Gears Of War

[Red Finesse]

Holy Crap ! :noexpression: :noexpression: :noexpression:

[Redhyde]

What does that mean?!?!?

I heard it was good but not ground breaking except in graphics.

[brizzlered1]

It is exceptional!! Absolutely stunning graphics. Think Resident Evil 4 but on x-box 360 and you're getting my drift.

The online multiplayer mode is great too, its like being 15 again when I got an N64 and played Goldenye with all my mates from school!

[Red Finesse]

It is exceptional!! Absolutely stunning graphics. Think Resident Evil 4 but on x-box 360 and you're getting my drift.

The online multiplayer mode is great too, its like being 15 again when I got an N64 and played Goldenye with all my mates from school!

Just have to echoe what brizzlered said and further elaborate on my rather vague post!

Gears of war is by far the best game ive played this year (and ive played a lot!) the graphics AND gameplay are absolutely top drawer. co-op mode is the best ive ever played and even on split screen the hi res graphics are stunning without drops in framerate!

Everything about it just oozes quality, the guns, the lighting, the AI i just cant fault it at the moment!

Believe ALL the hype this game is THAT good.

Anybody who was thinking about hanging on for a PS3 which coincidently could never run G.O.W due to having inferior RAM (Xbox has 512 PS3 has 256) just pick up a 360 with this game, you won't be disapointed

don't believe me??? take a look at this Game Rankings

[Gazred]

Everything about it just oozes quality, the guns, the lighting, the AI i just cant fault it at the moment!

Believe ALL the hype this game is THAT good.

Anybody who was thinking about hanging on for a PS3 which coincidently could never run G.O.W due to having inferior RAM (Xbox has 512 PS3 has 256) just pick up a 360 with this game, you won't be disapointed

Yep got to say its easily the most polished game ive played in a while and it does excel on every level, its a joy to behold.

Just to pick up on your comments about the RAM and PS3 not being able to run this bad boy, the PS3 does in fact have 512mb RAM in total, it has 256mb of XDR DRAM along side 256mb of GDDR VRAM as opposed to the 360's 512mb of GDDR VRAM, in plain the English the difference being that the 360 shares the 512mb of RAM with the CPU, i.e like an onboard graphics card will share the system memory in a PC (my god thats pure geekery!). Technicaly theres not a great deal between the 2 machines, i think long term the PS3 will come good though once the developers have worked out just how to get the most out of that fancy 3Core CPU in there.

I doubt the game will ever port over to PS3 but I'm sure 1 year after release the PS3 will be chucking out a few killer titles itself.....and at the price its going to cost it bloody better had!

[Red Finesse]

Yep got to say its easily the most polished game ive played in a while and it does excel on every level, its a joy to behold.

Just to pick up on your comments about the RAM and PS3 not being able to run this bad boy, the PS3 does in fact have 512mb RAM in total, it has 256mb of XDR DRAM along side 256mb of GDDR VRAM as opposed to the 360's 512mb of GDDR VRAM, in plain the English the difference being that the 360 shares the 512mb of RAM with the CPU, i.e like an onboard graphics card will share the system memory in a PC (my god thats pure geekery!). Technicaly theres not a great deal between the 2 machines, i think long term the PS3 will come good though once the developers have worked out just how to get the most out of that fancy 3Core CPU in there.

I doubt the game will ever port over to PS3 but I'm sure 1 year after release the PS3 will be chucking out a few killer titles itself.....and at the price its going to cost it bloody better had!

The quote about the ram came from cliffyB himself (creator of GOW) i'll try and find the link for it a bit later!

[Red Finesse]

Article 1

Article 2

Seems to have caused many arguments if you read through the comments!

[Redhyde]

i think the main criticism of the game, is just the complete lack of innovative ideas, not the actual game itself.

Is there anything innovative, in terms of features, plot and dialogue for those who've played it?

