Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

PS3 or XBOX 360....?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
65 replies to this topic

#41 Comambo   Members   -  Reputation: 108

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:01 AM

This late into the lifespan of current gen consoles I'd go for Xbox, seeing as the upfront console price is cheaper and you'll probably only have it for a year or so until next gen.
The ps3 and xbox aren't that different. There are 4 major points to look at though: 1. The ps3 has bluray
2. The ps3 has free online, although Xbox's online is disputably better (early DLCs, party chat, larger community)
3. Exclusives. Xbox has kinect, halo, gears of war, and a tone of cool arcade games
4. What console your friends have. Probably the most important aspect, games are way more fun to play with friends, so if all your friends have a ps3 get that and live without halo etc.

Sponsor:

#42 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:57 AM

There's nothing stopping you using a controller on a PC. A lot of games actually come with pretty decent x360 controller support out of the box.

I have found in general a lot of games don't have proper gamepad support on PC. They tend to just map gamepad controls into KB/M controls rather than dealing with it on it's own, and games tend to suffer. A lot of multi-platform games don't have that issue, but there are a lot of games that still don't handle it properly. It's a viable option for some people though.

My general reason is that I don't want to hook my PC to my TV (convenience/placement more than difficulty), and I prefer to game on the couch. Certainly not the case for everyone, but that's why I don't do that.

As for your swimming analogy, it's more accurate than you realise. Except using a controller in a fps is like swimming on a track. Equally, using a mouse/kb for a fighting game is like trying to run in the pool.

I find aiming with a controller frustrating, like trying to type with mittens on. If you enjoy that fine, but one is clearly more optimal than the other.


I think the problem is that you are equating FPS's as equal. In your analogy all FPS's are running and all fighting games are swimming. I disagree with that. Plenty of FPS's stress very different things. You shouldn't view the genre as it's own sport, but rather each game as it's own sport. You may as well generalize american footballs as the best ball for "sports with balls" because you can throw it further than other balls, but using an american football in soccer or baseball would just be silly.

#43 DavidGArce1337   Members   -  Reputation: 119

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:55 AM

Really the only thing you're missing out on is kinnect/move and I've yet to see wither offer a compelling gaming experience.


And about 99% of console games.


If your budget is that tight, then yes, a console will be cheaper in the short term. Right now, though the current gen in nearing end of life, so buying an xbox/ps3 now means you won't be able to play new releases in 2 or 3 years without buying a whole new console. With a PC you could upgrade for much less than that, plus you're getting a lot more computer for your money. Factor in cheaper games (steam sales etc) and the difference really isn't that big.


A console will always be cheaper. Buying a console now gives you a catalog of games to play. I still play PS2 games. PC games are cheaper, but the whole quality experience will be best on a console, if its a port. If I want to play current gen games on PC, right now. How much will it be? How much for a PC(the whole thing) that can play Battlefield 3, Diablo 3, (insert big name company game here) in 720p running at 60 FPS minimum or 1080p running at 30 FPS minimum? Or how much for a laptop that can?

Considering MaximumPC's "Baseline/Cheapest" Build from the December Issue, which they claim its built for 1080p gaming...an approximate price of $1,200 and that's without a Display(!), keyboard, mouse. (or gamepad)

#44 ChaosEngine   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2499

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:52 PM


Really the only thing you're missing out on is kinnect/move and I've yet to see wither offer a compelling gaming experience.


And about 99% of console games.


Sorry, that's just not true. Certainly not of major releases anyway. As I said, there will always be platform exclusives (halo on xbox, god of war on ps3, blizzard games on pc), but it's nowhere near "99% of console games".

A console will always be cheaper. Buying a console now gives you a catalog of games to play. I still play PS2 games. PC games are cheaper, but the whole quality experience will be best on a console, if its a port. If I want to play current gen games on PC, right now. How much will it be? How much for a PC(the whole thing) that can play Battlefield 3, Diablo 3, (insert big name company game here) in 720p running at 60 FPS minimum or 1080p running at 30 FPS minimum? Or how much for a laptop that can?

Considering MaximumPC's "Baseline/Cheapest" Build from the December Issue, which they claim its built for 1080p gaming...an approximate price of $1,200 and that's without a Display(!), keyboard, mouse. (or gamepad)


If you want to play the latest and greatest maxed out at high res you're always going to pay lots. But if you're prepared to be reasonable (i.e. tone down the the settings from 16x AA with everything on ultra) you can build a pretty reasonable pc for a lot less. I built mine for about US$800 two years ago and I can still get a good framerate in almost every game I play. It's certainly better than any console.

