PS3 Price Cut CONFIRMED

[hippie_hunter]

any other companies? vivienda(sp?)? bethesda(i know they got oblivion), obsidian? any others?


make a list for me woman!

Vivendi blows

 

[EdRyder]

Your point has been invalidated by your own admission.

So a Bravia 1080P isn't higher end then a Sharp 1080P Sharp?

Jebus man get this through your head, it's not about texture resolutions in games. Having better build quality and more features make something a higher end peice of electronics. You don't have to have the software developers showing that difference to make the hardware superior or not. Everythign about the PS3 is highr quality aside from the GPU, every inch of the design to the features it supports, the 360 is a poorly built peice of hardware that has a more easilly acessable CPU and a beefier GPU but overall the PS3 is a way higher end peice of electronics for reasons anyone can see this isn't fanboyism it is a fact.

Arg.

Even I have to agree with this,and I hate to do it...We just havnt seen its full potential yet.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Please, this "full potential" stuff has got to stop. Consoles get more pulled out from them by the end of their lifecycle, but nothing indistinguishable from the consoles early games.

The PS2 launched with MGS2, and ended with God of War 2, with graphical differences being highly minimal. Halo - Halo 2, same situation.

The PS3 and the 360 will be neck-and-neck for their entire lives.

 

[EdRyder]

I haveta respectfully disagree dude.Im still a proud owner of a PS2 but,if MGS2 is the benchmark set for everything that came after it,that would be sad state of affairs.I hear what your saying=Quality vs quantity,but the quantity is mostly garbage.To clarify my point on 360 vs PS3-There was an article(I believe it was Gamestops website)that compared all the port launch titles(NFS Carbon/Fight Night/Call of Duty etc,.)Xbox beat em all.So I just think "Full potential"would be shown BETTER in games to come.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

 

[TheBat812]

He's saying the 360 will peak way earlier than the pS3, which still has a long ways to go before they are able to reach it's full potential. And teh PS2 is still having power pulled out of it, as is the PSP (have you seen God of War for PSP? Just as good as PS2 graphics!). Sony's systems are more work for developers, but the rewards are much greater.

BTW: MSG2:

God of War 2:

I'd say the improvements are vast. Already the differences between a game like Resistance and Heavenly Sword are huge, imagine what they'll be like a year from now.​

 

[WhatsHisFace]

The 360 will only peak before the PS3 because it's much easier to develop for than the PS3 is. That doesn't mean however, that the PS3 is going to surpass the 360. The power is neck-and-neck. As Zenien said, the 360 has a better GPU. It also has unified 512mb RAM, unlike the PS3's 256/256 split, plus an additional 10mb of eDRAM, an easily accessable processor, etc, etc...
Neck and neck (more or less) with development advantages to the 360.

This "unlocking" BS is just a PR term for "We really suck at making and supporting devkits".

By the way, the stunning picture of MGS2's laser-guided doorway, and God of War's artistically impressive yet technically limited lava level both hold to the standard of PS2's graphics. We know there are much better graphics to be seen in MGS2 and that God of War 2 doesn't do anything Prince of Persia did four years ago in 2003.

Resistance:

Heavenly Sword:

Artistic differences aside, they're clearly on the same level technically. You're not going to see the PS3 ever produce something that will make you question which console generation it belongs in. Minor improvements come in every generation, but that's it.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Artistic differences aside, they're clearly on the same level technically. You're not going to see the PS3 ever produce something that will make you question which console generation it belongs in. Minor improvements come in every generation, but that's it.

I think that we haven't even seen the best that both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have to offer.

 

[Zenien]

If you can't see how GoW2 is doing much more then Prince of Persia did, then you aren't the person to be talking about this topic in this thread.

The better the tool support and developers get the more they will unlock the power of the console and it just at the end of the day does come down to how well they code to use the hardware to the way that's most advantageous to the game that's being made, there's a learning curve and you aren't going to escape that with middle ware good or bad. This isn't a Single core CPU, WHF, theres using a CPU and then using it the right way, heck most of the initial games for the PS3 weren't even using the SPE's, and because the tools are constantly improving to better take advantage of the hardware so will the power of the system be unlocked better by developers. Cell relies on a different way of coding then a traditional CPU or even the type seen in the Xbox 360, so obviously it's about more then just the devkits and middle ware, and even then middle ware has to be made with the Cell CPU in mind, they aren't going tog et the best results out of it first try that's a fact. Heck the Naughty Dog devs looked at their code, and that's a game that surpasses Gears of War, and they concluded that they weren't using the SPE's effectively with their engine as it is now.