Or is it, albeit damn good and very pretty, another ex chain smoking soldier shooting people?

[Guest :^)bcfcjake]

everyone shuttup.....

and get zelda on the nintendo wii

[bh_red]

Just have to echoe what brizzlered said and further elaborate on my rather vague post!

Gears of war is by far the best game ive played this year (and ive played a lot!) the graphics AND gameplay are absolutely top drawer. co-op mode is the best ive ever played and even on split screen the hi res graphics are stunning without drops in framerate!

Everything about it just oozes quality, the guns, the lighting, the AI i just cant fault it at the moment!

looks utterly amazing, saw the Advert for it in cinema just before I watched Borat, looked awesome so good the day after it was released the wife told me she had bought it for me.for xmas! bloody women! I can wait that long!!!!!

is it as good as it actually looks one week in?

[brizzlered1]

looks utterly amazing, saw the Advert for it in cinema just before I watched Borat, looked awesome so good the day after it was released the wife told me she had bought it for me.for xmas! bloody women! I can wait that long!!!!!

is it as good as it actually looks one week in?

Being a bum of a student I sat and played the game the whole way through - it took me nearly 8 hours but my god was it worth it. Its maybe a little short but the multiplayer modes are great on x-box ive if you have it. I was asked by my girlfriend if i wanted it for xmas but I said I couldn't wait that long. If you do have to wait, you won't be dissapointed.

[bh_red]

Being a bum of a student I sat and played the game the whole way through - it took me nearly 8 hours but my god was it worth it. Its maybe a little short but the multiplayer modes are great on x-box ive if you have it. I was asked by my girlfriend if i wanted it for xmas but I said I couldn't wait that long. If you do have to wait, you won't be dissapointed.

yep, to be fair I spend more time playing the game online that the normal offline modes and no doubt the same will happen with this game,

if the Online part of the game is anywhere near as good as Battlefield 2, I'll be hooked,

to be fair though I've not long got Pro Evo 6 so I am still hooked on that!

[Sir Colby-Tit]

I'm torn between getting GOW or Call of Duty 3 - any recomendations anyone? Which is better online?

[bh_red]

I'm torn between getting GOW or Call of Duty 3 - any recomendations anyone? Which is better online?

exactly the same here mate, couldn't make my mind up which to get,

thankfully have GOW coming at xmas, but looking at the trailers from xbox live, COD3 looks awesome, they seem to have pinched alot of the good stuff from battlefield, like the conquest online mode and also more driving of vehchiles,

personally don't think you can go wrong with either, if you love Cod2 then 3 is a sure fire hit, where as Gears is similar and seems more suited to Ghost Recon fans (I think)

I'm struggling not to get COD before xmas though, can get it for about £34 from ebay.....so so tempting!

[Red Finesse]

exactly the same here mate, couldn't make my mind up which to get,

thankfully have GOW coming at xmas, but looking at the trailers from xbox live, COD3 looks awesome, they seem to have pinched alot of the good stuff from battlefield, like the conquest online mode and also more driving of vehchiles,

personally don't think you can go wrong with either, if you love Cod2 then 3 is a sure fire hit, where as Gears is similar and seems more suited to Ghost Recon fans (I think)

I'm struggling not to get COD before xmas though, can get it for about £34 from ebay.....so so tempting!

I'm in the very fortunate position of having both COD3 and GOW. The short and long of it is that i shouldnt have bought COD3 but had a £5 voucher and managed to knab it for £32 the week before GOW came out! and because COD3 is such a good game ive not played gears since emergence day (last fri) cos i think it deserves to be played and finished before i really sink my teeth into gears.

While i don't tend to spend alot of time playing over the net, i have got to within 2 chapters of finishing COD3 so what i have to report on is single player only.

