they'd have bought a PS3 and we'd see much better PS3 sales.
First off, you don't need a 120GB HD, my 20GB works just fine, and please stop comparing the playstation network to xbox live, they do not compare, and this comes from someone who owns both consoles. while I do not like playing with 16 year olds, I have always found the gaming experience to be better, and I could care less about talking to other players. And as for BD, yes thats the reason I bought a PS3, but please don't make it out as though a large portion of gamers care about blu-ray, because they don't..

While I do agree a hard drive would be ideal, not everyone needs one, especially casual gamers which Microsoft is obviously trying to reach out too. When only taking gaming aspects into account, the only thing seperating the ps3 from the 360 is the hard drive, and thats only if you plan on playing new games that will require it. And lets face it, if price is a concern you are not going to shell out for a 120GB HD when you did not think you needed an HD at all in the first place.


By afkrotch on 10/23/2008 10:17:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I do agree a hard drive would be ideal, not everyone needs one, especially casual gamers which Microsoft is obviously trying to reach out too.


I'd say casual gamers are the one that needs the hard drives the most, as majority of your casual games are sitting on Xbox Live and need to be downloaded.


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By TreeDude62 on 10/21/2008 3:51:56 PM , Rating: 1
Consoles are about games. The 360 has way more exclusives and is even getting FFXIII. Arcade owners can get the 20gb dive for $20 from MS right now.

As for not having to pay for online. I can see the issue. But the 360 has a much larger online community that PS3 does. It is also much more robust in every way. It is worth the cost IMO. So you get what you pay for in that respect.


By samoak54 on 11/14/2008 4:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft must have payed Square Enix a whole lotta money for them to part the Playstation tradition! Fitting then, that after paying so much, they decide to post pone sending SE the development kit. Whatever, versus 13 looked better anyways :-)


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By Guttersnipe on 10/20/2008 1:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
its not just that the bluray means nothing. bluray sales are flat, they hardly jumped after hddvd died. its a bad sign.
theres just little interest at these prices..and perhaps drm


By samoak54 on 11/14/2008 4:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
Where have you been these past months? Have you walked into a BestBuy recently? Or a Blockbuster for that matter? Every time i step into a store like this, their Blu-Ray wall seems to be expanding rapidly!


By InvertMe on 10/20/2008 9:44:16 AM , Rating: 3
The 360 is now an impulse buy item at $179.00 so no wonder it's selling so well. I have no desire to play my games on a console and I was even tempted to buy one.


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By SlipDizzy on 10/20/2008 12:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
I also own all 3 consoles, yet I play the PS3 the least. I own 1 game for PS3, 1 game for Wii, and 10 games for 360.

The only game I bought for PS3 was for Metal Gear which I didn't finish (not that its a bad game, I'm just terrible at finishing long games). Since then I haven't bought a game for PS3 because there are no exclusives that I want. I was happily waiting for Final Fantasy but not 360 will have that. The only thing left is Tekken and I don't know if that is enough for me to keep this black monolith that sits on my floor collecting dust.

I'll keep my Wii because I went through hell to get one, and Smash Bros Brawl never gets old especially if you have friends to play with.


RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By BansheeX on 10/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sony should consider a price cut...
By BansheeX on 10/21/2008 12:22:58 AM , Rating: 2
Please stop rating me down with dupe accounts without rebutting my points. Thanks.


By crazyblackman on 10/21/2008 10:34:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Please stop rating me down with dupe accounts without rebutting my points. Thanks.


These fools love the 360 here no matter how many times they've waited for the UPS man to bring a repaired one. you are rated down solely because of Daily Tech bias towards Sony. You could make sense all day long and still be rated down, because these 360 consumers in here are idiots for Microsoft. They get one percent of the value of a PS3 with the 360. There is a real good reason why the console is selling for $200. It bricks quite frequently. I could care less about my rating in here. Hope that class action lawsuit over RROD succeeds.