Secondly you're talking about graphics alone. God of War and MGS2 are in totally different leagues. You haven't even played God of War II the Kratos in game model wouldn't have been thought possible on the PS2 except in a cut scene back when the PS2 launched or even into it's 2nd or 3rd year.

Heck look at first gen Xbox, had you seen Chronicles of Riddick with no explanation you'd have thought it was a high end PC game, not an Xbox game.

You haven't seen God of War II running but what you see in that game doesn't look like it would be possible on the PS2. The only reason you think Riddick or God of War II don't look like another system (in the PS2's case it would be a PS2.5 and would have been hailed as impossible and all bullshots like Getaway) is because you've played on that system for X amount of years, seeing games year after year steadily improving.

You had the XBox which peaked a lot faster then the PS2 did, but if you were just shown the beginning of the generation and the end, you'd think that some of those Xbox games had to be high end PC games at the time, or that there was no way God of War or God of War II could run on the PS2.

And art styles aside Heavenly Sword and Resistance are tangibly different. It's not just about texture resolution.

 

[Zenien]

People would have looked at this screen shot and said Xbox game.

 

[Havok83]

Secondly you're talking about graphics alone. God of War and MGS2 are in totally different leagues. You haven't even played God of War II the Kratos in game model wouldn't have been thought possible on the PS2 except in a cut scene back when the PS2 launched or even into it's 2nd or 3rd year.
.

yep and visuals are just one part of it. Its not taking into account what each game is doing. The environment in GoW2 is alot more animated and dynamic. The A.I. is much better; the game streams, thus reducing loading times and much more ALL while maintaining a high level of visual content. All of this makes for a game that is much more complicated to make and its thanks to the advancements in software making over the years which have made this possible. Developers found better ways to utilize the hardware and GoW2 at it was released would not have been possible back when MGS2 was released. No way.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

I think that we haven't even seen the best that both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have to offer.

And I agree, but to think they're going to look unrecognizable to what's currently on the systems is overly optimistic, if not stupid. Yes, graphics improve on the same system over time. No, they don't redefine what a console can do.

If you can't see how GoW2 is doing much more then Prince of Persia did, then you aren't the person to be talking about this topic in this thread.

How different do these games look? Not very. It's obvious that they're running off the same hardware, just as it will be obvious that Killzone 3 will be running on the same hardware as Resistance 1.

The better the tool support and developers get the more they will unlock the power of the console and it just at the end of the day does come down to how well they code to use the hardware to the way that's most advantageous to the game that's being made, there's a learning curve and you aren't going to escape that with middle ware good or bad. This isn't a Single core CPU, WHF, theres using a CPU and then using it the right way, heck most of the initial games for the PS3 weren't even using the SPE's, and because the tools are constantly improving to better take advantage of the hardware so will the power of the system be unlocked better by developers. Cell relies on a different way of coding then a traditional CPU or even the type seen in the Xbox 360, so obviously it's about more then just the devkits and middle ware, and even then middle ware has to be made with the Cell CPU in mind, they aren't going tog et the best results out of it first try that's a fact. Heck the Naughty Dog devs looked at their code, and that's a game that surpasses Gears of War, and they concluded that they weren't using the SPE's effectively with their engine as it is now.

False pretense: Uncharted does not surpass Gears of War, a game that released one year before Uncharted is scheduled to release.

Secondly you're talking about graphics alone. God of War and MGS2 are in totally different leagues. You haven't even played God of War II the Kratos in game model wouldn't have been thought possible on the PS2 except in a cut scene back when the PS2 launched or even into it's 2nd or 3rd year.

Oh, it would have been quite possible. The PS2 hardware hasn't changed Zenien, it isn't an organic, ever-evolving piece of hardware like Spiderdogg believed it to be. The PS2 your playing now is the same as the PS2 that was shown at E3 2000.

Heck look at first gen Xbox, had you seen Chronicles of Riddick with no explanation you'd have thought it was a high end PC game, not an Xbox game.