Again the graphics and animation are simply fantastic, even the soundFX and music are of the highest order. While it feels very much like the first 2 COD's i feel it tries to add new features and with good success. Some of the levels are simply breath taking and the addition of vehicles comes very welcome and handle really well! Yet again the 360 manages to pump out beautiful hi res graphics with an unbelievable amount going on on-screen with NO FRAMERATE ISSUES! (ps3 version doesn't look as pretty and has ALOT of slowdown)

Dozens of frag and smoke grenades pop around in decent scaled battles, i would guess at 30+ soldiers on screen at once, AI seems decent enough and a superb variation on the levels means you never see the same landscape/building twice.

COD3 really is a top notch game which deserves to be in any 360 owners collection alongside gears, but for christs sake! don't buy them simultaneously like i did! Play one through at a time and savour the 360 goodness!

On a personal note, if it were a toss up between GOW and COD3,........... Gears wins hands down no question

[bh_red]

I'm in the very fortunate position of having both COD3 and GOW. The short and long of it is that i shouldnt have bought COD3 but had a £5 voucher and managed to knab it for £32 the week before GOW came out! and because COD3 is such a good game ive not played gears since emergence day (last fri) cos i think it deserves to be played and finished before i really sink my teeth into gears.

While i don't tend to spend alot of time playing over the net, i have got to within 2 chapters of finishing COD3 so what i have to report on is single player only.

Again the graphics and animation are simply fantastic, even the soundFX and music are of the highest order. While it feels very much like the first 2 COD's i feel it tries to add new features and with good success. Some of the levels are simply breath taking and the addition of vehicles comes very welcome and handle really well! Yet again the 360 manages to

pump out beautiful hi res graphics with an unbelievable amount going on on-screen with NO FRAMERATE ISSUES! (ps3 version doesn't look as pretty and has ALOT of slowdown)

Dozens of frag and smoke grenades pop around in decent scaled battles, i would guess at 30+ soldiers on screen at once, AI seems decent enough and a superb variation on the levels means you never see the same landscape/building twice.

COD3 really is a top notch game which deserves to be in any 360 owners collection alongside gears, but for christs sake! don't buy them simultaneously like i did! Play one through at a time and savour the 360 goodness!

hmmmm, well I know I have gears coming so think it may be a case of getting Call of Duty and then trying to complete it by xmas, then again I will run out of time to play evo.........oh god and then there is the wife.....oh and actually going to Work, playing football, watching city!

ohhhhhhhhhhh! damn you microsoft and your super console!

[Sir Colby-Tit]

I'm having a bit of trouble with a Berserker - help someone please

[Nibor]

Haven't tried GoW yet but it sounds awesome.

I should point out that performance wise the PS3 will piss all over the Xbox, it exceeds it by nearly double in every technical specification. Seven CPU cores to the Xbox's 3, twice the raw processing power, double the resolutions on two different displays, up to 3 times the disk space, 7 controllers vs 4 for the Xbox, and 5 times the space on a Blueray compared to a DVD. The ps3 will out perform the 360 about as much as the 360 outperforms the ps2. Plus you won't have to reboot it every time you get a blue screen of death.

[Red Finesse]

Haven't tried GoW yet but it sounds awesome.

I should point out that performance wise the PS3 will piss all over the Xbox, it exceeds it by nearly double in every technical specification. Seven CPU cores to the Xbox's 3, twice the raw processing power, double the resolutions on two different displays, up to 3 times the disk space, 7 controllers vs 4 for the Xbox, and 5 times the space on a Blueray compared to a DVD. The ps3 will out perform the 360 about as much as the 360 outperforms the ps2. Plus you won't have to reboot it every time you get a blue screen of death.

"The ps3 will out perform the 360 about as much as the 360 outperforms the ps2" I'm sorry mate your so far off the mark its laughable!

Yes the ps3 has 7 processors and 360 has 3 but its how these components are used. I doubt anybody on this board has the technical nouse to understand, but coming from people in the know, ps3 has a very slight advantage in power and we may not even get to see it in full force due to it being notoriously difficult to develop for. On the other hand, 360 according to developers is a joy to work with and can use more of its resources with ease.

clap your eyes on this article!

