DMC4 ten quid cheaper on Xbox 360

By Tom Bramwell Published 31 January, 2008

We're always saving you money.

Those of you who own both PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 might want to take note that Devil May Cry 4 is ten quid cheaper on the latter than it is on the former. Bargain!

The latest game in Capcom's 3D super amazing fighting series is due out on 8th February on both formats, and the publisher has been keen to point out that performance across both systems is virtually identical.

When we inquired about the price difference, Capcom said that it was down to retailers to set them and that this sometimes happens. Not that that's saved it from the pitchfork-wielding Internet so far.

Certainly if you search around online for recent big names - like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - it's possible to find similar discrepancies, although it's relatively unusual to see in games as-yet unreleased.

DMC4 puts players into the skin-tight leather and motorbike of Nero, a new character, who is similar to Dante in enough ways that it won't piss you all off. Dante also makes an appearance.

It's all a bit Metal Gear Solid 2, except you probably won't end up fighting the Freemasons on the Statue of Liberty's face of whatever all that was about when things come to a close.

So, good news if you fancy saving a few quid and have a 360, but bad news if you only have a PS3. On the plus side, PS3 owners, between this and Burnout Paradise it looks like developers are finally getting it together.

Look out for our review of the game in the near future.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (85) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • ParanoidZombie #1 4 years ago

    EA sports games (2008 line up) (63€ vs 70) and kane & lynch (60 vs 70) were also cheaper on x360, FYI.

  • Quint2020 #2 4 years ago

    Really can't wait for this.

  • TriggerHippie #3 4 years ago

    Sounds dodgy. There must be something wrong with it :p

  • Yaster #4 4 years ago

    "When we inquired about the price difference, Capcom said that it was down to retailers to set them and that this sometimes happens. Not that that's saved it from the pitchfork-wielding Internet so far."

    I've seen loads of reports like this all over the internet and STILL it dosen't look as if anyone is trying to get a quote from one of these high street retailers as to why one version is cheaper than the other.

    Reall y wanting to buy the PS3 version too, I'm so over achievements and the Dual Shock 3 is more suited to this game after playing the demo for both version.

    I'd call HMV, Zavvi et al but I'm too shy so come on internet news websites, do your job!

  • sailesh #5 4 years ago

    "On the plus side, PS3 owners, between this and Burnout Paradise it looks like developers are finally getting it together."

    Brava brava...

    /slow claps



  • bad09 #6 4 years ago

    I can't believe I'm defending it but the PS3 games are no more exspensive than 360 for the first year. I had a real problem with paying £50 for a game!

    As the base increases and stores get more competitive to entice that base the price will come down eventually.

    Mind you 360 DMC4 is only 30 notes on play.com, with that price I'm sold!
    Edited by 2 at 31/01/08 @ 13:54

  • Nick1208 #7 4 years ago

    This game will be mine.

  • muscleblade #8 4 years ago

    This will probably get 8/10 on this site due too the high difficulty. For me its a 10 for sure.

  • Darren #9 4 years ago

    Both the 360 and PS3 versions actually look remarkably similar, Apologie, from my experiences on both demos with only minor differences between them (marginally better anti-aliasing and sharper textures on the 360 versus improved texture filtering and no screen tearing on the PS3). ;)

    I own both consoles but I've decided to buy the more expensive PS3 version, simply because I enjoyed playing it more with the Dualshock 3 (the game supports rumble). I played the earlier games on the PS2 so that's probably why I think that. I hated using the RB button on the 360 controller, it's just not designed with heavy use in mind IMO, and although I know you can reconfigure the controls in the full game, the flatter face buttons on the PS3 pad just pipe it for me.