The Xbox had Riddick-like visuals in some of it's earlier games. Strident, an unreleased game in development by Phantagram was the first to show off the 360's stencil-shadowing capability, long before Splinter Cell ever released. Enclave even had some striking similarities, it didn't have the stencil shadows, but because of that, it was able to have large, detailed outdoor environments. The trade-off we all know and love.

I feel like people are misunderstanding what I'm saying, so let me nip this in the bud right now: I'm not saying that game graphics don't improve as the generation moves forward. I'm saying that they don't advance in big strides and at the end of the generation, the games are by and large, exceedingly comparable.

You haven't seen God of War II running but what you see in that game doesn't look like it would be possible on the PS2. The only reason you think Riddick or God of War II don't look like another system (in the PS2's case it would be a PS2.5 and would have been hailed as impossible and all bullshots like Getaway) is because you've played on that system for X amount of years, seeing games year after year steadily improving.

I may not have played God of War 2, but I have seen it running. I've played God of War 1 plenty, and the graphics are virtually identical.

You had the XBox which peaked a lot faster then the PS2 did, but if you were just shown the beginning of the generation and the end, you'd think that some of those Xbox games had to be high end PC games at the time, or that there was no way God of War or God of War II could run on the PS2.

In both cases, at that time, I may have. When the visual bar for the PS2 was set with MGS2, looking ahead to Shadow of the Colossus would have been hard to imagine. However, when you're not seeing the bar moved inch-by-inch over a course of years, and you look at the big picture, as we can now, you can see the graphics of the system grouped as a whole, and say "You know what, all of these PS2 games look like PS2 games". For example, when Halo 2 came out, it was all the rage, graphical effects and all. But really, looking at it, even without considering PS3 games, they look virtually identical. At the end of the 360's life, I'll say "You know what? 'Too Human 3' and 'Perfect Dark Zero' are obviously 360 games" despite the little differences we see between them now, only because our frame of reference was so skewered by limitation.

And art styles aside Heavenly Sword and Resistance are tangibly different. It's not just about texture resolution.

I know, upon close inspection it's polygon distribution, effect trade-offs, color richness, number of animations, et cetera. It's all "managing resources" and it's what developers do. However, there is only one piece of hardware you're working with, and therefore, only one final result when you try to squeeze out as much as possible. It shouldn't be a surprise that all games roughly use the same amount of polygons for characters, objects, environments and generally the same texture resolutions for each. Blah blah blah you're educated on the subject and you know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Havok83]

And I agree, but to think they're going to look unrecognizable to what's currently on the systems is overly optimistic, if not stupid. Yes, graphics improve on the same system over time. No, they don't redefine what a console can do.

How different do these games look? Not very. It's obvious that they're running off the same hardware, just as it will be obvious that Killzone 3 will be running on the same hardware as Resistance 1.

To be fair thats a horrible shot of GoW2. The game does not look bad at all and that pic makes the graphic suck

 

[WhatsHisFace]

And to be fair, you can't capture the beauty of Prince-of-Persia's industry-leading animations, effects and flares in a screenshot either.

 

[Zenien]

And I agree, but to think they're going to look unrecognizable to what's currently on the systems is overly optimistic, if not stupid. Yes, graphics improve on the same system over time. No, they don't redefine what a console can do.

Yes graphics improve over time, and yes the game redefine what the console You don't get it, there's so much more to a game then textures these days. Like the texture resolution and polygon count are the be all end all.

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/789/789108/uncharted-drakes-fortune-20070516073335788.jpg
http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/1167/full-res/1162870056.jpg

False pretense: Uncharted does not surpass Gears of War, a game that released one year before Uncharted is scheduled to release.

Gears, low polygon count, normal mapped, uses specific color schemes to mask texture limitations, trade off is amazing up close detail but a very close LOD for texturing. It has ragdoll physics, lighting was nerfed come final release. 30fps. Generally looks incredible.

Uncharted: High Polygon models, normal mapping, high use of intensive sharers, more complicated environments, real time physics and animation blending, global illumination, 7.1 Audio. 720P. Heck those rocks have better textures then any part of the environment in your Gears screen shot. Looks just as good while doing so in a far less easy environment to cheat in, while doing a lot more technically.

Oh, it would have been quite possible. The PS2 hardware hasn't changed Zenien, it isn't an organic, ever-evolving piece of hardware like Spiderdogg believed it to be. The PS2 your playing now is the same as the PS2 that was shown at E3 2000.

