The Wii is fun, but It can't pull off a game like Oblivion, where half the experience is the visual world and characters around you drawing you into the game. It also doesn't have the power for an very immersive environment for an FPS. Although it is possible for a game to have weak graphics and still be more fun, thats up to the game developers. I'd rather have a syatem where they can have the potential to do both well, rather than one that can only do one of them.
So by this logic games like Ninja Gaiden Black, Halo, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil 4, or Zelda (IE: any game from any system prior to the current) could not provide an immersive environment and draw you in?
Although it is possible for a game to have weak graphics and still be more fun, thats up to the game developers.
Like Rockstar with Grand Theft Auto? How about World of Warcraft?
But the Wii just doesn't have the power and graphics to satify the gaming population.
Sure it does. In fact it already has about half the install base of the 360 and more than twice that of the PS3. Remember that if the 'most powerful machine' wins the race, Sony would never have been a contender. People seemed pretty content with their PS1/PS2's despite there being more powerful systems competing with them.
I would expect that the city with the most public transportation options would have the highest per capita ownership of portable systems, at least amongst adults.
This would be true if that was the exclusive target. I know you stated Adults, but Gradeschool commutes are typically longer in rural America, then metro. Also not everyone buys a portable for a commute.
There also isn't anything else I can think of that it uniquely regional in New York City, besides perhaps the aforementioned extensive public transportation system. Why would a portable gaming system lend itself to such a regional difference?
Perhaps it's a product of the US being very damn big. So far in my travels there are different types of people across this country. People in NYC vs Seattle, vs San Antonio vs. Chicago vs. LA vs. Tampa are pretty different in terms of lifestyle and values.
I'm in Scranton PA which is only a few hours from NYC, and there are much fewer PSP's around the busses, parks, etc... perhaps it's a different taste in games, maybe it's different target marketing or the difference may not be cultural, but socio-economic. Compare the average wage and cost of living in / around NYC vs Scranton.
$200-$250 for the PSP may be just too much compared to the $80-$130 for a GBA/DS. This would also explain why I've been seeing unbundled PS3's sitting on the shelf (both varieties) since before Christmas (and yes they are sitting, not being re-stocked) the average person here may have a decidedly lower [maximum] price for entertainment than elsewhere in the country.
I'm no expert, but I just bought a 1080p TV, and all my research indicates that a 1080p (60Hz) signal exceeds the (specified) bandwidth limitations of component.
Kind of. You can push a 1080p signal through component, just not at 60 Frames per Second. (or Hz)
A game running at 1080p60 exceeds the bandwidth of component cables, but a 1080p24 source (like a Movie) does not.
Somehow, I believe Nintendo is fudging the numbers or the entire online world is corrupt.
Never before have I noticed such an incredible disconnect between reality and the online world.
Consider it regional preferences. What is popular in NYC, may not be popular in Paris, or Tokyo, etc... I personally see Far more DS's and GBA SP's than PSPs, but I understand what is popular in my area isn't representitive of the world.
The advantage is they have muliple price points and the added features are modular (except the HDMI port obviously). Not everyone wants online gaming, or HD movies, or even a HDD (not particularly usefull unless you at least sign up for live silver).
The HDD "Not particularly useful"? The HDD is quite useful for caching game content, or downloading new game content, or downloading demos. What is not useful is making it an optional part of the system, that was a mistake from Day 1 - in consoles you do not want "modular features" for then game makers cannot really rely on them existing. You want as few models as possible, preferably with no difference in terms of game play between the models (skins are a different matter being only cosmetic).
Right. Thanks for agreeing with me.
"The HDD is quite useful for caching game content" - 360 games don't rely on this due to the HDD being optional. Thankfully the DVD is fast enough to accomodate the transfer, unlike the Blu-Ray.
...downloading new game content, Which you need at least Live Silver to access. See original post.
or downloading demos. Which you need at least Live Silver to access. See original post.
You do realize there are a few million people out there who don't even have their 360 connected to the internet, let alone signed up for the free 'Silver' membership... Honestly I don't get it, but there are people out there who do... and they number in the millions.
in consoles you do not want "modular features" for then game makers cannot really rely on them existing. You want as few models as possible, preferably with no difference in terms of game play between the models
Right. The existance of or lack of a HDD doesn't change gameplay at all. Any game will play on either the core or premium models. The Ability to (or not) playback HD movies doesn't change gameplay at all. The ability to Wirelessly connect to the internet doesn't change gameplay at all. If people want these features they pay for them, if they don't they don't. Gameplay is still not effected.
