ps3 or xbox 360

[[H]ardcore]

Where's the option for the Phantom Console, now there's the "System of the Future"

 

[temporalwar]

XBOX 360, I will purchase no question

PS3: If I can use my PSP as a controller like I have read, It might rock!

 

[Tiny]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/615/615745p1.html

May 17, 2005 - According a an article published in the May 17th edition of Japan's Mainichi Shimbun, the PlayStation 3 could be one of the most expensive mass-market videogame consoles ever created. Officials from Sony apparently told the newspaper that PlayStation 3s would sell in Japan for "less than 50,000 yen each." That translates to about $465 US dollars.

 

[Conker]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/615/615745p1.html

May 17, 2005 - According a an article published in the May 17th edition of Japan's Mainichi Shimbun, the PlayStation 3 could be one of the most expensive mass-market videogame consoles ever created. Officials from Sony apparently told the newspaper that PlayStation 3s would sell in Japan for "less than 50,000 yen each." That translates to about $465 US dollars.

All i can tell you is that nintendo is going to make a fortune selling the revolution because for 20 years nintendo has been selling their new systems at 200 at launch. Most likely it's not going to change any time soon. Who is going to pay that much for a system at launch like that. Either a rich man or an obsessed fan. Most likely the xbox 360 will cost around the same. I knew this was going to happen this time around. PC prices and console prices are starting to collide. No more consoles are cheaper and stuff. They cost just around the same price now as a new videocard upgrade and new processor. All i can say it's going to be really expensive this gen.

 

[spyderz]

I really doubt the xbox 360 will be as expensive. If you look at the specs on the xbox, they used more cost effective solution compared to the PS3: blue ray/ dvd, unified memory/ 256gfx and 256 cpu. Microsoft knew they where in a position to undercut sony from the get go. Microsoft has always been the better businessman.

 

[crazyman_130]

Based on the specs and past consoles. My vote goes to the PS3 (if I only were to get one).

In the past the PS2 had way more games than the XBOX. A lot of the launch titles for the 360 I will more than likely get for my PC. I like the spes of the PS3 over the 360 (7 controllers, Blue-Ray, 1080p).

ehh man the 360 has 1080p, no blue ray but deffintly no need...the DL DVD's hold like 10 gigs, the blue rays hold 30-50 gigs...no game is gonna be that big, and if it is...you dont want it, cause it will take forever to load. and 7 controllers, wtf, how is that a good thing, its bad enough having 4 screens on a tv, imagine double that...you would need a 72" tv just to play it with 7 and then the 1080 wouldnt be as crisp as on a 40 or 50". Yea its a cool idea but only if you can split it to two different tv's

 

[crazyman_130]

All i can tell you is that nintendo is going to make a fortune selling the revolution because for 20 years nintendo has been selling their new systems at 200 at launch. Most likely it's not going to change any time soon. Who is going to pay that much for a system at launch like that. Either a rich man or an obsessed fan. Most likely the xbox 360 will cost around the same. I knew this was going to happen this time around. PC prices and console prices are starting to collide. No more consoles are cheaper and stuff. They cost just around the same price now as a new videocard upgrade and new processor. All i can say it's going to be really expensive this gen.

Microsoft said the console would probaly be hitting the markest for 360.99...that was there target price. This price is cheap compared to the PS3 and prices normally drop fast...i can see another price war between the three giants soon after each of there releases.

Another thing that i just started thinking about was, since microsoft will have a 3-5 month lead over the others, they will be able to get there price down to around 250-300 before the others release...giving them a huge advantage if the do this. What do you guys think tho? do you think they will do this?