By samoak54 on 11/14/2008 4:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
They have 13, not versus 13, nor will they have any FFs after this one me thinks. I have a feeling that Square Enix didn't quite "sellout" my hunch is they took the money, and sold a bit of their soul to the devil, but they will probably use the money for some major project they haven't revealed yet. FF 7 remake anyone??!! Besides, versus thirteen looks much cooler then 13 does.


By SiliconJon on 10/21/2008 12:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
I was hoping to fit the house with several PS3's, but they've completely nixed the PS2 backwards compatability and that was a HUGE selling point for me. So now I'm stuck with one PS3, as I currently don't plan on buying another one, and may even migrate to the 360 despite my loathing for Microsoft. My plans were, and still are, to move away from multi-PC gaming to multi-console gaming due to the bang-per-buck consoles are now offering, particularly with maintenance (insert unbricking & red ring jokes here).

But so much for buying Bioshock, Civilization, and the other titles on PS3 this Christmas, we're already getting away from a machine that has become crippled despite its insane price tag for a single-platform console. It's not like I can easily pipe any real TV into the thing with ease. It does nothing, at least with great ease that I'm interested in, other than play PS3 titles now. I want CONVENIENCE you morons. Quit cutting off its arms and put your programmers to work.

I should have known Sony would do something stupid as such. Heck, now all they need to do is a surprise early release of a PS4 to really screw the PS3 patrons.


Big Shock ?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/2008 11:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
1. People who enjoy games buy a console, not a glorified A/V unit.
2. PS3 is still too expensive.
3. Blu-Ray is a bust. Also see number 2.




RE: Big Shock ?
By TerranMagistrate on 10/20/2008 12:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blu-Ray is a bust.

Maybe when you'll be able to afford an HDTV, you'll be able to appreciate HD content a bit more. DVDs won't be around forever and the future of downloading HD movies is a bad joke given the restrictions ISPs want to implement.


RE: Big Shock ?
By Alexstarfire on 10/20/2008 2:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you're failing to see that that's one of his points. It's very expensive to watch HD quality content... unless you watch it on your computer. Course... then you're stuck with a small screen... unless against you've got the money to afford a big screen. But then you'd have an HDTV instead of your 19" monitor.

You might find this hard to believe that not everyone spends every last dollar on technology. They are going to wait until watching DVD movies is about the same price, or less, of what it costs to watch DVD now.... and that basically is going to mean that they are keeping that non-HDTV until it dies and getting an HDTV is cheaper than buying a non-HDTV.... and that they can no longer play DVD movies because DVD players aren't sold anymore. Course... blu-ray could actually come down in price.... but until DVD movies aren't being made anymore they will always be more expensive than regular DVDs.

Blu-ray winning the format war was the worst thing that could ever happen for the average joe. So damn expensive. F&^* you and your PS3 Sony.


RE: Big Shock ?
By The0ne on 10/20/2008 4:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
I have a full entertainment system and I don't even own BR yet. I have a 73" TV to boot! Why? Because it really isn't picking up and the selection in movies is dismal. Sure it looks great but if they title you want isn't available the enjoyment goes to ZERO. So until it improves I'm in DVD land for a long while.

Sony can't cut PS3 price much more. They're already losing money for each system sold and software isn't picking up quick enough to make up for it. Same goes for MS but then they have billions so they can afford to lose a bit more :) That doesn't mean Sony can't do it as well, but they haven't been doing that well nor have much cash in hand either :D

For those that hardly play their Wii, why is that? There are many good almost perfect games for it and yet the most of you have is one game for it. You don't like MarioKart, Galaxy, Zelda, etc? If you don't then maybe you're not a diehard fan of the series :) Or maybe just too busy to play all of them like me hehe


RE: Big Shock ?
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 12:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
Blu-ray isn't a bust. As much as I wish HD-DVD had won the format war, Blu-ray is the next thing. The vast majority of people want to own what they pay for. And we're a long way off from the average person being able to download and store HD movies.


RE: Big Shock ?
By fuser197 on 10/20/2008 2:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I don't think we can call it a bust yet. The biggest obstacle for me is the price of the media, at nearly twice the cost of regular DVDs, I can't imagine starting a collection.


