San Andreas heads for Xbox and PC

[Jupitus]

Poor ole bodhi. Let me know your paypal acct and I'll forward you some money.

I was banned due to the gf-less MikeC getting upset over some pictures I posted of my cock in a girls mouth. I do miss your PS2 bumming though it must be said.

We don't need this kind of tosser around here.... 'd

 

[Doomy]

Lol the only bit I see as 'offensive' is the word 'gf-less'. Now im sure MikeC can take it on the chin like any other bloke would.

 

[Danya]

Lot of mis-information in this thread TBH.

Progressive scan isn't exactly a big issue anyway... 95% of people don't have a TV that can do that and therefore it means absolutely nothing.

Depends where you are - in the US and Japan HDTVs are faily common so progressive scan and HDTV modes are more desired. In the PAL region pretty much everyone has normal interlaced sets so it's less of a big deal. Regardless, PS2 can't do HDTV and only a handful of xbox games even try - neither console has enough power to really exploit high-res screens, that'll be something for xbox2 and PS3.

As for the Xbox.. you would think with it's superior hardware and 'easier' development tools that it would actually have some good original games by now

The much larger installed base of PS2 is a bigger factor than the relative performance of ease of dev for a console. Especially when developing original IP. Unless you get a big xbox exclusive payoff from MS, releasing for PS2 will always make more money.

Lets not forget the Xbox was made at a total and complete loss. Every console MS sell loses them cash... at least the PS2 turns a healthy profit.

According to what source? No console makes much profit on the hardware anyway - PS2s certainly don't. They make most of the money off software sales. Overall xbox is very profitable for MS, mainly off software royalties.

Anyway.. for a console that's a lot older than the Xbox and far far cheaper to make, that actually makes a profit... it sure does turn out some visual gems which the Xbox doesn't seem able to compete with. GT4 and MGS3 look so brilliant on such "lame" hardware as you put it... funny that.

Cost to produce at this point is probably not very different, especially given the volumes they are both being made in. Visual quality is often more about artwork than fancy effects. Still xbox can do things the PS2 can't, which isn't the case the other way. How they are used is another thing entirely. Also, 1280x960 photo-mode stills from GT4 don't prove anything, try posting some real shots from in-game for a fair comparison.

You know what will be interesting is when the Xbox 2 comes out and is suceeded by the PS3... the PS3 will have the superior hardware... and with such brilliant devs as they do on the PS2 currently... surely you guys will turn from Xbox fanboyism to PS3 fanboyism... unless of course you start looking at photos... or even films... cause after all they have even better graphics.. and that's all you seem to care about!

At this stage so little is known about PS3 or xbox2 that it's hard to say which will be faster. From what it looks like though, they will be quite similar, not only in performance, but in the way you program them.
Also truely brilliant devs can develop for any platform, not just sony platforms.

Did I forget to mention most PS2 games run at 60fps as well? All the nice looking Xbox games run at... 30fps... whoops

Plenty of PS2 games run at 30, and some very nice xbox games run at 60. If anything, more games released on PS2 run at 30 now than previously as people try to push the hardware to do things it can't quite manage.