Sony has shown of playable PS3

[Mastablasta]

The P3 is only limited graphically by the TV the consumer has. Its got twice the video crank as two(2) GEForce 6800's. Plus its using BlueRay, AND has enough memory AND A Multi Core Processor to crunch all the data. The Blue Ray ALONE would set you way way back pricewise. Add in the processor, mem, and video cards..NO Way would you get a comparable PC pricewise. No Way.

No, it's limited by it's internals. My one graphics card has more or less the same power as 2 Geforce 6800 and it's not the best you can get, it was expensive, yes, but seeing as how there's no actual prices on the PS3 currently, then we can't start comparing. A PC will always be more expensive, but you get far more in a PC than a console. Sure, you might not have to worry about drivers or hardware conflicts or diskspace on a console, but on a PC you get the ability to download mods to your games making them look better, tweak them, etc., all the good stuff, including the usual desktop performance of a PC. All that stuff you don't get in a console, so I'll any day of the week take an expensive PC over having a very expensive toy, that I need a 1500$+ TV to fully enjoy, and pay more for a gimpy PC for desktop use...

[ZenWon]

No, it's limited by it's internals. My one graphics card has more or less the same power as 2 Geforce 6800 and it's not the best you can get, it was expensive, yes, but seeing as how there's no actual prices on the PS3 currently, then we can't start comparing. A PC will always be more expensive, but you get far more in a PC than a console. Sure, you might not have to worry about drivers or hardware conflicts or diskspace on a console, but on a PC you get the ability to download mods to your games making them look better, tweak them, etc., all the good stuff, including the usual desktop performance of a PC. All that stuff you don't get in a console, so I'll any day of the week take an expensive PC over having a very expensive toy, that I need a 1500$+ TV to fully enjoy, and pay more for a gimpy PC for desktop use...

Ok Masta youre right and Im wrong. PC's are the rulers of uberville and consoles just suck hairy ass..

[Mastablasta]

Ok Masta youre right and Im wrong. PC's are the rulers of uberville and consoles just suck hairy ass..

I know. It's what I've been saying the last ~10 years. Fanbois just refuse to accept fact. Now if they would be so kind as to release the new Nintendo console with a reasonable pricetag...

[ZenWon]

I know. It's what I've been saying the last ~10 years. Fanbois just refuse to accept fact. Now if they would be so kind as to release the new Nintendo console with a reasonable pricetag...

Lmao nintendo fanboi go fig. You can have that piece of crap

[Vipr]

What every1 is forgetting in the which costs more debate is the price of the TV you must get for the PS3... a decent PC will set you back about £1500... a decent HD TV ... about the same... so PC wins price wise too....

[Nulion]

Ya know....as far as PC versus consoles go...Yes, performance-wise, PC's will always be able to smash video game consoles. That's established fact....BUT.....PC supporters like Masta there fail to look at the fact that video games are all very, very different....Some of them DO NOT WORK with a PC configuration, and are actually less enjoyable when played on a PC. Even if you have a controller addon for the PC...oh well, it's still just not as fun.

PC games are wonderful, but I have to be very honest - there just aren't as many GREAT games for PC as there are for consoles. (And that's taking ALL consoles into consideration) That's my opinion of course, and even though I said that, there are still PLENTY of excellent games that run on PC's. Mostly non-traditional RPG's (Like Deus Ex) and first-person shooters, as well as real-time strategy games....but that's about it. Maybe some adventure games too. Consoles are like that too; first person shooters just aren't as fun on a PS2, for example.

Consoles are much more open to inventive and innovative gameplay styles, that do not feel hampered by things like an operating system that must be gotten through before the game even begins. I don't know why, but there is just a very simple joy to a video game CONSOLE, that feels like you are just playing a game, and not doing anything else in the meantime. You don't have to install it, you don't have to tweak it, you don't have to mod it, you don't have to do ANYTHING ELSE, but simply enjoy it. PC's can never replicate that joy for me.

The best way to look at this whole PC vs. consoles thing is to realize that, more or less, PC is just another console. It's another platform to enjoy games on, with very specific strengths and its own set of weaknesses. My PC does NOT have Super Mario Bros. on it, but my consoles sure as hell do. My PC does NOT have any Metal Gear Solid games on it; that's one reason I own a PS2.

In the end, through all of this, we are all in this entire thing for the GAMES!!! It doesn't matter where we play them, or how we play them, or what we play them on, just as long as we ENJOY them. There is at least one GREAT game for each and every console system ever released, and the PC has its own gold mine of gaming goodness.

