Analyst heavyweight Michael Patcher as at his crystal ball again, this time dishing out the controversial prediction that Epic's Gears of War series will come to PlayStation 3... eventually.
Speaking to Game Trailers, Patcher pointed out that Epic is no stranger when it comes to the PlayStation 3 hardware, "we pretty much know that Gears of War 3 is probably gonna' come out on PS3."
The reasoning behind Mr. P's prediction is that Microsoft probably has a two game deal to keep the first inevitable Gears of War sequel Xbox 360 exclusive, but after that Epic's free to put it on whichever console it likes.
It'd be a big stir up if Gears 2 ended up on PS3, but will anyone really care by the time the third one comes out?
Just like GTA and Resident Evil before, we reckon Gears would've spent most of its worth by the time it goes multiplatform.
I still play Gears now. Still a lot of fun online even though it can be really infuriating at times! I thought that the PS3 didn't have enough RAM or something to run Gears. Or would they release a version that might be a little inferior to the 360 version?
Are Microsoft just gonna let everything go? They need to keep these exclusives for at least this generation.
I Love this game on the 360 and it's still probably the best game out for the 360. Now if PS3 got it surely it would be a port off the pc version so it would have the additional content that the 360 never got. Would be a great game for ps3 owners to have.
The 360 version is overrated in my opinion but is still a good game regardless, just not amazing, and I found the online mode somewhat dull.
If more people get to experience the game then that's good thing releasing it on the PS3, right? If it turns out to be true then PS3 owners will likely get the extra chapter of the PC version and all the DLC of the 360 version. Seeing as Epic's Mark Rein has said that Unreal Tournament III is better looking than Gears and UTIII is running very nicely on the PS3, judging by the reviews, it's not like the machine isn't capable of running it. With the PS3 having a standard HDD, it's perhaps better suited to UE3 games than the 360 is really.
It's a great game and i'd love to get my hands on a PS3 version having played the 360 one. But your looking at 5-6 years before it's released! I mean jesus christ these so called analysts (clues in the name really) make more sweeping statements than some devout fanboy.
It's like saying MGS4 will appear on the 360, yeah in about 3-4 years when no-one cares about it anymore!!
of course it can run on ps3....have you not seen Unreal 3? amazing graphics and gameplay, and that's been achieved only a year into the ps3 life, devs are still learning it will only get better
Its just like crackdown in that Microsoft funded it and owns the franchise, also it sold at least 3 million copies meaning that its making tons of money.
Now Metal Gear 4 on the other hand will struggle to make its monsterous budget back because of the relatively small PS3 user base, meaning that the rumors of a 360 version are most likely to be true.
saying that though eddiehitler: sone have already sold just udner 8million worldwide, and predict 11 million by March, so by the time MGS4 comes out that's actually a large base. Now mgs4 devs said they need to sell 1 million intially to be 'happy', that doesn't seem that hard, only 1/11th of entire ps3 owners to buy a game which is predicted to be massive
In bizarro world it is true. In this world the PS3 and the 360 have the same amount of RAM, with the PS3 being able to utilise 40 Mb less than the 360 because of a more heavy OS.
I'm sure it'd run fine on PS3, though I doubt Microsoft will let this one slip.
Well the pad isnt really suited.
Those dual analoges are to close together and thus makes it abit fussy.
Plus the R2 buttons feel terrible astigger buttons (and id rather they stll have "X" as the main button, as in Accelerating in Burnout Paradise)
Also true the PS3 has half the RAM of the 360...
But the best console this game will come out on is:
THE PC!!!
It has the best of everything...
You talk s**te.
For one the ps3 has the same ram as 360. It is just split in half. Why does UT3 (which I own and is brilliant) run better than gears of war did? Oh, and PC has best of everything? Maybe the best fps games, but nothing more. Where are your platform games? Fighting games? PC gaming is dying. Look at the sales of Crysis and UT3. PC snob be gone.
I just have to LOL at these statements. Everyone should aspire to have the same job as this guy and get paid to spout BS. Firstly, MS funded the original game and would most likley do the same with the sequel. Secondly, Epic have a close relationship with MS and even had some input into the spec's of the 360. It was originally going to have 256mb RAM like the PS3 but Epic insisted 360 should have 512mb so they could realize their vision's of the games they wanted to create. So yeah, if for some reason there was just an exclusive deal of the first two games, which is unlikley, they would have to make some serious alteration's due to PS3's lack of RAM to run a straight port. Also, Gears of War 3, another Xbox will be out before then...
I'm sure it'd run fine on PS3, though I doubt Microsoft will let this one slip.
Well the pad isnt really suited.
Those dual analoges are to close together and thus makes it abit fussy.
Plus the R2 buttons feel terrible astigger buttons (and id rather they stll have "X" as the main button, as in Accelerating in Burnout Paradise)
Also true the PS3 has half the RAM of the 360...