RE: Big Shock ?
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 4:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I typically buy them on sale or online.


RE: Big Shock ?
By cmdrdredd on 10/20/2008 8:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, I don't think we can call it a bust yet. The biggest obstacle for me is the price of the media, at nearly twice the cost of regular DVDs, I can't imagine starting a collection.


New releases cost about $30. How is that twice as much as a new release DVD which typically is $19.99

Try again


RE: Big Shock ?
By InvertMe on 10/21/2008 9:28:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
New releases cost about $30. How is that twice as much as a new release DVD which typically is $19.99


New release DVDs are between 12.99 and 16.99 most are 14.99. You just need to buy them the first week.

Bestbuy and Target always run them cheap the first week as well as many other stores.


RE: Big Shock ?
By afkrotch on 10/23/2008 10:40:31 AM , Rating: 2
All I ever see them at is $20 and more for the "Special Edition" versions, which the blu-ray is always "Special Edition."

Anyways, why not compare the cheap 1st week price for both of them?


Video games resistent to slow economy?
By gmw1082 on 10/20/2008 8:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
If you can't afford to go out and have fun outside of the home then you buy things to make staying home more fun.




By Integral9 on 10/20/2008 8:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Like installing the Banker CEO patch for your favorite FPS.

>"Good, Bad,... I'm the guy with the gun."
<BOOOM..>


RE: Video games resistent to slow economy?
By InvertMe on 10/20/2008 11:07:36 AM , Rating: 4
I dunno - I spent $4.99 on a kick ball and played outside for over 6 hours with my kid. The replay value on that ball is amazing! Heck of a lot cheaper than a $60.00 console game!


RE: Video games resistent to slow economy?
By afkrotch on 10/23/2008 12:01:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I dunno - I spent $4.99 on a kick ball and played outside for over 6 hours with my kid. The replay value on that ball is amazing! Heck of a lot cheaper than a $60.00 console game!


Now how much have you spent on the woman who made the kid and how much to have the kid, also how much to feed and clothe the kid too?

I'd much rather just buy a console, a few games, and a condom.


By samoak54 on 11/14/2008 4:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
lolz I see your point!


On-line Effect
By Aloonatic on 10/20/2008 11:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
I can't help but think that we are seeing the effect of the growing importance of on-line play in the continuing sales figures, when comparing the xBox and the PS that is.

In the past, you and your friend may have different consoles but as you had to go around to theirs or they came over to your place to play multilayer games it didn't really matter that much.

Sure, you might have swapped games, but you probably went to the store and traded in.

Now though, with on-line play so easy, supported in a lot of games and handled so well on the xBox, it is a major reason for people to make sure that they buy the same console as their friends.

Essentially meaning that once a lead has been gained, it is probably going to keep on growing and growing and making it harder and harder for the other company to catch up.

May be MS were super aware of this and that is why they rushed a console to market?




RE: On-line Effect
By Alexstarfire on 10/20/2008 2:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
That in itself is a scam... There is absolutely no reason why the 3 consoles, or however many really, and PC can't play together, provided that each one has the game of course. The only reason I can come up with for why they don't is because they each want you to buy their hardware.

Anyways, I'll never pay to play my games online... so an xBox is permanently out of the question for me.


RE: On-line Effect
By afkrotch on 10/23/2008 1:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
If everyone could play together on different platforms, then no one would have to buy the same platform as a friend to play with them.

Sony seemed to want to leave this in the hand of the developers, which would have made it more PC like. If it wasn't for Xbox Live, we might have seen PS3 owners playing with PC gamers. Too many ppl complained about not having an Xbox Live equivalent. Guess sifting through multiple game servers and so on was too much for them, like the way is on PS2 and on PCs.

Microsoft is trying to tie Xbox Live with Games for Windows - Live. They even have a couple games that'll play with the 360 version. It's been a pretty big failure to date though. Majority of gamers already have their own programs to do the same features and we don't really care about "Achievements." That's a a stupid console thing.