I'm not having a go, just trying to educate the masses

[Red Finesse]

Haven't tried GoW yet but it sounds awesome.

I should point out that performance wise the PS3 will piss all over the Xbox, it exceeds it by nearly double in every technical specification. Seven CPU cores to the Xbox's 3, twice the raw processing power, double the resolutions on two different displays, up to 3 times the disk space, 7 controllers vs 4 for the Xbox, and 5 times the space on a Blueray compared to a DVD. The ps3 will out perform the 360 about as much as the 360 outperforms the ps2. Plus you won't have to reboot it every time you get a blue screen of death.

"The ps3 will out perform the 360 about as much as the 360 outperforms the ps2" I'm sorry mate your so far off the mark its laughable!

Yes the ps3 has 7 processors and 360 has 3 but its how these components are used. I doubt anybody on this board has the technical nouse to understand, but coming from people in the know, ps3 has a very slight advantage in power and we may not even get to see it in full force due to it being notoriously difficult to develop for. On the other hand, 360 according to developers is a joy to work with and can use more of its resources with ease.

clap your eyes on this article!

Can you honestly say the ps3 games you've seen look better than the current crop of 360 titles???

and for arguments sake ive never had the "blue screen of death" have heard of the red ring of death that plagued a few of the launch 360s. There are a lot of "buggy" ps3's going back to sony as we speak, they shouldve hopefully ironed out the problems in time for the european release!.......... if it ever comes!

I'm not having a go, just trying to educate the masses

[Nibor]

"The ps3 will out perform the 360 about as much as the 360 outperforms the ps2" I'm sorry mate your so far off the mark its laughable!

Yes the ps3 has 7 processors and 360 has 3 but its how these components are used. I doubt anybody on this board has the technical nouse to understand, but coming from people in the know, ps3 has a very slight advantage in power and we may not even get to see it in full force due to it being notoriously difficult to develop for. On the other hand, 360 according to developers is a joy to work with and can use more of its resources with ease.

clap your eyes on this article!

Can you honestly say the ps3 games you've seen look better than the current crop of 360 titles???

and for arguments sake ive never had the "blue screen of death" have heard of the red ring of death that plagued a few of the launch 360s. There are a lot of "buggy" ps3's going back to sony as we speak, they shouldve hopefully ironed out the problems in time for the european release!.......... if it ever comes!

I'm not having a go, just trying to educate the masses

Warning, incoming geek talk.

Blue screen of death was a joke about microsoft windows.

I do have a technical understanding of how the consoles work - I developed games on several platforms up until about 2 years ago. I still do development I just found that the pay for making games was shit, fun though it was.

The article you link is full of inaccuracies - anyone who's used the .NET framework that the guy talks about will laugh their tits off at the idea of it not being buggy. As for the "slight" advantage in power that's simply not true, the specs are there to look at and they exceed the 360's by more than double. Most likely you'll find that that site is either backed by Microsoft or gets some sweet deals from it - that's how they work - their marketing offensive is peaking as the ps3 launches and it's basically full of outright lies, misleading information and incorrect comparisons. They can carry it off because of the influence they have with publishers.

You're right that the PS3 is more difficult to develop for on the face of it - multi core processors need multi threaded games to get the best out of them and it will take the developers time to get the best out of it. They will though, developers always push a machine to it's limits and I'd imagine the second wave of titles will make the 360 ones look amateur. This was true of the PS2 as well by the way, the first generation of games were as good if not better than the competition but they were nowhere near as good as the ones that came out a year down the line when developers had learned more about the platform. You will see vastly more titles on the PS3 in the first year than you did on the Xbox in the first year - games developers will vote with their feet like they did with the last generation because PS3 sales will outstrip 360 ones by a large margin.

