XGuNn3rX

More bad news for Sony, one less exclusive for the PS3, and one less reason to get a PS3. Assassin's Creed confirmed for 360 Admitting to one of the worst-kept secret in recent memory, Ubisoft has finally confirmed Assassin's Creed for Xbox 360 by both Electronic Gaming Monthly and 360 Magazine. Unfortunately, not much else is revealed, such as a release date or platform-specific content. Most of all, we want to know why they waited to confirm the Xbox 360 version, even though we all knew it was coming. As a developer and publisher, it would be the smartest decision to promote all iterations of the title. Was it to instigate hype, as 1UP's Luke Smith conjectures, or were there even more sinister deals being made behind the scenes? http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/01/finally-...firmed-for-360/ ------ Want to know what's even worse? It looks the same on the 360 as it does on the PS3.

There is not a single game on the 360 that is 2 DVD's. Why is Blu-Ray player needed in the PS3? Because it plays movies? Well guess what, Microsoft has an alternative. If I want to watch HD-DVD movies, I can buy the 360 HD-DVD addon for HALF-PRICE (YOU GET A GOOD DEAL! ). If I have no use for HD-DVD's, then I simply don't buy the addon. No money wasted. Anyway who cares if you get a good deal? Sony is shoving an unproven format down your throat. Answer me this (I think I already asked this), if I owned NO HDTV, what purpose would Blu-Ray serve me? Nah, I can answer that - Absolutely nothing. And are you trying to say that you don't care what Sony puts in the PS3 (even if you have no use for it), as long as you get a good deal? Oh, and having a more powerful console (one that isn't far from the 360's power) doesn't mean anything. What Console had all the games last gen? What Console sold the most? And most importantly, what console was the weakest? Simple; the PS2. The 360 is in the same position that the PS2 was in last gen. And raw power means nothing. And what features (other then Blu-Ray) does the PS3 have over Xbox 360? -Edit- Almost forgot. PS3 (the person), if graphics only matter, where were you last gen with the Xbox (the most powerful system)? How come graphics matter all of a sudden?

Sega had no money left to support the Dreamcast. They were heading for death anyway. It's not Sony's fault. Are you telling me that you got a deal or that EVERY single PS3 is AU$900? How is CoD2 supposed to look better on 360? It's the same engine and everything, it couldn't look better. The fact that it looks the same as the PC is a good thing. It doesn't matter what you get in the PS3. It's Sony's stupid fault for having that huge price and putting Blu-Ray in it in the first place. And yes, this discussion will be good when the PS3 launches (which will probably be next year now since Sony haven't even started manufacturing PS3's and it's supposed to launch in November). If the PS3 breaks the 360's sales record, I will be impressed. Too bad it's a small chance of happening.

So MS is supposed to read minds now? And do you agree with my previous statement saying that Sony's console will be no better since it has new technologies? That was appropriate, wasn't it? They weren't my pics, so I never got the links.

I'm sorry, but I'm telling you the truth - I simply cannot believe that 3 out of 4 friends got a defect. And how the hell can you say MS is wrong because of a few people? If none of my friends got a defect would that mean that there are no defects? No. The friend who also got a defect also got a defect PS2 years back. Out of all my friends, he only got a defect PS2. Does that mean that there were only a small percentage of defect PS2's? No, it was alot more. You can't make accurate percentages off of a few people. Yeah, sorry. How would I make it so they are thumbnails?

So what you're telling me is you like being fed crap as long as the game has good graphics? Man, I seriously don't know what to say. I cannot believe the stupidity in what you just said. And I'll say it again; the console is $1,000 for the 60 GB version. Even then, the 30 GB is still very pricey and is still more then the 360. Maybe it's because I'm already playing in the 'next-gen', but that video didn't impress me one bit. Here's some shots for Project Gotham Racing 3 and a few other games taken from a HDTV...

Honestly, I don't understand you. You're paying $1,000+ for a system only for the graphics? Sorry, but graphics don't make the game. Where's the gameplay? And where is this video/screenshot of GT Vision? Blockbuster hits? Can't happen. All the PS3 has is a bunch of EA games (yuck!) and a mediocre FPS that looks no better then Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360.

And you're so confident that it's going to win because..? Because the Playstation brand has a very large fanbase? Well guess what, people said that about Nintendo going into fifth generation (N64, PS1) and look what happened (they got beat by Sony). There is no way Sony is going to win next gen with that price tag. Sure, maybe you and me might be able to afford it, but the majority that made up the Sony fanbase can't. The console is too much, and I wont be surpised if Sony end up coming last place. And so far the PS3 hasn't shown any graphics that are better then the 360.

