Last-Gen Console Discussions (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii)

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
the cell arc is complex and difficult, developers that have chosen to try and develop on the PS3 have had problems, with some succeeded and some end up with a mess. What do you say to those developers that have seen the potential of the cell power, and have done amazing jobs??

im not arguing about Sony's fall from grace, from first to last. That is there current position, im not arguing that. However i as a gamer, is not interested in a wii, and has already owned a 360, and have moved to PS3.

Design issues and inferior multiplatform games on PS3 are a thing of the past. I have to mentioned yet again, DMC4, Burnout, COD4 all player better on PS3, because they are developed first on that system and then ported to others.

CoD4 was also developed on a PC-based engine, with the 360 in mind.

In fact, Burnout Paradise is the first major game title to be developed from the get-go on the PS3 platform.

It is a thing of the past. Infact, EA's multiplatform games, make more money from PS3 than any other console.

MGS4 sold about 4 million copies so far, close to Gears of War sales. The PS3 can be a source of profit for developers.

Unfortunately for Sony, many developers that held the 'exclusives' were hesistant that they could make money from the PS3 so they naturally moved multi plat. to recoup costs.

when i mentioned "which you can deal with" i meant the problems with both consoles, such as unreliability with the 360, the ps3 is expensive, price etc. Which problems can you deal with better? Can you name some problems with these consoles, cuz i cant. 😕

However, the PS3's price is still a contending issue for the console, games are known to be glitchier in general because of the conversion to the platform, and there's the inferior online experience.

the XBOX 720 is a terrible idea, it will alienate Xbox 360 owners that have "jumped in". I was alraedy alienated as a 360 owner when i found out that future hardware was more efficient than the one i owned, and the fact that mine didnt have hdmi!! 😠

And of course future hardware is going to be more efficient! Technology is a business of constant progression, and initial hardware is always going to have kinks that quality control missed. That will then be addressed for later versions. And if you expected HDMI out of a console that clearly labelled itself as not having HDMI... well, that's your fault for not noticing.

i expect programmers to adapt, and a good amount has. They've gotten around intial complexities of the cell arc. It is awkward, impractical, overly complex, and all that. But they've gotten around it, and the only thing you can do is say that it is. but what im gonna do is now enjoy the games that come from that complex machine 😉

And... what games, exactly? As I've said, Burnout Paradise is the only major game so far to have been developed solely on the PS3 framework.

The PS3 is increasingly becoming the lead platform for development, developers have chosen to make their games on an impractical, annoying, complex, non friendly console. With multi platform games like DMC4, COD4 and Burnout paving the way for superior multiplatform games, you can keep calling me a fool, how cocky sony is , and how negative the cell arc is, but im going to continue enjoying PS3 games 🙂

Originally posted by General Kaliero
They lucked out when it came to porting to the PS3 hardware? What, are we supposed to give them gold stars because they made a PS3 game? That doesn't change the fact that the Cell architecture is comparatively impractical.

It is, of course, your individual prerogative to ignore the numbers and facts in favor of a console you personally like.

Where exactly do you get your incorrect information? Devil May Cry 4 started development on a PC-based engine, specifically because it was Capcom's first PS3 game and they were unfamiliar and uncomfortable with the Cell architecture.

CoD4 was also developed on a PC-based engine, with the 360 in mind.

In fact, Burnout Paradise is the first major game title to be developed from the get-go on the PS3 platform.

We've already been through this. No, they don't, simply because of majority profits from 360 ownership.

MGS4 also has a vast established buyer base for being part of a critically-acclaimed series, many of whom bought a PS3 just for the game. And most of that number would have stuck with the 360 if that had been a choice. Yes, the PS3 can be a source of profit for developers, but you can't use MGS4 as an example because there was no option but the PS3.

Unfortunately for the multi-billion dollar company that can make do as-is. Not so unfortunately for the developers, who actually need profit from their games to continue existing.

You know, the problems with the 360 are definitely not across the board. Sure there were problems right at launch, but those problems are a thing of the past. Microsoft's warranty is excellent, and to be honest? I've never had one single problem with my 360, and I've had it for quite a while now.

However, the PS3's price is still a contending issue for the console, games are known to be glitchier in general because of the conversion to the platform, and there's the inferior online experience.