And saying that's without a display is a red herring. How many consoles do you know that come with a display?

I'm not against consoles, but now is a terrible time to buy one. In a year or two the next gen will be out and you will not be able to play new games on your old machine. End of story. So you're going to have to shell out another $4-500 for a ps4/x720 at that point.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

#45 DavidGArce1337   Members   -  Reputation: 119

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:58 PM

Sorry, that's just not true. Certainly not of major releases anyway. As I said, there will always be platform exclusives (halo on xbox, god of war on ps3, blizzard games on pc), but it's nowhere near "99% of console games".


Okay, okay...95% of console games. Games from "major companies" are mostly made on the consoles. Other than MMO's and RTS games. And those "ports" get horrible reviews most of the time.

If you want to play the latest and greatest maxed out at high res you're always going to pay lots. But if you're prepared to be reasonable (i.e. tone down the the settings from 16x AA with everything on ultra) you can build a pretty reasonable pc for a lot less. I built mine for about US$800 two years ago and I can still get a good framerate in almost every game I play. It's certainly better than any console.


PS3 and 360 play 720p and 1080p games. Some at 30FPS some at 60FPS. The rig I mentioned above was built for 1080p gaming, and a baseline budget build price of $1,200. I'm simply asking for a PC or Laptop that can give me "Current Console Resolutions" and "Frames per Second" at console prices or not much higher. Not possible.

And saying that's without a display is a red herring. How many consoles do you know that come with a display?


TV's are more common than Monitors and Computers, I think.

I'm not against consoles, but now is a terrible time to buy one. In a year or two the next gen will be out and you will not be able to play new games on your old machine. End of story. So you're going to have to shell out another $4-500 for a ps4/x720 at that point.


Pay $250-$350(console prices) now, and get to choose from 7-9 years of games developed for them, I really doubt games will stop as soon as the new ones show up, they might get a year or so still. Pay $300-$600 "next gen" for 7-9 more years of gaming. $350+600 = $950. There's your budget, can you build a PC that will give me 10 years of "hardcore" gaming for less than $1,000?

Don't take it the wrong way. I can't do it. I'm actually trying, but all I get on my head is "Wait for Haswell, Kaveri and Kavini..."
I do think that things might change in the future. I wish there was more external things happening on the Laptop side of things like having an external GPU or coprocessor would have been awesome...I'm not fond of desktops, I need something good enough, portable enough and functional enough. And right now, without a DX11.1 class igpu on a laptop I'd feel like I just shot myself on the foot, so I'll just wait.

Another thing is that I'd have to build my own desktop, since the places I have tried to "customize" mine have failed me by making certain things an obligation that I don't want or need at all...rawr! Or worse, won't ship to my country!(Puerto Rico, which is part of the USA! I can't even get a custom HP brand, and there's HP datacenters and stuff on the island...) =/

So, at this moment in time. Getting anything custom made, has been impossible. I'll build one someday...

Edited by DavidGArce1337, 13 November 2012 - 03:59 PM.


#46 ChaosEngine   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2499

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:51 PM

Okay, okay...95% of console games. Games from "major companies" are mostly made on the consoles. Other than MMO's and RTS games. And those "ports" get horrible reviews most of the time.


Sorry, but that's just bollocks. The majority of games are multi-platform these days.

PS3 and 360 play 720p and 1080p games. Some at 30FPS some at 60FPS. The rig I mentioned above was built for 1080p gaming, and a baseline budget build price of $1,200. I'm simply asking for a PC or Laptop that can give me "Current Console Resolutions" and "Frames per Second" at console prices or not much higher. Not possible.


PS3 and 360 play 720p and 1080p at dramatically reduced visual quality compared to a PC. You can easily build a PC that will run at console resolutions and fps if you turn down the visual quality. Since you didn't provide a link, I can't be sure, but I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money that the "1080p rig" is designed for playing at high quality. Seriously, the current generation of consoles are nearly 6 years old. Pretty much any modern pc with a discrete gpu will be better than them.

TV's are more common than Monitors and Computers, I think.