What exactly does Playstation 3 offer to consumers that warrants a $600 price tag? Better visuals? Nope. More games? Nope. More exclusives? Nope. Innovative features/services? Nope. Blu-Ray? An unproven format which could easily end up like the UMD.

Microsoft have said it is a 3% defect rate. You can choose not to believe that, but it's the only thing close to fact that you're going to get. You claim that 3 of your friends got defects, which what I think, IMHO, is BS. I could probably name 10 people that I know of that got 360's on launch day. Out of all ten, one was defective, and it was as simple as taking the console back to the store and getting a new one. My friend was still able to keep his hardrive aswell, so he hadn't lost game saves or anything. I have had ZERO problems and have been amazed by the quality of the product. The same can also be said for those 9 friends who didn't get a defect. Even if you really believe that the 360 has huge amout of defects, you cannot deny that the PS3 will have worse. The CELL and Blu-Ray are new technologies and it's bound to happen. If your going to fork out $600US on launch day for the PS3, you better pray to god that Sony fixes/replaces it if you get a defect. First of all, I recommend you read this: http://www.gamesfirst.com/?id=1132 And secondly, I don't care if I have to switch disks. I'm not lazy and I'd rather save the extra money then pay a few extra hundred dollars so I don't have to switch disks. You're so confident that the PS3 is going to win next gen, aren't you? ------------------------------------- I thought this was funny... Sony announces that first Blu-ray disc drive won’t play Blu-ray movies! http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/dvdburners...40091720,00.htm ------------------------------------- And about the rumour of having HD-DVD games on the 360... "I'm seeing lots of speculation about our upcoming HD DVD Player, and whether we have plans to publish HD DVD games. The answer is no. Since announcing the Xbox 360 HD DVD Player accessory at E3 2006, we’ve been clear that it is designed exclusively for playing HD DVD movies. It will not play games on HD DVD. At this point, we haven’t seen anything to suggest that next-gen DVD formats offer a better game experience than current DVD. What we do know is that these formats will bring added cost to game developers, disc manufacturing, and could even result in added costs and longer load times for the consumer, which would negatively impact the game experience. We are focused on making great HD games available to consumers now, and games like “The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion” clearly show that beautiful high def graphics and huge, immersive worlds to explore are possible on the DVD9 format." http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/archive/200.../16/536859.aspx This man speaks the truth.

Maybe you should read the rules, since I broke none of them. None of my post was flaming and I never said any console sucked, just that the PS3 had been getting alot of bad news lately. If you want to abuse your mod powers, go ahead, but I didn't brake no rule.

I understand that, but the fact that he is even suggesting it...

One, I already knew this. Two, it doesn't bother me. Three, I have a choice whether or not I want to buy an EA game. Four, another dark day? You mean for Playstation fans, right? There's basically bad news for the PS3 everyday. And five, what's to say that Sony wont do that with the PS3?

I'm willing to bet that in 5 years (or when the Xbox 3, PS4 comes out), high speed internet connections will be cheap and a small percentage of people wont own one.

And Sony HAD to go with Blu-Ray, right? Funny how they've been saying "Blu-Ray is the future" but recently said online distribution is the future instead of a disc format, something Microsoft has been saying for months (which is why the 360 has DVD only).

http://www.highdefdigest.com/feature_blura...comparison.html A few comparisons... "Whatever its merits as a film, 'Training Day' has made history by becoming one of the first titles to be released on both the Blu-ray and HD DVD formats. In our first head-to-head comparison, we found the HD DVD to be superior. The unfortunate cropping of the Blu-ray image, coupled with more noticeable compression artifacts and an overall darker cast, can't compete with the more consistently pleasing presentation of the HD DVD. Also a strike against the Blu-ray version is that both the Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital-Plus soundtracks have been dropped in favor of plain old Dolby Digital, and even the disc's menu navigation is more clunky and with less interactive functionality. Certainly, this Blu-ray release delivers fine video quality in its own right, but the format's backers will need to step it up if they are going to win the hearts and minds of early adopters over HD DVD. " "I must say, our first Blu-ray versus HD DVD comparisons continue to yield surprises. I wasn't expecting to see much difference in video quality between the two formats with 'Rumor Has It...', yet the two discs did bear noticeable differences, with the HD DVD boasting better detail and a more film-like look. And Warner has again dropped the Dolby Digital-Plus option from the Blu-ray version. However, the Blu-ray is a good $5 cheaper than the pricey $39.95 list price the studio is charging for the HD DVD/DVD combo version, so at least Blu-ray has that going for it. But even with its higher list price, in this reviewer's opinion, the HD DVD release delivers overall better bang for the buck." "With our second Blu-ray versus HD DVD battle on 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang,' we again declare victory (although by a smaller margin) to the HD DVD verison. Most of the same problems we found with 'Training Day' on Blu-ray -- namely the picture cropping (though it is likely a player issue) and darker cast -- reappear again here. The absence of HD DVD's Dolby Digital-Plus tracks on Blu-ray is problematic, and I still find Blu-ray's clunky menu navigation quite irritating. Though with 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' Blu-ray has proven it can deliver moments of stunning high-def as good as HD DVD, it is still not delivering that level of quality as consistently. Very close with this one, but still no cigar." Theoretically.. Lets say I had no HD-TV. Blu-Ray movies mean nothing to me, since the picture quality differs none from DVD and games are still being made on the 360 with DVD. Why should I be forced to buy a Blu-Ray player? The PS3 is nothing but a quick way to get a Blu-Ray player in your livingroom. It's being forced down your throat. If you want a PS3 but no Blu-Ray player, sorry but you're screwed.

This is why you don't see Microsoft putting HD-DVD or Blu-Ray in their console. They've been saying online distribution is the way for awhile now.

Microsoft have said time and time again that the 360 will never have an inbuilt HD-DVD player. Microsoft is only releasing a HD-DVD add-on for people who are looking for a HD-DVD player. It does not runs games and it's primary purpose is to play movies. You DON'T have to buy it, and you aren't getting a HD player shoved down your throat (Hint: PS3). Wanna know something? A very small percentage of the world own HDTV players. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray mean nothing to them, because there is no difference from DVD, except the large space. People wont be buying the PS3 for a Blu-Ray player, it's as simple as that. Pointless that I haven't seen HD-DVD and Blu-Ray side by side? Not really. Even if I had seen them side by side and my opinion was still that HD-DVD was better, everyone would call me biased. The only proof I have is the many reviews saying that HD-DVD is infact better. Have you read the reviews from Cnet and everywhere else? They better not charge more for the movies? Well it looks like you wont like Blu-Ray then, since it's said some movies and games are to be priced more. This is still a rumour, though..

Did you read the whole thing? It wasn't just about the PS3 being a supercomputer. He even showed you some links about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, proving once again that HD-DVD is better. The 360 has a 3% defect rate, something that is pretty good. PS2 had something in its 30's, because of the infamous disk read error.

I thought you might like this. It was taken from another board. He mentions "Cows" alot, the reason being.. on this board every fanboy has a name. Cows = Sony Fanboys.

HD-DVD has got nothing to do with Microsoft or Microsoft fanboys. I'd rather believe the majority then your obviously biased opinion.

No I haven't seen HD-DVD and Blu-Ray in action, but everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) is saying that HD-DVD has better picture quality then Blu-Ray.

So I could make the worst game ever made, with some of the best graphics ever seen, and you would like it? :| I've read the reviews. Everyone is saying HD-DVD > Blu-Ray. How is the PS3 better? Besides, the PS3 isn't even out yet, it could be a massive flop. So now I'm in denial? :| The PS3 is only slightly better then the 360. The PS3 is already outdated, much before its release.

Very, very true. And besides, the PS3 is only slightly more powerful then the 360. I can agree with that everyone has different tastes. But you also said you prefer FPS on PC, but at the same time mention 3 FPS on PS3. What's the go? Out of my whole list I mention 3 games that are FPS. Xbox 360 doesn't just have FPS anymore. Well first of all, GameSpot only lists that because of a rumour. And second, the official SC4 website mentions no PS3 version. And about the "next gen video player built-in", this picture best describes what I'm thinking... http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/4853/blurayforcefeed2el.jpg Anyway, I'm willing to bet some of you people don't even know half the games I'm talking about. You say "the Xbox 360 has no games" without actually knowing if it does or not. Have you seen Mass Effect? a RPG from the same people who made the successful KOTOR - Bioware. This RPG is going to be AWESOME. Saints Row? A next gen free roaming game that looks to compete against the GTA series. All I'm saying is, 360 has plenty of good games, but are overlooked for Sonys tired series (I.E, Final Fantasy, MGS4, etc.)

Yeah and the 360 wasn't even out yet. Nor was the PS3. Oh, and I edited my post.