I don't see how a shift to the 720 would alienate owners any more than the shift to 360 did (that is, not at all). It's a new generation, the next console is expected to be superior to the previous, and active gamers are expected to trade up if they want to continue their hobby. That's just how gaming works.

And of course future hardware is going to be more efficient! Technology is a business of constant progression, and initial hardware is always going to have kinks that quality control missed. That will then be addressed for later versions. And if you expected HDMI out of a console that clearly labelled itself as not having HDMI... well, that's your fault for not noticing.

As Ushgarak pointed out, expecting developers to adapt to the change of the times does not equate to expecting developers to adopt a needlessly complex system when there are easier, more practical, and so far more profitable alternatives.

And... what games, exactly? As I've said, Burnout Paradise is the only major game so far to have been developed solely on the PS3 framework.

This is, of course, a load of nonsense, as I pointed out previous, and thus there's no point in arguing it again.

first of all, im getting shot at from all sides here, i was discussing this with Ushgarak, so i had to bring the things up from before which he probably didnt read.

peach: i do believe if it comes out in the next couple-few years, it will. Im glad i had my PS2 for like 9 years, in which during that time i didnt have to worry about buying a new console. Dedicated Servers are better than peer-to-peer.

kaliero: i also said, yeah, the cell arc is complex and all that. what do you want? a gold star? it is, there i said it. That doesnt hold up anymore, because it doesnt matter. It doesnt matter how complex or how unfriendly it is to developers! they're gotten around it, they have pulled their tails out from in between their legs, while some others prefer not to, so i got advice for your future, if you dont wanna deal with the cell arc. dont go work on Ghostbusters at terminal reality, cuz its being developed on a PS3. No matter how unfriendly and this and that about the cell arc, your argument holds no ground today, your argument is a thing of the past. There is a way around a road block, what you are doing is still complaining about the road block, when basically everyone else, have gone around it, also the fact is that COD4, and Burnout has better dedicated servers and stable online on PS3.

Im not going to discuss EA's profits again, you dont have to listen to me, or believe me, but ive seen the statistics with a big headline called "PS3 major source of income for EA".

I couldnt think of any problems with PS3 other than the high price point, and i've also mentioned before, thinking that PS3 games are inferior is a thing of the past, it no longer can be argued, because today, the quality is there, and both versions are identical or nearly identical. And dedicated servers are preferable to peer to peer, thats the sad thing about XBL with some games. You pay 50 bucks and find out that the PSN can hold more stable online matches hold on the n00bsauce and whiny kids. If someone like me could get past the price tag, and realize that this may be a good investment, then youll be alright, i dont have to worry about hardware issues, and the thing about it being futureproof and 10 yr cycle can atleast help some of us sleep at night.

and i bought a 360 before the hdmi was even introduced to the xbox, so poo for me, this was way before HDMI was going to be in an actual 360. So now i dont get true hd, cuz microsoft rushed out their defective inferior product. and The 360 should not have been defective in the first place so i wouldnt be proud to mention how awesome the warranty is, new tech is obviously great but it doesnt help that early adopters feel left out of the experience, with newer more efficient models come out every now and then. Sure this time it was a feature like hdmi, and minor tweaks, but what it is going to be next time? who wants to play games on a system in which they fear it could die at any moment?

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
first of all, im getting shot at from all sides here, i was discussing this with Ushgarak, so i had to bring the things up from before which he probably didnt read.

kaliero: i also said, yeah, the cell arc is complex and all that. what do you want? a gold star? it is, there i said it. That doesnt hold up anymore, because it doesnt matter. It doesnt matter how complex or how unfriendly it is to developers! they're gotten around it, they have pulled their tails out from in between their legs, while some others prefer not to, so i got advice for your future, if you dont wanna deal with the cell arc. dont go work on Ghostbusters at terminal reality, cuz its being developed on a PS3. No matter how unfriendly and this and that about the cell arc, your argument holds no ground today, your argument is a thing of the past. There is a way around a road block, what you are doing is still complaining about the road block, when basically everyone else, have gone around it, also the fact is that COD4, and Burnout has better dedicated servers and stable online on PS3.