So use a tv with your pc then.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

#47 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31822

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:30 PM

Most console games run in 720p -- many recent ones (e.g. Halo's etc) internally render at an even smaller resolution and upscale to 720p.
Not very many internally render at 1080p. Even Wipeout HD, which calls itself the only 1080p 60Hz PS3 game, uses resolution up-scaling (e.g. from 1920*810 -> 1920*1080).

Also, almost every modern console game makes use of mixed resolution rendering, where large parts of the processing occur in resolutions such as 640*360.

One reason console games prefer low resolution is simply because they're often pixel-shading bound, and simply using less pixels is a great optimization (720p is about half the memory/processing cost of 1080p, and 640*360 is 1/4 the cost of 720p.) i.e. a pixel-bound 30Hz 720p game would run at 15Hz at 1080p.
Another is the 360 can only render into 10MiB of EDRAM -- a 720p FP16 (HDR) target and a depth buffer exceeds the EDRAM size (which means you'd have to render in two passes, paying the vertex/setup cost twice), but a 1280*680 or 1210*720 FP16+D24S8 combo fits perfectly.

@DavidGArce1337 - your MaximumPC build is designed to run the latest games at the highest detail settings in 1080p at 60Hz.
The 360/PS3 probably runs the same games on lowest detail, at sub 720p at mostly 30Hz (dropping below sometimes). So... you're comparing apples and oranges.

A PS3 quality GPU (e.g. 7900GT 256MB) costs under $10 these days.
A 360 quality GPU is about the same price (maybe ~8800 GT level).
A console-quality PC is pretty damn cheap to build, actually, but you'll be playing the latest games in very low resolutions and using low detail settings, just like your console does.


Every PC game (that benefits from a gamepad) that I've played in the last few years has had perfect support for my 360 gamepad -- because they're also released on 360/PS3, so have spent the time creating good gamepad controls...

Edited by Hodgman, 13 November 2012 - 11:45 PM.


#48 Prinz Eugn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3679

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:54 PM

Sorry to say, but the main advantage of consoles is that they are so damn convenient. Every time in the past 3 years I've played a new PC game, it took hours to get installed, get the video drivers updated, oops- backdate the drivers to a more functional version, set up the controls, juggle the settings to figure out the optimum graphics experience for playability and uggliness, shit, get the latest patch and turn off all the background software I have running... to start playing.

Whereas Halo 4 multiplayer was an outlier having you install the disk and a small patch before letting you find a match, so it was maybe 10 minutes at the most from putting the disk in to playing the game.

-Mark the Artist

Digital Art and Technical Design
Developer Journal


#49 DavidGArce1337   Members   -  Reputation: 119

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:26 AM

Since you didn't provide a link, I can't be sure, but I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money that the "1080p rig" is designed for playing at high quality.


I have the magazine...the important parts: Intel Core i5-3570k, GTX 660 Power Ed., 8GB DDR3/1600 RAM.

So use a tv with your pc then.


Not the point. Getting a PC to work on your TV, preHDMI was not always nice.

Most console games run in 720p -- many recent ones (e.g. Halo's etc) internally render at an even smaller resolution and upscale to 720p.
Not very many internally render at 1080p.


I'd like to read that information, sources?

Also, almost every modern console game makes use of mixed resolution rendering, where large parts of the processing occur in resolutions such as 640*360.


Dropping down to that resolution would be very noticeable...But, are you saying that this is not done on the ports to PC of such games?

Another is the 360 can only render into 10MiB of EDRAM


Isn't eDRAM an advantage?

#50 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31822

Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:00 AM

A GTX 660 is about 5 generations of GPU hardware designs ahead of the PS3's RSX, and almost 200 times more powerful in FLOPS.
Even a modern Intel CPU's built in hardware acceleration will give the RSX a run for it's money!
That PC spec is definitely aimed at delivering much higher quality than current-gen consoles do.

Dropping down to that resolution would be very noticeable...But, are you saying that this is not done on the ports to PC of such games?

It's noticable for high-frequency details. Many details only change at a low frequency (except at edges), like indirect lighting, ambient occlusion, smoke/dust absorbtion, circle-of-confusion radius, etc... These can be computed at low-resolution, and then upscaled with a bilateral filter to fix edges, or the edges can be re-rendered at high resolution (using Hi-Stencil to avoid re-rendering the upscaled data).
PC games likely use the same techniques, especially when selecting low detail settings. It's a standard optimization these days -- e.g. if playing in 2048*1152 on PC, expect some calculations to take place at 1024*576.
Perhaps if you select uber detail settings, they'd not perform these optimizations.

