Top
780°

Microsoft 'Clearly Concerned' About Games Looking Better on PS3, says Analyst

Sony's Rob Dyer recently voiced his strong opinion that Microsoft is "protecting an inferior technology," and that's why the company's content submission and release policy appears to be so restrictive for developers and publishers. Analysts IndustryGamers spoke with aren't all that surprised by Microsoft's policy, and one did note to us that Microsoft is afraid of seeing games look better on PS3.

Read Full Story >>
industrygamers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
fluffydelusions2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

Aren't analysts supposed to go by market trends and numbers? How does this analysis in anyway relate to that?

EDIT: Sorry only read the first paragraph before leaving a comment.

Shaman2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

And he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about...I mean,it would have make sense in 2009 with UC2 and KZ2 and 360 had nothing,but this year PS3 best looking exclusive came out at beginning of year(KZ3) and another one is coming at the end of year,UC3.But there are also amazing looking games,mutliplat and 360 exclusives.Battlefield 3,RAGE,Gears of War 3,Forza 4...

Ulf2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

BF3 and RAGE both look better on the PS3, according to the media, and frankly, according to my own eyes at PAX this year. The 360 version of RAGE was clearly lower rez than the PS3 version... that or someone smudged their greasy hands all over the 360 station's TV that I was standing next to.

This was PAX, so the greasy smudging is not out of the question. ;)

Shaman2573d ago

Well,according to developers both versions run at same resolution and are exactly the same,PS3 version is shown to media because its marketing deal as said by DICE.For RAGE,I dunno,we will have to see,but I seriously doubt PS3 is going to look better.

Hellsvacancy2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

^^^^And when are games ever "exactly" the same? all devs say that, they can hardly say "get teh 360 version, is the better one to get"

Wake up man!

LOGICWINS2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

"BF3 and RAGE both look better on the PS3, according to the media, and frankly, according to my own eyes at PAX this year."

But the question here is whether M$ cares or not. For the past 2 years, the 360 version of a COD game has been the best selling game of the year between the PS3/360.

Last time I checked, MW2 and BO are sub-HD games. Do you really think that Microsoft cares that much about visuals considering that the biggest moneymaker on the PS3/360 is a sub-HD game...that happens to sell more on the 360?

BrutallyBlunt2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

ULF said: "BF3 and RAGE both look better on the PS3, according to the media, and frankly, according to my own eyes at PAX this year. The 360 version of RAGE was clearly lower rez than the PS3 version... that or someone smudged their greasy hands all over the 360 station's TV that I was standing next to. "

The thing is to most consumers there really isn't that much of a difference. A high end PC can produce much higher resolutions with smoother gameplay. The differences in the XBOX and Playstation 3 are much more minor. This isn't like the Wii to the XBOX360.

The real benefit to the Playstation has and always will be the blu-ray storage capacity. However most games on the XBOX 360 can counter that easily enough by having multiple disks.

Ares902573d ago

@Pixel_Pusher
It's Starhawk!!

karl2573d ago

the difference between multiplat games.. are insignificant..

but as little as they are .. they are enought fuel the fanboys...

ps3 exclusives look far better than 360 games

and both rage and battlefield 3 .. look expectacular on PC .. not 360

360 and ps3 will look almost the game..

the edge the 360 has is insignificant

Pixel_Pusher2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

@Ares90

|It's Starhawk

ಠ▃ಠ

TreMillz2572d ago

Can't wait till next years exclusives man, Twisted Metal, Last Guardian, and the sequel to one of my favorite PS3 game, SpaceHawk....SPACEHAWK > ALL!

DaTruth2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

Damn... some of those screens almost look like real life!

I've mostly been hyped up for Dark Souls to the exclusion of everything else, but I'm suddenly real excited for UC3!

da_2pacalypse2572d ago

360 > ps3. this article is pretty funny though, this guy is a moron

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2572d ago
donniebaseball2573d ago

Huh? Clearly you didn't read the article. It's David Cole of DFC Intelligence, which is a very credible research firm that does market forecasts on a global scale for the games industry. This is DFC's site: http://www.dfcint.com

Ulf2573d ago

fluffydelusions says:
" I'd like to know how credible this analyst is since the article fails to mention his name."

From the article:
""In the case of the Xbox 360 it is an older system and clearly there are concerns about content looking better on the PS3," commented David Cole of DFC Intelligence."

Kinda seems like his name might be David Cole. You should read the article before making such inflammatory comments.

darthv722573d ago

by 1 year. It isnt like it is older by 5 or something like that. And to be honest, both ps3 and 360 use old tech by the time they get released. You have to figure both have a development cycle for them to get things figured out on the specs.

PS3 is just as old as the 360. Where the ps3 is better is in the dedicated development department. 360 will be king of the 3rd parties and ps3 will be to the 1st parties.

Sony developed their system to be taken advantage of by in house and really close companies. MS went the opposite. They made it to be taken advantage of by the 3rd party companies.

Yet in the end both are more alike than they are different.

lelo2play2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

Last generation it was the other way around... the Xbox was a much more powerful console then the PS2, and look what that got them.

Biggest2573d ago

Xbox's lack of success can not be compared to the PS3's current success. The PS3 is still on track to sell more than 100mil consoles. The Xbox sold. . . ?

gamingdroid2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

But if we look at it from last generation to this, the picture changes a lot.

The king is no longer the king, rank ha shifted for some and the biggest looser is the new king crowned by the people all over the world.

It's amazing how things change so far, a far cry from 6-7 years ago.

pixelsword2572d ago

@gamingdroid:

Not really; if Microsoft and Sony both wish to extend this gen, Sony will not only be on track to make 100 million, but Microsoft may actually be outpaced if this gen is extended.

EdwardS0872572d ago

The difference between the Xbox 1 and Ps2 was immense. The difference between the Ps3/360 hardware-wise is very minor. The 360 offers a online experience very well (it is indeed superior to PSN). I know many ps3 owners who get the Xbox version just for Xbox live.
Look at the exclusive round up, Gears 3 will outsell UC3--online play is a big part of that. However nearly ALL the huge hitters this fall are multi-plat. Skyrim, BF3, MW3 ect...Exclusives play a part in driving console sales; MS proves that you can out do the competition in other areas. Ms has excelled in the motion gaming department, online play, marketing ect.

kikizoo2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

Lol, the online is free, and almost the same (and sometime better : dedicated servers !), and graphics/.animation/sound/IA, distance, etc are not "minors" there is a real gap beetween uncharted 2, god of war, heavy rain, the user content of lbp, etc etc and xbox, only xfanboys try to downplay the reality (and in the same they are exagerating minor to none differences in multiplatforms, ignoring each time the ps3 is better)

by the way, it's incredible too see almost the same mentally disturb guys from 2006, in total denial, denying the reality, despite the fact that all devs are saying since 2006 that ps3 is more powerfull (almost the same gpu, but way more powerfull cpu, used for supercomputers !! and better ram) all players (not only the 600 $buyers) can see that best sony exclusives are not possible on xbox, so stop spreading crap to the world misinformed or just delusional fanboyz.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2572d ago
kingdoms2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

Who ever said these things sound like they're spewing angry and desperate damage control.

"BF3 and Rage both look Better on PS3"

These games have never really been compared in public before and in one case no one has seen the 360 version at events. LOL Sony knows something they're frustrated about. Another Crysis 2 incedent would be devastating to PS3 and Sony's credibility

ULF is Full of Shiet

TheMyst2572d ago

Which is why he said according to the media that has actually seen both and according to his own personal experience (particularly with RAGE).

Venjense2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

Crysis 2 looked worse on 360 due to the grain glitch that was never fixed. I made the mistake of buying it on 360 because all the comparisons said it looked better but after the first raining level the game looks like a low quality video is streaming in the background, either that or like it suffers from a bad case of bad cable reception.

Crysis 2 graphics on 360 go from 9/10 to 5/10 half way through the SP - it made me wish I got the 8.5/10 all the way through PS3 version.

Boody-Bandit2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

Yeah kingdoms Sony is shitting in their pants because they barely have any support or exclusives to push their console.

They have been struggling bad the past couple years to supply their consumers with a plethora or games to play that you can only find on their hardware. Struggling even more so to provide new original IP's this generation to capture the minds of the gamers and media alike.

A system that requires everything to pass a certification process and fee, all perps to be proprietary and most of all hardware that it took them 5 years to work most of the kinks out because of abysmal failure rates.

I think they should be most embarrassed about charging their consumer base to pay to play online and show the industry milking gaming consumers dry with DLC is the future of gaming.