RE: On-line Effect
By samoak54 on 11/14/2008 5:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, that whole console players vs computer players is such a gimmick. First of all, its not possible for console gamers to compete with their peers on computers, reaction times and aiming speed blow the socks of anything you can do with a controllers. Besides, aiming with a controller means pointing in the direction of the target until the aiming icon reaches it, on a PC, its point and click, making aiming a whole lot easier!


This article is titled wrong
By tallcool1 on 10/20/2008 1:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
The Wii outsold both the 360 and the PS3 combined, but the title of this article is "360 outsells PS3"?

True that it did, but when one console outsells both combined, that is the headline! Only somebody that was trying to make the 2nd place finisher look better would title the article this way.




RE: This article is titled wrong
By Shlong on 10/20/2008 6:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well the Wii is the king, so PS3 and Xbox 360 has to fight for second place and the headlines.


RE: This article is titled wrong
By samoak54 on 11/14/2008 5:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
The healine is such because the PS3 and the XBOX 360 are the only two next gen consoles on the market right now. Sure the wii came out around the same time, but anyone who has seen the wii being played will tell you, nintendo should have released it to compete with the ps2 and xbox1. There is no serious gaming to be had, galaxy was boring and bralw was a button masher, the only game i would play on the system would be twilight princess, but one game does not constitute a console. The wii, is a gimmick, a toy,it gets boring real fast, but the media has taken it and exalted it, so parents will now hesitate to buy their kids a serious console.


that's the way it will stay, for a while
By nastyned on 10/20/2008 11:37:19 AM , Rating: 3
I too have all three consoles and I play my 360 99% of the time or until a Mario, Zelda game comes for the Wii, and a Sony exclusive for the PS3.
I really believe that there is nothing Sony can do except match the 360 price cut for price cut. If the PS3 is the same price as the 360 then they might have a fighting chance. The problem?... the games. Sony just doesn't have em this go around and the kids know it. Second is the price. Unless Mom and Dad are rolling in money, a $500 toy isn't that attractive and adults just aren't buying it for a bluray player no matter how much blockbuster pushes it.
The killer is HDDVD would have been a much more cost effective transition into the world of HD with the combo disks. People would have been able to buy the combo disk without having a player and play them on a regular DVD player, Blockbuster could have stocked only ONE, not two different versions of a movie, and with over 20 million 360's out there a $100 add on was a no brainer.....
Sony not only screwed this generation of games and movies for themselves and Blockbuster, but for everyone looking to upgrade. Nice going.




By afkrotch on 10/23/2008 1:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The killer is HDDVD would have been a much more cost effective transition into the world of HD with the combo disks


JVC showed off a prototype blu-ray/dvd hybrid disc back in 2004. I don't think there was enough demand or care for them, so we don't see them.

It's cheaper to just buy the dvd and if you want the blu-ray later. That's fine. Buy it well after it's release, when it's price is cheaper.

Also during the beginning of HD-DVD, the 360's HD-DVD drive was $200. The price didn't even drop near $100, until HD-DVD was almost out the door.

Don't see how Sony screw anything over, cept their competition. Atm, Sony seems to be putting more effort into the Japanese market and why not? It's their home country. Look at the 360. It's geared more towards the US.

Me. I have four 360s (one Japanese, one US, two broken Japanese) and one PS3 (Japanese). I enjoy both. I'd say gaming is roughly more PS3, than 360, but not by much. The PS3 does get more usage, as I watch blu-ray movies on it also. My PC definitely gets more game time then both of them combined though.


I like PS3
By javabean on 10/20/2008 4:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
I own a Wii. In deciding on the Xbox 360 or the PS3, I chose the PS3 for one reason. When I saw people on youtube putting towels around their console to get it to work, I thought...that's not for me. The PS3 was $299 when I got it along with the Sony card. The games are great. The graphics are great. Online gaming is fun. I can watch Bluray movies. It interfaces seemlessly with my media server. It runs quiet and cool. I honestly can't think of anything negative to say. If you are deciding whether to buy one console or another, you really can't go wrong with either. In my case, I found the differences are not as dramatic as some would lead you to believe. Try them out. Pick the one you want. But don't become a zealot. It's just a game console for crying out loud! ;-)




PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
By piroroadkill on 10/20/2008 12:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
What the fuck are you even talking about?


