News

Comment by: borhan9 (Jan 25, 2010 09:12)

Epic should just wait for the contract to end and then just not sign with them again and if making games they should decide to just go across the board. The PS3 is by far the better system but thats only my opinion and not wanting to start a fenboy thing.

Comment by: milkyoreo (Jan 25, 2010 11:01)

I don't really want to play Gears of War on my PS3. There is a lot of better stuff that I play with my time.

Comment by: djeazyg (Jan 25, 2010 12:41)

I don't understand why would anyone one want their game to be exclusive to one console anymore. I know the reasons they do it but it just seems to me you would want to sell as many copies as possible. I didn't think you needed to be a analyst to figure this out. Think about Gears of War, God of War, Gran Turismo and Forza Motorsport. All with more than 2 sequels. Think of all the profit these 4 games are missing out on. In the long run exclusives seem like a bad idea.

Comment by: Oner (Jan 25, 2010 16:19)

IMO first party exclusives are needed, second party are debatable but third's should never be.

Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search
Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660

Comment by: emugamer (Jan 25, 2010 17:25)

1st party exclusives will be necessary if Onlive ever gets legs.

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jan 26, 2010 00:30)

Originally posted by Oner:

---

IMO first party exclusives are needed, second party are debatable but third's should never be.

---

First party exclusives are not needed, we need universal hardware and vendor built hardware and less console exclusivity.......

Comment by: Oner (Jan 26, 2010 01:00)

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

Originally posted by Oner:

---

IMO first party exclusives are needed, second party are debatable but third's should never be.

---

First party exclusives are not needed, we need universal hardware and vendor built hardware and less console exclusivity.......

---

But then you get monopolization and no competition to push technology and/or price regulation/drops! Ultimately there is no perfect answer...actually there is ~ make all games non exclusive...but then you get having to code for the lowest common denominator...so again there is no perfect answer.

Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search
Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660

Comment by: chris4160 (Jan 26, 2010 01:18)

Originally posted by lxhotboy:

---

if it's on both consoles at same launch they will be pretty much identical. Always have been.

---

Actually, the 360 has better graphics in most multi-platform games: http://au.gamespot.com/features/6240138/p-2.html and http://au.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html In MW2 the graphics on the ps3 are blurred compared to that of the 360 (the third photo depicts this quite well). The PC obviously annihilates both though.

In my opinion Gears of War isn't that great. Campaign is alright but multiplayer is screwed up... the locusts are way too overpowered. I'm not really a fan of third person shooters though.

Also, Microsoft would pay Epic Games a lot more for exclusivity than they would get from sales if it was a multi-platform game. Games like Halo and Gears of War are what made the xbox the most popular non-motion sensing console of this generation.

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jan 26, 2010 01:53)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

Originally posted by Oner:

---

IMO first party exclusives are needed, second party are debatable but third's should never be.

---

First party exclusives are not needed, we need universal hardware and vendor built hardware and less console exclusivity.......

---

But then you get monopolization and no competition to push technology and/or price regulation/drops! Ultimately there is no perfect answer...actually there is ~ make all games non exclusive...but then you get having to code for the lowest common denominator...so again there is no perfect answer.

---

Hardly you'd have 3 sets of hardware designers(like ATI/nivida) they then license it out to vendors to build the hardware(with a caveat that it can not be slower in performance and must work well with each other) and license the software for it.

They are getting money from 2 sources now and don't have to risk as much selling the hardware themselves this allows more focus to be put on software.

The vendors then mix and match the hardware and sell it for what makes them a profit with X amount of that profit going to the "consortium" As the 3 big names become partners akin to the DVD forum but they each are allowed to compete software wise with each other only the hardware needs to be made with switching between formats in mind.

That is the best ideal I can come up with rather than the draconian console war which dose not really have any competition anymore..... you jsut have 3 sides to the same coin.... one is shinier than the other and one is thiner than the other 2....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lxhotboy:

---

if it's on both consoles at same launch they will be pretty much identical. Always have been.

---

Actually, the 360 has better graphics in most multi-platform games: http://au.gamespot.com/features/6240138/p-2.html and http://au.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html In MW2 the graphics on the ps3 are blurred compared to that of the 360 (the third photo depicts this quite well). The PC obviously annihilates both though.

In my opinion Gears of War isn't that great. Campaign is alright but multiplayer is screwed up... the locusts are way too overpowered. I'm not really a fan of third person shooters though.

Also, Microsoft would pay Epic Games a lot more for exclusivity than they would get from sales if it was a multi-platform game. Games like Halo and Gears of War are what made the xbox the most popular non-motion sensing console of this generation.

---

THe PS3 really can have better graphics the trouble is most devs still don't bother with working on it that much........

Comment by: xnonsuchx (Jan 26, 2010 02:22)

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

Originally posted by Oner:

---

IMO first party exclusives are needed, second party are debatable but third's should never be.

---

First party exclusives are not needed, we need universal hardware and vendor built hardware and less console exclusivity.......

---

That's what 3DO tried to do...and look how far THAT went! ;-)

Less choice is a better option??? Reminds me of FREEDOM OF CHOICE by Devo: "Freedom of choice...it what you got; Freedom from choice...is what you want."

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jan 26, 2010 02:44)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

Originally posted by Oner:

---

IMO first party exclusives are needed, second party are debatable but third's should never be.

---

First party exclusives are not needed, we need universal hardware and vendor built hardware and less console exclusivity.......

---

That's what 3DO tried to do...and look how far THAT went! ;-)

Less choice is a better option??? Reminds me of FREEDOM OF CHOICE by Devo: "Freedom of choice...it what you got; Freedom from choice...is what you want."

---

3DO was part of the console war, if you evolve the console war model into a forum where sony,MS and Nintendo join together let vendors make the hardware anyway they want as long as its not slower and license the software you have a more streamlined model where the members of the forum compete with each other to keep performance at a maximim and price at a minim so software devs can build to the one that has the most market penetration and when you cut cost of redundant hardware you can buy a 400$ unit that can play all the formats of the 3 forum members. Its win win for all.

Comment by: chris4160 (Jan 26, 2010 03:52)

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

Originally posted by Oner:

---

IMO first party exclusives are needed, second party are debatable but third's should never be.

---

First party exclusives are not needed, we need universal hardware and vendor built hardware and less console exclusivity.......

---

That's what 3DO tried to do...and look how far THAT went! ;-)

Less choice is a better option??? Reminds me of FREEDOM OF CHOICE by Devo: "Freedom of choice...it what you got; Freedom from choice...is what you want."

---

3DO was part of the console war, if you evolve the console war model into a forum where sony,MS and Nintendo join together let vendors make the hardware anyway they want as long as its not slower and license the software you have a more streamlined model where the members of the forum compete with each other to keep performance at a maximim and price at a minim so software devs can build to the one that has the most market penetration and when you cut cost of redundant hardware you can buy a 400$ unit that can play all the formats of the 3 forum members. Its win win for all.

---

Until one of the 'forum members' build a better console, and all of the devs switch to that. Then people would have to buy another $400 console.

Comment by: av_verbal (Jan 26, 2010 09:06)

Originally posted by oner:

---

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

Originally posted by Oner:

---

IMO first party exclusives are needed, second party are debatable but third's should never be.

---

First party exclusives are not needed, we need universal hardware and vendor built hardware and less console exclusivity.......

---

But then you get monopolization and no competition to push technology and/or price regulation/drops! Ultimately there is no perfect answer...actually there is ~ make all games non exclusive...but then you get having to code for the lowest common denominator...so again there is no perfect answer.

---

but that is all we have now since the exclusive grab which started with.... is a monopoly based on how much money you throw at the developers/publishers. if there was no monopolistic behaviour sony wouldn't have been able to kill the dreamcast by purchasing all the rights to game exclusivity!

and you really think the few distributes aren't price fixing these games between themselves to £50, another monopolistic behaviour.

and that they don't own the "independent" game review mags either outright or via advertising rights. "the best game ever, nothing like it before, says honest jim".

and that they are not acting as one to remove your rights & turn the business model into a pay per play type?

@ Mr, Mrs ZippyDSM, it will never happen as they are far too greedy, they would rather destroy the competition than share, its the customers that lose, the corporations only give a dam about huge profits, their shareholders & fat bonuses.

Comment by: lxhotboy (Jan 26, 2010 17:00)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lxhotboy:

---

if it's on both consoles at same launch they will be pretty much identical. Always have been.

---

Actually, the 360 has better graphics in most multi-platform games: http://au.gamespot.com/features/6240138/p-2.html and http://au.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html In MW2 the graphics on the ps3 are blurred compared to that of the 360 (the third photo depicts this quite well). The PC obviously annihilates both though.

In my opinion Gears of War isn't that great. Campaign is alright but multiplayer is screwed up... the locusts are way too overpowered. I'm not really a fan of third person shooters though.

Also, Microsoft would pay Epic Games a lot more for exclusivity than they would get from sales if it was a multi-platform game. Games like Halo and Gears of War are what made the xbox the most popular non-motion sensing console of this generation.

---

lol...@Chris. Are u saying u could distinguish between the ps3/xbox360 versions of a multiplatform game? If u watched someone play on a tv that u would know which version was being played without

1. Seeing the console
2. Seeing the controller

see my point? Technically, we could sit and compare all day but in the end they still look pretty much the same and as zippy stated the ps3 actually has an advantage in graphics. Sony already said they will not make the ps4 with a chip like the cell bc of the headachevof programming. I'm not saying this bc I am a Sony fanboy either. I don't own a ps3. Just being real.

Comment by: Oner (Jan 26, 2010 17:25)

Originally posted by lxhotboy:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lxhotboy:

---

if it's on both consoles at same launch they will be pretty much identical. Always have been.

---

Actually, the 360 has better graphics in most multi-platform games: http://au.gamespot.com/features/6240138/p-2.html and http://au.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html In MW2 the graphics on the ps3 are blurred compared to that of the 360 (the third photo depicts this quite well). The PC obviously annihilates both though.

In my opinion Gears of War isn't that great. Campaign is alright but multiplayer is screwed up... the locusts are way too overpowered. I'm not really a fan of third person shooters though.

Also, Microsoft would pay Epic Games a lot more for exclusivity than they would get from sales if it was a multi-platform game. Games like Halo and Gears of War are what made the xbox the most popular non-motion sensing console of this generation.

---

lol...@Chris. Are u saying u could distinguish between the ps3/xbox360 versions of a multiplatform game? If u watched someone play on a tv that u would know which version was being played without

1. Seeing the console
2. Seeing the controller

see my point? Technically, we could sit and compare all day but in the end they still look pretty much the same and as zippy stated the ps3 actually has an advantage in graphics. Sony already said they will not make the ps4 with a chip like the cell bc of the headachevof programming. I'm not saying this bc I am a Sony fanboy either. I don't own a ps3. Just being real.

---

Exactly. Plus multiplatform titles do not show the true capabilities of graphic's & physics for either console. First party in house devs is where that is decided because that is where they excel.

Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search
Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660

Comment by: Se7ven (Jan 26, 2010 22:52)

I would like to see all consoles atleast be able to play on line together,now that would be cool multi platform of course.

Comment by: av_verbal (Jan 26, 2010 23:02)

Originally posted by Se7ven:

---

I would like to see all consoles at least be able to play on line together,now that would be cool multi platform of course.

---

they could let us pc games join the fun but with a mouse and keeyboard we would pwn their a**es!

Comment by: jsmpsn (Jan 27, 2010 23:59)

Actually development for PS3 is so much harder compared to Xbox 360. Look at Gran Turismo. Also out of the 11 million people who own a PS3 up to 20% probably use it solely for a blu ray player. PS3 is not selling games like the Xbox is and some companies have stopped putting as much effort into the PS3.

Comment by: Se7ven (Jan 28, 2010 00:11)

That may have been true a year ago but the PS3 is picking up some real steam.with the price drop it is now cheaper to buy the ps3 vs the top of the line 360.i think with the new juice in the PS3 we will start to see alot more devs get onboard.My thing is buy both they both offer a few different things.In terms of game line ups.

Comment by: Oner (Jan 28, 2010 13:28)

Originally posted by jsmpsn:

---

Also out of the 11 million people who own a PS3 up to 20% probably use it solely for a blu ray player. PS3 is not selling games like the Xbox is and some companies have stopped putting as much effort into the PS3.

---

11 Million, 20% solely for BD Play back & PS3 games not selling ~ please site sources for these claims.

Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search
Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660

Comment by: scum101 (Jan 28, 2010 13:33)

what does any of this bullshit have to do with the rubbished garbage from this retarded analyst?

he was binned in 2 posts.. subject over.. end.. nada..

Comment by: chris4160 (Jan 29, 2010 07:02)

Originally posted by lxhotboy:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lxhotboy:

---

if it's on both consoles at same launch they will be pretty much identical. Always have been.

---

Actually, the 360 has better graphics in most multi-platform games: http://au.gamespot.com/features/6240138/p-2.html and http://au.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html In MW2 the graphics on the ps3 are blurred compared to that of the 360 (the third photo depicts this quite well). The PC obviously annihilates both though.

In my opinion Gears of War isn't that great. Campaign is alright but multiplayer is screwed up... the locusts are way too overpowered. I'm not really a fan of third person shooters though.

Also, Microsoft would pay Epic Games a lot more for exclusivity than they would get from sales if it was a multi-platform game. Games like Halo and Gears of War are what made the xbox the most popular non-motion sensing console of this generation.

---

lol...@Chris. Are u saying u could distinguish between the ps3/xbox360 versions of a multiplatform game? If u watched someone play on a tv that u would know which version was being played without

1. Seeing the console
2. Seeing the controller

see my point? Technically, we could sit and compare all day but in the end they still look pretty much the same and as zippy stated the ps3 actually has an advantage in graphics. Sony already said they will not make the ps4 with a chip like the cell bc of the headachevof programming. I'm not saying this bc I am a Sony fanboy either. I don't own a ps3. Just being real.

---

I probably wouldn't be able to tell which one is the 360 or ps3, but I would be easily be able to tell which is better.

Comment by: Oner (Jan 29, 2010 14:57)

Originally posted by chris4160:

---

Originally posted by lxhotboy:

---

lol...@Chris. Are u saying u could distinguish between the ps3/xbox360 versions of a multiplatform game? If u watched someone play on a tv that u would know which version was being played without

1. Seeing the console
2. Seeing the controller

see my point? Technically, we could sit and compare all day but in the end they still look pretty much the same and as zippy stated the ps3 actually has an advantage in graphics. Sony already said they will not make the ps4 with a chip like the cell bc of the headachevof programming. I'm not saying this bc I am a Sony fanboy either. I don't own a ps3. Just being real.

---

I probably wouldn't be able to tell which one is the 360 or ps3, but I would be easily be able to tell which is better.

---

See that is somewhat of a mixed and loaded answer because you can have a title like GTA4, that while on the 360 had a slightly higher resolution over the PS3, it was widely agreed that the PS3 version was superior/better "looking" because of a higher AA (if I remember correctly) added to how it also had much less "pop in"...thus the experience would be better on the "lower resolution" version! Hell, what about Dragon Age Origin? It was a direct port (not done at the same dev cycle) from the 360 and it was superior by most accounts on the PS3 as well.

But then you have quite a bit of titles ranging from Ghostbusters to Bayonetta that are by far better visually (if that is all that can be said about them imho) on the 360 to make this nothing more than a catch 22 game.

But honestly though, this is moot...as I said before ~ multiplatform titles do not show the true capabilities of graphic's & physics for either console. First party in house devs is where that is decided because that is where they excel (and push the hardware to it's maximum or limits).

Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search
Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660

Comment by: scum101 (Jan 29, 2010 15:18)

That's been the case since the dawn of console gaming.. I recall Andretti Racing.. a Saturn title.. the ps1 version was awful.. like no comparison to the excellent experience on the Saturn. Another prime example is shadowman.. a dreamcast title.. great on the dreamcast, poor on the ps1, too dark and very grainy.. but the dreamcast was a console that sort of fell between.. a second gen device early kind of.. hard to put it in a box.. I guess the best way to look at that would be to take the 360 games which have been ported to the ps2. They are always going to look second best.

Consoles are like that.. Even with multi-platform games I think the devs intend them for one and build it for that, then make it work after a fashion on the other. I don't think I have ever seen a game look or play exactly the same across systems. The GTA series were far better on the xbox with better draw distance and detailing, the ps2 versions were disappointing.. which is a shame when you look at the games like Jak and Daxter as an example of what a ps2 is capable of.

just my 2 cents .. I think it's rather pointless trying to compare like for like when the hardware is so fundamentally different. Both have strengths and both have weaknesses. What I see (with an interested eye) is devs and hackers looking at the tech in the ps3 as dead end technology.. a ppc/cell processor which is considered to be (by more than just the devs and hackers.. general news articles see that cpu tech as a dead end) end of line now. http://ph.hardwarezone.com/news/view.php?id=15157&cid=
So that may have some bearing on why there has been a dearth of games and developers really trying to use the capabilities of the device. Nobody really wants to invest a lot of money and time in something which is seen as the last of it's kind.. they will look towards the next generation of hardware and plan accordingly.

Comment by: steimy (Jan 29, 2010 21:56)

Wow, i have been out of the site for a while but it is nice to come back and see good intelligent banter again. So why not add my 1/2 cents worth.

I have both consoles, and as stated above i bought the PS3 for playing Blu-Ray as i already had a 360 with a decent collection of games. I did eventually go out and buy some games for the PS3 that i also had for the 360 to play with friends who did not have a 360.

In my personal experience, the games that i had for both played better on a 360. And from a lot of game site reviews most testers rate the PS3 games worse then their Xbox 360 counterpart, and state that they are usually developed for 360 and ported to PS3. And porting usually does not turn out great products.

When you go to compare things like the online service, Yes PS3 has one advantage. It is free. But when you compare it to the ever evolving monster that is Xbox Live well Xbox Live wins hands down and is worth every bit of your $50 a year subscription price.

As far as exclusives go i think that although it may cut profits for certain game developers, it is ultimately their own choice. And i think they are a good thing. You cannot sit there and say that an exclusive game release for a certain console has not made you think about buying that console just for that game. Forza being a perfect example as every edition has been crafted by a company who REALLY cares about the product they put out, and not just about how much they make. That is why every edition of Forza has turned out to be the best pure racing game for any true gear-head who has a console. Attention to detail goes a long way with your fans.