The Hardware is static, that's it, every system evolves as the tools, and programmers understand it better and new techniques get employed, new software based technologies get invented and refined. There's no game engine that could have run God of War II back in the days of MGS2. Not even Naughty Dogs engine could have reproduced what God of War II is able to do.

The Xbox had Riddick-like visuals in some of it's earlier games. Strident, an unreleased game in development by Phantagram was the first to show off the 360's stencil-shadowing capability

Which was never released for a reason.

Enclave even had some striking similarities, it didn't have the stencil shadows, but because of that, it was able to have large, detailed outdoor environments.

They had great textures. Riddick looked like a true PC game.

I feel like people are misunderstanding what I'm saying, so let me nip this in the bud right now: I'm not saying that game graphics don't improve as the generation moves forward. I'm saying that they don't advance in big strides and at the end of the generation, the games are by and large, exceedingly comparable.

Sure they're comparable, ultimately you're working with the same hardware, but you have to stretch the 'ultimately comparable' line pretty far in a lot of instances.

I may not have played God of War 2, but I have seen it running. I've played God of War 1 plenty, and the graphics are virtually identical.

God of WarII has some tricks up its sleeve, like Pegasus, scaling Atlus. There are small sequences in GOd of War II where you briefly think it's CG (Like the opening rain shot when Kratos fights Zeus).

In both cases, at that time, I may have. When the visual bar for the PS2 was set with MGS2, looking ahead to Shadow of the Colossus would have been hard to imagine.

Which is what makes your entire argument sort of hollow, if you can admit that you would have found SotC hard to imagine as running on a PS2. Ergo another system. Or if it was running on the PS2 it had to be devkits and would be heavily downgraded come the final release, ergo not capable of running on the PS2 therefor a fake or some sort.

However, when you're not seeing the bar moved inch-by-inch over a course of years, and you look at the big picture, as we can now, you can see the graphics of the system grouped as a whole, and say "You know what, all of these PS2 games look like PS2 games".

Yeah they generally do, but that's also because we've seen them all running. Though Primal honestly looks like it an Xbox game, and looked like one at the time.

For example, when Halo 2 came out, it was all the rage, graphical effects and all. But really, looking at it, even without considering PS3 games, they look virtually identical. At the end of the 360's life, I'll say "You know what? 'Too Human 3' and 'Perfect Dark Zero' are obviously 360 games" despite the little differences we see between them now, only because our frame of reference was so skewered by limitation.

If you take the beginning and end of a console generation and you are blown away but what they achieve at the end up of in comparison? Then they have made big strides, it's only seeing the bar move slowly higher every year that desensitizes you to it.

I know, upon close inspection it's polygon distribution, effect trade-offs, color richness, number of animations, et cetera. It's all "managing resources" and it's what developers do. However, there is only one piece of hardware you're working with, and therefore, only one final result when you try to squeeze out as much as possible. It shouldn't be a surprise that all games roughly use the same amount of polygons for characters, objects, environments and generally the same texture resolutions for each. Blah blah blah you're educated on the subject and you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Then you're forgetting how the Dreamcast seemed more powerful then the PS2 initially, only to have the PS2 blow past it as developers got more comfortable with the PS2. Sure that doesn't mean that in general the PS2 surpassed all of the Dreamcasts strengths (namely screen clarity, AA, and textures) but it ended up without a doubt producing higher end games, and in the hands of talented developers, producing games that ended up out muscling the Dreamcast in every way. Developer learning curve plays a big role in things, and I realize you're trying to say that consoles generally remain static on their own relatively equal increments of improvement, and that their beginning and end points will be the same relative to each other, but PS2 Dreamcast proved that wrong, and we have no proof that it will be like that for this generation either.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Yes graphics improve over time, and yes the game redefine what the console You don't get it, there's so much more to a game then textures these days. Like the texture resolution and polygon count are the be all end all.

You know I know that.

Gears, low polygon count, normal mapped, uses specific color schemes to mask texture limitations, trade off is amazing up close detail but a very close LOD for texturing. It has ragdoll physics, lighting was nerfed come final release. 30fps. Generally looks incredible.

Gears character models range between 3k-5k polygons, which is the best this industry has. The textures are absolutely fine, you can see the fabric on Dom's pants and on the sandbags, with everything overall having great texture detail. Can't say the same about Uncharted. I mean, look at this character comparison:

You want to talk about textures? t:

But again, this isn't a PS3 vs. 360 discussion, this is about how each systems games will only improve subtly over time.

Uncharted: High Polygon models, normal mapping, high use of intensive sharers, more complicated environments, real time physics and animation blending, global illumination, 7.1 Audio. 720P. Heck those rocks have better textures then any part of the environment in your Gears screen shot. Looks just as good while doing so in a far less easy environment to cheat in, while doing a lot more technically.

Hate to say it Zenien, but Uncharted's characters look to be in the 3k range. Normal mapping has been surpassed by Parallax mapping, which Gears makes heavy use of. Gears also has physics, animation blending and 720p... WTF?

Those rocks have the same texture layering technique applied to them that we saw in Deus Ex seven years ago. As you get closer to a texture, another appears transparently over it making it appear to have more detail. Gears uses this also. Every game uses it.

The Hardware is static, that's it, every system evolves as the tools, and programmers understand it better and new techniques get employed, new software based technologies get invented and refined. There's no game engine that could have run God of War II back in the days of MGS2. Not even Naughty Dogs engine could have reproduced what God of War II is able to do.

But the God of War 2 engine could, and that's the point. Developers work their asses off to get the graphics as good as possible, but the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

Which was never released for a reason.

It was playable, so don't even try that reason.

They had great textures. Riddick looked like a true PC game.

That they did, but Enclave had expansive environments whereas Riddick had amazing lighting.

Sure they're comparable, ultimately you're working with the same hardware, but you have to stretch the 'ultimately comparable' line pretty far in a lot of instances.

Not really. All you have to do is take "MGS4", imagine it looking a little bit better, and there you go. Instant end-of-generation-graphics!

God of WarII has some tricks up its sleeve, like Pegasus, scaling Atlus. There are small sequences in GOd of War II where you briefly think it's CG (Like the opening rain shot when Kratos fights Zeus).

I'm sure there are plenty of trade-offs in each sequence though.

Which is what makes your entire argument sort of hollow, if you can admit that you would have found SotC hard to imagine as running on a PS2. Ergo another system. Or if it was running on the PS2 it had to be devkits and would be heavily downgraded come the final release, ergo not capable of running on the PS2 therefor a fake or some sort.

It's the trade-off thing again. SotC had a very lonely world.

If you take the beginning and end of a console generation and you are blown away but what they achieve at the end up of in comparison? Then they have made big strides, it's only seeing the bar move slowly higher every year that desensitizes you to it.

I wouldn't say "blown away". We were excited when Halo 2 used extensive bump-mapping. But look at both games. Very small differences.

Then you're forgetting how the Dreamcast seemed more powerful then the PS2 initially, only to have the PS2 blow past it as developers got more comfortable with the PS2. Sure that doesn't mean that in general the PS2 surpassed all of the Dreamcasts strengths (namely screen clarity, AA, and textures) but it ended up without a doubt producing higher end games, and in the hands of talented developers, producing games that ended up out muscling the Dreamcast in every way. Developer learning curve plays a big role in things, and I realize you're trying to say that consoles generally remain static on their own relatively equal increments of improvement, and that their beginning and end points will be the same relative to each other, but PS2 Dreamcast proved that wrong, and we have no proof that it will be like that for this generation either.

The Dreamcast would have had amazing looking games by now had EA/Sony let it live. Shenmue still compares favorably to many sixth-year PS2 games. You're really touching a tender-spot by bringing up the Dreamcast, BTW. Just letting you know.

 

[Zenien]

You know I know that.

Gears character models range between 3k-5k polygons, which is the best this industry has.

Snake in MGS3 was 4k in game BTW. 3-5k isn't the best the industry has.

The textures are absolutely fine, you can see the fabric on Dom's pants and on the sandbags, with everything overall having great texture detail.

Yeah you just chose everything up close, go more then a few feet away and the texture surfaces are all relatively washed out and low res.

Can't say the same about Uncharted. I mean, look at this character comparison:

You want to talk about textures? t:

Actually I was talking about how Gears uses its color paleete to cover up for the weaker distance textures which is does. Uncharted also has great textures.

Hate to say it Zenien, but Uncharted's characters look to be in the 3k range.