By BansheeX on 10/21/2008 12:57:45 AM , Rating: 2
It's an imposter account from a 360 fan, duh. Can't believe how gullible people are on here, at least 20 people have replied to him sincerely. And it's not the first time I've seen a 360 fan do this, crazyblackman was a similar account.

First mistake was choosing the name "PLAY STATION THREE," when registering. Then he gave himself away with outrageous claims like "4.2ghz" and 20 year gaming cycles and 22 times faster than a PC. Typical trolls have lots of insults, but not this degree of fantasy. In fact, you're more likely to hear their thoughts on PS4 vs 720 out of their mouths before nonsense like this. Because speculation on future specs gives them the freedom to make up damn near anything.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By TheFace on 10/20/2008 12:07:30 PM , Rating: 1
Playstation 3 has 8 cores running at 4.2ghz that are amazingly hard to program for whereas the xbox 360 has 3! cores running at 3.2ghz which are based off the powerpc architecture that are still hard to program for but much easier than the PS3.

The Xbox 360 supports HD gaming and will output in 1080p with the HDMI cables. HDTV has yet to reach a point where most gamers are playing at 1080p anyway.

On PS3 you must pay for wireless, a HDD, and a blu-ray player whether or not you want them.

The 'dualschok' shake function was added recently after Sony settled their lawsuit after dualshock 2 was supposedly violating patents. Your other comment is useless.

If you game on your PS3 for 10 years, I will be surprised as the next gen of systems is supposed to be out in the next 3-4 years. If you game on it for the next 20 years, we are all having major economic issues and the manufacturers couldn't bring out anything to pull you away from your crappy 15-20 year old system.

Not saying PS3 sucks, but there are arguments for both. To blast one, means you should be able to see the faults of the other.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By Hiawa23 on 10/20/2008 2:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to break it to some of you, but very few disc based PS3 games are 1080p native. Just like the 360, most of the PS3 games are 540p 640p 720p, then it's upscaled to 1080i or 1080p. Again, the Ps3 outputs Blu ray movies at 1080p, but even the mighty, & overhyped PS3 runs most games at the resolutions I mentioned above & just like the 360, they are upscaled to that higher resolution, so contrary to what Sony wants you to believe, the PS3 would have trouble running most games at 1080p natively, pure & simple. There are very few games at 1080p natively, if the PS3 was as powerful as Sony claims all of them would be 1080p, with no jaggies.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By homernoy on 10/20/2008 2:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
This is why the PC is king when it comes to high-def gaming (when configured correctly). Higher framerates at higher resolutions; it's a good thing.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By homernoy on 10/20/2008 5:16:04 PM , Rating: 1
I have to believe you are either very young and received some bad information and believed it, or you're a troll looking for attention. There have been a lot of patient people here explaining the errors in you numbers and facts, but you just blurt out more insane bullshit.

What you stated above is simply more of the same.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2008 6:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, it's just you being manipulated by "right" information. You see you are a limited person who believes either this or either that but nothing else.


Exactly, it's right information! xD


By homernoy on 10/20/2008 6:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
"You see you are a limited person who believes either this or either that but nothing else"

Your wrong. Most of the time it's this or that, but every once in a while I believe a little in between.


By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2008 6:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
Er... The PS3 uses a Modified Geforce 7900... A Geforce 7950 GX2 is more powerful... Which means the 8800 Ultra, 9800 GX2, GTX280, 4870 X2 would spank the PS3's GPU and call it sally.


By samoak54 on 11/14/2008 5:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, sony doesn't make the games, the developers do. And if they done have the resources yet, or the experience to code for 1080p, then how is that the fault of the console. Its still better then Microsoft's stupid lie about playing HD, and HDMI port does NOT mean high def because DVD is not native hd is sd, therefore, the xbox cant even play hd if it wanted to!


