^^ As long as they can continue pushing out better graphics on the consoles, I'm ok with it. :D

However, I am afraid developers are going to cap out what can be done on both the PS3 and 360 soon. Only time will tell I guess.

Developers are already limited due to the 360's limitations and having to make games for both consoles....

The 360's only real limitation compared to the PS3 is the limited storage capacity of DVD's. Otherwise, the hardware capabilities a pretty close to the PS3.

They probably capped it already. Alot of games have improved graphics from thier previous versions, but the hardware capabilities are pretty maxed out. Game developers are gonna have a hard time making games stable. I pretty sure the next gen consoles are in the works and could probably come out sooner. The problem is at what time they should release it. As long as the PS3/Xbox 360 is still selling strong, they're gonna hold off on introducing a new console.

To all! :tup: Thank you very much! Couldn't really have a question answered much better. I've been out of the console and gaming world for a while and now I am more up to speed. :tiphat:

i want someone with an xbox to explain in detail without using the words halo or forza....

^^You have to finish the thought first. :P

his point being its got nothing else to offer...???

yup, thats what i mean... think how much more a game could carry if able...

I found it funny though to find out recently, that the new Battlefield 3 game (Which is freaking awesome for multiplayer) has 2 disks for the 360 and 1 for ps3, with the same content...

They did the same for Forza. They gambled on HD DVD and lost. It might have been a different story if they used for game data.

oh didnt know that. Didnt know about the HD DVD either. so they have an HD DVD player in it??

I can see how the number of disks might matter for RPGs with 4 or 5 disks or something, but something like Forza with a game disk and data disk?

Actually number of disks isn't important, it is how fast you can load that data onto the hard drive. For faster load times most PS3 and Xbox360 games require the games be installed to the HD (the last Drake's for the PS3 and a Halo one or two releases back were exceptions in that they were very efficient at seamlessly steaming in the data needed).

In loading to the HD, the 360 is much faster. E.g., you can actually load both Forza game disks onto your hard drive in the time it takes to load the data from one PS3 disk onto its HD (for example it takes ages to install GT5).

They had an external add-on for it back when it came out. I don't remember how much it was, but it wasn't cheap. When HD-DVD flopped, they dropped it. It was a half-*** gamble by Microsoft and they never really committed to it. A lot of the success of Blu-ray can be traced back to the PS3.

Don't forget that Wal-Mart endorsed bluray and not HD-DVD. That can be make or break on rival technology like those 2.

Microsoft will really need to pick up bluray with their next gen.

I am an avid console gamer, it keeps me outta trouble. I could care less about micro$oft charging for Xbox Live. Its far superior to psn in many ways (speed, movie and game content, security!). 5$ a month is hardly a deal breaker. Ive only owned 4 ps3 games and prolly 50 xbox games. Playstations online chat ruined all gaming chances and thus renamed my ps3 the blu ray player.

I am a little shocked to see lotsa follwing for Sony, a couple years ago it was a WAY different story.

Like I mentioned, I have both. But I too use the PS3 mostly for Netflix and Blu-ray movies with the occasional PS3 exclusive title. For titles that come out on both consoles I almost always get the xbox version -- the graphics are typically indistinguishable, better multiplayer integration (especially chat), and (personal choice) I like the xbox controller better.