The other obvious point that refutes the claims made in the article is that the developers don't need to do complicated multi threaded development to match the 360's performance, if they simply don't use the extra cores they will still have the same raw performance, a better hardware architecture, more storage, quicker physics calculations and higher resolution faster graphics to play with.

The reason the hardware specs are so different is that the PS3 is meant to last 5 years before the next generation console comes out. The 360 is likely to have a replacement released around 2 years from now.

End of geek talk.

[Barrs Court Red]

I was on the understanding the 360 has more memory than the PS3, but without the specs infront of me i've forgotten.

The multithreaded point is a very valid one, it will allow games to run far smoother on the PS3 if used properly, compensating for the limited system memory (Isn't half of the PS3 memory, video memory? Compared to the 360 having dedicated RAM?)

All games companies need to get used to the complicated nature of multiple cores, the standard PC is now duel core and quad cores are fast becoming reality.

In my opinion the "next Gen" consoles will be dated by PC standards next year, especially with the prospect of physics cards and their eventual transfer onto motherboards further down the line.

The PS3 I think will outsale the 360 because of GTA4, I think it is that simple. That one game (GTA 3) made the PS2 (And maybe Medal of Honour), and I think it will make the PS3 too.

I can't see me buying either, not for a couple of years anyway. They just don't have the multyplayer capacity I enjoy on the PC.

[Nibor]

They both have 512mb of memory, PS3 has dedicated half of it's to gfx processing, the 360 hasn't. That means developers have a little more flexibility in how they use the memory on the 360 but the PS3's graphics will probably run faster. In practise I doubt either choice will make a significant difference to gameplay, the reason the PS3 do it differently is for native HD support.

[Red Finesse]

WOW! a game developer (or former) on our boards

Looking at specifics of both consoles, i fail to see where ps3 doubles up on 360 apart from the obvious storage capacity (which will be upgradable for 360) of the HD and the Blu-Ray discs

Comparison Chart

Now after you p1ssed on my proverbial bonfire (Nibor) its quite apparent that you are a guy in the know, or perhaps was a couple of years ago.

just a couple of questions for you. . . .

Have you done any work using the 360 or ps3 toolkits?

If the ps3 has twice the power of 360, why doesn't it seem to be able to handle cross platform games as well as the 360??? e.g Call of duty 3, tiger woods, need for speed, tony hawks 8?

If the ps3 has double the power, shouldn't COD3 be running nearer 60fps on the ps3 over 360's 30fps? because it doesn't even match what the 360 does at present.

And in reguards to another post, GTA IV will be released on the 360 at the same time as ps3, AND they will be getting one over sony by adding extra episodical content on the market place for 360 only.

On another note, it has to be said PS3's connectivity (what its compatible with) is pretty darn good

Although using my 360 - PC has been great! streaming music and videos to my tv has been a revelation! especially for the lost series

[Nibor]

First of all, there's a new challenger to the console crown. The Nintendo Wii. Click that link it's funny as hell.

I've done work using .NET technologies which is the framework used for the 360. I've not used the PS3 toolkit though I have used OpenGL and many of the other opensource technologies that they use. Personally I disliked .NET intensely because I found it was a jack of all trades and master of none and made it intuitive to write "bad code". Like most Microsoft technologies, .NET makes it very easy to do 80% of something but very difficult to do the last 20% and has all sorts of quirks. It has it's fans though for sure.

Developers have had a year to get used to working with the 360, and most of the cross platform games you mention have been written and optimised for the 360 and then ported which puts the PS3 at an obvious disadvantage for those particular games especially when you consider that right from the outset they will not be rethreaded and therefore will ignore 4/7 of the ps3 processors from the off. That isn't cross platform. Compare a game developed originially on the PS3 a year from now with those and I am totally sure you'll be amazed.