By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2008 12:31:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
PLAYSTATION 3 has 8 cores running at 4.2 ghz while xbox 360 has only 2 cores running at 3.2Ghz.


It has 8 Cores yes, 1 is Disabled, the other is reserved for the Operating system, There is one Main PowerPC core and 7 simpler cores. (Make that 5, because 2 will never be used in games). - They also run at 3.2ghz.

The Xbox 360 has a Triple Core 3.2ghz PowerPC processor, very similar in-fact the PS3's Main PowerPC CPU, Each Processor in the 360 is also Hyper Threaded allowing 6 Threads to run in tandem.

quote:
Xbox 360 is slow and does not support full HD, very hot and explodes. 30% of xbox 360's are RMA returned as failed.


So you know how fast the Xbox 360 is? Got 3D Mark 2006 Xbox 360 version have you? - Also the Xbox 360 "does" support High-Definition, If a Game is running at 720P (As most are) it will be up-scaled to 1080P/i - which is very similar to what has been happening on the PS3.

quote:
Only kids 6-12 years old play on xbox 360 and poop on their controller while PLAYSTATION 3 is for serious grown up hardcore gamer and supports DUALSCHOK 3 shake function!!!


Yet, the Xbox 360 has more shooter games, where you "kill" people, childish? Up for debate, but childish as Mario?

quote:
Xbox 360 is the same trash from microsoft as their failed vista.


Personal Preference on whatever you like, but I wouldn't mind the money Microsoft Gains from the Xbox 360 and Vista, I would be a very rich person...

quote:
Finally everyone will end up with playing on PLAYSTATION 3. It's the power beast good for 10-20 years of gaming!


Performance wise, yes the PS3 has Blue-ray for larger game storage, yes it has a massively superior processor, yes it has a HDD mandatory... Which in my opinion is both a down-side and an up-side, Some games on the Xbox 360 you can chuck in and play, yet "some" of those ported games available for the PS3 require you to "Install" the game, which takes time.

Plus most people are forgetting the Xbox 360 has much better Graphical Fidelty, like ATI's 3dc Support, Which compresses Textures, Normal Maps and other information which is superior to what is available on the PS3, plus it also includes the ATI Tessellation support, which allows highly complex Landscapes and Characters etc' with a minimal amount of Polygons. (To see this in Action play Viva Pinata, uses the Tessellation support to full effect).
Plus it also supports much better Shadowing and Lighting support, which is evident in most games thanks to the "SM3.5" hardware, In comparison the PS3 uses a Geforce 7900 based GPU with only SM3 support.

And don't get me started on the memory configurations...

So next time, try and actually know what your talking about instead of placing forth such rubbish.

Both Machines have there Pro's and Con's - the Xbox 360's Potential is just "That much easier" to tap into than the PS3, thus we get better looking games, sooner rather than later.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 12:43:33 PM , Rating: 1
It has 1 core and 7 vector units. Can the SPEs operate on their own? Or make any decisions? No. They do what they're told. If that's a core then my Q6600 has 40+ cores.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2008 3:47:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Q6600 is 2400mhz and is slower than my 7 years old 3066mhz single cored cpu since the multicore cpu's are not supported yet and will not be supported in nearby future.


The Mhz myth, If that is a Pentium 4/D as I assume it is, then no, it is NOT faster than a Q6600, the Q6600 is Based upon the P6 Architecture, which actually does more work per-mhz than what a Pentium 4/D will ever do.

You would also be surprised how many applications are Multi-Threaded, and the list grows daily, the great thing I have noticed is that, even though say... My Compiler which is single threaded is using up 100% of my first core, If I load up another application it is then free to use up the resources of the second core.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2008 6:05:40 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think I have seen an idiot as thick as you are...

Pull up any Benchmarks you can find where a Pentium 4 will out-perform the Q6600.