Think of it this way; not everyone bought a multitap or a network adapter for the PS2, despite free online and plenty of games offering support for 4 players. Not everyone needed/ wanted it.
The 360 might be able to support 1080p games, as it is already rendering that resolution for 1080i. The problem is that the system just isn't powerful enough to drive this resolution at a proper frame rate.
I think you confused processing power with badwith on the componant cables. The 360 is powerful enough to display at 1080p, and even 1080p/24 over component (HD-DVD will do it since it's only 24 FPS.) but there isn't enough bandwith in the cables to handle 1080p/60 for games. This is why the HDMI cable fixes that.
The huge advantage Microsoft has over Sony is that they can price their systems $200 lower
Except that they are really only charging $30 lower with this Elite model compared to the base PS3.
And the online match play is free with the PS3.
How was that a huge advantage again?
The advantage is they have muliple price points and the added features are modular (except the HDMI port obviously).
Not everyone wants online gaming, or HD movies, or even a HDD (not particularly usefull unless you at least sign up for live silver). You can get by just fine with a $300 360 and if you want to upgrade your capability you can do so incrementally, and buy what you want/need. If Sony could offer a $300 version they would sell alot more units.
Why do you deserve a "2" rating for your mindless comment while my legitimate question remains at a "1"? I'm fairly new to being a user on slashdot
Welcome to slashdot. Bashing Sony, and praising apple will get you pretty far. If you can do both at the same time, it'll be at a 5 rating in no time.
While I agree this feature should already be available for the PS3 I don't think it's enough of a reason to boycott the system,
Nor did I ever suggest a boycot. This added "feature" to the PS3 skipped a few important steps to be truly useful. If they wanted PS1 games to run on the PSP, then they should have made it available either as a download on a computer or *gasp* use the PSP's Wireless functions so it could pull down the game directly. If they wanted the PS1 games to run on a PS3, it would seem simple enough to allow that.
To require a PS3 as a gateway is completely unessessary as the PSP has all the hardware to preform this function independantly, so the only reason Sony would make such a decision was as an incentive to have those with PSP's buy a PS3 for this purpose. This is a corporate decision that shows they have their head firmly up there ass. This isn't anti-Sony, it's just Anti-Stupid-Fucking-Decisions. I would be pissed if Nintendo did the same thing with the Wii and the DS.
To offer downloadable PS1 games to the PS3 to play is value added.
To offer downloadable PS1 games to the PSP to play is value added.
To offer downloadable PS1 games to the PS3 that can be transfered to the PSP to play also is an exceptional value added.
To require a PS3 to do the downloading then not be able to play the game, and require you send it to a PSP to be useful... is a concept so stupid I can't imagine someone bringing it up at a meeting let alone having it implemented.
I don't really understand why Sony decided to remove the Emotion Engine this early in the consoles life cycle when backward compatibility would seem the most crucial to the console's success.
The largest complaints about the PS3 have been Cost, Lack of Compelling software and Availability. The first 2 solved the problem of the 3rd. Now there are PS3's available at retail wherever you go. Sony has still sold fewer than 2 million units world wide. MS sold over 10 million X-Box 360, and the Wii sold over 5 million. So either way you cut it, they have a lot of catching up to do.
2 things need to happen by the end of calander 2007 for them to be able to compete this generation. Compelling exclusive software needs to be made available, and they need to be able to drop the price. So by them removing the PS2 chips this early, they move towards a new sku that will be easier to drop the price on. If they really wanted to be competitive they should drop the premium pack at $600 (yes drop it) so they now have a $500 console at the highend, and offer the 'Emulation only' version as a $400 SKU. That would move units, and the consumer would be less angry about spotty BC since they could have bought up to the premium edition if it was that important to them.
There is always a direct correlation between the cost to produce a good and the price of a good. The only reason games were generally set at $50 previously was because it was an agreed upon price by the developers, publishers, etc... If developers were not able to recoup their cost at that price then they would not have agreed to sell at that price, plain and simple.
If their is any coorelation between the cost to produce a good and the price of a good, it starts with what the customer is willing to pay. The cost of the final product to the consumer dictates the development costs and not the other way around (otherwise the market would not support it).
The Fact that Gears of War cost more to make than Dead Rising didn't mean it debuted at a different price. They were priced equally to maximize profit on each. Gears sold amazingly well, but would not have sold at a $99.95 price point simply because it cost more to produce. We as the consumer don't care how much it cost, we care about the value added to us, and what we are willing to pay for that.
Likewise, games that were easier to develop, like Katamari Damacy, often went for $40, $30, or even $20.
Lower development costs help a publisher's ability to do that, but it was priced lower to make it more attractive to the average buyer. If a Mario game, or Harry potter game cost the same to develop as Katamari it wouild still be priced higher than $40 since that is what the market will pay.
Furthermore, games were almost never sold at $50 for their lifetime. Once publishers have exhausted the amount of people who are willing to pay $50 they generally drop the price to attract customers who are more price conscious.
Exactly, and this works reguardless of initial development costs. Once the publisher has exausted the maximum profitability of the higher price point, they lower it to bring in more people. That's why you typically have a step down in pricing (from $50 to $40 to $30 to $20) rather than simply cut the price from $50 to $20, because you are optimizing profit and brining in new people at each level.
The reason Wii games cost less is development costs, plain and simple.
No. There is no direct correlation between development costs and consumer price.
If it did you would have non-standard prices that would vary wildly. Do you pay more to see a 'summer blockbuster' that cost 200 million dollars [to make] than an independent film that cost $5 million?
The developers have standard price points and they set their price and development budget to a level they feel they will make the most profit.
Are you aware that this is going to turn worse with the introduction of the updated PS3 hardware (CECHCxx) that is going to debut in Europe, but will also come to the US? They have dropped the emulation hardware and are going software only, resulting in a drop from 97.5% supported titles to just about 12% according to Sony's own backwards compatibility database.
Holy Shit. I knew their compatibility would drop signifcantly, but they couldn't even get
Final Fantasy to work well? Holy shit. MS got blasted for not offering good BC, but at least they prioritized HALO and a few other Big franchises (like GTA) but Sony didn't do that for FF? or how about GTA: SAN ANDREAS ?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid!
Wii Sports might actually be the most important game since... Doom? Tetris? Because that's what's driving the endless Wii shortage - viral marketing courtesy of the Wii Tennis 'we have got to get one of these' effect.
I would agree in reguard to WiiSports being the most important game since Tetris (on Gameboy). Both were pack-ins that drew in new gamers, and drove sales of many units beyond the traditional market.
It gets worse. If the Wii continues to be this successful then every game development company on the planet will make the Wii their primary development target. Third party titles will likely cut back on graphics development to fit the Wii's hardware, and they will likely marry certain parts of their interface to Nintendo's Wiimote.
That's why the 'ULTRA-Hard core' gamers, HATE, I repeat HATE The Wii. If the Wii continues to take off then the style of game play they have grown to love, and expect is threatened. The market will move in a different direction, and they don't want that.
Pokemon Diamond/Pearl (or Prince Edition as I like to call them) for the DS has been out since September 06 in Japan. It was online then, and included VoIP during battles as well.
God only knows why you felt the need to reply to my comment by effectively saying the same thing I did but about DOS instead of Mac OS 6.
That was just re-iterating what backwords compatibility was in reference to the conversation. People are mixing incompatibility with backworks compatibility when they complain that software written for vista won't work on XP, yet they would certainly understand why say a PS2 disk won't work in a PS1...
Why I posted effectively boils down I'm waiting for something to finish at work so I can go home and am bored in the mean time.
You're being disingenuous with your objection. The GP poster was talking about backwards compatibility with respect to the OS, not with hardware. The point stands that it is still possible to this day to run software written in 1984 for Mac OS 6.x on a 68k processor. That's two processor architectures and a complete OS rewrite.
I'd call that pretty good backwards compatibility. The only times an application requires a certain version of the OS is when it is actually using a feature that wasn't present in a previous release - not due to some artificially created 'requirement' by Apple.
Wait a second.
You want their new software with new enhancements to run on an older system that didn't have any of them? That isn't backwords compatibility, that would be forwards capacity for XP. MS can run programs that were written as far back as the DOS age. That's backwords compatability.
Can programs written for MAC OSX be run from a computer running Mac 9? That's what we're talking about.