 

[crazyman_130]

Nintendo (and possibly a PS3)

Why get an XBox 360 when you can get a Nintendo (which will probably end up with the same hardware) and "emulate" the 360? The Nintendo will even be backward compatible so it'll be like having an seXBox(X-Box), a Game^3(Gamecube), a Circle(X-Box 360), and an Orbit(Revolution) all in one.

dude your dumb...not only will microsoft sue the shit out of nintendo if that starts happening...but they have the money to quickly slap in there own burners and emulators for nintendo, sony, and computers...There is NO WAY that nintendo or sony will get away with emulating other consoles games, they have some kind of lock or something in the consoles to prevent that. Nintendo said you could CREATE your games or w/e...not burn xbox games

sry...just like some of the others here, i didnt like the fact that you said that, no offense or anything

 

[canislupy]

ehh man the 360 has 1080p...

Updated specs? Got links? All I have seen for specs of the 360 show support for up to 1080i, which is in actuality inferior in many ways to 720p. 1080p is of course superior to both. I really do hope that the 360 will support 1080p now that the PS3 has come out and given support to it.

 

[Genocidal]

I'll be getting both.

 

[bonkrowave]

Updated specs? Got links? All I have seen for specs of the 360 show support for up to 1080i, which is in actuality inferior in many ways to 720p. 1080p is of course superior to both. I really do hope that the 360 will support 1080p now that the PS3 has come out and given support to it.

How is 1080i inferiour to 720p. It has a higher resolution. The only difference between 1080i and 1080p is that 1080i displays half the image every 1/30th of a second, and 1080p displays the full image every 1/60th of a second. Oh and did I mention the human eye can only discern a difference in anything less then 1/24th of a second?

 

[Juic3]

Arent the videos on gamespot from the PS3 @ E3 gameplay videos ?

 

[Jawad]

How is 1080i inferiour to 720p. It has a higher resolution. The only difference between 1080i and 1080p is that 1080i displays half the image every 1/30th of a second, and 1080p displays the full image every 1/60th of a second. Oh and did I mention the human eye can only discern a difference in anything less then 1/24th of a second?

if you've ever watched fast moving shows, like the NFL for example, you'd know 720p is better.


i've watched 1080i and 720p NFL games, 720P wins hands down.

 

[bonkrowave]

if you've ever watched fast moving shows, like the NFL for example, you'd know 720p is better.


i've watched 1080i and 720p NFL games, 720P wins hands down.

One displays half the scene every 1/30th of a second the other displays the whole scene 1/60th of a second.

So how exactly do you notice a difference ?

 

[crazyman_130]

How is 1080i inferiour to 720p. It has a higher resolution. The only difference between 1080i and 1080p is that 1080i displays half the image every 1/30th of a second, and 1080p displays the full image every 1/60th of a second. Oh and did I mention the human eye can only discern a difference in anything less then 1/24th of a second?

This was explained on the first or second page of this thread...the best display that you guys can get btw right now isnt on a tv, its on a monitor.

i might have been mistaken...it might have been 1080i...ill have to check in to that

reguardless...if you can play the game on a computer with a 500-1000 dollar monitor...why waste 2000+ to play it on a tv?

 

[bonkrowave]

This was explained on the first or second page of this thread...the best display that you guys can get btw right now isnt on a tv, its on a monitor.

i might have been mistaken...it might have been 1080i...ill have to check in to that

reguardless...if you can play the game on a computer with a 500-1000 dollar monitor...why waste 2000+ to play it on a tv?

I know my 46" Samsung DLP wasn't a waste, thats for sure.

The reason I ask is I have played HL2 on 720p and 1080i and I dont notice a difference at all.

 

[crazyman_130]

I know my 46" Samsung DLP wasn't a waste, thats for sure.

The reason I ask is I have played HL2 on 720p and 1080i and I dont notice a difference at all.

lol well as a teenager i dont have the money adults do so i guess thats why i see it as a waste...i also dont watch a lot of TV....most people wont notice differences....especially in really fast paced games...its more of screen shots and ohhh i got the best hype i think

 

[bonkrowave]

lol well as a teenager i dont have the money adults do so i guess thats why i see it as a waste...i also dont watch a lot of TV....most people wont notice differences....especially in really fast paced games...its more of screen shots and ohhh i got the best hype i think

Ya I think a lot is hype. I actually prefer World of Warcraft in 720p ... not for the graphics as 1080i would have a higher resolution, I play it at 720p so I can read the text from the couch.

