You don't own a PS3. Why?

Hmm, really? Makes me wonder why we bother with optimization then, may as well just ship everything at 20fps 600p I guess

 

How come people can rationalize this kind of math but not the console price difference (when it exists) when averaged over a few years?

 

You probably don't want to bring j6p into this, because j6p usually goes for the cheaper box irregardless.

HD movies don't favor one or the other. They both offer hd movie options, so it's a moot point. The 360 deserves to lose to an overclocked GC by the way, since it missed a market that is far larger than the typical gamer audience. So it got smoked. Too bad for Microsoft, next time they will know better.

The most noticeable thing to anyone by far is frame rate. I understand how they can miss slight details like lack of specular here or there, like when we very selectively remove specular from some materials on PS3 versions, I realize that would be very hard to spot hence why we do it. But you can't miss frame rate, bad frame rate is as subtle as a broken leg. People spot that difference easy. After that would be aliasing. They don't know that it's aliasing, and will often describe the effect as "looks low res" or something like that, but they spot it. Third I'd say is blur, which is also easy to spot when doing an a/b comparo. I don't have to saw anything really, I just sit back and they spot it.

 

No, I feel bad that they just don't know and made an uninformed purchase that cost them $200. Even if the difference is small, why spend more for less? If two cars were identical in every way shape and form, but one got 20mpg and the other 30mpg, would you spend more money on the 20mpg model? Would you tell your friends to also spend more money on the 20mpg model?

 

Poor analogy. How about a four door sedan with leather interior and six cylinders versus a small SUV with four wheel drive and a tow hitch?

Which one is better? Well clearly whey both drive you around, so ...

 

Easy because Live is sold in a way where amortization is laid out for you. For a certain price, you a given a specific length of time where you are given access to a service. A console is like owning a refrigerator or a coffee pot not like a cell phone where items such as the latter and Live come with a term of length and cost during those terms. Do you amortize the cost of your TV or socks? Probably not, but you probably would if you got them from rent a center and had a monthly payment for a set number of months.

 

Socks no, but if a difference of a TV was 10% I can see looking at the difference in the number of Starbuck visits a week. Live is per year, so breaking it down per month is for PR purposes.

 

Most people don't formulate time of ownership of products or services where a length of term is not described. Maybe, thats why most have credit issues. LOL

 

I realize that things have value, and if you see more value in one than the other then by all means buy it. I was focusing on those that don't really know or don't care about all the features one or the other offers and just want a game box. I could tell them "yeah but bluray...Live....change the hdd" etc and they don't care, they simply want a game box and that's it. It might sound like a small subset of the buying populace, but it's actually quite massive. For those people they will be buying mostly multi plat games and that's it. They won't watch movies, use online, none of that. They power it on, play a bit, turn it off, that's it. When you are dealing with that, there is no reason to pay more for less. That's all I'm saying. If someone really wants a certain controller then fine, make the trade off. But for those that don't care either way, then it's a no brainer.

I mean c'mon, you guys must have friends or family that ask you that sometimes no? The type that don't care about all the details, features, or whatever, they just want a simple game box to entertain them sometimes. For these people, for whom there is no value in anything you may state, would you really still make them spend more on a PS3 to play the same stuff? My niece will not go online, won't use it to watch movies, won't upgrade the hdd, won't do anything really other than sometimes power it on, giggle and play a bit, then turn it off. Would you or anyone else have suggested for this type of 'client' that then spend an extra $200 on a PS3?

 

Is the difference that huge you make it sound like the ps3 is a Wii. Isn't it more like 28mpg to 30mpg?

 

So, you're looking at 2 TV's. One is $500 and one is $1000. They are both of the same size and both have similar specs. The $1000 TV has a built in BluRay player, but both TV's offer the option of High-Defination content over the internet.

The only other difference is that the $500 TV offers a slightly sharper image and is less likely to judder when playing high-definition content. However, unless you looked at the two TV's side-by-side you wouldn't really know that the $1000 TV presents a worse final image.