I own both a Wii and PS3, and they are both fun in their own way. If a game is released on both, guess which I will buy ? My guess is that you do not have an HDTV, or you own a crappy old one and your angry that it only supports 1080i. (and the PS3 will only run at 480i on your screen)
That largely depends on the game and the differentiating features. For the record I have an HDTV that does 480p/720p/1080i, and a Wii60 both using component cables.
I bought Marvel Ultimate Alliance for the 360 due to it having online co-op. Some friends did the same, and we got some good 4 player online co-op going. This week I'm getting Tiger Woods 07 for the Wii. Despite not being in HD, I cannot see myself ever going the 'Classic controller' route for a Golf or Tennis game (in fact I sold all my old ones). WiiSports wasn't the end all, be all but it highlighted what is possible and that's a road I will explore at every turn.
Fight Night Round 3 is a fun game and has been lauded for it's graphics. Yes, they are hella nice (especially the ladies), but I caught myself wishing I could play with the Nunchuck instead of the controller. I never once played WiiSports boxing and had the thought... if only this looked more realistic...
launches an insanely intensive marketing campaign, showing off upcoming games in all their "impossible on Xbox 360" glory.
MS can play the same "Impossible on PS3" campain. Hate to break it to you but the PS3 isn't overly supperior to the 360, there are trade offs. Gears of War in it's current form would not be playable on the PS3 due to the PS3 having slower read speeds and half the system RAM of the 360, and a worse GPU. The PS3 is also lacking any hardware scaller. I won't even discuss their lacking online service since that is backend/ and software so it is possible they could fix that.
The PS3 has more processor cores and disk space but there are other things it is lacking; not least of which is decent developer tools.
Slashdot Mirror
So by this logic games like Ninja Gaiden Black, Halo, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil 4, or Zelda (IE: any game from any system prior to the current) could not provide an immersive environment and draw you in?
Although it is possible for a game to have weak graphics and still be more fun, thats up to the game developers.
Like Rockstar with Grand Theft Auto? How about World of Warcraft?
Sure it does. In fact it already has about half the install base of the 360 and more than twice that of the PS3. Remember that if the 'most powerful machine' wins the race, Sony would never have been a contender. People seemed pretty content with their PS1/PS2's despite there being more powerful systems competing with them.
This would be true if that was the exclusive target. I know you stated Adults, but Gradeschool commutes are typically longer in rural America, then metro. Also not everyone buys a portable for a commute.
There also isn't anything else I can think of that it uniquely regional in New York City, besides perhaps the aforementioned extensive public transportation system. Why would a portable gaming system lend itself to such a regional difference?
Perhaps it's a product of the US being very damn big. So far in my travels there are different types of people across this country. People in NYC vs Seattle, vs San Antonio vs. Chicago vs. LA vs. Tampa are pretty different in terms of lifestyle and values.
I'm in Scranton PA which is only a few hours from NYC, and there are much fewer PSP's around the busses, parks, etc... perhaps it's a different taste in games, maybe it's different target marketing or the difference may not be cultural, but socio-economic. Compare the average wage and cost of living in / around NYC vs Scranton.
$200-$250 for the PSP may be just too much compared to the $80-$130 for a GBA/DS. This would also explain why I've been seeing unbundled PS3's sitting on the shelf (both varieties) since before Christmas (and yes they are sitting, not being re-stocked) the average person here may have a decidedly lower [maximum] price for entertainment than elsewhere in the country.
Right. You want the Wii instead. It's the only system with a one handed vibrating controller. Ideal for Porn...
Kind of. You can push a 1080p signal through component, just not at 60 Frames per Second. (or Hz) A game running at 1080p60 exceeds the bandwidth of component cables, but a 1080p24 source (like a Movie) does not.
Never before have I noticed such an incredible disconnect between reality and the online world.
Consider it regional preferences. What is popular in NYC, may not be popular in Paris, or Tokyo, etc... I personally see Far more DS's and GBA SP's than PSPs, but I understand what is popular in my area isn't representitive of the world.
The HDD "Not particularly useful"? The HDD is quite useful for caching game content, or downloading new game content, or downloading demos. What is not useful is making it an optional part of the system, that was a mistake from Day 1 - in consoles you do not want "modular features" for then game makers cannot really rely on them existing. You want as few models as possible, preferably with no difference in terms of game play between the models (skins are a different matter being only cosmetic).
Right. Thanks for agreeing with me.