Second, where the hell are you getting this information? Or are you just namegrabbing and insisting that whatever currently good-looking game is/was developed on a PS3? Ghostbusters: The Video Game, like most games, started development on a PC-based engine. And in fact, the first public demonstration of the game? Was the 360 build. So once again, no. You are flat-out wrong.

Second, the fact there's a detour does not excuse the fact a highway is closed when that highway should be perfectly fine. Just because there's an option doesn't mean that developers should be forced to change how they do things, when how they do things works well and profits well. You are missing the point, which is that there should not be issues with developing on the PS3 at all.

Finally, I have to wonder if PSN is so stable because relatively no one is using it. I know a few people who own PS3s, who are always complaining about how it's so much harder to find people to play with on PSN compared to Live.

Oh, I've never had a single issue with Live, either. I consider it money well-spent, and have every intention of continuing to pay a rather minor fee for excellent online service.

Im not going to discuss EA's profits again, you dont have to listen to me, or believe me, but ive seen the statistics with a big headline called "PS3 major source of income for EA".

I couldnt think of any problems with PS3 other than the high price point, and i've also mentioned before, thinking that PS3 games are inferior is a thing of the past, it no longer can be argued, because today, the quality is there, and both versions are identical or nearly identical. And dedicated servers are preferable to peer to peer, thats the sad thing about XBL with some games. You pay 50 bucks and find out that the PSN can hold more stable online matches hold on the n00bsauce and whiny kids. If someone like me could get past the price tag, and realize that this may be a good investment, then youll be alright, i dont have to worry about hardware issues, and the thing about it being futureproof and 10 yr cycle can atleast help some of us sleep at night.

And as has been said before, being futureproof is pointless when the console isn't succeeding against the current competition.

and i bought a 360 before the hdmi was even introduced to the xbox, so poo for me, this was way before HDMI was going to be in an actual 360. So now i dont get true hd, cuz microsoft rushed out their defective inferior product. and The 360 should not have been defective in the first place so i wouldnt be proud to mention how awesome the warranty is, new tech is obviously great but it doesnt help that early adopters feel left out of the experience, with newer more efficient models come out every now and then. Sure this time it was a feature like hdmi, and minor tweaks, but what it is going to be next time? who wants to play games on a system in which they fear it could die at any moment?

The 360 should not have been defective, true. Neither should the PS3 have been, or the Wii. But it is a simple fact of technology that brand new hardware - all brand new hardware - will have issues and glitches that escape quality control. That is just how that business works.

So actually, that Microsoft acknowledged this and responded with such an owner-friendly warranty is something to be proud of, because it shows honesty and responsibility.

Regardless of the warranty, defective hardware is something that early adopters of all new technology risk. That's why many prefer to wait several month to a year, to make sure kinks have been worked out before they buy the product. It's not anyone else's fault if you didn't understand that at the time.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I'm not sure it counts as getting shot at on all sides when everyone else is shooting from the same side.

First off, Ghostbusters will be out long before I'm working at a company.

Second, where the hell are you getting this information? Or are you just namegrabbing and insisting that whatever currently good-looking game is/was developed on a PS3? Ghostbusters: The Video Game, like most games, started development on a PC-based engine. And in fact, the first public demonstration of the game? Was the 360 build. So once again, no. You are flat-out wrong.

Second, the fact there's a detour does not excuse the fact a highway is closed when that highway should be perfectly fine. Just because there's an option doesn't mean that developers should be forced to change how they do things, when how they do things works well and profits well. You are missing the point, which is that there should not be issues with developing on the PS3 at all.

Finally, I have to wonder if PSN is so stable because relatively no one is using it. I know a few people who own PS3s, who are always complaining about how it's so much harder to find people to play with on PSN compared to Live.

Oh, I've never had a single issue with Live, either. I consider it money well-spent, and have every intention of continuing to pay a rather minor fee for excellent online service.

Perhaps you could produce this article. Dollars to donuts the claim was made by someone working for Sony.

Once again, I've had no problems online, and the overall experience and quality of Live is preferable to PSN.

And as has been said before, being futureproof is pointless when the console isn't succeeding against the current competition.

Microsoft made it very clear that the initial model would not have HDMI. I remember this because of the raging that went on, even right here in this very thread, though that's ages ago now.

The 360 should not have been defective, true. Neither should the PS3 have been, or the Wii. But it is a simple fact of technology that brand new hardware - all brand new hardware - will have issues and glitches that escape quality control. That is just how that business works.

So actually, that Microsoft acknowledged this and responded with such an owner-friendly warranty is something to be proud of, because it shows honesty and responsibility.

Regardless of the warranty, defective hardware is something that early adopters of all new technology risk. That's why many prefer to wait several month to a year, to make sure kinks have been worked out before they buy the product. It's not anyone else's fault if you didn't understand that at the time.

i get my information from various online websites like gamepro, kotaku, or ign, and such.

if you're a chef, and you have to make chilli, the 360 chef would go out an buy chunky's chilli, its easy, no worries, while the ps3 chef would have to man up, simmer that shit out til its fine and dandy, but you know what, the end result is damn tasty, apparently besides Burnout and COD4, the only people capable of doing this is mostly Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Konami, etc. but hey, if i was a programmer, and i was getting paid a certain amount, why not choose the less work console right?

maybe if your friends were playing good games that people play instead of like...stranglehold online or lost planet, then there would be people playing.

PS3 online for games liek COD4 and Burnout are stable specifically because it doesnt use peer 2 peer!!

i said before, im ending this discussin, i no longer have any reason to aruge about this, PS3 should not have been so complex as it is, and the price is high, very good 360 fanboy arguments. But the truth is, games on both systems are equally as good, the standard is being raised. Not my problem that half the programmers out there shit their pants thinkin bout how complex the PS3 arc is, when there are other programmers that do exceptional things on it, better than what you may see on the 360. i still cannot emphasize enough, when you complain about the cell arc, you're doing nothing, its falling on deaf ears, mutli plat games are starting to become way better on PS3.

Responsibility isnt there if you rush out defective products to beat the other guys, a product which is built so poorly that they overheart from bad design, yeah tahts responsible to the point where some users are so fed up with their red rings, they dont want to bother with it anymore, and honesty is not associated with the microsoft name, two words, sillicon valley.

the cell arc is an oudated issue

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
i get my information from various online websites like gamepro, kotaku, or ign, and such.

if you're a chef, and you have to make chilli, the 360 chef would go out an buy chunky's chilli, its easy, no worries, while the ps3 chef would have to man up, simmer that shit out til its fine and dandy, but you know what, the end result is damn tasty, apparently besides Burnout and COD4, the only people capable of doing this is mostly Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Konami, etc. but hey, if i was a programmer, and i was getting paid a certain amount, why not choose the less work console right?

The consoles are the kitchens. The developer is the chef.

A chef is told to make chili. He can make chili in two kitchens. In Microsoft's kitchen, he's used to the ingredients, the recipe is pretty familiar, there's some flashy additions but nothing he can't handle. In Sony's kitchen, there are some different ingredients, the recipe is far more complicated, and the stove cooks differently than he's used to stoves cooking. In Sony's kitchen he has the option of a set of kitchen utensils that will make making the chili a bit easier, but it will cost more money.

Now, which kitchen would a smart, practical chef choose to cook his chili in?

maybe if your friends were playing good games that people play instead of like...stranglehold online or lost planet, then there would be people playing.

PS3 online for games liek COD4 and Burnout are stable specifically because it doesnt use peer 2 peer!!

i said before, im ending this discussin, i no longer have any reason to aruge about this,

PS3 should not have been so complex as it is, and the price is high, very good 360 fanboy arguments.

But the truth is, games on both systems are equally as good, the standard is being raised.

Not my problem that half the programmers out there shit their pants thinkin bout how complex the PS3 arc is,

when there are other programmers that do exceptional things on it, better than what you may see on the 360.

i still cannot emphasize enough, when you complain about the cell arc, you're doing nothing, its falling on deaf ears, mutli plat games are starting to become way better on PS3.

Responsibility isnt there if you rush out defective products to beat the other guys, a product which is built so poorly that they overheart from bad design, yeah tahts responsible to the point where some users are so fed up with their red rings, they dont want to bother with it anymore, and honesty is not associated with the microsoft name, two words, sillicon valley.

And if someone got fed up with their 360, and bought a PS3 instead of simply receiving a free replacement, they are in the great minority. I certainly don't know anyone who did that.

the cell arc is an oudated issue

peach: i do believe if it comes out in the next couple-few years, it will. Im glad i had my PS2 for like 9 years, in which during that time i didnt have to worry about buying a new console.

Dude, the PS2's not even 9 years old yet, so that's not even possible.

The 360 is currently just about 3 years old. I'd say it's at the midpoint of its lifespan. So, really, it makes perfect sense for Microsoft to make a new system in the next few years.

honesty is not associated with the microsoft name

Which is why they've admitted that their system has issues? And have done what they can to try and keep new ones from having that same problem? And have extended the warranty to a full three years and have made it very easy for people to get their systems repaired/replaced.

Come on now. You say stuff about 360 fanboys but you just sound like you're doing whatever you can to hate Microsoft and the 360. It just makes you come off as bitter and looking for things to nitpick at.

And for the record? It was only about a year ago when I decided a Microsoft system was worth buying - I couldn't stand the original Xbox. I had a PSX and PS2. But Sony's dropped the ball big time, and just about every Sony fan I know now is very, very wary about them.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Well that explains it.

This is a laughably flawed analogy. Let's fix it.

The consoles are the kitchens. The developer is the chef.

A chef is told to make chili. He can make chili in two kitchens. In Microsoft's kitchen, he's used to the ingredients, the recipe is pretty familiar, there's some flashy additions but nothing he can't handle. In Sony's kitchen, there are some different ingredients, the recipe is far more complicated, and the stove cooks differently than he's used to stoves cooking. In Sony's kitchen he has the option of a set of kitchen utensils that will make making the chili a bit easier, but it will cost more money.

Now, which kitchen would a smart, practical chef choose to cook his chili in?

Actually, their complaints were specifically about CoD4 and Team Fortress 2.

Every game I've played on Live has been perfectly stable with no lag whatsoever. There's no indication that how PSN does it is significantly better in any way. You can say there is, vehemently and with double exclamation points if you like, but that's not going to change the hard facts.

No one's preventing you from simply not replying, if you truly want to end the discussion.

Very good unbiased arguments from an objective standpoint, actually. Most people who know me here laugh at the idea of me being a 360 fanboy. I completely ignored the Xbox last generation, and the Wii was my first console this generation.

Yes, the multiplatform games on both systems tend to be nearly identical. So why should people pay more for a console... that does the same thing as the less expensive one?

Calling the developers afraid is rather cowardly. They're not afraid, they're just practical.

Weren't you just saying, in your last sentence, that games on both systems were equally good? There seems to be a flawed double standard here.

A claim you've made several times, with no evidence, and despite a great amount of evidence to the contrary.

99% of high tech products are defective in some way upon release. That is a fact of cutting edge hardware development. Acknowledging that fact is responsible.

And if someone got fed up with their 360, and bought a PS3 instead of simply receiving a free replacement, they are in the great minority. I certainly don't know anyone who did that.

Just because you claim it to be doesn't make it so.

a practical chef, would probably choose a kitchen that he is familiar with, a great chef, would try new things, even though he doesnt have to.

there are plenty of people on COD4, team fortress havent tried so i dunno, but ive been advised to stay away from that game since its sort of broken

i dont have to reply but i will, i just will stop arguing.

people dont buy consoles for their multi plat. games, they buy them for the exclusives, such as MGS4, or Halo 3, or whatever it has to offer. Choose a console by your preference, whether you're a casual gamer or just looking for something different, wii. Whether you are a hardcore gamer or a gamer that wants (blu ray) or a multimedia game system, you have either PS3 or 360. If ratchet and clank, uncharted, LBP appeals to you, PS3. If you want Halo 3, Gears, Fable, 360.

although games have become identical in quality, there are still the odd games that lean towards which system they preform better on, control, visuals, or performance. etc. sometimes it does better on ps3 sometimes not

I hated how Microsoft forgot the Xbox and just moved on with the 360. At least the PS2 is still having games out. Shit after the 360 came out and the Xbox died I felt bad I had sold my PS2 for an Xbox thinking the PS2's life was near dead.

They better let the 360 stay alive for 3/4 more years.

On a sidenote...my 360 is gathering dust.

Originally posted by Superboy Prime
I hated how Microsoft forgot the Xbox and just moved on with the 360. At least the PS2 is still having games out. Shit after the 360 came out and the Xbox died I felt bad I had sold my PS2 for an Xbox thinking the PS2's life was near dead.

They better let the 360 stay alive for 3/4 more years.

On a sidenote...my 360 is gathering dust.

in a couple years microsoft will let 360 die, and ship out another thing, you know, how they made 360 when it was sort of uncalled for, so they can say, we suprised people, hence why nintendo and sony had nothing at the time.

the sad thing is a lot of those charts on kotaku, still have PS2 selling more monthly than 360, shocking.

and dude why is ur 360 gathering dust!?!

Well the PS2 userbase is about 10 times the 360's, so its no wonder it sells more.

The 360 is gathering dust because I'm currently hooked with MGS4, Resistance and SC4. Not to mention the only game I have left for the 360 is Halo 3.

The PS2 is also on its last hurrah. They're not going to continue making games for it much longer. Already there's very little coming out for it, especially in comparison to the other systems.

And really, from a business standpoint, it makes sense to eventually stop support on the old system and throw everything behind your new one. It happens every time a new system is released - so why only dislike Microsoft because of it?

Exactly.

Most Nintendo systems gather dust before the next one is coming out. I'm looking at you Gamecube.

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
in a couple years microsoft will let 360 die, and ship out another thing, you know, how they made 360 when it was sort of uncalled for, so they can say, we suprised people, hence why nintendo and sony had nothing at the time.

How is it uncalled for? When exactly are new systems called for? Being the first to market has been a good move. They have the well documented RRoD issue, but they did the unthinkable for a game company and actually owned up to their problem. Thats the only downside of their early release.

Only reason Sony still releases Ps2 is because they can't make any profit from the PS3 at all.

That's all it is.

Originally posted by The j0keR
How is it uncalled for? When exactly are new systems called for? Being the first to market has been a good move. They have the well documented RRoD issue, but they did the unthinkable for a game company and actually owned up to their problem. Thats the only downside of their early release.

it was uncalled for, PS2 was still doing well, there was no reason to bring out a new console. PS2 owners were happy, gamecube owners were too...maybe, and xbox owners. I dont know when a new system is called for.

But how about Microsoft reveals Microsoft Xbox 720 TOMORROW. It uses the HD DVD for game discs and it costs bout $299.99-399.99 and it really doesnt warrant a next next gen title besides better graphics and the ability to overheat faster than someone with the flu

but hey lets all just agree to disagree

Your forgetting that PS2 was notoriously bad when it came to breaking down.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Your forgetting that PS2 was notoriously bad when it came to breaking down.

Him and everyone else who calls out the 360's problems. 😛

Originally posted by Smasandian
Your forgetting that PS2 was notoriously bad when it came to breaking down.

And Nixson, I think we all understand that you hate the 360 by now.

And the way I see it, developing a game for the PS3 is like choosing to ride a bicycle with square shaped wheels when you have the option to ride a normal bicycle.

Now what's the most practical and smartest choice?

And developing games is not a simple task, so why make it harder?

Originally posted by chithappens
Only reason Sony still releases Ps2 is because they can't make any profit from the PS3 at all.

That's all it is.

The PS2 is closing on its 9 year, and I think it still has about a year or 2 to go (reaching it's 10 year), it still manages to make strong sales (even outselling the 360 or the PS3) so it's natural to still support the system when it's clearly profitable, it has a large library, people are still interested in it, and third party supports still exist for two reason:
-large user base
-the Nintendo Wii.