So you PC fanboys, if you hate consoles...hate to break it to you, but you're denying half of what makes gaming wonderful. You have to enjoy both, if you want to take full advantage of all the gaming world has to offer

I'm buying a PS3 not because I love Sony, or because I'm some kind of fanboy...Heck, I don't even have an HDTV! I'm buying it because that's where the games I personally love are at. No other system will have Gran Turismo, no other system will have Silent Hill, no other system will have Kingdom Hearts or whatever else you can think of that is (Or mostly is) PlayStation-exclusive. At the same time, I know PC is the ONLY place I am ever going to get my Half Life fix, or my true Oblivion experience, or Anarchy Online, of course!

....I love cookies!!

[Psyloche]

No, it's limited by it's internals. My one graphics card has more or less the same power as 2 Geforce 6800 and it's not the best you can get, it was expensive, yes, but seeing as how there's no actual prices on the PS3 currently, then we can't start comparing. A PC will always be more expensive, but you get far more in a PC than a console. Sure, you might not have to worry about drivers or hardware conflicts or diskspace on a console, but on a PC you get the ability to download mods to your games making them look better, tweak them, etc., all the good stuff, including the usual desktop performance of a PC. All that stuff you don't get in a console, so I'll any day of the week take an expensive PC over having a very expensive toy, that I need a 1500$+ TV to fully enjoy, and pay more for a gimpy PC for desktop use...

We dont know how powerfull the PS3 gpu is yet, but the game can run in higher resolution than PC's can with oblivion, and games use same resolution as cinema movies. The cpu is known to be composed of 8 processors in an dual channel circular bus with its own memory in the cou die for 7 of them, the last is an powerfull plain MAC processor.

The bus is miles above the speed of the PC bus(since its not compatible with anything, it dont need to be hindered by PC construction), memory is the fastest memory who exist, and the game discs can save all text in the Congress Library in USA. What do you demand for admitting its not an lowend cheap pc?


Heavenly sword can do game physics for 300 objects(NPC's and complex object structures) at same time, and got same quality as Oblivion in graphics.

[Alienchild]

may I have your attention for just one minute, please

I will keep this short because I'm tired of arguing on forums, it's getting old

anyways, here goes; noticed how gfx on console games gets better with time? this is because devs are learning new tricks all the time, taking advantage of the console. Not only that, but some consoles are so advanced that it takes ages to really learn how to do stuff efficiently. Now, as for the Xbox360 and PS3, although rumor has it that they both have a relatively good ease-of-use as far as coding for them goes, the fact is that they are both competely new architectures. Hence, its the same things over again; games will look a lot better then they do now.

As far as the Nintendo Wii is concerned, it is built on the same architecture that was in the Gamecube, only with higher processing power and ram. Developers can then just dive right in either by using any existing engine that was built for the Gamecube, and start enhancig it. Think RE4 looked friggin sweet? Imagine 4 times the polygon-res, more shaders and sharper textures. Oh, and imagine actually stabbing the zombies by waving your controller around

The Nintendo Wii might be a less powerfull console, but it is capable of almost anything we see on the Xbox360 and PS3 the next 1-2 years - at least. So if ya want 1 console, get the Wii. It's cheap, and you get the next-gen kick, then buy a PS3 or Xbox360 when prices are low(er).

As for me, I'm getting all consoles, as always. Not a fanboy of either brand, hated Nintendo i the N64-gen and didn't think much of their Gamecube, but this time around I'm sold. Oh, and Dreamcast FTW!

[Psyloche]

Alienchild, the same can be said for all of them:

PS3: its cpu is based on the Emotion Engine and the old PS2 cpu. ITs simple to use, since it borrows much from its older relative. It also have an version of the SAME compiler available, and its to use it for an person who can use PS2. If you can do PS2, you can do PS3 (or else id sugest get an new job). GPU use OpenGL, who is QUITE known, and is fammiliar for PC devlopers.

xbox360: its basically power processor based, who is an platform simmiliar to an PC. Its also having an simple windows based OS, who makes is simple to use, with DirectX interface.

None is any hard to use, at all.

[Maxflier]

Not to sure about what the benefits of having a 60G HD as opposed to a 20G is gonna be. What all would you store on your console anyway? .

Well, from the specs it appears that the 60G will have an HDMI output while the 20G will NOT. So that means if you intend to use the PS3 to watch BluRay movies you better get the 60G, because once movie studios enforce ICT you won't be able to watch them in full HD resolution over component connection anymore, you will need an HDMI connection.

[Mastablasta]

Lmao nintendo fanboi go fig. You can have that piece of crap

Nintendo fanboi? Whatever gave you that idea? I simply believe that Nintendo's upcoming console will have far more interesting games than Xbox360 and PS3 combined.

