- Quote :
- Ok thats basically like saying that a DVD player that can upscale itself to full 1080p is equivalent to a Bluray player.
No, that's not like that at all. A standard DVD movie renders at 480p. Hell some of the older DVDs run only 480i and have no progressive scan support. When a DVD is being upscaled, it is being stretched to fit the aspect ratio of your HDTV.
On the other hand, digital downloads render natively at a full 1920 X 1080p resolution. Meaning that there is no stretching/upscaling involved when the image is being displayed on your 1080p HDTV.
The thing that ruins the quality of the average digital download is compression and bit rate. With the Silverlight engine being utilized for Zune HD downloads/streaming, you don't need as much bit rate to get the same quality. Meaning someone with an average 4 MB connection can still get a clean HD picture even while streaming. Zune movies aren't quite like Blu-ray movies. Disc based media will always have an advantage in picture quality because it is largely uncompressed. With that said the quality of a Zune movies stacks nicely against Blu-ray even when you put that side by side.
- Quote :
- I don't need to make the PS3 seem like the victor I have both and if 360 is better then thats good I have both, but remeber the 360 shipped without an HDMI port so it wasn't at full 1080p while PS3 was built to be 1080p from the ground up. And look correctly I mentioned that 360 has better wifi.
Look, just because you have both systems that doesn't mean you can get away with saying anything. If you are going to say something controversal expect people to reply. You, like every other person on this planet, has an opinion. It's bluntly obvious you prefer the PS3 and that's fine. What I don't like is how you make a thread purposely making the 360 look inferior in comparison to your platform of choice.
HDMI is not the reason why the 360 didn't have a 1080p option until 2006. ATI confirmed that from the beginning that the 360's GPU was capable of producing a 1:1 progressive scan 1920 X 1080 image, and that it IS possible to get a 1080p image off of a component source. The reason why many TVs don't do 1080p over component is because of HDCP restrictions. Microsoft also didn't enable the 1080p option because all of the developers were making their games native 720p (and sometimes under that). When Sony went berserk and started bragging all over the place about how the PS3 had HDMI and 1080p, Microsoft decided to add it later to shut them up.
- Quote :
- The graphics part I already know about, but I'm saying all the 360 exclusives can be done PS3, but PS3 ones can't be done on 360, why? 1. From the developers themselves The 360 is not powerful enough to handle the graphics 2. Too large. And this isn't meant to be biased this is just the hardware discussion, I'll bring in the software discussion later.
You argue about graphics and hardware when you have no knowledge of either. The first sentence of this quotation is just incredibly stupid. PS3 has gained former 3rd party exclusives that use to be on the 360. All of these exclusives run on cross-platform engines that were designed to run on both the PS3 and the 360. And another thing...Notice how all of these former exclusives run slightly worse on the PS3. Bioshock had to lower it's native resolution to run adequately on the PS3. Dead Rising 2 ran significantly sub-HD on the PS3. And hell even Mass Effect 2 (PS3), which has been touted to be the definitive version, has some missing texture detail and some performance issues
while being ported to the PS3. The PS3 has actually lost most of it's 3rd party exclusives. GTA4 was meant to be a PS3 exclusives (ended up running better on 360), Assassin's Creed was meant to be a PS3 exclusive (ended up running better on 360), and Devil May Cry 4 was mean to be a PS3 exclusive (NO compromises made to port it to the 360). The ONLY PS3 former exclusive that couldn't run as good on the 360 was Final Fantasy XIII. Which was a extremely linear and shallow RPG (and in my opinion, a piece of SHIT). It literally had 32 GBs of cutscenes and only 6 GBs of actual game content. That's insane. They had to compress it on DVD format which forced Square Enix to lower the native resolution of the 360 version. If those types of games "aren't possible" on the 360 than I'm extremely glad, because quite frankly FFXIII was really, really bad..
As for 1st party exclusives...You will NEVER see Halo Reach on the PS3, nor will you see Uncharted 2 on the 360. There are obvious IP ownership reasons, but it's also because those games run on 1st party engines design from the ground up to take advantage of their respective consoles. To see one of these games on the other platform would take years and years of retooling of the engine. When it comes down to it the 360 and PS3 are equally capable consoles with slight differences. 1st party developers will say anything to make their console sound superior. "It can only be done on blablabla" is nothing more than a marketing ploy. Same with "console power percentages".
As for the Blu-ray arguement...I will not disagree that it is an advantage to the PS3 to have extra space on one disc. But...PC gaming is essentially a generation or 2 ahead of consoles in terms of technology and they still use DVD9 as their physical media for games. Just something to ponder about.
/thread
Home 