There's tons more geometry complexity of Nathan Drake then Marcus Fenix and the screen shots you posted show that. You can spot a ton of things on Marcus that are just textures slapped onto a flat surface, everything on Drake is modeled. Not to mention everything on Drake has physics behind it, from his shirt to the ring he has around his neck to his webbing and holster.

Heck the guys hair has an absurd amount of vertices.

Normal mapping has been surpassed by Parallax mapping

And Drakes Fortune uses Normal mapping as well just not at the expense of real modeled detail, like look at the shoulders of Marcus, the lights would be modeled in something like Uncharted.

which Gears makes heavy use of. Gears also has physics, animation blending and 720p... WTF?

Actually Gears has canned animations, not the type of animation/physics system used in Uncharted or the layered animation system that dynamically creates new animations on the fly.

But the God of War 2 engine could, and that's the point. Developers work their asses off to get the graphics as good as possible, but the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

Prince of Persia on the PS2 isn't in the same league as God of War II, you don't have a point here whf, just "Well when I look at the big picture they all look like PS2 games!" which is meaningless because you can't counter that you have been desensitized with time relative to the changes that have been seen from the beginning and end of a generation.

That they did, but Enclave had expansive environments whereas Riddick had amazing lighting.

And Riddick looked like a high end PC game Enclave did not.

Not really. All you have to do is take "MGS4", imagine it looking a little bit better, and there you go. Instant end-of-generation-graphics!

I'm sure there are plenty of trade-offs in each sequence though.

Atlus is a regular level, of course there are trade offs with any environment you make, saying that there are trade offs is such a useless statement. It proves nothing.

It's the trade-off thing again. SotC had a very lonely world.

No WHF, SoTC may have had a very lonely world but the fact remains that SoTC couldn't have run on the ICO engine. All of this is derailment on your part to avoid the real issue.

I wouldn't say "blown away". We were excited when Halo 2 used extensive bump-mapping. But look at both games. Very small differences.

That's your prerogative, there's a big difference between Halo 1 and Halo 2. Try playing them.

The Dreamcast would have had amazing looking games by now had EA/Sony let it live. Shenmue still compares favorably to many sixth-year PS2 games. You're really touching a tender-spot by bringing up the Dreamcast, BTW. Just letting you know.

For the most part the Dreamcast had already peaked, PS2 had games that blew away the DC before the DC was dead. The only reason there are DC games that do compare favourably is because when something looks nice it looks nice, we're past the eras of bad 3D that happened with the PS1 and N64.

 

[Timstuff]

Screenshot comparisons are worthless.

 

[L.A.]

Screenshot comparisons are worthless.

I think you mean priceless

 

[hippie_hunter]

WHF, why are you like posting the worst pics possible for the Playstation games but the best ones for you other comparison?

 

[GoldenAgeHero]

meh, the textures in these pics are'nt really impressive. they all look like plastic models.

 

[XtromaniaK]

That argument strikes me as pretty funny. Futile on both accounts. Zenien will remain the Sony fan as always trying to convince you that where there is an apple, an orange actually exists. And WHF probably wouldn't ever agree to anything towards the Sony side of things.

 

[EdRyder]

The website I was thinking of that did a graphical comparrison was Gamespot.They did one in the past-here

And the more recent one right here

The only game that looks better on PS3 is Oblivion,....so far

 

[WhatsHisFace]

WHF, why are you like posting the worst pics possible for the Playstation games but the best ones for you other comparison?

Find me a better up-close shot of a Drake character. Please.

Edit: No wait, make it any shot at all.

Edit: This thread isn't about screenshot wars. If you want one, I'll give you one. But not this thread.

 

[Zenien]

Uncharted being released a year after Gears isn't a big deal and saying X PS3 games that comes out X years after X 360 game is misleading. The PS3 launched a year after the 360. The Timeframe between the release of Drake's Fortune and Gears is pretty much identical relative to their respective consoles.

Xbox 360 launch date: November 22, 2005
Gear release date: November 7, 2006

PS3 launch Date: November 17, 2006
Uncharted release date: US: November 2007

So when do you guys think we'lll be seeign a price drop and how much?

Of course I'm not treating this as 100 percent confirmed, we all remember when Bill gates said Halo 3 would launch day adn adate with the release of the PS3. Though Stringer is probably much more involved with Sony then gates is with Microsoft at this point.