Granted, but that said...

OK, last gen the PS2 was in a league of its own. The real battle was between the XBox and GCN. I would contend that being the more powerful system helped the XBox in the area of 3rd party, multiplatform (3PMP) games. Almost since day 1 the reviews for 3MP games were "Xbox best." Wouldn't that have given it an edge over the GCN, especially for those who owned both platforms (like me), and so went with the XB versions? If the Cube had the best versions of 3PMPs, maybe it would have sold more 3P titles and not lost so much support.

This time the parity is between the 360 and the PS3, and its looking like more 3P games will be shared between them than ever before. If the 360 versions consistently get the best ratings, esp for "killer apps" like GTA4 and Assassin's Creed, could that not help get the 360 over the top, and maybe push the PS3 over the edge?

 If power didn't help either match the PS3, why do you even think it was a factor between them? It wasn't. The Xbox had better US sales, so more western developers caught on to the system over the GC. And it was disc size (and online later on) that kept the GC games from being as good as the Xbox versions, not horsepower.

as much as i don't care for the Ps3 i still think it owns 360 in graphical prowess.... but that's not really saying much..... cuz pure numbers doesn't mean anything.....

it really doesnt matter. the 360 and PS3 both do things better than the eachother. To me its all about the games

Except with one you're getting free online and a high definition dvd player for 100 dollars lol sounds like a better deal to me.

If you want to count the full price of the 360 premium or elite you gotta add 50 bucks a year to actually use that magnificent online gaming.

New PS3 price= 500 $

Elite- 480$ + 50 $ = 530$

Premium- 400$ + 50 $ = 450$

Core- 300$ + 50 $ + 50$ (memory card to actually save) = 400$

Remember those 50 dollars are not a one time deal either, it's every year.  

 Well actual real time numbers do, and the 360 does have a RAM advantage. It's not huge, but RAM size and speeds are real numbers, not theoretical maximums.

Oh lord, here we go again...

Articles by autoproclamed "experts " there are a dime a dozen in internet .This one ,in concrete ,has some gross faults .

Putting it simply .....PS3 has 220Gigaflops of processing power against 77 of the X360 .

In Billion Shader operations per second each GPU can do 100 (PS3 ) and 96 (X360 ) .X360 may have unified pipelines and all but it doenst matter too much ,the ratio between vertex and shader effects is 1-3 usually and for that the PS3 has 24 pipelines for shader and 8 for vertex ....once everything is up and running it just has something more .Yes ,the X360 actually could do some things in theory that the PS3 couldnt if it was to use all its pipelines in shader or vertex effects at once but this is impossible ....first you have to locate one object (vertex ) ,then draw and put effects on it (vertex ) .Saying otherwise is an interesting way of twisting things but doesnt change a thing .

BR discs go right now up to 50 Gb against 9 (7.7 efective ) for the X360 DVD .

Memory es equal in both plattforms (512 Mb each ...altough differently distributed ) .

About ports .....

The issue about the ports is pretty clear .It has two aspects .One ,if the base of the game is the X360 then the shader effects and everything is programmed in DirextX 9 .Porting to the PS3 has you searching for comparable OpenGL effects to do it by hardware .If you dont have the exact effect you can end up with something a bit different an perceived as worse because the other is "the original " .If you dont find anything comparable you have to program yourself the effect and run it through software .This takes up time and we know time is money .Ok ,so if there isnt a exact OpenGL effect to reproduce the DirectX effect then probably the programmers will just make the effect dissappear and substitute it with a plain texture instead of reprogramming the effect .

Second ,the frame rate and the textures depend of many things .The textures is the simpler and depends of the memory available .Back when the PS3 was out even if they had the same memory it used way more (up until 96 MB against 24 for the X360 ) in the OS so there was effectively less memory for textures and everything in general .Exactly 72 Mb less .Now with each firmware release Sony is pushing the memory used by the OS down ,and right now it is less than 60 Mb ,so the difference is reducing .Arguably they will be able to push it into somewhere around the same as the X360 ...after all the XMB is used by the PSP with only 32Mb .For the frame rate issues it is way more complex but easily reduced in one phrase :it depends of the optimization .

Right now most games looks exactly the same in both plattforms ....Transformers ,Harry Potter ,The Bigs ,The Darkness ,etc etc ...that lends us to think the PS3 software development has arrived to a point it can port the X360 games nearly flawlessly without too much concern .Now ,we still have to see what can the PS3 do in its own ...and if the X360 could replicate it .


If one developer is to release a worse version on PS3 is simply because he doesnt know enough the hardware or wont put time in it .For example the upcoming football games ....NBA2k7 ,Ninja Gaiden Sigma and others have demostrated the PS3 can run 1080p at 60fps with a rock solid frame rate .But ,if you are only going to use the PPE and the GPU (RSX ) to do it against the full 3 Core and GPU (Xenos ) of the 360 then of course you will have to cut frames .

Developers just need to approach the PS3 development with a wider imagination .

free online gaming on PS3...still waiting for the games though

Tekken: Dark Resurrection, MK II (With online), Calling All Cars, Super Stardust HD as good or better than any downloadable games on 360.

If you mean retail games, then if you are an early adopter you should have known the games will take time to come (just like with the 360 at launch and the Wii).