On the specs... the PS3 offers higher res (1080p vs 1080i) and can support dual HDMI outputs vs single, and has double the raw computing power available (2 terraflops vs 1), more than double the cache, and will in Europe have a 60gb HD vs the 360's 20gb. Blue ray has 5x the capacity of DVD. That isn't mentioned or even highlighted in the article you linked - unsurprising really since it's on gamespot which is owned by cnet who share board members with... guess who!

Try this for a more balanced comparison.

I'm not saying the 360 is a bad console, it clearly isn't, but I think you're being vastly misled by some very clever marketing. Look at the price differential for example. Everyone of the Microsoft fanboy sites mentions how the 360 is cheaper, completely neglecting to mention that it doesn't have HD support which the PS3 does and to get it as an add on as Microsoft are planning will cost you more than the $200 difference. Also note that the 360 replaced the original 2002 xbox in 2005 - a 3 year lifespan. The ps3 replaces the ps2 released in 2001 - a 5 or 6 year lifespan. There are many other examples.

[Red Finesse]

Yes my friend! wii looks awsome! (from a gameplay perspective anyways!)

Shall be getting one in time for xmas fingers crossed!

Before you say,yes i am one of those people who usually ends up buying every console!

That comparison chart was the first i could find! there are so many out there i got lazy and pasted the first one! Didn't realize they have strong MS links!

heres another one IGN

They detail what the processors can do and differences between ps3's 7 and 360's 3

Your putting across some very intersesting and valid points, but my sources come from a variety of different avenues.

I have owned every sony machine to date and havent been overly impressed with any (ps1 ps2 & psp)

I was one of a handful of people who owned the dreamcast and the ps2 didn't really improve alot on that,... remember a game called "shenmue" ?

ps1 was horrifically bad for glitchy unfinished games ps2 didnt improve on DC greatly and didnt feel as solid as the xbox or GC graphically and the PSP which i still own is only any good for homebrew!

If ps3 can tighten those loose screws I'm sure they will have a killer console

[Spud55]

Gears of war is awesome, one of the best games i've played this year along with oblivion.

As for he PS3 it has the specs but as has been apparent with the last few gens of consoles specs don't mean shit. the N-64 was a vastly superior console to the PS1 but the Ps1 was the better console because of the games, and very clever marketing from sony managed to see them through whilst having the technically inferior console. Problem is Sony have never had to stand off against a company with the clout so far ahead of themselfs it's untrue, and also a reputation beyond that of sony.

As far as i can see it sony have taken all the lessons they should have learnt from the failings of their competitors and are trying to repeat them. Games are what a console stands or falls by, now with 2 consoles basically for the forseable future capable of the same things, it will take them a long time to unleash the power of the PS3 because sony have decided to make it as complicated to programme for as possible. Cross platform games are going to be much of a muchness, it's going to be the exclusive games that are going to win the battle and Sony have had most of their key games pulled away from them mainly by MS, 5 years ago the Playstation could sit there as the only console with top notch RPG games (final Fantasy) and driving games, (GT) and Football games (the PES franchise) what do they have left now ? GT and MGS are the only ones they really have left, and although good Forza ****** royaly on the bonfire of GT4. But now the xbox has Final Fantasy (which IMO has ben eclippsed as the Rpg of choice by things like KOTOR, Oblivion, Fable (Fable 2 is purely 360) As far as i can see on the games front the PS3 is at a huge disadvantage. Their biggest asset is MGS4, which although good i haven't enjoyed the last 2 incarnations anywhere near asmuch as the first. Although i will still probably get one at some point i see absolutely no reason to do so at launch as the games simply aren't there, GT5 is not out for a long while yet, PES 6 is nowhere to be seen, the only launch title i can see perhaps being worth it is MGS4.

The delay is going to hit the PS3 hard, th x-box never recovered truly despite being IMO better than the PS2 because it was out so long after the PS2, noe the PS2 has to do the same but without the likes of Halo.