But the best console this game will come out on is:
THE PC!!!
It has the best of everything...
You talk s**te.
For one the ps3 has the same ram as 360. It is just split in half. Why does UT3 (which I own and is brilliant) run better than gears of war did? Oh, and PC has best of everything? Maybe the best fps games, but nothing more. Where are your platform games? Fighting games? PC gaming is dying. Look at the sales of Crysis and UT3. PC snob be gone.
i suppose you could say then that the ps3 has half the potential video ram of the 360
I just have to LOL at these statements. Everyone should aspire to have the same job as this guy and get paid to spout BS. Firstly, MS funded the original game and would most likley do the same with the sequel. Secondly, Epic have a close relationship with MS and even had some input into the spec's of the 360. It was originally going to have 256mb RAM like the PS3 but Epic insisted 360 should have 512mb so they could realize their vision's of the games they wanted to create. So yeah, if for some reason there was just an exclusive deal of the first two games, which is unlikley, they would have to make some serious alteration's due to PS3's lack of RAM to run a straight port. Also, Gears of War 3, another Xbox will be out before then...
As was proved by UT3, the ps3 could run Gears of war in its sleep, ya turnip. And the ps3 has got 512mb of ram. It is split in half. You know this. And it didn't effect ut3 in any way. Alterations... Gears of war had less characters on screen, less levels and less vehicles than ut3. You are making me smile.
Online gears of war? 3v3? Yep. Let us see if the 360 version of ut3 can keep up with ps3 version, i.e, cod4.
Honestly, who cares? It's been out on the 360 for a year, it's been out on PC for awhile now too. And from friends who own both the 360 and PC versions, they say it sucks. I'm sorry, the days of unloading a clip into someone's head, and them not dying are gone. Gears may look pretty, but the game itself blows.
Online gears of war? 3v3? Yep. Let us see if the 360 version of ut3 can keep up with ps3 version, i.e, cod4.
Call of duty4 on 360 is 18 players in groundwar mode.I play on in 1080p on my 360,simply because the 360 supports 1080p on call of duty and my tv (sony kdl 40d3000)allows it.i hardly get any lag (thanks to having a well set up router)unless im playing against some one as far out as california/west coast US (some of my clan are from the US)and even then it never ruins my game (could be becuase im such a beast at the game tho )...you have obviously never played it on 360(i have played both ...my brother owns a ps3 and its hooked up to a 37"sharp ...both look exactly the same to me.i prefer my 360 version for its online functions and superior pad for fps,even my brother prefers playing on 360,there quiet a sociable bunch,my clan....yaknow?).and as for gears being 3v3... what imaginary console is did you play it on? gears on 360 is 4v4 ,but again you clearly havent played it .your just talking exrement for the sake of fanboyism.shut it.you sound like a rabid fanboy from that awful n4g website.and as for that PRATcher guy...he`s just an analyst folks .any body here could come up with the stuff he comes up with.he`s just an opinion in a suit.and to top it off he isnt even a MS or epic suit.So for that fact alone his opinion means nil to me.I dont see gears 1/2/3 coming to ps3 personally but thats just my opinion.I could be wrong ,but i dont care aslong as im playing ti on my 360.But, do you really think MS will let gears go multi(exluding pc)?its like sony just letting mgs4 go wherever .money talks and BS walks (and prints dumb statements on the internet and then calls it an analysts prediction).
I just have to LOL at these statements. Everyone should aspire to have the same job as this guy and get paid to spout BS. Firstly, MS funded the original game and would most likley do the same with the sequel. Secondly, Epic have a close relationship with MS and even had some input into the spec's of the 360. It was originally going to have 256mb RAM like the PS3 but Epic insisted 360 should have 512mb so they could realize their vision's of the games they wanted to create. So yeah, if for some reason there was just an exclusive deal of the first two games, which is unlikley, they would have to make some serious alteration's due to PS3's lack of RAM to run a straight port. Also, Gears of War 3, another Xbox will be out before then...
As was proved by UT3, the ps3 could run Gears of war in its sleep, ya turnip. And the ps3 has got 512mb of ram. It is split in half. You know this. And it didn't effect ut3 in any way. Alterations... Gears of war had less characters on screen, less levels and less vehicles than ut3. You are making me smile.
Online gears of war? 3v3? Yep. Let us see if the 360 version of ut3 can keep up with ps3 version, i.e, cod4.
Where do you pull this statements out of? Where the sun don't shine? PS3 has 256mb RAM. Developers have ran into problems with this, most notably Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed and Rockstar with GTA4. That is the one major drawback of PS3, in the same way 360's is only using the DVD format. Im not saying that the PS3 can't run UT3, as it can with ease as Epic have shown. What i saying is that PS3 couldn't handle a direct port of Gears of War due to it being designed to make use of 360's hardware. It was a similar case with the MT Framework engine (Lost Planet/Dead Rising). That was developed to make use of 360's hardware but as im sure you know, Lost Planet is being ported to PS3 and DMC4 uses this engine. In these cases alterations and sacrifices need to be made.