    Still you get an HDD instal for minimal loading times and uncompressed audio with the PS3 version so that sweetens the extra £7 or so somewhat, for me anyway. Yeah, I know the Xbox 360 version has Achievements but, in all honesty, I lost interest in those about six months ago!
    Edited by 2 at 31/01/08 @ 14:07

  • DrDamn #10 4 years ago

    I've pointed this sort of thing out before. Stuff like CoD4 and Burnout Paradise in the high street shops are £5 more expensive on the PS3. Though as pointed out by someone else in the thread the same was true in the first year or so of the 360's life. RRP's tend to be the same, but in this case Play are claiming £10 difference there too. Interesting. Wouldn't be surprized if a special discount rate was secured from MS for some "reason".

  • optimusprym8 #11 4 years ago

    BS someone found the fact sheet from Capcom where they state the RRP with the PS3 version 10 higher than the 360 version. Makes sense in a logical manner related to age of respective consoles but still am fed up with paying over the top prices for PS3 titles. Luckily there's not a lot worth buying at the moment that a) I haven't already played to death on 360 or b) aren't shite.

  • Darren #12 4 years ago

    lavalant - "And it doesn't have that smeared in vasaline look like the PS3 version."

    Eh, are you sure it's not your HDTV settings? LOL

    DMC4 on the PS3 does use a subtle motion-blurring effect which isn't in the Xbox 360 version but the overall effect certainly does not make it look "smeared in vaseline" on my HDTV and I'm using HDMI, 720p and the exact same picture settings for both demos. If anything it is the PS3 that looks ever-so ever-so slightly sharper, simply because the AA isn't as good as the 360 version. :?

  • blinder #13 4 years ago

    Assassins creed £35 in HMV on the XBox and £45 for the PS3. And it's better on the XBox.

  • JHuxley #14 4 years ago

    Yeah, it's the better looking version too.

    [link url=http:// www.gametrailers.com/player/29150.html
    ]http://ww w.gametrailers.com/player/29150...[/link]

    As you can see, the snow monsters towards the end of this video have a slightly shinier effect on PS3 and look less 'dull'.

    ZOMG! One console version looks marginly better than the other. Quick, tell everyone!

  • dazzaman #15 4 years ago

    You can preorder the PS3 version for 30.99 delivered on movietyme.com. What's all this fuss about again?

  • Nick1208 #16 4 years ago

    It's funny how everytime a multiplatform game is mentioned people have to mention petty differences between them, OH MY GOD THAT TREE HAS LESS JAGGIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It really doesn't matter at the end of the day, if things like that bother you, you have far to much time on your hands.

  • Greebo #17 4 years ago


    "You can preorder the PS3 version for 30.99 delivered on movietyme.com. What's all this fuss about again?"

    Well spotted dazzaman!

    Who pays RRP these days?! There's always a deal to be found somewhere!

  • Moz #18 4 years ago

    well on Game.co.uk they are giving both the same RRP of £49.99 but selling at £39.99 (360) and £44.99 (PS3) so at least only £5 difference, whats the better that both versions start at £49.99 in the highstreet stores though.

  • dazzaman #19 4 years ago

    @greebo (and anyone else who cares).

    They are a pretty good site for Blu-Ray, HD DVD, DVD and games, especially the pre-order prices for games like GTA and MGS.

    Been using them since the days of Laserdiscs and not yet had a problem (or commission for this plug) with them.

    And I agree, expect from elderly relatives buying me shop vouchers I haven't bought retail games for years.

  • BillyBrush #20 4 years ago

    don't want to fuel the fire

    *twizzles can lid off*

    but i got Blazing angels 2 from my local Gamestation for 20quid and teh PS3 ver was going for £44.99

  • Negotiator #21 4 years ago

    Which version looks better I don't know, it is too close to tell. The 360 version is 10 pound cheaper because its on a DVD and PS3 is Bluray which cost more to make, thats why.

  • JHuxley #22 4 years ago

    BTW, the price difference is obviously a good reason to go with the 360 version if you have that option.

    Big frowny face :( in the direction of Capcom and all the retailers who decided on this pricing scheme.