They spend billions of dollars on marketing their product instead of purchasing or building studios to give their consumers newer and better games to play all the while pushing a perp that isn't geared towards their core userbase.

I personally am sad for Sony to have fallen from grace so hard this generation. </insert the heaviest sarcasm ever put forth on this site here>

Seriously, how do you still have an active account?

On topic:
Microsoft is finally being exposed for shady business practices that most sane and rational people knew they were not only capable of, but suspecting them of doing all along. Yet most fans of their products cling too conspiracy theories from the opposition because the truth makes them feel dirty. Mean while back at the ranch, most of what people thought is in actuality reality.

MS is not good for the gaming industry. The only thing they have done right is XBL but they charge us for it. And this is coming from a person that games 70% - 360, 20% PS3 and 10% of the time on the PC.

I am just being brutally honest.

catguykyou2572d ago

@Brutallyhonest

One could argue that because of MS choices, Sony has been forced to step up their game to compete. Because MS has such a good service with XBL but charges, Sony has had to implement more features and keep it free to compete. I seriously doubt they PSN would be as good as it is now if it didn't have XBL to compete with. Same can be said with the hardware and how hard Sony has had to work with developers 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party, to understand and ease the development process of the system.

If not for other companies like Apple and Nintendo, Sony's NGP would probably be half the power and twice the price. Competition is good for everyone. No one should wish it away no matter what side they support.

Jumper092572d ago

u can watch the 360 version of rage at gametrailers... e3 2010...
The game looks nice on 360.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2572d ago
SIX2572d ago

SPACEHAWK is going to be so epic!!!!!!

caperjim2572d ago

The lowest common denominator are consoles in general. Lets not forget PC is a platform also.

catguykyou2572d ago

Microsoft SHOULD be concerned. For everyone's benefit, they should try and make the most powerful system next gen. It will force Sony to try and top them thus creating great hardware for everyone no matter their preference.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2572d ago
Godmars2902573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

This actually just speaks poorly of Sony's choice to go with difficult system architecture. If it had been easier limitations would have been reached and expanded on, PS3 exclusives would have looked far better and MS would be green for other reasons than advertising choices.

Also more than likely devs who had "abandoned" the system wouldn't have.

lorianguy2573d ago

I'm not sure if its possible for PS3 exclusives to look better lol

gamingdroid2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

Sony's mistake is designing and imbalanced system, have poor tools (relatively speaking) and not supporting their developers early on.

MS sent out engineers to third parties to support them. In fact, MS had the forethought to keep their OS to a maximum of 32MB RAM. On the PS3, it was a massive 100MB that they now reduced to around 50MB. They didn't even leave enough RAM for cross game chat.

Heck interacting with Sony's backend API for PSN shows a way different picture than MS clean interface.

Sony is a great hardware company with a long heritage (I personally like their TVs and own a Sony Bravia), but software not so much....

pixelsword2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

@ godmars:

I kinda see your point, because with better dev tools, Factor 5 still wouldn't have the only 1080p/60fps game on the PS3 that's nearly all corridors; but the abandoning of devs was going to happen anyway after Nintendo went retro because most devs who jumped were Japanese and they see the 360 as an "american" console (which they both are actually and basically Chinese, if you follow me) and they wanted to get a bigger chunk of the american market.

Godmars2902572d ago

A lot of devs who jumped still weren't ready for next gen. Were making bargain bin PS2 games for $60. Otherwise MS would be dominating Japan. Wouldn't be all but pushed out now.

The PS3 hasn't done well up to know because of price and programming. But if the latter hadn't been an issue that MS tried to capitalize on, if the JP games we're starting to see now had been out sooner, people would have paid $600 gladly.

It was MS who told them that they could easily cash in on the Western market on their system when the PS brand already had a firm hold, and that's exactly what they tried to do. In the most lazy and uninspired manner possible.

units2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

dont you mean rage looks better on 360? anyway gears 3 and forza 4 will show what the 60 is capable of

Pixel_Enemy2573d ago

360 exclusives just don't compare to PS3 exclusives visually. Face it

palaeomerus2572d ago

PS3 exclusives are really nothing very special at all. Never have been. Fanboys just make a lot of noise about them like fools.

The Iron Sheik2572d ago

^^^Downplaying FTW!!!