"The HDD is quite useful for caching game content" - 360 games don't rely on this due to the HDD being optional. Thankfully the DVD is fast enough to accomodate the transfer, unlike the Blu-Ray.
or downloading demos. Which you need at least Live Silver to access. See original post.
You do realize there are a few million people out there who don't even have their 360 connected to the internet, let alone signed up for the free 'Silver' membership... Honestly I don't get it, but there are people out there who do... and they number in the millions.
in consoles you do not want "modular features" for then game makers cannot really rely on them existing. You want as few models as possible, preferably with no difference in terms of game play between the models
Right. The existance of or lack of a HDD doesn't change gameplay at all. Any game will play on either the core or premium models. The Ability to (or not) playback HD movies doesn't change gameplay at all. The ability to Wirelessly connect to the internet doesn't change gameplay at all. If people want these features they pay for them, if they don't they don't. Gameplay is still not effected.
Think of it this way; not everyone bought a multitap or a network adapter for the PS2, despite free online and plenty of games offering support for 4 players. Not everyone needed/ wanted it.
I think you confused processing power with badwith on the componant cables. The 360 is powerful enough to display at 1080p, and even 1080p/24 over component (HD-DVD will do it since it's only 24 FPS.) but there isn't enough bandwith in the cables to handle 1080p/60 for games. This is why the HDMI cable fixes that.
Except that they are really only charging $30 lower with this Elite model compared to the base PS3.
And the online match play is free with the PS3.
How was that a huge advantage again?
The advantage is they have muliple price points and the added features are modular (except the HDMI port obviously). Not everyone wants online gaming, or HD movies, or even a HDD (not particularly usefull unless you at least sign up for live silver). You can get by just fine with a $300 360 and if you want to upgrade your capability you can do so incrementally, and buy what you want/need. If Sony could offer a $300 version they would sell alot more units.
Simple solution: Use compression.
I was refering to UMD movies, which have been dropped by most studios (even Sony's studios cut back support).
Welcome to slashdot. Bashing Sony, and praising apple will get you pretty far. If you can do both at the same time, it'll be at a 5 rating in no time.
While I agree this feature should already be available for the PS3 I don't think it's enough of a reason to boycott the system,
Nor did I ever suggest a boycot. This added "feature" to the PS3 skipped a few important steps to be truly useful. If they wanted PS1 games to run on the PSP, then they should have made it available either as a download on a computer or *gasp* use the PSP's Wireless functions so it could pull down the game directly. If they wanted the PS1 games to run on a PS3, it would seem simple enough to allow that.
To require a PS3 as a gateway is completely unessessary as the PSP has all the hardware to preform this function independantly, so the only reason Sony would make such a decision was as an incentive to have those with PSP's buy a PS3 for this purpose. This is a corporate decision that shows they have their head firmly up there ass. This isn't anti-Sony, it's just Anti-Stupid-Fucking-Decisions. I would be pissed if Nintendo did the same thing with the Wii and the DS.
To offer downloadable PS1 games to the PS3 to play is value added.
To offer downloadable PS1 games to the PSP to play is value added.
To offer downloadable PS1 games to the PS3 that can be transfered to the PSP to play also is an exceptional value added.
To require a PS3 to do the downloading then not be able to play the game, and require you send it to a PSP to be useful... is a concept so stupid I can't imagine someone bringing it up at a meeting let alone having it implemented.
The largest complaints about the PS3 have been Cost, Lack of Compelling software and Availability. The first 2 solved the problem of the 3rd. Now there are PS3's available at retail wherever you go. Sony has still sold fewer than 2 million units world wide. MS sold over 10 million X-Box 360, and the Wii sold over 5 million. So either way you cut it, they have a lot of catching up to do.
2 things need to happen by the end of calander 2007 for them to be able to compete this generation. Compelling exclusive software needs to be made available, and they need to be able to drop the price. So by them removing the PS2 chips this early, they move towards a new sku that will be easier to drop the price on. If they really wanted to be competitive they should drop the premium pack at $600 (yes drop it) so they now have a $500 console at the highend, and offer the 'Emulation only' version as a $400 SKU. That would move units, and the consumer would be less angry about spotty BC since they could have bought up to the premium edition if it was that important to them.
When Sony gets its' head out of it's ass and realizes it should have been there from the start. So probably never.
A fine example of an over priced product disapearing from the market.
If their is any coorelation between the cost to produce a good and the price of a good, it starts with what the customer is willing to pay. The cost of the final product to the consumer dictates the development costs and not the other way around (otherwise the market would not support it).
The Fact that Gears of War cost more to make than Dead Rising didn't mean it debuted at a different price. They were priced equally to maximize profit on each. Gears sold amazingly well, but would not have sold at a $99.95 price point simply because it cost more to produce. We as the consumer don't care how much it cost, we care about the value added to us, and what we are willing to pay for that.
Likewise, games that were easier to develop, like Katamari Damacy, often went for $40, $30, or even $20.
Lower development costs help a publisher's ability to do that, but it was priced lower to make it more attractive to the average buyer. If a Mario game, or Harry potter game cost the same to develop as Katamari it wouild still be priced higher than $40 since that is what the market will pay.
Furthermore, games were almost never sold at $50 for their lifetime. Once publishers have exhausted the amount of people who are willing to pay $50 they generally drop the price to attract customers who are more price conscious.
Exactly, and this works reguardless of initial development costs. Once the publisher has exausted the maximum profitability of the higher price point, they lower it to bring in more people. That's why you typically have a step down in pricing (from $50 to $40 to $30 to $20) rather than simply cut the price from $50 to $20, because you are optimizing profit and brining in new people at each level.
No. There is no direct correlation between development costs and consumer price.
If it did you would have non-standard prices that would vary wildly. Do you pay more to see a 'summer blockbuster' that cost 200 million dollars [to make] than an independent film that cost $5 million?
The developers have standard price points and they set their price and development budget to a level they feel they will make the most profit.
Welcome to capitalism 101.
Holy Shit. I knew their compatibility would drop signifcantly, but they couldn't even get Final Fantasy to work well? Holy shit. MS got blasted for not offering good BC, but at least they prioritized HALO and a few other Big franchises (like GTA) but Sony didn't do that for FF? or how about GTA: SAN ANDREAS ? Stupid. Stupid. Stupid!
I would agree in reguard to WiiSports being the most important game since Tetris (on Gameboy). Both were pack-ins that drew in new gamers, and drove sales of many units beyond the traditional market.
That's why the 'ULTRA-Hard core' gamers, HATE, I repeat HATE The Wii. If the Wii continues to take off then the style of game play they have grown to love, and expect is threatened. The market will move in a different direction, and they don't want that.
Sorry Zonk, but welcome to last year.
That was just re-iterating what backwords compatibility was in reference to the conversation. People are mixing incompatibility with backworks compatibility when they complain that software written for vista won't work on XP, yet they would certainly understand why say a PS2 disk won't work in a PS1...
Why I posted effectively boils down I'm waiting for something to finish at work so I can go home and am bored in the mean time.
Cheers.
---S.
Wait a second. You want their new software with new enhancements to run on an older system that didn't have any of them? That isn't backwords compatibility, that would be forwards capacity for XP. MS can run programs that were written as far back as the DOS age. That's backwords compatability.
Can programs written for MAC OSX be run from a computer running Mac 9? That's what we're talking about.
That largely depends on the game and the differentiating features. For the record I have an HDTV that does 480p/720p/1080i, and a Wii60 both using component cables.
I bought Marvel Ultimate Alliance for the 360 due to it having online co-op. Some friends did the same, and we got some good 4 player online co-op going. This week I'm getting Tiger Woods 07 for the Wii. Despite not being in HD, I cannot see myself ever going the 'Classic controller' route for a Golf or Tennis game (in fact I sold all my old ones). WiiSports wasn't the end all, be all but it highlighted what is possible and that's a road I will explore at every turn.
Fight Night Round 3 is a fun game and has been lauded for it's graphics. Yes, they are hella nice (especially the ladies), but I caught myself wishing I could play with the Nunchuck instead of the controller. I never once played WiiSports boxing and had the thought... if only this looked more realistic...
MS can play the same "Impossible on PS3" campain. Hate to break it to you but the PS3 isn't overly supperior to the 360, there are trade offs. Gears of War in it's current form would not be playable on the PS3 due to the PS3 having slower read speeds and half the system RAM of the 360, and a worse GPU. The PS3 is also lacking any hardware scaller. I won't even discuss their lacking online service since that is backend/ and software so it is possible they could fix that.
The PS3 has more processor cores and disk space but there are other things it is lacking; not least of which is decent developer tools.