[quote name='Gustav Holst']Fixing Time!
1. Actually, If you go to gamespot's comparison of the two systems tet a tet, the PS3 comes up with consistently uglier and rough textures. The colors on the 360 are more vibrant, the textures more realistic. You listed three games with PSN support. Right now, off the top of my head: Live supported games: Gears of War, Lost Planet, Rainbow Six Vegas. There's three titles right there. When those titles came out, they came directly with live support. There was no "Coming December: Live Support!" You took the game out of the case, put it in, and played online. And, we have video chat too!
Peep the link, cuz
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/
Who knows how long PSN will stay free? The logical plan of Sony marketing is to start it out free, thus gaining a fanbase of guinea pigs, and then start to charge for it. I would rather pay 3.33 a month/40.00 a year for a full featured online service than be forced to play on the barebones PS3 nonsense. Maybe one day it'll be better. All it would take is to order pizza two less times in a year in order to get live. How cheap are you?[/QUOTE]
1st of all you're talking about games that were ported to the PS3 from 360, and those ports if they werenot as good on PS3 were due to devs not to anything wrong with the PS3.... Call of Duty 4 proves that. The 3 PSN online games got recent updates... what was the last update that Gears received, Rainbow six got an update, when the PS3 version was released.... so that the extra stuff on the PS3 disc would be included on Live for free... [after some had already paid for the 60 dollar game and extra for the DLC ] If you like Live then that's fine, but trust, the PS3's online situation is just fine. You ask me how cheap am I , the question should be why are you so willing to pay for.. what you can have for free... but I'm not questioning your decision, cause its about what you like, Im just saying... don't act like you had to make the decision to use live because "the PS3 online" isn't there.. its there, its working well, getting better, and its fun. [its not perfect and neither is live]
funny.. you choose Need for Speed Carbon to try and prove your point... needless to say that's sad... a game that no one's going to buy now... How about Burnout, how about Need for Speed Pro whatever.. how about simpsons, how about stranglehold... I mean damn.. I know you want to be right, in your argument, and if you're right, then okay you're right, but how can you throw up such an poor example.. try again...
.... ..... .... ..... ......I had to mention something else... you say this " Actually, If you go to gamespot's comparison of the two systems tet a tet, the PS3 comes up with consistently uglier and rough textures. The colors on the 360 are more vibrant, the textures more realistic." but I bet that you only believe that because gamespot.com said the following: "Both systems have fairly similar graphics in Need for Speed Carbon, but the Xbox 360 has better lighting while the PS3 "
If you look at the first photo, there was too much lighting with those trees, so they toned it back a little bit in the PS3 verision, this is not a failure of textures, its a devs decision, and for the most part with that particular scene, they got it right on the PS3, imo. That was a lauch title, for both systems, however, its a year later.. .lets see how well UT3 does on the 360... can't wait to see those comparison shots.