  • Totoriko #23 4 years ago

    Plus achievements

  • Moz #24 4 years ago

    @dazzaman

    Have you used Movietyme.com much? how relyable are they?

  • dazzaman #25 4 years ago

    @moz - see earlier comment, been using them for years.

    They also have a good list of region free Blu-ray discs that is kept up to date as sometimes the USA version carries better extras (see the Blade Runner 5 disk pack that is unavailable over here to see what I mean.)

    Edit - for more plugging
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/08 @ 14:30

  • NoQuarter #26 4 years ago

    Sales are almost always higher in multiplatform 360 games, I suppose they can afford to lower the prices for xbox gamers when there is so much more potential for profit.

    I won't buy it anyway, just the demo hurt my thumb too much.

  • menage #27 4 years ago

    The demo was dead easy, hope it has a bit more challenge in the final game.

    Instant buy next week.

  • Moz #28 4 years ago

    @NoQuarter "I won't buy it anyway, just the demo hurt my thumb too much."

    I found the same, but like GH i'm sure you hands will warm up.

    It's is very pretty game and should have a good story around it too, one for the list of games to get when i have the money to spare for me

  • Negotiator #29 4 years ago

    Just looked at the comparison on gametrailers.com, and the 360 version is sharper and more clear, the PS3 version has a slight smokey look to it, don't know why. Once again the 360 just has the edge on the all powerful PS3, did'nt see that coming.

  • skillian #30 4 years ago

    The price is set to maximise the profit they can expect to receive - it's nice to think they make so much profit on the Xbox versions that they can lower the price as a favour to all the Xbox gamers, but that is of course wholly unrealistic.

    And physical media has very little to do with the price either - a DVD will cost the manufacturer pennies, perhaps even less than a penny, so with an RRP of £39.99 you can see how little that cost influences the price.
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/08 @ 14:41

  • bad09 #31 4 years ago

    Hey dazzaman

    Thanks for the heads up on movietyme, very cheap!

  • Negotiator #32 4 years ago

    And physical media has very little to do with the price either - a DVD will cost the manufacturer pennies, perhaps even less than a penny, so with an RRP of £39.99 you can see how little that cost influences the price.

    Yeah but how much is a bluray to make?, anyone know.

  • cornishflipper #33 4 years ago

    Cant wait for this on the 360, preordered it as soon as i saw it for £29.99 at Amazon. :)

  • optimusprym8 #34 4 years ago

    I ignore comparison videos unless they specifically state for PS3 they have HDMI range set to "Full"

  • jonsaan #35 4 years ago

    Doesn't the PS3 version install and subsequently have no loading times at all?

  • Brogan #36 4 years ago

    not sure weather to get this or the club next week? oh fuck it it's pay day next friday i'll get both

  • skillian #37 4 years ago

    Yeah but how much is a bluray to make?, anyone know.

    Dunno, but as a proportion of a £50 RRP, very little.

  • Darren #38 4 years ago

    farticusmaximus - "@Darren

    I dont know where you got that particular bit of misinformation from but THERE IS NO TEARING ON THE 360 VERSION. None at all."

    Sorry but you're WRONG! :p

    The 360 version does have tearing albeit very minor as I've seen it and it's not there on the PS3 version. If you want to look then at the bit in the 10 minute mission where you're told of the RB+Y move on the way to the docks, go around the corner and in an alleyway to the left before the archway there's a box. Jump on it to reach the roof and you'll see loads of red Orbs. As you move across the roof there is definite screen tearing as the picture appears to "wobble". I've also read of people saying that the attract sequence that plays on the title screen has tearing around the fountain but admit that I've not seen it.

    Now this may be the only place it tears or it may even be fixed for the final release but nevertheless there is some tearing in the demo which suggests the demo isn't using v-sync all the time which leads to the possibility that there might be more tearing at some other points in the game. This is the same engine I believe that drives Lost Planet and Dead Rising on the 360 and both those games had screen tearing to varying degrees remember?