Also, why on earth are you mentioning online multi-player? GoW was 4v4 due to the nature of the game. It's a close quarters combat game, not a crazy battlefield style game. It seems to me like you know very little about what the actual insides of a console do as you statements are uninformed and incorrect. You try to refer to online where actual hardware limitation's have nothing to do with it. What you talk about with COD4 are the rules and regulations of LIVE and the open environment of the PSN network. The PS3 version has a higher max of players due to their being no restriction's in terms of network quality/latency. With Live, MS have stated that developers need to assume people have a 512kb upload speed. This is in place so that their is as little lag as possible. Overall, due to LIVE being a paid for service, their is a quality control in place meaning less lag than you would encounter on PSN games, although this is to be expected when comparing a paid for service to a free one. On a final note, UTIII is coming out on 360 and will be a direct port of the PC version. They will all being developed at the same time but Epic put the 360 version on hold so they could get the PS3 and PC versions out before christmas, which was reasonable business sense as it would have had alot of competition if it had released on 360 this fall.
PS3 has 256mb RAM. Developers have ran into problems with this, most notably Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed and Rockstar with GTA4. PS3 has 512 Mb RAM, 256 for the CPU and 256 for the GPU. 360 has 512 Mb RAM to divide between GPU and CPU. The RAM shortage in comparison to the 360 is caused by the PS3 OS which takes 96 Mb in comparison to 360s OS that takes 56.
Im not saying that the PS3 can't run UT3, as it can with ease as Epic have shown. What i saying is that PS3 couldn't handle a direct port of Gears of War due to it being designed to make use of 360's hardware. Gears of War was developed with the Unreal Engine 3 in mind, it was developed on PC just like any Western game.
It was a similar case with the MT Framework engine (Lost Planet/Dead Rising). That was developed to make use of 360's hardware but as im sure you know, Lost Planet is being ported to PS3 and DMC4 uses this engine. Lost Planet, Dead Rising and DMC4 were developed on the PC for their first 60% and then ported to the individual consoles. DMC4 actually looks better on the PS3 than on the 360, but hey, let's ignore the movies of both versions.
Also, why on earth are you mentioning online multi-player? GoW was 4v4 due to the nature of the game. It's a close quarters combat game, not a crazy battlefield style game. And it still lagged like hell because of the fact it runs on 360s and not on servers.
It seems to me like you know very little about what the actual insides of a console do as you statements are uninformed and incorrect. Look who's talking.
With Live, MS have stated that developers need to assume people have a 512kb upload speed. This is in place so that their is as little lag as possible. Overall, due to LIVE being a paid for service, their is a quality control in place meaning less lag than you would encounter on PSN games, although this is to be expected when comparing a paid for service to a free one. Resistance has 40 player servers without lag and free. Gears of War has 8 player games with lag and paid. Yeah, I see where you're coming from.
On a final note, UTIII is coming out on 360 and will be a direct port of the PC version. They will all being developed at the same time but Epic put the 360 version on hold so they could get the PS3 and PC versions out before christmas, which was reasonable business sense as it would have had alot of competition if it had released on 360 this fall. And because they still need to figure out how to do user created content on the 360.
This is all factual, 100% correct information. If you still think you're right, please provide reliable sources.
Joni, good posts. But seriously, how can all of these people really keep posting that ps3 has 256, when they only need to check the site and look at the facts, its so funny.
Joni, good posts. But seriously, how can all of these people really keep posting that ps3 has 256, when they only need to check the site and look at the facts, its so funny.
They are what people call fanboys. They had a brain lobotomy, it is your duty has a fanboy to have one and lose at least half of your brain capacity. No, it is just people who only have the money to buy one console and need to convince others to realise they made the right decision. So they need to put down other consoles and think their console is better.
Joni, good posts. But seriously, how can all of these people really keep posting that ps3 has 256, when they only need to check the site and look at the facts, its so funny.
They are what people call fanboys. They had a brain lobotomy, it is your duty has a fanboy to have one and lose at least half of your brain capacity. No, it is just people who only have the money to buy one console and need to convince others to realise they made the right decision. So they need to put down other consoles and think their console is better.
There is nothing wrong with the PS3's RAM per say.
BUT, the 360 does have several significant advantages to their RAM layout and design.
First off, the 360 OS uses less than half the RAM of the PS3 OS. So, if both systems have 512MB of RAM, the 360 can give a few more MB to games than the PS3 can.
Second, both systems do not have 512MB of RAM. The 360 actually has 522MB, with 10MB of that being EDRAM dedicated to the rendering Back Buffer or Frame Buffer. That again means that the 360 can effectively hold a minimum of 10MB more data in it's 512MB RAM than the PS3 can in it's 512MB.
Now, that EDRAM has several more advantages. The 360 also uses tiling, so a single frame that might use 20-40MB of RAM for the Frame Buffer can all be tiled to the 10MB of EDRAM in the 360. So it can remove up to 40MB of data useage from the main 512MB of system memory.
Also, ATI moved the ROPS from the GPU to the EDRAM itself, which allows the bandwidth between the ROPS and EDRAM to be 256GB/Sec. The ROPS do things like Alpha Blending, Z Buffer, and Antialiasing, so in the 360 these functions have their own dedicated memory bus and do not use any of the bandwidth of it's 512MB memory bank. In many ways the PS3 RAM is more restricted than the 360's is.
And im not a fanboy. I own and use 360, PS3 and PC for my gaming adventures. Im simply trying to bring some facts forward to erase this idea Sony have planted in fanboy's heads that PS3 is WAY more powerful than 360...
First off, the 360 OS uses less than half the RAM of the PS3 OS. So, if both systems have 512MB of RAM, the 360 can give a few more MB to games than the PS3 can.
Strange, you claimed the PS3 only had 256 a page back. I on the other hand never said the 360 situation wasn't better. So I don't need a lesson in why the 360 RAM is better. But good, at least now you realise the PS3 as 512 Mb RAM. I also don't need links to know the Ubisoft team had problems with the memory on the PS3 and the DVD on the 360. They had problems, they solved it. Ubisoft told that a couple of days later. (It was their form of damage control.
Aside from that, you really need to reread that GTA link. According to Michael Pachter... He is an analyst, not a Rockstar employee. We don't know why GTA was delayed.
Oh, my 96 Mb for the OS is from the original firmware. Both MS and Sony reduced their OS memory usage. PS3 data based on firmware 1.80. Could have been reduced further.
vulcanraven has surpassed idiocy with his recent GTA trouble quote in his post. He is saying that analysts spout bulls**t yet he links to a analyst to try and prove his point.
Am sorry i just really had to point that out because i was in a recent debate about it.
vulcanraven has surpassed idiocy with his recent GTA trouble quote in his post. He is saying that analysts spout bulls**t yet he links to a analyst to try and prove his point.
Am sorry i just really had to point that out because i was in a recent debate about it.
It would appear CVG is turning into Gamespot by the minute, by that i mean it is littered with fanboy cry babys, p**sing and moaning from each side, give it a wipe lads.
As to remain back on topic, i doubt the PS3 owners would give a toss tbh, just as much as i wouldn't give a toss if Resistence went to the 360.
vulcanraven has surpassed idiocy with his recent GTA trouble quote in his post. He is saying that analysts spout bulls**t yet he links to a analyst to try and prove his point.
Am sorry i just really had to point that out because i was in a recent debate about it.
and your point is?.......muppet
Exactly. lol Most likley doesn't like me trying to point out the facts... Also, I was actually looking for the article from Rockstar in which they stated the same as Ubisoft, they were having trouble with PS3's memory and trouble fitting onto DVD for 360. I couldn't find it and the article I linked stated a similiar thing so I went with that. I didn't see it was from an analyst but either way it's what everyone assumes, the PS3 version was the reason for the delay but let's not get into that...
It would appear CVG is turning into Gamespot by the minute, by that i mean it is littered with fanboy cry babys, p**sing and moaning from each side, give it a wipe lads.
As to remain back on topic, i doubt the PS3 owners would give a toss tbh, just as much as i wouldn't give a toss if Resistence went to the 360.
*awaits flames...and some decent original games.*
I agree but at the same time they have relaized what Gamespot did, these sorts of articles result in more hits for the site simply because there are so many fanboys out there that will respond to such baiting.
Can't agree with your last comment though. If in some alternate universe, Gears of War did go to PS3, it would be huge, just as it would be huge if MGS4 went to 360. I can't see either happening though tbh...
vulcanraven has surpassed idiocy with his recent GTA trouble quote in his post. He is saying that analysts spout bulls**t yet he links to a analyst to try and prove his point.
Am sorry i just really had to point that out because i was in a recent debate about it.
and your point is?.......muppet
Exactly. lol Most likley doesn't like me trying to point out the facts... Also, I was actually looking for the article from Rockstar in which they stated the same as Ubisoft, they were having trouble with PS3's memory and trouble fitting onto DVD for 360. I couldn't find it and the article I linked stated a similiar thing so I went with that. I didn't see it was from an analyst but either way it's what everyone assumes, the PS3 version was the reason for the delay but let's not get into that...
What facts???? Because there are none in that link you provided.
And to the person who can't even make a vaild post what are you doing here.
I still play Gears now. Still a lot of fun online even though it can be really infuriating at times! I thought that the PS3 didn't have enough RAM or something to run Gears. Or would they release a version that might be a little inferior to the 360 version?
Are Microsoft just gonna let everything go? They need to keep these exclusives for at least this generation.
Epic had already said that with the current tools available to developers (current as of when Gears of War released), GoW on the PS3 would not happen because they'd need to code around the RAM restrictions that are hamstringing PS3 development all over the place.
Considering it took quite a few extra coders for CoD 4 to work around that barrier with no real benefit (the 360 version outsold the PS3 version at a 3:1 ratio per November NPD data in the US), I seriously doubt we'll see Gears anytime soon on the PS3.
And why folks at CVG, Kotaku, Joystiq keep posting this idiot's thoughts (which have all been wrong so far, save for one or two minor predictions), I will never know, or care to.
vulcanraven has surpassed idiocy with his recent GTA trouble quote in his post. He is saying that analysts spout bulls**t yet he links to a analyst to try and prove his point.
Am sorry i just really had to point that out because i was in a recent debate about it.
and your point is?.......muppet
Exactly. lol Most likley doesn't like me trying to point out the facts... Also, I was actually looking for the article from Rockstar in which they stated the same as Ubisoft, they were having trouble with PS3's memory and trouble fitting onto DVD for 360. I couldn't find it and the article I linked stated a similiar thing so I went with that. I didn't see it was from an analyst but either way it's what everyone assumes, the PS3 version was the reason for the delay but let's not get into that...
What facts???? Because there are none in that link you provided.
And to the person who can't even make a vaild post what are you doing here.
Rabbit--they've been posted time and again, ad nauseam, to where it's common knowledge to all but the most ardent(?) of fanboi.
PS3 Blu-Ray does have superior space capabilities, but the drive speed, RAM limitations (hardware forces 256MB only for graphics; can't change w/o having to spend extra time and CPU cycles to program around restriction; 360 has no restrictions, FYI), the GPU doesn't preform as well as the 360's GPU, there's no on-board memory cache for the processors (wastes CPU cycles having to add/remove from main RAM for even the most basic of code) and the different configurations (minor, but people with 20/40GB models of PS3 systems were screwed by UT3 and the whole map thing...)
The 360 main processors are slower, but the system has a better overall architecture (overheating, exploding, and death by Live w****r aside...), but the DVD format does limit what can be done, save for compression techniques. Also, Microsoft didn't make the Hard Drive standard, but they did recently say that games could require the hard drive going forward. Mind you, I doubt that Rockstar will make such a requirement for GTA 4; lowest common denominator and all. The GPU is better on the 360, and the fact that you can do what you want with the 512MB of DDR3 RAM helps quite a bit, especially if you've got 1337 coders on your team that can compress AI, sound, and other code.
All in all, both systems have problems--but the PS3 does have more problems than the 360, save for reliability.
vulcanraven has surpassed idiocy with his recent GTA trouble quote in his post. He is saying that analysts spout bulls**t yet he links to a analyst to try and prove his point.
Am sorry i just really had to point that out because i was in a recent debate about it.
and your point is?.......muppet
Exactly. lol Most likley doesn't like me trying to point out the facts... Also, I was actually looking for the article from Rockstar in which they stated the same as Ubisoft, they were having trouble with PS3's memory and trouble fitting onto DVD for 360. I couldn't find it and the article I linked stated a similiar thing so I went with that. I didn't see it was from an analyst but either way it's what everyone assumes, the PS3 version was the reason for the delay but let's not get into that...
What facts???? Because there are none in that link you provided.
And to the person who can't even make a vaild post what are you doing here.
Hmmm, perhaps the facts from the Ubisoft link and the 'fact' that I went into so much detail about the PS3's RAM issues just so you could have some understanding of the matter. It seems you chose to ignore that though and focus on something you could pick fault at to try and make my statement invalid... At least matthew_m_g understands the situation.
I'm sure it'd run fine on PS3, though I doubt Microsoft will let this one slip.
Well the pad isnt really suited.
Those dual analoges are to close together and thus makes it abit fussy.
Plus the R2 buttons feel terrible astigger buttons (and id rather they stll have "X" as the main button, as in Accelerating in Burnout Paradise)
Also true the PS3 has half the RAM of the 360...
But the best console this game will come out on is:
THE PC!!!
It has the best of everything...
You talk s**te.
For one the ps3 has the same ram as 360. It is just split in half. Why does UT3 (which I own and is brilliant) run better than gears of war did? Oh, and PC has best of everything? Maybe the best fps games, but nothing more. Where are your platform games? Fighting games? PC gaming is dying. Look at the sales of Crysis and UT3. PC snob be gone.
If i talk s**te, then your on a completely different level lol.
What do you mean UT3 runs better than gears?
On What PC? Or Console.
Wait ill answer it for both, it may run better on Console because well maybe it freaking came out 1 year later and the Unreal Engine has been tweeked since then.
Any idiot knows that.
and on PC they can both achieve maximum of 62 FPS.
The PC has all the best games, games like BioSchock and stuff, just go do some research on the games...
They all run faster on the PC, Look better on the PC and is capable or bigger and bette worlds because of the superior hardware.
Now next time make sure you know what you are onabout...
PS3 has 256mb RAM. Developers have ran into problems with this, most notably Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed and Rockstar with GTA4. PS3 has 512 Mb RAM, 256 for the CPU and 256 for the GPU. 360 has 512 Mb RAM to divide between GPU and CPU. The RAM shortage in comparison to the 360 is caused by the PS3 OS which takes 96 Mb in comparison to 360s OS that takes 56.
Im not saying that the PS3 can't run UT3, as it can with ease as Epic have shown. What i saying is that PS3 couldn't handle a direct port of Gears of War due to it being designed to make use of 360's hardware. Gears of War was developed with the Unreal Engine 3 in mind, it was developed on PC just like any Western game.
It was a similar case with the MT Framework engine (Lost Planet/Dead Rising). That was developed to make use of 360's hardware but as im sure you know, Lost Planet is being ported to PS3 and DMC4 uses this engine. Lost Planet, Dead Rising and DMC4 were developed on the PC for their first 60% and then ported to the individual consoles. DMC4 actually looks better on the PS3 than on the 360, but hey, let's ignore the movies of both versions.
Also, why on earth are you mentioning online multi-player? GoW was 4v4 due to the nature of the game. It's a close quarters combat game, not a crazy battlefield style game. And it still lagged like hell because of the fact it runs on 360s and not on servers.
It seems to me like you know very little about what the actual insides of a console do as you statements are uninformed and incorrect. Look who's talking.
With Live, MS have stated that developers need to assume people have a 512kb upload speed. This is in place so that their is as little lag as possible. Overall, due to LIVE being a paid for service, their is a quality control in place meaning less lag than you would encounter on PSN games, although this is to be expected when comparing a paid for service to a free one. Resistance has 40 player servers without lag and free. Gears of War has 8 player games with lag and paid. Yeah, I see where you're coming from.
On a final note, UTIII is coming out on 360 and will be a direct port of the PC version. They will all being developed at the same time but Epic put the 360 version on hold so they could get the PS3 and PC versions out before christmas, which was reasonable business sense as it would have had alot of competition if it had released on 360 this fall. And because they still need to figure out how to do user created content on the 360.
This is all factual, 100% correct information. If you still think you're right, please provide reliable sources.
Um, actually, it's not. But then again, with the happy-touchy-feelings education kids get now (or just the crap education that exists in the southern United States...), you made a valiant effort...
For one, the reason that Epic finished UT3 for the PS3 was because Sony paid them to, otherwise there would be yet-another FPS this holiday season on the already-logjammed AAA 360 release schedule this holiday season. Hell, frankly Sony went about this like a bunch of idiots--there was talk that there was going to be a 360 delay anyway because of the "perfect storm" of AAA 360 titles coming this holiday season (the best line-up of any system for a holiday season ever.) In essence, Sony paid Epic for something they were likely going to do anyway, and no, it's not because of user content.
DMC4 Gameplay actually looks better on the 360 than the PS3, especially when you watch HD side-by-side of the two systems. Too many jaggies, washed-out textures on the PS3 system really don't do DMC4 justice. Then again, if the PS3 was such a "superior" system (which it isn't--it's not even better than the 360), then why would they even consider porting the title over to the "lowly" 360 in the first place?
Oh, and Gears of War did initially use the Unreal Engine, but then it morphed into its own creature specific to the XBox 360--Epic said as much. That's much of the reason for the long delay in the PC port--if it were a straight Unreal Engine title, then porting would have been a snap and not needed an extra half a year longer.
As for PlayStation online, you fail to mention that a) because of the wonderful PlayStation network, you can get idiots with dial up connections lagging out entire games, b) there's no way to see what your friends are playing online and hop in with them (and likely won't be for some time...), c) you never see a room with more than 16 going at once in Resistance unless you specifically create it...and they do have problems with lag, and d) Resistance is a crappy game to begin with. Warhawk would have been a better example...
Epic really had to cram UT3 into the constraints that the PS3 architecture created--it's like the PlayStation 2 all over again, but this time the developers are getting fed up with it, and they're seeing through the Sony B.S. Too bad the ignorant Sony fanboi can't do the same...
PS3 has 256mb RAM. Developers have ran into problems with this, most notably Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed and Rockstar with GTA4. PS3 has 512 Mb RAM, 256 for the CPU and 256 for the GPU. 360 has 512 Mb RAM to divide between GPU and CPU. The RAM shortage in comparison to the 360 is caused by the PS3 OS which takes 96 Mb in comparison to 360s OS that takes 56.
Im not saying that the PS3 can't run UT3, as it can with ease as Epic have shown. What i saying is that PS3 couldn't handle a direct port of Gears of War due to it being designed to make use of 360's hardware. Gears of War was developed with the Unreal Engine 3 in mind, it was developed on PC just like any Western game.
It was a similar case with the MT Framework engine (Lost Planet/Dead Rising). That was developed to make use of 360's hardware but as im sure you know, Lost Planet is being ported to PS3 and DMC4 uses this engine. Lost Planet, Dead Rising and DMC4 were developed on the PC for their first 60% and then ported to the individual consoles. DMC4 actually looks better on the PS3 than on the 360, but hey, let's ignore the movies of both versions.
Also, why on earth are you mentioning online multi-player? GoW was 4v4 due to the nature of the game. It's a close quarters combat game, not a crazy battlefield style game. And it still lagged like hell because of the fact it runs on 360s and not on servers.
It seems to me like you know very little about what the actual insides of a console do as you statements are uninformed and incorrect. Look who's talking.
With Live, MS have stated that developers need to assume people have a 512kb upload speed. This is in place so that their is as little lag as possible. Overall, due to LIVE being a paid for service, their is a quality control in place meaning less lag than you would encounter on PSN games, although this is to be expected when comparing a paid for service to a free one. Resistance has 40 player servers without lag and free. Gears of War has 8 player games with lag and paid. Yeah, I see where you're coming from.
On a final note, UTIII is coming out on 360 and will be a direct port of the PC version. They will all being developed at the same time but Epic put the 360 version on hold so they could get the PS3 and PC versions out before christmas, which was reasonable business sense as it would have had alot of competition if it had released on 360 this fall. And because they still need to figure out how to do user created content on the 360.
This is all factual, 100% correct information. If you still think you're right, please provide reliable sources.
Um, actually, it's not. But then again, with the happy-touchy-feelings education kids get now (or just the crap education that exists in the southern United States...), you made a valiant effort...
For one, the reason that Epic finished UT3 for the PS3 was because Sony paid them to, otherwise there would be yet-another FPS this holiday season on the already-logjammed AAA 360 release schedule this holiday season. Hell, frankly Sony went about this like a bunch of idiots--there was talk that there was going to be a 360 delay anyway because of the "perfect storm" of AAA 360 titles coming this holiday season (the best line-up of any system for a holiday season ever.) In essence, Sony paid Epic for something they were likely going to do anyway, and no, it's not because of user content.
DMC4 Gameplay actually looks better on the 360 than the PS3, especially when you watch HD side-by-side of the two systems. Too many jaggies, washed-out textures on the PS3 system really don't do DMC4 justice. Then again, if the PS3 was such a "superior" system (which it isn't--it's not even better than the 360), then why would they even consider porting the title over to the "lowly" 360 in the first place?
Oh, and Gears of War did initially use the Unreal Engine, but then it morphed into its own creature specific to the XBox 360--Epic said as much. That's much of the reason for the long delay in the PC port--if it were a straight Unreal Engine title, then porting would have been a snap and not needed an extra half a year longer.
As for PlayStation online, you fail to mention that a) because of the wonderful PlayStation network, you can get idiots with dial up connections lagging out entire games, b) there's no way to see what your friends are playing online and hop in with them (and likely won't be for some time...), c) you never see a room with more than 16 going at once in Resistance unless you specifically create it...and they do have problems with lag, and d) Resistance is a crappy game to begin with. Warhawk would have been a better example...
Epic really had to cram UT3 into the constraints that the PS3 architecture created--it's like the PlayStation 2 all over again, but this time the developers are getting fed up with it, and they're seeing through the Sony B.S. Too bad the ignorant Sony fanboi can't do the same...
wow, you have seriously lost all credit. Its so obvious that you're a Microsoft fanboy... If you consider that the 360 has a one year head start, the PS3 is actually doing pretty good. You're also forgetting the fact that developers are still getting used to the PS3 programming, look at the case of the PS2.
I expect the 360 and PS3 to both do good for the coming years, but I can't wait to see the true potential of the PS3 unleashed.
If you're going to be biased, at least have the tendency to admit it.
As for PlayStation online, you fail to mention that a) because of the wonderful PlayStation network, you can get idiots with dial up connections lagging out entire games, b) there's no way to see what your friends are playing online and hop in with them (and likely won't be for some time
Not saying that you are wrong here, but I have never had issues with lag caused by people using 56k modems. That's only from playing Warhawk, which also allows me to reserve spots in a match for friends.
I've had a 360 as well a PS3 really cannot say that I have seen a great deal of difference in the performance of the on-line side of games. 360 games had a lot more people talking because of the bundled headset, unfortunately most of them only opened their mouths to be obsence and offensive.
Given that this thread started from the speculation that Gears of War may end up on the PS3, and in an effort to bring back to that topic, I can see that now that Gears has been ported to the PC that it would be easier to port it to the PS3 as well. However, I doubt that Epic would waste their time with the port as Gears of War isn't really going to be that relevant a game by the time they do. The 360 will have or about to have Gears of War 2 and the PS3 will have games like Kill Zone 2.
are you serious? pfffhaha,i love how you xbots,just keep spewing out this nonsense through word of mouth,do some damn reseach you ignortant s.o.b,ps3 has just as many exclusives (if not more) then 360,here's the link to prove it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS3_exclusives p.s we have MGS4 and final fantasy,(two of the biggest games this generation)_ you have what..? halo? lol gears of war? LOLL!!! warhawk alone owns both.
Look at the case of the PS2? Sorry, I owned all three consoles last gen, and I have to see even towards the end, the games still lagged behind graphically. Not the best example of what we can expect from the PS3.
I just have to LOL at these statements. Everyone should aspire to have the same job as this guy and get paid to spout BS. Firstly, MS funded the original game and would most likley do the same with the sequel. Secondly, Epic have a close relationship with MS and even had some input into the spec's of the 360. It was originally going to have 256mb RAM like the PS3 but Epic insisted 360 should have 512mb so they could realize their vision's of the games they wanted to create. So yeah, if for some reason there was just an exclusive deal of the first two games, which is unlikley, they would have to make some serious alteration's due to PS3's lack of RAM to run a straight port. Also, Gears of War 3, another Xbox will be out before then...
As was proved by UT3, the ps3 could run Gears of war in its sleep, ya turnip. And the ps3 has got 512mb of ram. It is split in half. You know this. And it didn't effect ut3 in any way. Alterations... Gears of war had less characters on screen, less levels and less vehicles than ut3. You are making me smile.
Online gears of war? 3v3? Yep. Let us see if the 360 version of ut3 can keep up with ps3 version, i.e, cod4.
Where do you pull this statements out of? Where the sun don't shine? PS3 has 256mb RAM. Developers have ran into problems with this, most notably Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed and Rockstar with GTA4. That is the one major drawback of PS3, in the same way 360's is only using the DVD format. Im not saying that the PS3 can't run UT3, as it can with ease as Epic have shown. What i saying is that PS3 couldn't handle a direct port of Gears of War due to it being designed to make use of 360's hardware. It was a similar case with the MT Framework engine (Lost Planet/Dead Rising). That was developed to make use of 360's hardware but as im sure you know, Lost Planet is being ported to PS3 and DMC4 uses this engine. In these cases alterations and sacrifices need to be made.
Also, why on earth are you mentioning online multi-player? GoW was 4v4 due to the nature of the game. It's a close quarters combat game, not a crazy battlefield style game. It seems to me like you know very little about what the actual insides of a console do as you statements are uninformed and incorrect. You try to refer to online where actual hardware limitation's have nothing to do with it. What you talk about with COD4 are the rules and regulations of LIVE and the open environment of the PSN network. The PS3 version has a higher max of players due to their being no restriction's in terms of network quality/latency. With Live, MS have stated that developers need to assume people have a 512kb upload speed. This is in place so that their is as little lag as possible. Overall, due to LIVE being a paid for service, their is a quality control in place meaning less lag than you would encounter on PSN games, although this is to be expected when comparing a paid for service to a free one. On a final note, UTIII is coming out on 360 and will be a direct port of the PC version. They will all being developed at the same time but Epic put the 360 version on hold so they could get the PS3 and PC versions out before christmas, which was reasonable business sense as it would have had alot of competition if it had released on 360 this fall.
You know what's ironic? You're arguing for the 360, yet your username is from a Sony exclusive
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
)...you have obviously never played it on 360(i have played both ...my brother owns a ps3 and its hooked up to a 37"sharp ...both look exactly the same to me.i prefer my 360 version for its online functions and superior pad for fps,even my brother prefers playing on 360,there quiet a sociable bunch,my clan....yaknow?).and as for gears being 3v3... what imaginary console is did you play it on? gears on 360 is 4v4 ,but again you clearly havent played it .your just talking exrement for the sake of fanboyism.shut it.you sound like a rabid fanboy from that awful n4g website.and as for that PRATcher guy...he`s just an analyst folks .any body here could come up with the stuff he comes up with.he`s just an opinion in a suit.and to top it off he isnt even a MS or epic suit.So for that fact alone his opinion means nil to me.I dont see gears 1/2/3 coming to ps3 personally but thats just my opinion.I could be wrong ,but i dont care aslong as im playing ti on my 360.But, do you really think MS will let gears go multi(exluding pc)?its like sony just letting mgs4 go wherever .money talks and BS walks (and prints dumb statements on the internet and then calls it an analysts prediction).