 

[Tiny]

Arent the videos on gamespot from the PS3 @ E3 gameplay videos ?

The only videos that were real-time were the Unreal3 demo and the Fight Night 3 demo. None were gameplay.

 

[PRIME1]

ehh man the 360 has 1080p, no blue ray but deffintly no need...the DL DVD's hold like 10 gigs, the blue rays hold 30-50 gigs...no game is gonna be that big, and if it is...you dont want it, cause it will take forever to load. and 7 controllers, wtf, how is that a good thing, its bad enough having 4 screens on a tv, imagine double that...you would need a 72" tv just to play it with 7 and then the 1080 wouldnt be as crisp as on a 40 or 50". Yea its a cool idea but only if you can split it to two different tv's

The "three-sixty" is 1080i. You can run 2 tv's on the PS3. I've played 4 players on a 27" TV so a 45" would do well with more players. I'm sure they have a reason for supporting that many controllers, maybe wireless motion sensing body armor.

1080p is the spec for HD DVD's so it is the way the industry is going.

 

[Tiny]

Xbox360 doesn't support 1080p, but can later on if people want it.

The PS3 runs the dual screens in 720p only.

 

[ryanrule]

Xbox360 doesn't support 1080p, but can later on if people want it.

The PS3 runs the dual screens in 720p only.

link for proof? for both of these dubious claims?

 

[ryanrule]

How is 1080i inferiour to 720p. It has a higher resolution. The only difference between 1080i and 1080p is that 1080i displays half the image every 1/30th of a second, and 1080p displays the full image every 1/60th of a second. Oh and did I mention the human eye can only discern a difference in anything less then 1/24th of a second?

then why dto people piss and moan about gettin framerates way above 30??

24 a sec is the MINIMUM so that we DONT notice much choppyness.

 

[Arkham]

ehh man the 360 has 1080p

Er, uh, no. 720p and 1080i are the highest. (For now. I wouldn't be surprised if the Xbox "suddenly" supported 1080p by the time you see it.)

 

[canislupy]

How is 1080i inferior to 720p. It has a higher resolution. The only difference between 1080i and 1080p is that 1080i displays half the image every 1/30th of a second, and 1080p displays the full image every 1/60th of a second. Oh and did I mention the human eye can only discern a difference in anything less then 1/24th of a second?

No. As I said, you have it backwards. Interlaced video displays HALF the vertical scan line information every 1/60th of a second whereas progressive displays ALL of the vertical scan line information every 1/30th of a second. Interlaced will display the full 1080 lines of actual vertical information every 1/30th of a second, but since only 540 lines are ever being displayed at one time, depending on the native resolution of the monitor and how it handles this, the information will pass through a scaler and possibly a comb filter to try to blend and/or scale those lines before they are displayed. ANY processing of this kind decreases image qaulity. Progressive scan content displayed on on a screen at native resolution WILL ALWAYS look better than interlaced.

1/24th for the human eye? Umm, not so fast...
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

[Arkham]

Xbox360 doesn't support 1080p, but can later on if people want it.

The PS3 runs the dual screens in 720p only.

1 - You're right, I wouldn't rule out that speculation.
2 - No, I believe it's built from the ground up to support dual 1080p. I recall that from the full press conference (which I finally saw last night). Granted it was at 2 a.m., but I'm fairly sure of it.

 

[bonkrowave]

1/24th for the human eye? Umm, not so fast...
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Thats quite the article you have posted there, when the conclusion they draw is:

So what is "Enough fps"? I don't know, because nobody went there so far. Maybe 120fps is enough, maybe you will get headaches after 3 hours. Seeing framewise is simply not the way how the eye\brain system works. It works with a continuous flow of light\information. (Similar to the effects of cameras' flashlights ("red eyes"): flashing is simply not the way how we see). So there are still questions. Maybe you need as much as 4000fps, maybe less, maybe more.

So they basically have no idea.