They're not special according to you, a 360 fanboy. Big surprise.

bumnut2572d ago

Im a PC fan but have owned both 360 and PS3.

PS3 exclusives look much better than anything I have seen on 360, GOW3, Heavy Rain & Uncharted looked great.

Ulf2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

Nope. RAGE definitely looked better on the PS3 at PAX. It looked to be full 720p, whereas the 360 version looked to be 640p or so -- it had that smudgey CoD look, whereas the PS3 version was crystal clear. However, I did notice the occasional frame tear, when on the quadbike outdoors on the PS3, and I didn't notice it on the 360 -- that may imply a more steady framerate on the 360, which you'd expect, given a lower rez image. The texture streaming was better on the PS3 as well -- no pops, absolutely pristine. The 360 version just had the occasional pop-in, etc. It wasn't a big deal, but there was a diff.

Far from a technical analysis, but I feel pretty confident with the resolution observation -- it was that noticeable when you saw the games running side-by-side. I may be off on the actual numbers, but I'd be willing to wager that when the game comes out, the technical analysis will be pretty much what I said.

Jumper092572d ago Show
TheMyst2572d ago

I love Gears and I even prefer Forza over GT this gen (not afraid to admit it) but even I will tell you that there's no way. Gears 3 looks just slightly updated from Gears 2 and Forza 4 just looks like a slightly updated Forza 3. That compared to PS3 powerhouses like KZ and UC, yea not even a comparison. Ps3 wins hands down.

_Aarix_2572d ago

Yea...no gears 3 had a huge graphical overhaul. The textures, lighing and the colors in general are breath taking. It being "slightly updated" is a complete lie.

2pacalypsenow2572d ago

nope im sure he said it looks better on ps3 and forza 4 are there any in-game pictures? and gears 3 looks really good but gears 1-2 look great too

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2572d ago
stonecold32573d ago

thats why im not impressed because the 360 is holding ps3 multiplats back and they have to keep both version equal

PCE2573d ago

rofl

The 360 does not hold the PS3 back. Don't blame another console just because your PS3 isn't unleashing the POWER OF TEH CELLZ on multiplats. The developers could easily give the 360 the short end of the stick if they want to but many times the PS3 has been getting it. Look at RDR for example.

lorianguy2573d ago

No, stone cold is right. Black ops for example was made for the 360. It was then ported over to the PS3, therefore only allowing it to run at the 360's power level, and not maximising the PS3's potential. However battlefield 3 is being developed individually for each platform, so PS3 will be pushed (and will show it's capability - also just look at Uncharted if you want to see a well-made graphically game), as will the 360 and most PCs.

dgonza402572d ago

FFXIII says hi.

They had to cut out parts of the game for it to fit on 360

>.<

baodeus2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

@dgonza40

yeah the cut out parts are now called FF13-2 with towns, exploration, npc interaction and cinematic battle sequences. Are you sure it was because of the 360 disc space issue or Square just want to make more money?

Remember, it even comes out before FF13vs, so you know the real reason why they have cut contents.

Previous FF games have been on multiple discs and they were fine, so why suddenly it was because of DVD that FF13 can't have world map,towns,npc interaction? Other games like Skyrim, Fable, RDR, Assassin Creed, etc...all look amazing and they ran on 1 discs so why can't FF13?

bozebo2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

GTA4 was limited by the DVD formet (it's open world so it can't be multiple disks) and Skyrim will be the same, as with the future GTA5.

DVD was fine last gen for huge environments because the texture storage and file sizes in general were a lot smaller but with the higher quality graphics which current gen hardware is capable of pumping out they are struggling to fit content on the disk. (if they gimp graphics to replace the space with actual content then less people will buy it because it won't be marketable in the current consumer climate)

A lot of games can be multiple disks without any problems, but it is often obvious that the disk limitation has caused design decisions that would otherwise not have been made; when a game is on multiple platforms - one of which has a vastly larger backing storage medium, there will be a platform which has not reached its potential.

That is what the 360's tiny last-gen DVD has done to the PS3 and PC. They can't even allow multiple disks to be installed to a contiguous data bank on the HDD because the installation on the 360 is simply a disk image emulation and not a proper software installation made by the developer like on the PS3 and PC.

Again though, it only matters for a small number of games - but the creative limitation may have messed up a lot of plans which developers may have had which have never seen the light of day because of that.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2572d ago
lelo2play2573d ago (Edited 2573d ago )

I'm more concerned that the X360/PS3 are holding back multiplat games on the PC. It's about time to release new consoles. Developers are expecting it for some time. I wish some other company (cough ... cough ... Google, Apple, Sega...) would enter the console race, and make Microsoft/Sony move their as*es.

Just a side note: it would be funny to see a 1000€ Apple home console.

kreate2572d ago

console games are not really holding pc games back.
there's no policy to keep pc versions same as console versions like there is on the ps3 and xbox.

most console games are designed for consoles.

for example...

bf3 is best on pc. nothing really holding the pc version back.

or blizzard may bring starcraft or diablo to consoles. but there's no reason for them to downgrade the game just so that they can have it on consoles.

bozebo2572d ago

€1000 would be quite cheap for an Apple product if it actually had good hardware in it. More like €5000 but then it wouldn't sell to idiots unless it had a big list of bad touch screen games to not even take advantage of the hardware :/

If Apple ever entered the console industry, expect something like the Wii every gen.

xJumpManx2573d ago

Blame the inferior GPU on the Ps3 for that. I love reading how superior the cell processor is but they never admit the gpu in the PS3 is crap.

PirateThom2573d ago

It has, thus far, proven to be totally irrelevent whent he best looking games across the two platforms are PS3 exclusives.

If the GPU was some sort of ace in the hole for Microsoft, they certainly have no games to show it off.

clearelite2572d ago

The SPEs take care of a lot of processing that the so the GPU doesn't have to do it, hence the phenomenal looking exclusives. But lets not forget, good gameplay is king. Fortunately they have that too.

HappyTrigger2572d ago

@PirateThom

What do you mean they don't have any games to show off the power of the GPU in the 360? Uh, Halo: Reach, Gears 3, Forza 4?

2pacalypsenow2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

@HappyTrigger none of those games looks as good as Ps3 excluisves , There is no In-game footage of Forza 4 (that i know of) and gears 3 looks good but not as good as uncharted 3,killzone 3,etc.. thanks to "teh cell"

bozebo2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

Yes, the gpu in the ps3 is worse than the gpu in the 360 - but not by a lot. The ps3's cell is capable of performing graphics calculations far better than a traditional CPU - infact it more than makes up for the shortfall of the gpu. The rendering just has to be programmed very differently (not pure OpenGL). I.E - they can use it very effectively for post processing rather than the usual fragment shaders.

The PS3's main advantage though, is the capacity of Blu-Ray. Developers can properly flesh out all their environments in high detail if they wish to, even with unique textures in every area if they want - but the individual look of one particular scene will not be improved simply because of the disk capacity. What the Blu-Ray helps with most is the possibility for extremely expansive quantities of content - look at MGS4 for example. Linear games can do that fine on DVD, but the cost goes up a lot more per unit than it would be to have the content on one single Blu-Ray disk so they may opt to sacrafice content to increase profit margins which the developer already gets so little of on consoles.

SignifiedSix2566d ago

@pirate
"If the GPU was some sort of ace in the hole for Microsoft, they certainly have no games to show it off."
You must be pretty damn blind if you're thinking that!
Look at gears 2-3, Forza 3-4, Halo: Reach and a multiplat, Red Dead Redemption. All those games look flawless. Do me a favor, and get your eyes checked!

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2566d ago
Demented_Sadist2572d ago (Edited 2572d ago )

So True And Assassin's Creed 2 also says hi. Ubisoft had to cut alot of content from AC 2. You see originally Florence was suppose to bigger and the entire city of Rome was suppose be in the game as well. Now the PS3 with its Blu-ray disc could've easily included all that, but again it wouldn't of fitted on a single 360 DVD9 so Ubisoft decided to not include it and cut all that content from all versions of the game. Assasins Creed 2 would've/could've been even bigger, but the Xbox 360 with its DVD9 got in the way.

Not too mention RAGE was suppose to have a free roam mode, it would've easily fit on the PS3 blu-ray but not the 360 DVD9, so ID decided to cut it from all versions of the game.

And That right there, both examples are one of just many instances/examples of the Xbox 360 holding back the PS3 and games in general.

GraySnake2572d ago

also didn't Alan Wake cut content? It was supposed to be free roam right?

If This is wrong just let me know.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2566d ago
Titanz2573d ago

I wonder how they feel about the Wii U, then.