We dont know how powerfull the PS3 gpu is yet, but the game can run in higher resolution than PC's can with oblivion, and games use same resolution as cinema movies. The cpu is known to be composed of 8 processors in an dual channel circular bus with its own memory in the cou die for 7 of them, the last is an powerfull plain MAC processor.

The bus is miles above the speed of the PC bus(since its not compatible with anything, it dont need to be hindered by PC construction), memory is the fastest memory who exist, and the game discs can save all text in the Congress Library in USA. What do you demand for admitting its not an lowend cheap pc?


Heavenly sword can do game physics for 300 objects(NPC's and complex object structures) at same time, and got same quality as Oblivion in graphics.

No, we don't. Higher resolution than PC games? What does that matter when the common display for it's end user is 640x480 - 1280x768? Have you seen any specs where it says that it supports output higher than 2048x1536?
Yes, the CPU is made up of 8 cores, which is why it has taken so long to get the thing on the market; noone has ever written a compiler for an 8 core processor...
So far we're still floating around the various few hundred megabyte RAM, whereas I could install 8 gigabyte in my system should I wish to, which is limited by my motherboard not having more available dimms and RAM blocks not being larger. RAM which is also readily available to my graphics card due to the high transfer rate of the PCI-X port and high frequency dual channel technology... What I demand for not saying it's a piece of hardware that focuses on only rendering smaller scenes in incredible detail is living and moving proof of it.

Upcoming PC games can handle realtime physics for more than 50.000 objects in real time when fitted with a physics processor. 300 objects shouldn't be much of a problem as we're already seeing such numbers in today's games...

What every1 is forgetting in the which costs more debate is the price of the TV you must get for the PS3... a decent PC will set you back about £1500... a decent HD TV ... about the same... so PC wins price wise too....

I dunno what taxes are in the UK, but 1500£ for a "decent" PC sounds rather absurd as compared to here where a "decent" PC can be had for 700£. Of course it all comes down to what you consider decent, but when I with top brand hardware from brand manufacturers can get a PC that gets 10.000 points in 3Dmark05 without being the best of the best you can get, which is absurd since the performance boost you get from above where I am currently is not worth the money you spend to get it.

Alienchild, the same can be said for all of them:

PS3: its cpu is based on the Emotion Engine and the old PS2 cpu. ITs simple to use, since it borrows much from its older relative. It also have an version of the SAME compiler available, and its to use it for an person who can use PS2. If you can do PS2, you can do PS3 (or else id sugest get an new job). GPU use OpenGL, who is QUITE known, and is fammiliar for PC devlopers.

xbox360: its basically power processor based, who is an platform simmiliar to an PC. Its also having an simple windows based OS, who makes is simple to use, with DirectX interface.

None is any hard to use, at all.

Like I said earlier, as time goes by console programmers get better at their job, like every programmer. However, OpenGL is not "easy" to use. There's a reason why you don't see many games using OpenGL for the PC platform. Coding efficient 3D graphics using this API requires a large amount of skill, which is why guys like John Carmack uses it, as opposed to Direct3D which uses a more userfriendly programming interface that does not require the same amount of mathmatics skill. You can optimize OpenGL code more, but it requires more work than Direct3D code, which like I said is very evident in the APIs used by modern PC developers.

Ya know....as far as PC versus consoles go...Yes, performance-wise, PC's will always be able to smash video game consoles. That's established fact....BUT.....PC supporters like Masta there fail to look at the fact that video games are all very, very different....Some of them DO NOT WORK with a PC configuration, and are actually less enjoyable when played on a PC. Even if you have a controller addon for the PC...oh well, it's still just not as fun.

PC games are wonderful, but I have to be very honest - there just aren't as many GREAT games for PC as there are for consoles. (And that's taking ALL consoles into consideration) That's my opinion of course, and even though I said that, there are still PLENTY of excellent games that run on PC's. Mostly non-traditional RPG's (Like Deus Ex) and first-person shooters, as well as real-time strategy games....but that's about it. Maybe some adventure games too. Consoles are like that too; first person shooters just aren't as fun on a PS2, for example.