Which TV is the better buy?

 

If a game had identical visual assets with only differences being the res and frame rate, you could safely say that one version looks better than the other, but GTA4 is a different story, with more notable difference in its art direction than its technical aspects, and such is far more significant to an average gamer than say having a better AA.

Here're some shots I've taken some time ago, both in identical setting and in game time.


http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/GTA4_1_360.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/GTA4_1_PS3.jpg

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/GTA4_2_360.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/GTA4_2_PS3.jpg

http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/GTA4_3_360.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/public/dhwag/GTA4_3_PS3.jpg


As a graphics nit-picker I am, I can talk about a game's technical aspects, maybe call one's better than the other, but technical facts don't always relate to how people perceive game's visual.

 

Lets say for the sake of argument that the difference was tiny, like 1%. The basic premise still stands, why spend more? What makes it a no brainer in this case is that the difference is sometimes small, sometimes large, so it's a much easier choice. But even if multi plats were identical, why spend more? I guess I just don't get why someone should spend more for less, when none of your value propositions apply to them. I really don't get it. I used that friend example because he didn't take advantage of anything on his PS3 that you guys deem as "value". He didn't go online, didn't watch blu-rays, didn't upgrade his hdd, didn't have a controller preference, none of that. All he does on it is play what happened in his case to be three multi platform games. I'm sure there are tons of other people in the exact same situation.

So I had to ask him, why in heck did you spend more to play worse versions? In his case he really just didn't know, he thought we was playing the best versions so he spent more, and I suspect there are thousands of others like him that just don't know. For people in that situation, that have no interest in installing Linux on their console or in getting achievements, I still stand by my original point of they are wasting their money going PS3. But if you see a value advantage somewhere then by all means go for it.

 

Would you seriously let your niece buy a less reliable system, because it's got more anti-aliasing than the other system?

The biggest reason I don't recommand the 360 to anyone close to me, is because I don't want them to suffer with the RROD.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to get over in those shots? That, in the first one, there's a huge (and hugely distracting and totally unrealistic) amount of light being thrown onto the road surface from the stop lights? Or that the ferris-wheel is being lit from a light-source that doesn't exist?

As for the second 2 shots, there are far more vehicles on-screen throwing around light sources (along with the "impossible" stop signs) to make any comparison foolish.

The only other thing to add regarding those images is that (a) you have clearly cherry-picked them to back up your opinion, which has backfired imho. Secondly, and more importantly, those comparisons bear little resemblence to the dozens and dozens of images posted by Mr Leadbetter for his EG comparison. And, sorry to say this, those images present a far better basis for comparison, with similar amounts of characters and automobiles seen in each image, than the messy attempt quoted here.

 

This thread really sucks.

It was interesting to hear why people didn't plan to purchase a PS3. Now we're getting comments about why those people are "wrong." We're also getting comments trying to guess why people don't want a PS3 instead of letting those people speak for themselves. Basically we have a slightly varied version of console x is better than console y.

 

You can look at it two ways. RROD is a dealbreaker (and I'm sure for many it is). However, is does mean the machine has a 3-year warranty. YLOD, after the first year, means another £150.

Look at it another way. Would you seriously recommend to a family member with a nice HDTV to buy a DVD player with good upscaling properties over a BluRay player? Or would you recommend the product that will pretty much always offer the best image quality?

 

Quite OT but you achieve same color difference on PC version by simply changing the color saturation slider. However the PS3 ones seems to have what would be higher than default 50% and 360 lower.

 

Those shots are just to show the differences in the color scheme and lighting. I am not here to boldly claim that the PS3 version of GTA4 is better looking than the 360, and have those shots to back me up, if that's what you were thinking

 

I'm not sure how does it relate to the subject, but let's put it this way. You are getting a new video card for your PC. Would you buy a video card that's well know for its hardware deficiency, just because it runs slightly faster than the other more reliable one?