The human eye perceives a real world environment, and a flat 2d image very differently. The eye can increase the FPS on objects within the field of view to accommodate for motion. In a flat 2D image .. the eye cannot do this, it is rather tricked into thinking what is on screen is in motion by anything above 24 fps. If an image is higher then 24fps it is still tricking the brain to think it sees motion, increased frames dont trick the brain any more, or any less.

 

[canislupy]

I know my 46" Samsung DLP wasn't a waste, thats for sure.

The reason I ask is I have played HL2 on 720p and 1080i and I dont notice a difference at all.

Does HL2 actually display 1080i or was it 1080p? I didn't know it even supported 1080i, but heck, it probably does for all I know.

Based on your display, I can tell you this. Everything you send to your display, except 720p will be converted to 720p in order to be displayed since your screens native resolution is 1280x720. The one thing I am not sure of is whether your display will actually try to combine 540 1/60th lines into 1080 1/30th lines to then be scaled down to 720 lines every 1/30th... or, if you display will scale every 540 1/60th to 720 and display 720 1/60. I'd bet the former rather than the latter, but who knows?

 

[canislupy]

So they basically have no idea.

But you are an authority on this subject?

By linking that article I was merely trying to show that it isn't as simple and all encompasing as the statement you made implied.

 

[Optimus]

dude your dumb...not only will microsoft sue the shit out of nintendo if that starts happening...but they have the money to quickly slap in there own burners and emulators for nintendo, sony, and computers...There is NO WAY that nintendo or sony will get away with emulating other consoles games, they have some kind of lock or something in the consoles to prevent that. Nintendo said you could CREATE your games or w/e...not burn xbox games

sry...just like some of the others here, i didnt like the fact that you said that, no offense or anything

Well, just cause you don't like it doesn't make it false. I don't like that Microsoft has a strangle hold on the world economy, but they do.

Now if you'll go back and reread my post, you may notice that I never said that Nintendo would write the emulator. I said it would be emulated. Open source is a wonderful thing. It's been the pride of most previous console emulators and the bane of Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.

 

[CrimandEvil]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/615/615745p1.html

May 17, 2005 - According a an article published in the May 17th edition of Japan's Mainichi Shimbun, the PlayStation 3 could be one of the most expensive mass-market videogame consoles ever created. Officials from Sony apparently told the newspaper that PlayStation 3s would sell in Japan for "less than 50,000 yen each." That translates to about $465 US dollars.

In Japan regular DVDs cost $50 so I hardly think you can make the translation that it'll cost more then $399 here.

 

[Glow]

I have owned all three of the current big systems and I dunno something always felt lacking with the ps2 and no interest in playing anything on it. I love Sony so it sucks that I am losing interest in the PS3 except for it's amazing hardware. I still think the GC's controller is the best of the three hands down though. It kind of annoys me how the new controllers for the PS3 and 360 are unorigonal. The PS3s look like a logitechs and the 360s basically same as the last one. I am guessing the Rev is going to win again in the controller department.

 

[skiddy]

PS3 by far.

 

[illgiveumorality]

Considering the extremely similar specs, they'll probably make a mod for one another so they can play the opposite games.
Or it will just be very simple to port games, so there will be a lot of that and not much diversity.
(Or I'm completely wrong all together)

 

[T0ddyH0oddy]

I'm thinking it will be somewhat difficult to write a third party emulator to play current-gen console games on next-gen hardware.

By today's standards, emulating 8 and 16-bit software is pretty simple, but seven to eight years ago you couldn't necessarily take it for granted that all ROMs worked flawlessly with your certain emulator, if at all.

Emulating the Dreamcast was much harder then predicted.

If you look at the kind of relative "power" current-gen consoles have compared to what was available just a few years ago, simply cranking out a reliable XBox or PS2 emlator to run on one of the new systems, not even a PC, no less, will take considerable effort.