  • bad09 #39 4 years ago

    "Yeah but how much is a bluray to make?, anyone know"

    I could be wrong but I'm sure I read somewhere it's something like $4-$5 to produce a BR disk.

  • zuljin #40 4 years ago

    [link url=http://www. thehut.com/hut/9950620.product
    ]http://www. thehut.com/hut/9950620.product
    [/link]

    [link url=http://www.movietyme.com/catalog/product_info .php?products_id=38970
    ]http://ww w.movietyme.com/catalog/product...[/link]

    £4 quid difference.

  • Darren #41 4 years ago

    ApoIogie - Both games do use AA though, it's just that the Xbox 360's is better 'tis all. If the PS3 version didn't use any AA at all then it would look far jaggier than it does and during play both games look practically identical in terms of jaggies, unlike, say, Oblivion on both systems. I'm not sure but I think the motion-blurring is used to simulate AA on the PS3 because it has trouble doing HDR lighting and proper AA simultaneously, unlike the 360. Might be wrong though.

  • BadBoyBonner #42 4 years ago

    Here's a question

    Why are people that are apparently non too bothered about the pinnacle of visual finesse ALWAYS the first to respond to those that are?

  • Darren #43 4 years ago

    @ApoIogie - "@Darren

    While it's the same engine as LP and DR, it's been optimized since those releases."

    Yeah, I know but all I'm saying is that I've seen some tearing in the 360 demo but none in the PS3 version. Of course, they were just trial demos and the loading screens states that there might be bugs so it's entirely feasible that the 360 version will be fixed for final release. And even if it isn't, that's the only place I saw it tear so it's obvious not annoying or anything.

  • Fallen_Angel #44 4 years ago

    Moz - well on Game.co.uk they are giving both the same RRP of £49.99 but selling at £39.99 (360) and £44.99 (PS3) so at least only £5 difference, whats the better that both versions start at £49.99 in the highstreet stores though.

    Actually, [link url=http://www.game.co.uk/lowdown.aspx? lid=8481&cm_sp=devilmaycry-_-topnav-_-dmc4
    ]http://ww w.game.co.uk/lowdown.aspx?lid=8...[/link]

    Gonna definitely pick up the Limited Edition version for 35 quid (and if its the same price instore, another 25% off that thanks to a mates staff discount), even if its just for the steelbook case.

  • sneetch #45 4 years ago

    @Negotiator
    "Which version looks better I don't know, it is too close to tell. The 360 version is 10 pound cheaper because its on a DVD and PS3 is Bluray which cost more to make, thats why. "

    Wait, you're saying that BluRay disks cost £10 more than normal DVDs? Pull the other one. :)

    If it's true then it makes the choice to use BluRay somewhat stupid.

    Hmmm... after checking around BluRay movies do seem to cost between 5-10 quid more... so you could very well be right. Whether or not it actually costs that much more to make them or (as is more likely) they're using the price to pay for the investment & R&D costs is another matter.

    Who'd be an early adopter eh?

  • Weezer #46 4 years ago

    Figure the Blu Ray costs plus supply/demand at work here. But it's kinda sucky for gamers who don't have the choice. Very strange.

  • skillian #47 4 years ago

    Some info on replication costs here: [link url=http://wesleytech.com/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-r eplication-costs-revealed/111/
    ]http://we sleytech.com/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-...[/link]

    $1.35 - $1.45 for single layer discs on a 25K+ run. Although this information is from a year ago so you'd expect those costs to have been reduced by now.

  • Darren #48 4 years ago

    Most PS3 games that I've bought online have been £32-£40, the same price or in some cases (like with Sony's own games) cheaper than Xbox 360 games so I don't think the extra production costs of Blu-ray discs over DVD ones have much do with why DMC4 is more expensive on the PS3 than 360 at GAME. As someone mentioned earlier, both versions have the same RRP. More likely the larger market share the 360 has means that GAME can afford to discount it more, seeing as the 360 has been out a year longer, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before all PS3 and 360 multiformat games are the same price.