I'd like to read that information, sources?

Halo 3 internally uses 1152×640, Reach internally uses 1152 x 720, however Halo 4 uses a new engine that apparently uses full 720p.
I remember Bungie explained their choice somewhere (probably here), but googling [halo 720p 640 1152] brings up some other links besides the wikipedia one above.

You can find lists like this by searching for something like [1080p ps3 games], but keep in mind that these will include false-positives --
When a game boosts, it checks your XMB/dashboard settings to see what your desired TV resolution is, and then it can choose to create it's "front buffer" at that resolution, or a lower one (e.g. if you've selected 1080i, the game can still make a 720p front buffer). However, even if the game does create a 1080p front buffer, it may still be rendering at 720p and then up-scaling the results to 1080p itself.
[edit]Here's a good list: http://forum.beyond3...ead.php?t=46241[/edit]

Most games choose 720p over 1080p because it's half the pixel cost, and compared to modern PC's, the consoles suck at pixel processing.
Games with a lot of pressure to look great (like Halo or Modern Warfare) often go further, like the 640p example. Others dynamically change the resolution, like Wipeout. The last game I worked on, we'd time the GPU and if it started taking more than 33ms per frame, we'd continually reduce the horizontal resolution until the frame times stabilized (or until we hit a minimum resolution of 1024*720).

Isn't eDRAM an advantage?

It's good and bad. It's separate to the regular 512MiB of RAM, which means if you want to bind a render-target and keep it's previous contents, then you've got to copy the previous contents from RAM into eDRAM. When you've finished rendering a render-target, you've also got to copy the results out of eDRAM into regular RAM. This means that switching render-targets can be very expensive on the 360 so you've got to avoid it (on other GPU's, switching render-targets can be as simple as changing a single pointer).
Another down-side is that eDRAM is fixed size, and fairly small -- just 10MiB on the 360. This makes deferred rendering very hard (e.g. a 720p G-Buffer with 3 layers + a depth buffer is 14MiB) and also makes HDR complicated (e.g. a 720p RGBA FP16 + depth buffer is 10.5MiB). If you want to use those types of render-targets, then you either have to reduce their resolution until they do fit into the 10MiB limit, or split the target into multiple parts, and render your scene twice (doubling your vertex cost).
The upside is that eDRAM is lighting fast, so you're almost never ROP bound, even with alpha blending and high bits-per-pixel formats.

Edited by Hodgman, 14 November 2012 - 04:16 AM.


#51 DavidGArce1337   Members   -  Reputation: 119

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:16 AM

A GTX 660 is about 5 generations of GPU hardware designs ahead of the PS3's RSX, and almost 200 times more powerful in FLOPS.


And at a price range of $220-$350 in "newegg".

Even a modern Intel CPU's built in hardware acceleration will give the RSX a run for it's money!


High end iGPUs, like the HD4000 and Trinity APU's are performing well on 720p+mid and 1080p+low settings it seems. The future is exciting

That PC spec is definitely aimed at delivering much higher quality than current-gen consoles do.


I think the problem with how I see it, is that even tho the quality is better it is not really 5 times or 200 times better, graphically it will look better, it should run better. But, the end result is a prettier game that costs much more to experience. Maybe when heterogeous computing kicks off completely, the whole PC gaming experience will improve "automatically" from a console port.

Unless the user already has a desktop, the price to experience current PC games is not exactly cheap. And even then, its still a $200-$300 minimum investment.

BTW, thanks for all the info, Hodgman.

#52 kuramayoko10   Members   -  Reputation: 386

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:25 PM

I was raised with nintendos and I still like playing their games on a console.
I am not sure why, when I play Donkey Kong Country on my SNES, for example, it is a lot of fun but in my computer (using an emulator) it doesn't thrill me at all.
So I like having Nintendo's consoles.

Other than that, action, FPS and RPG games that are more hardcore I play on the computer.
With Steam Big Picture out there I would rather save money to build a nice game rig and connect it to the TV than buying an XBox360 or PS3.
Note: Xbox360 controller works great on PC Posted Image
Note2: You can always add your non-steam games to your library.

Of course I am thinking on games that I play more frequently and by myself.
If I want to play Rock Band on PS3 or Just Dance on Xbox360, for example, there is always a friend that have the console and the games Posted Image

Edited by kuramayoko10, 14 November 2012 - 08:27 PM.