I also don't immediatley buy into this, "yeah, well, the XBox 360/Revolution/PS3 is about fourteen times more powerful then your PC now and the PC you'll have three years from now." We all know that's bologna. Right now it may be able to play "better" games, but the lack of an actual programming platform, which is to say games can't really be "made" (programmed on or for a console without the use of hard-to-get console SDKs).

So, in short, while it is possible to emulate current-gen consoles on next-gen consoles, it's about as likely as the democratic left (read: hippies) to quit bitching about "oil".

 

[Tommyxx516]

PS3.

Its sort of hard to claim being able to deliver HD gaming when you will run out of storage space for the complex data. Thats why we went from cartridge to CD-ROM to DVD. The next logical step is HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.

A Typical DVD movie (480p) can easily use all 8 GBytes of the DVD-ROM. Many current Xbox and PS2 have already reach DVD-ROM capacity. It seems tough to guarantee the life of a next generation system when its limitation isn't its mathematical or graphics capability, but rather the media format they choose. More AI, physics, graphics, and 5.1 sound requires more storage capacity.

 

[ElBarto79]

Updated specs? Got links? All I have seen for specs of the 360 show support for up to 1080i, which is in actuality inferior in many ways to 720p. 1080p is of course superior to both. I really do hope that the 360 will support 1080p now that the PS3 has come out and given support to it.

As far as the resolution goes keep in mind that all Sony has stated is that the PS3 will support 1080p, in fact they are not requiring game developers to develop games in HD, microsoft is requiring a minimum of 720p as we all know. Now I would imagine that at the very least most of the big name ps3 titles will be HD, but as for the rest who is to say?

 

[CreamySoupUSA]

Wow, this is a really even poll.


PS3 for me, though I'll probably get a 360 as well if something other then Halo really catches my interest.

 

[Optimus]

Nintendo (and possibly a PS3)

Why get an XBox 360 when you can get a Nintendo (which will probably end up with the same hardware) and "emulate" the 360? The Nintendo will even be backward compatible so it'll be like having an seXBox(X-Box), a Game^3(Gamecube), a Circle(X-Box 360), and an Orbit(Revolution) all in one.

For those who missed it, I didn't say Nintendo would write the emulator code, but that's not the point of this retraction/modification.

It looks like the Circle ATI GPU design is wholly owned by Microsoft, so if any of it is implemented in the Orbit ATI GPU, it's by pure blind luck. So emulation is going to be held back slightly by the fact that the two GPUs could conceivably be radically different in design.

However, the differences in design between the two CPUs is academic as they have the same instruction set architecture. And since it has been confirmed that the Orbit will be able to read DVDs, there is no doubt that emulation will be possible. It is simply a question of when someone will be interested enough to do it. I could probably get a team going, but I've seen, second-hand, what emulator writers have to go through so I'm not super interested in it.

 

[bonkrowave]

Does HL2 actually display 1080i or was it 1080p? I didn't know it even supported 1080i, but heck, it probably does for all I know.

Based on your display, I can tell you this. Everything you send to your display, except 720p will be converted to 720p in order to be displayed since your screens native resolution is 1280x720. The one thing I am not sure of is whether your display will actually try to combine 540 1/60th lines into 1080 1/30th lines to then be scaled down to 720 lines every 1/30th... or, if you display will scale every 540 1/60th to 720 and display 720 1/60. I'd bet the former rather than the latter, but who knows?

HL2 displays at 1280x1080i. Once you hook a wide screen [Through DVI-D]up to your computer and run HL2, the display options for 16:9 formats are available.

On the flipside Doom 3 does not have true wide screen support. I was very disappointed in this. It just takes whatever 4:3 ratio resolution you set and then stretches it to 16:9 format. I find this to be BS, and a piss poor decision on IDs part as the xbox version of Doom 3 at least has a wide screen format available.

But you are an authority on this subject?

By linking that article I was merely trying to show that it isn't as simple and all encompasing as the statement you made implied.

The article you linked does not apply to flat 2D images but rather real world sight, and how the eye reacts to the environment around us. Flat 2D images on a screen are percieved in a much different way then the 3D world around us.