You "do" Realize that even if a game is "not" Multi-Threaded there is "Still" a performance boost? Windows will allocate threads as it see's fit on different cores, plus things like API's and Graphics Drivers can get rather demanding, thus they can be off-loaded onto another core, this is all "Free" Performance.

45nm is better than 130nm - Why? Cheaper to make, more energy efficient, smaller, switches faster, lower voltages, higher clock speeds.

Multi-Threading is here *now* your statement may have been true a couple of years ago, but any new release game is multi-threaded.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By on 10/21/08, Rating: -1
By GPig on 10/22/2008 2:08:47 AM , Rating: 2
Dear god man, climb back under your bridge already... and try getting an education when you’re down there.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 3
Can you please stop talking because people are getting dumber listening to you. I don't know if you're just trying to look stupid to show the fanaticism of some PS3 guys or if you truly believe the idiotic stuff you say.


By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 4:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
Now I understand how Intel sold so many netburst P4s.

Bigger is always better right?


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2008 3:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ATI was always a choice for low-end budget people having no glue what they are buying.


Low priced cards are great! Don't Knock 'em till you save money!

And "Always" is a bad use of words, ATI COMPLETELY Dominated nVidia with the Radeon 9xxx series against the FX 5xxx series, thus "Always" is not correct.

quote:
ATI cards suffer from low fps, unstability and reboot every 10 minutes.


Funny, I have a 5 year old rig with a Mobility Radeon 9700Pro overclocked from 250/200 to 511/260 and has been rock solid since the day I bought it, even manages to play Oblivion on Medium Settings. - Did I mention it's only a 64mb part?

It also hosts a Freelancer game server 24/7 - If it was un-stable and rebooted every ten minuets, It wouldn't make for a good server now... Would it?

And don't get me started about the manufacturing fault in a large range of Geforce GPU fiasco.

quote:
ATI powered system you will notice it immediately - screen shakes, unsynchronized.


Proof? Because I bet the millions of ATI users can beg to differ.

quote:
They spam new features for their cards like Tessellation or 3dc support to make you think that something is improved and setting version values higher than Nvidia's. ATI stays ATI and its trash like AMD is.


Tessellation support will be included in the Direct X 11 feature set.

nVidia also included ATI's 3dc compression into the Geforce 8 series and newer parts, so saying it only "Stays" with ATI is again... FALSE.

quote:
Nvidia all the way! The way its meant to be played! Platinum!


nVidia is good, but seriously, they have been out-gunned by the Price/Performance of the Radeon 4xxx parts, however I do own a Geforce 8800GS which has been overclocked and has run rock stable since I got it, I also have Crossfire 4850's overclocked in my main Desktop machine that has run rock stable since I got it.

Plus you cannot deny the pretty tweaks one can apply with ATI Tray Tools (Included in the Omega Driver Set) which gives a massive amount of control over your GPU, something which is sadly missing on the nVidia camp.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2008 6:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
Trojans and worms my ass.

You can install the ATI drivers without the .net framework, you just wont get the control panel! HOWEVER... ATI Tray Tools is vastly more powerful than the Control Panels both ATI and nVidia provide, has been that way for years.

ATI Tray tools is also a 3rd party application, it has nothing to do with Microsoft, other than it stalls perfectly fine without issue on Microsoft Windows.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 4:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
Nvidia- Founded 1993
ATI- Founded 1985
3DFX Founded 1994

ATI has been around longer than any of the big players ;)

And just so you know, until the last two iterations of Nvidia cards, it was a well known fact that ALL ATI cards had better video quality. Nvidia always held the crown except for the 9*** series in terms of performance, but ATI has basically owned the video quality market since the very first Radeon. I am sure FireGL users would agree with me ;)


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 4:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
The 9x00 series was better for performance than Nvidia's offerings. As was the x1800-x1900 series before Nvidia came out with G80.

