GTA IV and the battle of the consoles

Grand Theft Auto IV is expected to sell out today on both the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, but already the console makers are battling to get the upper hand. Sony has released a PS3 package that comes with the game, but it's Microsoft that have really pulled out all the stops by spending a reported $50 million on two downloadable additions to the game that will be available exclusively on Xbox Live.

The content of the packs is currently unknown, but with each costing Microsoft $25 million, it's fair to assume that they will add significantly to the already huge game – and that they won't be cheap for us to buy. But given that most serious gamers already own one of the two machines, will it be worth forking out for the 360 to get the extra content if you already have a PS3?

If you’re a well-off PS3 owner who plays every game through to the bitter end, then it might be worth getting a 360 for the downloadable add-ons that will entertain you for another few hours. On the whole, though, I doubt that many will be tempted to buy an additional console.

Nor are the two versions different enough to encourage much console switching. The graphics are more or less identical, by all accounts, which is disappointing – Rockstar, the game makers, could have used the full power of the PS3’s cell processor to up the ante in the visual stakes.

If you have neither console and this is your idea of car-jacking, gun-toting, drug-dealing fun, the 360 seems to be the one to go for. But if you are a movie buff with an HD-TV then the Blu-ray player in the PS3 may well be the clincher.

Essentially, we have two companies that have pretty much bottomless pockets fighting to be top dog in an industry worth billions of dollars per year. Regardless of the outcome, even the loser will be sitting pretty. If you find yourself appalled by the content of GTA IV or just are becoming a little too involved in the criminality then you can always fork out yet more for a Wii Fit and throw yourself in to it's yogic bliss to centre yourself once more.

Full GTA IV coverage:

Man stabbed while waiting to buy Grand Theft Auto IV
GTA review: Not just a game, but five-star entertainment
It’s just a game, says GTA producer

Comments

[Harry G]

I tried to get hold of a copy for my 360 yesterday and everybody had sold out. The only version still available at lunchtime was a few copies of the bundled PS3/GTA4 pack. A few hundred pounds more than I initially intended to spend, but boy was I tempted. Am p***ed off with myself for not pre-ordering.

[David W]

I had preordered my copy - but was distracted by something shiny and went for the PS/3 version..

I still stayed up til 4am playing it, but will be looking to get a 360 copy as soon as they become available...

Overall, it's a great game, but lacks the impact GTA3 had. On the plus side, no more spending 4 hours pumping iron and BMXing across a huge city scape like in San Andreas

[Chuck]

"even the loser will be sitting pretty".

And while MS and Sony are fighting it out people are still buying GTA IV why would Rockstar bother spending vast amounts on major re programming just to make the PS3 version look better? They're quids in whatever.

Look at the demand. People's faces smashed in and others stabbed over a game. Harry G, your comment leads me to think you are probably best qualified to answer the question of what motivates these thugs. Not to say that you would behave so senselessly. But you do seem to also feel the pull of the 'must have'.

I think what's really being emphasised by these events is not that games of the GTA ilc are sick but this clammy fingered consumerist society is.

I stand guilty as charged. Feeling annoyed if I can't have the instant I want.

[Paul]

Why does the journo think the cell will make any difference to the quality of graphics? its a cpu not a gpu so it wont have that big an effect anyway. which other games that were released on both formats look noticeably better on the ps3?

sometimes i think the times dont actually know anything about the games market or technology at all!

[David Hutchinson]

Paul,
You are right that the graphics on both the PS3 and 360 use a GPU to display the graphics (both 500Mhz but from different manufacturers) but the CPU is an extremely important factor and shouldn't be overlooked.

Both consoles have a CPU that runs at 3.2Ghz but with the Xbox using a G5 processor verses a cell processor in the PS3, the ability to deal with complex physics on the fly is significantly greater on the PS3. It has 7 synergistic processing units versus the Xbox's 3 which means it can handle much more data per second. The Xbox can deal with 1 teraflops of floating point data, but the PS3 can deal with 2.18 teraflops per second which means the amount of 3D data and physics able to be rendered on screen at any one time is vastly greater on the PS3 even though both consoles have GPUs that run at 500Mhz. RAM also has an effect as does the amount of data the media (Blu-ray and DVD) can store.

