I call BS on this one.

Also, as I have stated, if the OPM UK review did not mention split screen (though there was only a little section on online multiplayer) at all, and if anyone is going to mention a PS3 exclusive feature, it is them

Wow a lot of flames in this thread

How could a sandbox game be split screen multiplayer? I could see co-op on same screen, but split? This type of game to me is a solo experience.

If I had both systems and a 1080p hdtv, I would choose the 360 version.

1. 1080p vs 1080i is meh in games.
B. Six Axis control does suck in every game I have tried (4 games). So the controls would be the same between the two options.
III. DLC is a major advantage. Granted it could be anything, but I would think that if they expect people to pay for it, it will be of decent quantity.
Four. Achievements.

It's probably fake.

And since when is the 360 version getting whole new cities? How much space would that take up? And how long would it take to make? I could see new missions, but new cities? lulz

@ fanboys in this thread:

Really, people who want it should just buy the game and be happy about it. Whether its on the PS3 or the 360, why should you care, so long as you enjoy it?

Rumor reported by StarCraft

I'm not a fanboy.  You can read all my old posts if you think that.  And your nice comments in blue are reading things into what I said that aren't there.  I clearly say it's my opinion that DLC is more important.  Noweher do I say MS is better or perfect - just props for getting a piece of GTA when it used to be a Sony stronghold.  And I pointed out that he doesn't own a 360 because he said the reason he is CHOOSING to get PS3 version is because of crappy hardware.  Even if he did have 2 previous ones, he's not CHOOSING to buy PS3 version if he doesn't have a working 360.  It's his only choice short of buying a new console.

 I'm not a MS fanboy, other than Halo.  I do prefer it over my PS3 at the moment, but I like them both fine.  In fact I despise MS in most areas - I'm a huge Apple/Unix/Firefox, non-windows, non-IE,non-Office campaigner.  It IS possible to present an opinion about a console based on the facts of the particular situation without being a fanboy. 

I'm going to use simple deductive reasoning to show how either both systems have split-screen or neither of them do:

The only version that's ever been shown to the press is the 360 one. Naturally, one would assume that this is because it is either running equally to or better than the PS3 version (because they wouldn't show off the inferior version).

Using this logic, if the 360 version ran better than or equal to the PS3 version, either both would be capable of splitscreen or neither of them would be.


Now, the other point some have made is that Sony may have paid to keep this feature exclusive, like MS did with the DLC. However, Sony haven't said anything about this feature. A company buys things like that to increase sales, and what would the use be of doling out cash for extra features that your competition doesn't have if nobody knows about it?



Using this deductive reasoning, it would be logical to assume that either both have splitscreen or neither do.

bumpasaurus.