I like Nvidia. But ATI has some good cards. I really wish I'd waited for the 4x00 series instead of buying the 8800GTSs I've got.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2008 6:08:36 PM , Rating: 3
Until Playstation 4 arrives.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By Soldier38 on 10/20/2008 6:10:20 PM , Rating: 1
Hey dumbass. I own a PS3 and I make a effort to have a HDTV and upgrade hardware every year to keep up. All you idiots whining about 360 this and that. Jeez, stop complaining and get a job or get 2. Im not rich but I make it a point to have nice screens, ie 42inch 1080p tv, 24 inch computer monitor running 1920 x 1200 also 1080p. So yeh I own a PS3, and my high end PC kicks its ass all day long. I had a crapbox until it RRODed so that went to the garbage where it belongs. My PS3 gets used mostly for Blu Ray movies but sometimes I take a break and play some MGS4, Battlefield BC, or NCAA 09. There are plenty of good games coming for it in the coming months to satisfy the doubters. As for the crapbox, I would let someone pay me to take one now,lol. You talk about wasting money on new hardware and the consoles never needing it, well you just keep playing your outdated console with all those jaggies and I will be laughing at you with 8 AF and 16 AA turned on at 1920 x 1200 max settings and loving every pretty pixel that a console will never be able to do.


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
By StevoLincolnite on 10/20/2008 6:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
nVidia's first Graphics card, the nv1 couldn't render "any" polygons on the screen at all, and was in-compatible with all the Major API's like OpenGL, Direct X, Glide and various others, however if programmed it's way it could do some pretty neat stuff.

ATI's Reputation back then was pretty shaky, but nVidia wasn't even on the radar at the time till the Riva TNT came along, it was all about S3, Matrox, ATI and 3dfx.

ATI's Rage Furry Maxx with 2 GPU's was decent, however against the Geforce and Voodoo5 it didn't really hold well.

Then the Radeon 7500 came along... Great card, and great memories, pity the drivers pretty much sucked until the Radeon 9xxx days, now I personally reckon' ATI's drivers to be superior to that of nVidias. (Remember the statistics on nVidia cards causing Blue Screens of Death on Vista? - Just think about that.)


RE: PLAYSTATION 3 is 4 times faster than XBOX 360
By hduser on 10/20/2008 7:09:06 PM , Rating: 1
Well Playstation three, where do I begin? Having read all your posts, it has lead me to believe one of 3 things.

1. You're just a troll looking for flame bait.

2. You're one of those shady lawyers that represent those who are actually guilty and happens to have read a few technical articles and maybe changed his CPU in his PC once. It just goes to show what a little information in the wrong hands can do.

3. Or, this is the most brilliant piece of fiction or satire that I've read (I'm still laughing right now).

I'd like to believe #3 because no one can be that obtuse.


In other news
By BruceLeet on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: In other news
By Hiawa23 on 10/20/2008 10:22:15 AM , Rating: 2
Sony said they did not plan on dropping the price of the PS3 given the still huge manufacturing costs associated with the console, & wanted to concentrate on profitability per unit sold, & as someone who runs a business, I understand this mentality as this is what every business is in business to do, but they may be forced to atleast consider some sort of price cut, & why is Sony coming out with a 160gig PS3 when any gamer can replace the drive for less than the cost of the difference from from the base & this model?


RE: In other news
By afkrotch on 10/23/2008 1:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
It looks like more value for those who can't swap out the hard drive themselves, let alone tie their own shoes.


RE: In other news
By MarcLeFou on 10/20/2008 10:22:37 AM , Rating: 3
Actually no. In september the xbox 360 outsold the ps3 in japan for the first time due in part to the price cut and due to the release of a few high profile J-RPG's on the 360. I have no doubt its a temporary situation but this is a tribute to the 360's continued support to the 360, a mistake they made with the original xbox in japan and that they seem to have learnt from. In fact, most analysts said the 360 has been doing poorly in japan in large part because the consumers who had bought the original box felt betrayed when they stopped developing games halfway through its life cycle the first time around.

In September, the only territory the PS3 outsold the 360 in is Australia. It even outsold the Wii there last month! Aussies love being different for sure!


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki