yeah, Activision is pretty angry 'bout the money loss because they didnt bring MW2 on PS3, right? xD

(maybe he meant Gears2, but Lens of truth..? i mean, i could confirm that Super Mario 64 isnt possible @ Ps360 either, but this would be bullshit, as the statement of LoT is)

Its certainly not any more lame than your run of the mill PR talk, and to me it appears that the leading question they asked him was more lame, doubly so in the face of someone employed by the competition to the mentioned title.

"So, you have manufactured a car. Is is this car as good as or better than this car?"

"Yes."

Mindblowing.

In this case the variety of textures is caused more by them prebaking lighting, SSAO etc into the textures themselves as a quick/dirty optimisation to make the game look better and free the processing power for other things. They haven't likely gone out and made 30GB of purely unique source textures, it just doesn't make sense, so the game can fit onto two discs at worst with just unique textures and dynamic lighting.

If the Xbox 360 can do a decent reproduction on 2 discs then theres no problem, it can run it and Alan Greenburg is correct.

Well strictly speaking he's spinning (understandably as that's his job) that 360 is better, which he clearly references, so a close match with lower resolution videos, etc. isn't 'better' as he puts it.

My point is that, for the most part, the only truly tangible advantage I see between the consoles is BR capacity over DVD, which is 100% factual of course.  However much you compress or pack onto a DVD you can pack more onto a BR, and obviously DVD impacts design (as with Rage) to minimise disk swapping.

Hes spinning yes, but not in a bad way and certainly not nearly as bad as some of the shockers coming from both Sony/Microsoft this generation. Hes merely doing what we expect him to do and strictly speaking hes probably correct on the performance as games like Battlefield: BC 2 prove which make prodigious use of the Cell processor on the PS3 and yet the 360 version is keeping up fine. The differences do not lie in performance but the techniques used to make the game and the style of game made. A more powerful console than both these systems could do a game like GOW 3 using less space whilst making the game look and run better.

The quote never stated that God of War 3 would be better on the Xbox 360 he said "These games and our leading online experiences demonstrate that Xbox 360 is the most powerful games and entertainment console in the market today." Which can only mean as a market phenomenom really. 

The only games which really make use of the space would be:

1. Linear games due to the fact that the enviroment is controlled and they can use more 'last generation' techniques like prebaking the lighting. Since they can be pretty aggressive in removing spent textures etc from memory they can make better use of the memory available.

2. RPGs due to the quantity of spoken cutscenes in WRPGs and the quantity of FMV in the Japanese ones.

3. Games which require a high level of detail on different environments, racing games essentially. Rage is more a corner case than anything else as its using what would be termed 'next generation techniques'.

Most games are limited in what can be displayed simply due to how fast the games read and how much memory is available to them at any one point in time.

I had a look at a game install list of 506 games, only 16 of them used more than 6.8GB on the NXE update, probably 20 at most due to some games not being updated. So if you were to do a normal distribution curve, where would most games fall with say 90% confidence? In addition to this, most games which go over would probably not go over by much if you consider a normal distribution again.

He does sound like a bit of an idiot there. He completely ignores Alan Wake and ME2 to point out... two multiplats? One of which doesn't even look as good as its PS3 counterpart?

i was waiting for some stupid ms pr response to npd numbers but this is worse