No, I know full well that playing console designed games like Fifa 2006 and Teken 5 is not fun on a PC because it doesn't have the necessary distancing from the screen and such that this kind of game requires.
However, in the past the ultimate flight simulators (when those were big) and driving sims were to be found on the PC platform. The death of those genres will forever be lamented by me when I see the gritty graphics and annoying controls offered on the PS2 compared to the ultra crisp graphics and razor sharp steering offered by my PC and wheel. Some of the best games ever, like Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Doom, Quake, Unreal, Warcraft, Command & Conquer, Might&Magic 6, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Mafia, Daggerfall, Civilization, the Sim-something series, various adventure games, various Tycoon classics, and their countles sequels and spinoffs can't even be thought of on a console... the PC just offers more in-your-face power for the first person shooters, a more comfortable controller and situationing for the strategy games.
Console gameplay seems to be generally dumbed down to fit the "20 minute gamer" schedule rather than the guy that is willing to spend a couple hours on his favourite pass time. Something that I lament every time I see a coming PC game be snatched for console... like the recent Oblivion which seems to have taken some severe hits all over due to being co-developed for Xbox360 and it's demographic.

[Vipr]

Sorry Masta but a few of those games you listed have been more then thought of on Consoles... I do get what your saying tho and i agree on most points with you. However lets give consoles credit where they are due, as PC and consoles are or were anyway largely aimed at different markets, both Sony and to a lesser extent Microsoft seem to have forgotten that, but anyway as i was saying both PC and consoles can do what they do well


Also lets not confuse decent with above bleeding edge... i think £7000 will buy 2-3 top end PCs here... £1500 here will get a top of the range PC relatively easily with pretty much all parts being top spec

[edis]

Also lets not confuse decent with above bleeding edge... i think £7000 will buy 2-3 top end PCs here... £1500 here will get a top of the range PC relatively easily with pretty much all parts being top spec

I'd be able to buy atleast 4-5 really good computers for £7000 in norway...computers with no trouble whatsoever running whatever game out there atm on highest resolution w/e without problems..

[Nulion]

We've all got opinions Masta, and I respect that I just find a whole lot more than "20 minute gamer" type games on consoles...but that's me. I really do see where you're coming from though, a lot of console games ARE made for those ADD-type gamers who can't sit still for more than a few seconds and need explosions every other minute to hold their interest.

Apologies by the way for making a wrongful assumption about you, was wrong of me. Heck, at least we're all gamers and know what we like, and that's good enough for me

[Alienchild]

Alienchild, the same can be said for all of them:

PS3: its cpu is based on the Emotion Engine and the old PS2 cpu. ITs simple to use, since it borrows much from its older relative. It also have an version of the SAME compiler available, and its to use it for an person who can use PS2. If you can do PS2, you can do PS3 (or else id sugest get an new job). GPU use OpenGL, who is QUITE known, and is fammiliar for PC devlopers.

xbox360: its basically power processor based, who is an platform simmiliar to an PC. Its also having an simple windows based OS, who makes is simple to use, with DirectX interface.

None is any hard to use, at all.

Ever tried coding for multiple CPUs? PS3 and Xbox360 ain't even close to the same architecture that they had previously.

[Mastablasta]

Sorry Masta but a few of those games you listed have been more then thought of on Consoles... I do get what your saying tho and i agree on most points with you. However lets give consoles credit where they are due, as PC and consoles are or were anyway largely aimed at different markets, both Sony and to a lesser extent Microsoft seem to have forgotten that, but anyway as i was saying both PC and consoles can do what they do well


Also lets not confuse decent with above bleeding edge... i think £7000 will buy 2-3 top end PCs here... £1500 here will get a top of the range PC relatively easily with pretty much all parts being top spec

Ooooops! I had an extra 0 there, I meant 700£ (edited it btw ) was late at night :S and yea, 7000£ would buy 3-4 of the best you could possibly imagine here :S

And yes, some of those games were out for console too, but those were afterthoughts like "oh we can make more money if we convert them" and they mostly sucked for console, because that's what conversions do. True the other way around too, as some of the best games I ever played on console were complete rubbish when played on the PC, it's just the number fo good games for console seem to be so small. But I guess it's because it's new stuff, new PC games suck 95/100 these days easily if that's even close to doing the suck factor justice... let's just say that I'm severely disappointed with most of the new console junk, because all they focus on is better graphics, but those are just a smaller part of the game's whole.

[Adventurius]

*drools thinking what an 8 core processor could do for the pc*

[Mastablasta]

*drools thinking what an 8 core processor could do for the pc*

Well, you could find out later this year when Intel release their 4 core CPU, then stick that in a 2 CPU Motherboard only problem would be to have code actually be written for more than the 2 cores we just recently got

[Adventurius]

Whoa, I haven't been keeping up with the processors like I should. Didn't realize they were that close. I'm gonna check Intels site later. Thanks,Masta

[Lexand1]

http://ps3sad.ytmnd.com/