I don't for sure whether SONY it's still selling the PS3 at a loss, but it has picked momentum and it's not slowing down, and third parties are making profit out of them regardless

Originally posted by Smasandian
Your forgetting that PS2 was notoriously bad when it came to breaking down.

the slim version it's the most problematic if you don't know how to take care of it properly, but it is fixable, whereas the 360 breaks and breaks for good, and it's pretty much unfixable if you don't send it to microsoft for repairs. The PS2 is much easier to fix
The thing it's that there's no way of telling when it brakes, it might be going great one day and then just die... you send it in for repairs and chance are you're gonna have to send it back again at some point (I heard of people sending their 360's around 4-5 times already, some of those within a week of getting it repaired). Now it's commendable that Microsoft extent their warranty to 3 years, but why do they have to send it back so many times?. They release the Falcon motherboard with a new heatsink... and that's supposed to get rid of the problem, so why is it still around? it's the falcon really working? or they don't use that to repair broken consoles?.

Originally posted by The j0keR
Him and everyone else who calls out the 360's problems. 😛

the thing is that: how does a company that produced a console that was pretty much "bulletproof" come up with such a faulty new product?
It is not a problem of use or misuse of the system, it's a desing problem, one that hasn't been erradicated... in 3 years...
I could pretty much plug my Snes or N64 (if I hadn't sold it) and play with it just like I did years ago... I cannot say that about my PSX since I never fixed the laser problem it had (though still works and I'm able to play with it...some games..), I still play with my PS2 after 7 years... and I never heard of any hardware PS3 problem (even my Wii overheats but doesn't die and you can still play with it, but Nintendo fixed that problem, ... really fixed it, unlike Microsoft)

that's why the RROD is a problem people talk about... because it still is a problem

Originally posted by xNIXSONx

the cell arc is an oudated issue

Originally posted by General Kaliero

Just because you claim it to be doesn't make it so.

huh.. no, it is not longer that much of an issue.. multiplatform games are pretty much the same in both consoles as of late (every review I've seen lately doesn't even mention differences between both consoles, some time they mention the PS3 version loading much faster, the 360 being much more colorful or nitpicks that really don't matter.... ever since COD4, the days of the PS3 having the inferior version are gone (even if the games was first built for 360, still looks the same on PS3), so developers must have found a way to get around it. now whether they should have or shouldn't have... I don't know

the only game that will be the one to test out the difference now it's FFXIII

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This is exactly what I would like the Sony fanbase to really understand. Most feel that Valve "hates" the PS3 and therefore he staying away from the console. When it fact the man himself has been very outspoken about issues making games for the console.

On the other hand...if Konami can put MGS4 with no issues..why can't Valve do the same?

...

indeed..

Originally posted by Superboy Prime
I hated how Microsoft forgot the Xbox and just moved on with the 360.

Im not too fussed about them not making games for Xbox anymore, but Im a bit peeved that every shop I've been to has taken all Xbox games off the shelves. The only place I can get some of the older games is EB and they only stock second hand games now. Im not into pre-owned games, I dont want a disc thats been played out for the last 4-5 years.

Originally posted by xNIXSONx
it was uncalled for, PS2 was still doing well, there was no reason to bring out a new console. PS2 owners were happy, gamecube owners were too...maybe, and xbox owners. I dont know when a new system is called for.

But how about Microsoft reveals Microsoft Xbox 720 TOMORROW. It uses the HD DVD for game discs and it costs bout $299.99-399.99 and it really doesnt warrant a next next gen title besides better graphics and the ability to overheat faster than someone with the flu

but hey lets all just agree to disagree

I agree that 360 came out too early, the Xbox was only out for a few years before they announced the next gen console. I waited a couple of years for the Xbox price to come down and for good games to come out, and by then they announced the 360 was in development.

To announce a next gen console now, when as Lana said it is about midway in its life, would be unfair, not only to us customers who fork out money every wave, but to the game developers who have long term goals (Example: Mass Effect trilogy. By the time Mass Effect 2 comes out, the console will be in its last year or two of life. Which means Mass Effect 3 will have to be next gen, much like the Halo trilogy). And as technology becomes bigger, faster and better, game development will take longer to adjust to. 360 is in its peak right now, developers have a taste for the engine, they know what their limits are so they can make games accordingly. Game development takes years to do, so by the time they knock out a game thats been developed for 3 years, the console life is fading and they have to start again on a new console. Lets take the extreme example of Duke Nukem, the game would have to start from scratch AGAIN for a new console.

There would be no need for a next gen console as of now, they have good online capabilities, high resolution graphics, smooth gameplay, how could they improve on the current console?