The Playstation is a bit of a beast to program for versus the Xbox 360, which is effectively a PC. However, all in all, if a games company wanted to really push the 2 machines, they can produce a game that looks better on the PS3. This is due to the Cell Processor.

It's not we don't know about the technology, it's just that an article of this nature shouldn't go into this sort of detail as it can just be confusing.

[max power]

You mean people actually use the xbox for gaming? I thought it was only good for allowing dogs to lift their legs over.

[Jim]

Well Paul, looks like "the journo" told you!

Well I guess I'l wait in the vain hope that a Wii version might one day happen. With wife and offspring I won't be investing in another console just yet, even if it is shiny.

[danny evans]

ok lets settle this.
I have both systems, bought one game and borrowed other to compare.
I have been a big believer that the xbox was primarily a game system that can play movies and the ps3 was a movie system that can play games but i can now the tide is turning, and finally i can say a ps3 verson is better, although only very slightly better, than the xbox version. Just seems more polished with cleaner, smoother textures. For the first time ever i prefer the ps3 version and i have been a xbox supporter from day 1. But in time this will become more common as the programmers get to grips with the ps3 architecture. But GT5 will have to go a long way to beat Forza 2, Prologue not there yet, but GT5 may well set the standard. I think the ps3 is the way forward in the long term, unless its an xbox exclusive (Gears makes resistance look tame). Theres life in the xbox yet for home grown titles but for everything else, and the added benefit of blueray, ps3 seems to be finally living up to its promise. (and its so much more quiet for home movie use!) Just cant help but feel the xbox is becoming my toy, and that the ps3 is centre of the home entertainment system.

Not selling the xbox just yet though...

[SupaMunkiBallz]

It is really just a matter of time. The Cell processor will win out in the end.

Gamers are gamers because the enjoy the experience interacting in an alternate world, any anything that make that world more realistic will encourage more uses to opt for that system. Once the PS2 owners start to migrate to PS3 and the install base is in place, developers will begin to invest the time in realising the processing power of the PS3 then its goodnight Xbox

PS not a fanboy, have owned both system.

[Jon Carvell]

to be honest if you buy an extra console to play this game you probably need to get out more. yes it's great, probably the best ever, but buying another console for some extra missions - go and spend some time with humans

[ewan]

all this clamor over which is better is nonsense, the PC version will wipe the floor with both console versions when its released.

[Kenny]

So the PS3 is going to rule the console market because of it superior graphic ability is it? Well, Nintendo seem to be doing pretty well will sub-standard technology. It's all about content. Better graphics is good but without content it's worthless.

[danny evans]

i have a pc and have nothing but problems playing games, i dont see the point of buying a 300 pound graphics card when i can get most of what i need in a 300 pound system and with blueray too, and no crashes and driver problems. You need to spend a lot to better the latest consoles and i cant have it under my tv and play movies too. No, i think my pc gaming days are over now. Too expensive and not much noticable improvement. Yes, some games do look better when you crank the settings up, but that does not justify the cost. Wii is doing great, and good luck to nintendo, but thats a completely different beast and will do well as a "console" for a while, ps3 is a home entertainment centre so dont really think it is right to compare it as purely a games console....but i sure someone will disagree.

[Ken]

I have the Xbox version and gets nauseous after a few hours playing. Maybe I'll buy the more polished PS3 version to see if it works.

[Philip J Fry]

If you feel sick playing the Xbox version, I don't think playing the PS3 versions gonna help. You can see a direct comparrison here, and I personally think the graphics are so similar there isn't much in it. It's not even that one is consistently better, in some parts the 360 stands out and in others the PS3 does. Gotta be the 360 to win as it has the extra download packs and achievements.
http://www.videogamer.com/videos/player.html?vid=1901.html

[danny evans]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/869/869541p5.html

FOR A COMPREHENSIVE UNBIASED REVIEW OF BOTH VERSIONS.

[Xiphias]

In response to the earlier comments about the PS3 having better graphics capabilities, this is completely wrong.

The PS3 uses an outdated architecture which is effectively an Nvidia 7 series graphics card cut down.

The 360 uses a USA card, and therefore has far more power than the PS3's does.

It is true about the cell processors having more power than the 360's, however, as everyone knows, USA GPUs are far more powerful than CPUs at all calculations due to their adaptive nature.

Two other limiting factors of the PS3's performance are its paltry 256mb of memory, as well as the low memory bandwidth compared to the 360's.

I would be inclined to say that the 360 is actually more powerful than the PS3 overall, as it is easier to utilise all the power. The PS3's impressive CPU is hard to use fully, and elements like the memory and GPU are limiting to performance. If developers manage to unlock the PS3's CPU power it will get a lot more interesting. I have both consoles, and yes the game looks identical on both to me.

To the person that made the comment about the PS3's CPU providing better graphics clearly doesn't know what they are talking about, since when can a CPU output graphics operations...?

[Mr. Mouse]

XIPHIAS is right that the PS3s cell processor cannot provide better graphics in as much as it's a CPU and not a GPU, BUT as it can deal with many more FPUs (Floating Point Units) it can deal with a lot more 3D information than the 360. It can push this information through to the GPU, making the end graphics better by having more polygons and more complex geometry possible, So what David said is actually right. If you are talking about a 2D game then the 360 would possibly out perform the PS3 in the graphics due to the different GPUs they run, but in any 3D game (ie. pretty much all console games) the PS3 has the edge due to the FPU potential of the cell processor.

It's all about the math. The PS3's rubbish amount of RAM does suck, but the RAM it does have is significantly faster than the 360's larger amount of RAM. The PS3 has the potential for the best graphics due to all of it's hardware capabilities put together. To say "I would be inclined to say the 360 is actually more powerful than the PS3 overall' is pure fantasy.

I have both systems too, and I actually prefer the 360 due to Xbox Live, but it's not the more powerful of the two systems however much you might wish it.

[reid boultbee]

xbox 330 sucks all uguys gota grow up

[HR]

Its interesting to read when a PS3 game can't quite match the 360 version, they blame the lousy programmers. When a PS3 game is only *slightly* better than a 360 game, they blame the 360 for "forcing the developers to GIMP the PS3 version so it looks like the 360 version".

Laughable. In the end, its because the Sony is a nightmare machine to work with, using an archaic GPU that can produce graphics that are about the same as the 360.

The only company that might make a PS3 game that looks like something that couldn't be done on a 360 will be Polyphony Digital. Even Metal Gear Solid is looking decidedly average, like it could easily be done on a 360.

[Katan13]

It could be that, now i know this may sound a bit like heresy, that both the ps3 and xbox 360 are pretty much the same in every area, and that everyone is really arguing over nothing. I've seen and played on both machines, and to be honest there really is no difference.

The only problem for both consoles in the forseeable future is, yes the ps3 may become some uber beast of a console once programmers have gotten to grips with programming it, but no doubt in a couple of years, MS will release a new console, where as Sony are looking to keep the ps3 going for the next 7ish years so i've heard. So then you will have the ps3 vs an xbox 720 or whatever they will call it for say 4 years. So who will win then power wise? Prob the xbox. I think really it's all about timing the release to work against your opposition in the market. NIntendo were smart by taking a different route and keeping out of the who looks best argument, and opting for the, which is more fun area. And are doing quite well by the looks of it.

By the way i own an xbox, and it keeps me happy so i don't tend to worry about all this stuff, if you're happy with you console, enjoy it rather than moan and defend it against people you don't even know.