In my opinion, GT5P should cost 30$. =) Though, +10$ is paid for NEXTGEN experience. =)

@HappySqurriel, come on, x360 already 2 YEARS on market. Is halo 3 is best what it can show? UE3.0 engine with falling framerate? Is that`s all after 2 years?!
PS3 already in first year have games which are graphically better in specific genres then x360 games, which came durign these 2 years.
In the begining of 2007 i really hoped, that Halo3, NG2 will amaze me with graphics. In the end, nothnig special, just HD versions.

About Gran turismo, or perhaps you just should read some reviews? =))

I considered it childish that you said, in other terms: "Do you really own GT5P? I don't think so, and even if you do, it's only a demo anyway!" Sounds like something I'd hear my 9 year old brother say in an argument.

As for the prologue, that's the fans choice. They love the game and are willing to pay. It would be foolish for any buisness not to take advantage of that.

The mainstream media considers R&C a platformer. It's a moot point.

As always CrazzyMan, you missed the point completely ... I could have choosen dozens of game, the reason I choose Gran Turismo was because you were hyping the graphics so heavily.

In Red Faction on the PS2 (and Red Faction 2 for all previous generation platforms) they implemented "Geo-Mod" technology which allowed gamers to manipulate and destroy their environment at an unprecidented level. FEAR was released for the PC in 2005 (and eventually for the PS3 and XBox 360) and had an environment which is about as interactive as the environment from Doom and Quake from the mid 1990s. If Red Faction 3 came out for the XBox 360/PS3 with an advanced version of the "Geo-Mod" technology it is unlikely that they would be able to produce similar graphics to FEAR; would that make Red Faction 3 a less technically advanced or demanding game?

FYI - You can transfer all of your $ and cars into GT5.

*now runs out of thread*.

NEXTGEN game - is what can`t be done or isn`t done on other platform.
as soon other platforms get similar or better results, it`s stops being nextgen, and becomes current gen compared to better result. =)

NEXTGEN GRAPHICS - design/art + technologies. Not one thing alone.
IF RF3 will come with advanced "geo-mod" and advanced visuals = nextgen. IF just with one thing - then PSEUDONEXTGEN or just like most x360 games.

Just good example:
Naruto x360 - that game has great cell shaded graphics, but still looks like a 3d game.
Naruto ps3 - that game has a little better cell shaded graphics, and THAT makes game to look like an ANIME. That`s why it`s a NEXTGEN.





Unless you DON`T see the difference, then it`s pointless to argue and forget what i said. =))

 They don't need to. When they say "based on nVidia's G70" they actually mean "an unmodified 90nm G70". If you remember G70's release back in 2005, they said that it was as powerful as two GeForce 6800s and that it had 302 million transistors... exactly same thing said by Sony when they announced the PS3. They just ported it to 90nm process, pasted the VRAM on the package of the die (to reduce costs by making a smaller motherboard) and, consequently, cutting the GPU's bandwidth in half to 128 bit.

On-Topic: I would say that PS3 is marginally more powerful than the 360, but that's hampered by it's hard programming curve.

PS: @outlawrun: Joke post right? The one about PS2 being more powerful than GC... I give you a 6/10 because it's not even funny :) 

I actually looked up a few things. The PS2 does have greater rendering than the GC, but its experimental design saw some unintentional snags that didn't hamper the GC's conventional design.

Both systems have extensive rendering, but the GC used pre-built rending in the GPU (Hardware Rendering), while the PS2 used manually coded rendering from games, that the vector units in the Emotion Engine converted to data. Theoretically, this would have given the PS2 the best rendering, as it would do anything the developers wanted, while the GC, and even Xbox and Dreamcast, were stuck with what they had.

The snag is that it turns out the GPU doesn't necessarily recognize what isn't built into it, so the PS2 does not recognize texture compression. It may not seem like much, but imagine a system that never recognized JPEGs? You'd ether have to clog up the system with bitmaps, or 16-bit PNGs, or you'd have to sacrife detail to fit in GIfs and 4-bit & b-bit PNGs. Well textures pretty much work like that. 

So the PS2 is as strong as the other systems, but it just can't show all that strength off.

BTW, the result of that snag is that just about every system has texture compression built into the GPU, even the PSP (which is why the graphics are so good with the CPU cap off), and even the DS. 

I'm for the PS3... Microsoft screws their hardwares. end of discussion.

Um, the 360 COULD do things that the previous gen couldn't. The PS3 and the 360 are BOTH replacements for previous gen systems and BOTH are current gen(since both are now out). Was the Genesis psudo-next gen while the SNES next-gen due to the SNES's larger color palette and advanced audio processor?

Keep in mind that those are two separate Naruto games made by different dev teams. Also keep in mind that the PS3 game isn't out yet and may be using some new shader techniques that could just as easily work on the 360, had they been available during the development of said game.

Also keep in mind that while the 360 has been out longer, it was also the first system devs had to cut their teeth on and a good chunk of its early games were essentially previous-gen ports. Devs learned techniques on the 360 that could be used for PS3 games as well.

They screw their hardware?

Yuck!