Programming is an art. Game programming is a masterpiece!

#53 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4692

Posted 27 November 2012 - 06:45 PM


I have a question though. Is it true that the WiiU is not as powerful as the 360 or PS3?


This depends on what 'power' you are talking about; no one system is the over all metric of a systems power.

For example, you can have the best GPU in the world but if the CPU can't push the draw calls then it won't matter much beyond 'making more expensive shaders isn't a bottle neck'.
By contrast, as with the PS3, having a good CPU (SPUs are very good at what they do, if not a pain to work with) but a GPU which is a pile of garbage means you can push all the draw calls you want but can't render them.

At some point I should probably check how much knowledge about the Wii-U is in the public domain so that I can properly point out why we are worried about the CPU on it...


So I saw this news article just now. And it said,

“The specs are quite different than the competitive systems, much more graphically intensive,” he stated. “If you do a side-by-side comparison you would see that third-party games like Call of Duty look dramatically better on our system.”


How much of that is true and how much of that is spin?
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#54 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31822

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:18 PM

There's a write up here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-black-ops-2-wii-u-face-off
From the looks of it, the GPU is fine with the workload, but the CPU struggles.

#55 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1734

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:28 PM

For the PS3 owners... has the online experience gotten any better? It was pretty terrible compared to 360 when I tried it a few years ago. I only kept my PS3 for a few months before giving up on it and just sticking with PC + 360.

#56 3Ddreamer   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3169

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:20 PM

Buy a gaming laptop instead!

You get email, webcam, Internet TV ( 1000s channels ), Internet Radio, surf the whole web, and get most of the greatest game titles as well as more games than offered by PS or Xbox by the thousands.

A laptop is much more portable and will be obsolete much later, too.



Clinton

Personal life and your private thoughts always effect your career. Research is the intellectual backbone of game development and the first order. Version Control is crucial for full management of applications and software.  The better the workflow pipeline, then the greater the potential output for a quality game.  Completing projects is the last but finest order.

 

by Clinton, 3Ddreamer


#57 MrDaaark   Members   -  Reputation: 3555

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:42 PM

For the PS3 owners... has the online experience gotten any better? It was pretty terrible compared to 360 when I tried it a few years ago. I only kept my PS3 for a few months before giving up on it and just sticking with PC + 360.

The only troubles I've ever had were with specific games. I used to meet up with my group every night, and we'd mess around in games like GTA and Red Dead Redemption, and I do Dark Souls and COD a lot. Never really have issues except in Black Ops, because their net code is FUBAR. It eventually got better in Black Ops, but now Black Ops 2 is going through all the same BS all over again, like they learned nothing the first time.

Fable 2 ran at a sub 720p resolution, but even on my 40 inch tv it never managed to look bad when it was being upscaled to 1080p. Never really had a problem with the resolution on any of my games. Of course it could be better, but it never affected my enjoyment. It's about content, not minor tech specs.

I don't know why people bring tech specs into this? What resolution does Red Dead Redemption run at on PC? Oh, right. None. Most of my favorite games never made it to the PC, and a lot of the ones that did didn't survive the transition very well.

The PC has a very different gaming culture. So many genres are under represented, or completely absent.

#58 Anri   Members   -  Reputation: 597

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:41 PM

The best option is a Nintendo console and a PC. You then have the best of both worlds: Fun console gaming and the most powerful hardware that neither the PS3 or 360 can match.

#59 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1734

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:17 PM

The best option is a Nintendo console and a PC. You then have the best of both worlds: Fun console gaming and the most powerful hardware that neither the PS3 or 360 can match.


haha, you're kidding right? Nintendo makes the most overrated consoles these days. My 7 year old son doesn't even like the Wii, he prefers the games on the 360.

#60 ChaosEngine   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2499

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:48 PM

What resolution does Red Dead Redemption run at on PC? Oh, right. None. Most of my favorite games never made it to the PC, and a lot of the ones that did didn't survive the transition very well.


And what resolution does Starcraft run at on consoles?

What resolution does Halo run at on ps3?

What resolution does God Of War run at on xbox?

All platforms have exclusives.

On the other hand, the pc versions of (off the top of my head) Batman Arkhams, Sleeping Dogs, Call of Duty, Battlefield 3 and Far Cry 3 are all way better looking than the console counterparts.

Not to mention games like WOW or Planetside 2 which you will never see on consoles.

So yeah, horses for courses.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS