Why do you think the last 2 games of the year were PS3 exclusives? (Little Big Planet or LBP, and Uncharted 2)
Why do you think this past Holiday season PS3's out sold the xbox 360 almost 5 to 1?
When the PS3 first came out I would have agreed with you but since it is cheeper and more powerful then the xbox 360. The only system doing better is the Wii and that is another arguement altogether. [/b]

1. Sorry to bust your bubble, but they aren't the only ones
2. It had higher sales these past 3 months IT MUST BE BETTER.

LBP was the PS3's game of the year because it was the ONLY game worth even mentioning. And, as UD pointed out, there isn't a single GotY award. That said, I have LBP and its mainly been gathering dust on my shelf. I think the game is above average, but not good. I suspect that much of its critical acclaim is because it was one of the first PS3 exclusives that didn't straight up suck.

As for Uncharted 2, I have heard its supposed to be good, but I'm probably not going to play it. Shooters on a console just don't work - they are waaaay too frustrating. I tried playing Killzone 2 on the PS3 at work (60in plasma ftw!), but it just wasn't fun to constantly fight with the controller.

The PS3 had a good surge of sales because the Slim just came out.

The PS3 is no where near cheaper ($200/$300 for the 360, $300 for the PS3 Slim), and it is only more powerful in theoretical terms. When it comes to pushing pixels, the 360 has the more powerful GPU. Not that it really matters, for all intents and purposes they are identically powerful.

And the 360 still has more units sold than the PS3, and by quite a large margin.

Well f*ck me sideways, my brother's 360 E74'd, so now both the Xboxes in my house are in the shop.

More pixel pushing power, sure, but there's a reason the PS3 dominates the boards in projects like F@H.

You can push pixels all you want. 256 player multiplayer is 256 player multiplayer...

Yup, but that doesn't help with games at all. Funnily enough, a good F@H client generally makes a poor CPU for games

Of course, the PS3 is soundly beaten by GPUs - nvidia GPUs make up half as many active clients as the PS3 yet are producing twice as much work. ATI GPUs also lead the PS3 in per client work, only its more like 2.5x instead of 4x.



That has nothing to do with the power of the system.

That said, multiplayer games that large just don't work very well. There were PC games several years back (before the PS3 and 360) that boasted 128-player multiplayer, except the servers were almost never that full and when they were it was a laggy mess. It sounds great as a bullet point, but in practice it sucks. And if it isn't a laggy mess, chances are you'll only be fighting the same ~16 people anyway, as the battles will likely be split into several key points across the map.

http://ps3.ign.com/objects/811/811710.html

MAG did it just fine on the PS3. The Xbox, on the other hand, chokes with 16 players.

Again, number of people has NOTHING to do with the console hardware. They sure as hell aren't using PS3's and 360's for the back end server, which is what actually does the heavy lifting.

I don't know where you get the idea that the 360 chokes with 16 people, but I assure you that it does not.

I have two, I can assure you, it does. Quite painfully in fact.

I have the 360 and PS3, and I assure you that you are an idiot.

Sorry, but its true. Someone had to tell you. If your 360 is lagging, its your ISPs fault. Or you are playing a game like COD:MW2 where the developers decided to be completely retarded and have the players host rather than a dedicated server. It sure as hell isn't the 360's fault.

Except ALL the games I've played on my 360 lag with more than 8 players. TF2, MW2, GoW2, all lag, because unlike(from what I hear, which could be wrong) PS3 titles, there are no dedicated servers. There's a reason MAG was only made for the PS3. The PS3 does have it's problems(I've heard framerates stutter on HD resolutions, just as an example), but server infrastructure is apparently not one of them. I could be wrong. I don't own a PS3. But I hate my Xbox. And so do many of my friends(who all have different ISPs, and have since traded their xboxes in for PS3s and been much happier). In fact, I just got both Xboxes back from repairs, and one of them is already broken. That's their reliability for you.

stopped reading discs? same thing happened here a while back after we'd only had it for 4 or 5 months. and of course im completely broke

It depends on the game. MW2 doesn't have dedicated servers on ANY platform, because IW is run by a bunch of retards. There are definitely 360 games with dedicated servers - TF2 is one of them.

MAG is a PS3 exclusive because SCEA is the publisher, and not because of any technical reasons.

I've played online games on my 360 with more than 8 people - no lag. I also have no lag on my PS3, or PC. I promise you, any lag you get on your 360 is not the 360's fault - even a freaking arduino is fast enough to keep up with a game's TCP stream, which is only ~3-5 kb/s.

Also keep in mind that the more people there are the greater the chance that one of THEM has a crappy ISP. A single laggy person introduces lag to everyone else.

Well those retards made the best-selling game in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW2

No they didn't. They made the biggest selling LAUNCH. Hell, Wii Play has outsold it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#Top_20_console_games_of_all_time

That said, look at MW2's PC sales (which has much, MUCH higher standards for online play than consoles), which is 170,000.

I would argue that that's because few can afford to keep up with new releases on the PC, since you need to KEEP putting money into upgrades after you buy it in order to play what's new.

You would argue a position that's wrong - you do that all the time.

Well it's a hypothesis, not a conclusive study. It is a fact though that gaming PCs are a lot more expensive to purchase and continue using than a given console. It's a superior experience, I'm not arguing against that, but it IS more expensive since you need to keep putting money into upgrades to keep playing new games.

No, that isn't a fact. That is a common myth. Likewise, you rarely need to upgrade unless you want to. The 7900GT I bought ~3 years ago is still fast enough to play the latest and greatest games, just at 1024x768