Also the multiplayer side could be a problem for sony, the online part of the Ps2 was bloody terrible, XBL tore it to pieces, the new one may be better but unless sony really pull something out of the bag then they are not likely to win that battle and multiplayer gaming is only going to become even more important, so unless they improve massively in this area it will hurt them.

Also a big part of the PS3 is relying on the Blu-ray being a) a sucess, which is by no means assured, the first blu-ray drives are being hammered at the moment as they are rediculously overpriced and not good enough to justify the price tag. and b) Sony not putting a crap decoder in the ps3, the dvd on the PS2 was woeful, get that right and you can have a blu-ray player for 400 quid, but as it stands you can get a stand alone HD-DVD player for that, or if you have already got a 360 you can get a pretty damn good HD-DVD player for the price of 120 quid, and unless i'm missing something i see no reason why if HD-dvd doesn't prevail why MS can't get samsung (who mkae the drives for the 360 anyway to do them an external Blu-ray player to go with the 360.

The PS3 will be a damn good console, but i think in persuit of rediculous specs and the Blu-Ray player Sony may well have shot themselfs in the foot and may well have to give their crown to MS as the 360 as it stands is a more feasable entertainment station when you can pick up a top notch console and the ability to play HD-dvd's for a bit less than the PS3, which already has a big range of games available for it, and even more in the pipeline. For me Sony are relying too much on the specs of the PS3 rather than bothering to get the games, which is the massive mistake both Nintendo and Sega made when they lost spectacularly to the ps1 and 2, and god help them if blu-ray doesn't win, as that will be a big problem for the console, whereas with MS obviously supporting neither format, they have an HD-DVD player but as it stands blu-ray isn't cost effective enough to make a blu-ray player feasable for the 360 yet, but if HD-DVD wins then sony are going to be hurting big style as they have put their eggs all in the blu-ray basket and are hoping that the PS3 will not only sell as a console but also as an affordable blu-ray player, if that doesn't happen MS will be looking to sideline them like Sony and MS have done to nintendo.

[Nibor]

I agree that the Xbox was technically slightly better than the PS2. The PS3 however is leaps and bounds beyond the 360, as I've stated above. They won't be competing on the same playing field because the PS3 is a 5 year console... the next Xbox which is planned for late 2008 might give it a run for it's money but I doubt it.

Why not? It's sales figures that count. The more units you ship the more backing you get from games companies. The original Xbox came out nearly a year after the PS2 and got no backing from games developers because the PS2 had already shipped an obscene number of units so the target audience was bigger. There were something like 35 million PS2s in circulation when MS released the Xbox.

The 360, like the Xbox, sells extremely poorly in Japan which is the biggest market for games consoles. In fact it's sales figures are't impressive at all. To date only 9 million 360s have been sold worldwide. PS3 will double that easily inside a year and by the time the 2008 xbox comes out there will be 40 million PS3s in circulation already that are technically comparable and the PS4 will only be 2 years away.

The only problem Sony are having is that their supply chain isn't big enough to meet demand - but that demand won't go away. Inside a year from now it will be twice as profitable to make a game for the PS3 as it will for the 360, and you can bet your bottom dollar from that point on the only games that will come out first on the Xbox are the ones where Microsoft prop up the development of them.

The PS2 was one of the real driving forces behind making the DVD format so popular, Sony aren't relying on Blu Ray - they're ensuring it's success. The Xbox HD-DVD add on will bring the price to over what a PS3 will cost as well.

The overall thing to bear in mind overall is that Microsoft only entered the console market to try and stop Sony positioning the Playstation such that it damaged PC sales and hence Microsoft revenues. They lost masses of cash on the original Xbox and stand to lose more cash on the 360. Sony made more out of the PS2 than many small countries make in taxes. There will be only one winner in the console war and it won't be Bill Gates.

[Dorset_Cider]

We are all cogs?

[Red Finesse]

We are all cogs?

Here you are mate COG TAGS

Should help immensely

I'm on 20/30 so far