And because blu-ray is superior to dvd.

@disolitude
the image at the bottom has the higher resolution?
Ahh but its ok, we can go on this for the whole day. You are entitled to your own opinion. I feel that hi-res textures will matter. As to how much of a difference it will make, time will tell.
However supporting Kyros's argument I do believe that once developers figure out how to extract the best out of the PS3 architecture, its a simple matter of passing out the knowledge so that development on the platform doesn't remain hard anymore and I think this is already happening.

The thing is that statement is just the opinion of the article writer, and not an established fact.

The writer does not know the real source of the improved graphics, and is just making an assumption.

Of course you can't see if the textures are that much higher res on a SDTV, but since IGN said that there was a notable difference, shouldn't we assume that it does look better since the majority of people developing/trying the game agree that it looks better?

"The water effects look much slicker, as do many of the environments as they are slowly submerged in water"

So even though the PS3 can "only proces so many textures at higher res before things start to chug" and the game still looks better on the PS3, doesn't that just mean that MS put too much RAM in the 360, since they clearly have no use for it? (I know RAM can be used for other things obviosly, but I give stupid answers to stupid statements).

 Unreal Tournament 3 called...and its asking the PS3 bluray/cell processor the same question.

Lol, good call

Now that you mention it, it is actually funny to think that both games run on the same engine, but Epic are the ones who seem to be lacking in terms of devotion to their game on the PS3.

The new play mode with added difficulty has nothing to do with a higher storage optical media format. That's one of the added features implemented to make the game more than just a straight port.

Higher res textures do mean that a sizable chunk of the in-game resources had to be recompiled when coding the PS3 version, so it also means at least one more developer is dedicated enough to utilize the advantages of the platform to produce a better version of the game.

That's more important than an improved version of Bioshock, with improved textures and added game play features.

Of course if this version of Bioshock sells below expectation on the PS3, what message will that send to developers?

- Why bother making improved PS3 ports because it's possible?
- Just do an expedient port to make the release coincide with the 360 release that doesn't take advantage of the PS3's inherent strengths?
- Use the PS3 as a lead development platform, and use slightly downgraded resources with higher compression for the 360 version?

It will be interesting to see how much of a difference those textures make (probably minor), although most are well aware that one of the big differences between playing in Medium vs. High settings on a PC version of any scalable game (most of them) is the level of texture detail.

While the differences won't be as extreme, try playing Bioshock on PC at reduced detail (texture resolution) and see what a mess it can become, and what a difference higher res textures can make.

well if your talking oblivion style improvements then yes i agree with you, they had a base game already and developed it for ps3, so obviously they will have more time to enhance little things like what bethedsa did.

the article states info regarding bluray, its clear that on bluray you are able to fit higher res textures than on a dvd. the space advantage is huge.

another user stated why other developers dont take advantage of bluray, well i would like them to personally but it wont happen. the only time multiplat games will take advantage of bluray is if ps3 is well ahead in global sales. at the moment they are unable to do so simply because they would have to develop with dvd in mind.

its about the $$$ at the end of the day, 360 titles averagly sell more than ps3 same title counterparts most of the time, if however ps3 was well ahead, i feel the bluray would be taken advantage of - i think everyone will agree to that.

off topic well kind of........... im happy that ps3 users will be able to play bioshock which is one of the highest rated games. i on the other hand think this game is well overhyped and is crap

and lol to someone who said multiple dvd is the answer lol youre trying to tell me you would have multiple dvd`s for a game over 1 bluray. developers dont think like fanboys im afraid, its a business and if they go over a certain limit for thier multiple dvd games on 360 they are heavily charged, as has been found out by the recent carmack fiasco.

And do you know what costs publishers more? 

Developing games that can't fit on one disc.

You do realize that there are additional licensing fees for each DVD a game uses, right? That factors into a developer's bottom line and is a legitimate concern. Since they can't very well charge extra for a game that requires multiple discs, they have to eat the cost. 

There is no penalty for using more resources when developing for the PS3 by contrast. Most developers don't take advantage of this, but this is not to say that some developers, who are feeling the squeeze of the DVD won't.

ut3 was multiplat always just a timed game. they did not develop that game with ps3 only in mind.

other than a neat split screen what does the later version have to offer? grafix sound? ign reported noticble frame dips on 360 version but on ps3 version in thier review they didnt mention anything like that.

also ps3 version got over a 9.0+ for sound when 360 got 8.0+ for sound.