For the record, here's the *REAL* difference between Xbox Live and PSN/Nintendo wifi:
Xbox Live is an "always on service" built to withstand thousands of connections at the same time. Live's primary hardware backbone is thousands of servers in data centers all over the world. This ensures that most players are connecting to a server that is close to them, reducing lag and increasing the chance that they'll be playing with players in the same area and with similar connec...
How about "It's a fantastic game and we're gamers like everyone else"?
Who approves this stuff?
@Multi-Console Owner
+1 to you
Well said, and completely true. Mention Halo to any Sony fanboy and they leap out of the corner, fangs bared and press-on nails bloodied to tell you about how great Uncharted 2 is.
Having said that, I'll be a little sad when the holidays are over because this site won't be as amusing to read.
You didn't understand what I was saying. This isn't about Live's uptime/downtime. And when was it ever down for upwards of a month? I don't think it's ever gone down for more than a day or two.
If you turn your Xbox on it connects to the internet and maintains a connection for all of its functions. When MS built Live back in 2003, they invested millions in putting in servers all over the world so that every region can get a fast connection to the service and VoIP as well. That is...
I'm sorry, but exactly how many PSN games use dedicated server? Like 4 or 5? Most game are still P2P. Most game developers don't want to incur the cost of dedicated servers for their games with millions of players...it's too expensive to maintain.
One of the primary differences between PSN and Live is that Live is "always on", whereas services like PSN and the Wii's wifi are not. That's where the extra cost is incurred. On paper you can list all the features of PSN and ...
@Rigmaster
"But this gen the PS3 completely destroys the 360 across the board:
* Resolution
* Poly counts
* Materials
* Animation
* Lighting
* World sizes
* Number of objects on screen at once"
Ummm...no, not by a long shot. The PS3 can't access any more RAM than the 360, so world size and poly counts go out the window there. Fill rate is higher on the 360 and the rest is debatable.
This is almost ...
@Rigmaster/ATY etc...
Spare me the BS, no matter how Sony spins the truth now, they've done this several times...including E3 2006 when they passed off another CGI trailer for Eight Days. If you show a footage and don't tell the public that these are "target renders", then you are deliberately misleading them.
If you can't see the significant difference in quality between the images you posted, then you must be blind.
I think it's cute how ATY has to agree with himself under his Rigmaster/Vicodin/etc accounts...at least someone does.
Of course the Sony Defense Force never mentions Sony's numerous transgressions, like all of the faked trailers or the phony movie reviews, or even the fake PSP ad campaign that actually turned out to be from...Sony.
@cgoodno
If you're so interested in not fueling the bickering on this site, then STOP BICKERING. So the 360 is selling well on Amazon, big deal. A couple of weeks ago the Slim was selling well...still not a big deal.
Anyone who says that "PSN uses dedicated servers" is a moron. There are maybe 4 or 5 games that use dedicated servers on the PSN, the rest is P2P.
@NotSoSilentBob
Nope, my internet connection is pretty amazing (FIOS) Got my PS3 and 360 hooked up to the same connection, Live is significantly in both matchmaking and performs better during online play. Anyone who says that "PSN is more reliable then Live" is full of sh!t - take your BS trolling to the Open Zone please.
Go visit the LittleBigPlanet forums sometime, there are *hundreds* of posts there asking Media Molecule to fix the horrible lag problems,...
@Rigmaster
"We now effectively have three graphical generations at the same time with the gap between the Wii and the 360 being roughly as big as the gap from 360 graphics to the PS3's."
I've heard some pretty deluded fanboy bs on this site, but you really take the cake on that one. Do you really expect anyone to believe that? Next you'll be claiming that that CGI Killzone trailer was real...
And to address your other comment (posted under ATY)...
Wrong.
Deferred shading is already used in several games including Dead Space and GTAIV.
@ATY
It's doable on the 360 with tiling; DICE's new engine is using it on the 360. Deferred rendering is not a new technique or exclusive to the PS3, as I said above there were engines on the Xbox 1 that use it.
"And Killzone 2's deffered shading lighting engine that isn't even possible on the 360 and was claimed to be 'impossible' for graphics that good to happend this gen certainly didn't show the PS3's graphical power over the 360."
Deferred rendering is not exclusive to the PS3, there were games on the original Xbox that used it, as well as the 360.
Learn your tech or get out.
I don't know... I don't think that Uncharted is the best example of lighting, skin shaders or explosions on the PS3...I'd sooner compare Gears to Killzone 2.
That site is just splitting hairs, and most of that comparison is extremely subjective. They're comparing an extremely bright and saturated game to a dark and gritty looking game.
Posts like these make me ashamed to be a PS3 owner.
You gotta love their attention to story and detail....very much looking forward to this.
This rumor has got such legs that even if it's *not* true, Sony might have to seriously consider building a slim PS3 anyway. If I didn't already have one I'd be holding off buying one now - who wouldn't?
All the fanboys who have so desperately been doing damage control about Rising not being "Kojima's baby" because it's a 360 game (and we all know how Kojima hates the 360) are sounding even stupider now - if that's possible.