    Has anyone noticed how many Wii games are £40 in GAME, etc.? We should be complaining about that really...

  • Kenshin001 #49 4 years ago

    I think they pulled the wool over your eyes Tom.

    "How come the "suggested retail price" in the latest Activision release schedule I have here in the Screen Play bunker (Activision distribute Capcom titles in Australia) has Devil May Cry 4 on 360 for $99.95 yet the PS3 version at $109.95?"

    [link url=http://blogs.theage.com.au/screenplay/archives//00847 7.html
    ]http://bl ogs.theage.com.au/screenplay/ar...[/link]

    Maybe it is different in the UK, is there an official Capcom release schedule with RRP?
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/08 @ 15:32

  • ProdigyBE_OPM #50 4 years ago

    Hm... using the four shoulder buttons in a fast action game in the 360 controller...

    I'll go for the extra 10 quid!

  • Goodfella #51 4 years ago

    After playing the 360 demo today (a week later because I'm not a Gold subscriber) I can safely say the two versions are virtually identical, as always the 360 version has a different contrast and has that shiny look, and that's about it.

    PS3 version for me despite the extra cost. Why? Because the 360 controller didn't feel right for this particular game at all.
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/08 @ 15:40

  • DrDamn #52 4 years ago

    Gamestop (US site) has both versions for $60. Capcom Europ website probably explains it all though ...

    Link

  • Grayvern #53 4 years ago

    I dont trust my 360 not to die on me, it's my 3rd

  • Xerx3s #54 4 years ago

    Why are people that are apparently non too bothered about the pinnacle of visual finesse ALWAYS the first to respond to those that are?

    I dunno, because some of us actually want to discuss games normally without stumbling into a fanboy war on every frelling comments thread?

  • aidey6 #55 4 years ago

    well I hope/expect the PS3 sales to be rubbish, charging £10 for the same game, bloody ridiculous. Then Capcom will "be surprised" at the low sales.....

  • Darren #56 4 years ago

    I think you'll find most people DO agree they look the same bar minor differences. I doubt anyone will be disappointed with whichever version they choose, although PS3 owners have to pay a little extra sadly. Anyone with a PS3 and Xbox 360 who hasn't played the previous DMC games before should definitely go for the cheaper 360 version, otherwise get the PS3 version if you prefer its controller.

  • Darren #57 4 years ago

    aidey6 - PS3-only owners can only buy the PS3 version anyway and Xbox 360-only owners the 360 version and I can't see us owners of both systems affecting sales any more than usual. Besides the PS3 version costs as much as most other 'typical' current gen game on the PS3 and 360 anyway so I doubt the higher price will have much impact on sales anyway. The 360 version is just cheaper than normal, it's not that the PS3 is more expensive as such.
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/08 @ 19:47

  • JediMasterMalik #58 4 years ago

    Order it off movietyme.com for £31 and it's all good though, it's the US version. That's what I'll be doing.

  • penhalion #59 4 years ago

    Game, HMV and Virgin or ziggy or whatever it's called these days, all seem to charge 10 quid more for PS3 titles. This is apparetly (a nice game manager just told me) down to a higher sell through rate on 360 games in england. As a result they can make more consessions and also they get more revenue from tradeins for 360 too.

    So, no sinister lot. Just plain old greed

  • GordonCaladan #60 4 years ago

    More expensive is, quite obviously, always better.

    Don't go buying that cheap rubbish.

  • Darren #61 4 years ago

    You can also pre-order the superior-to-our US Special Edition of DMC4 on the PS3 from Movietyme for £40 too. Comes with an extra disc containing four episodes of the anime series, a making of documentary, music, wallpapers, digital artbook and other stuff I believe. Nicer cover too.

  • skillian #62 4 years ago

    The PC version will, of course, be cheaper than both console versions. Just thought I'd get that in there before anyone starts waving their willy with too much gusto.

  • Darren #63 4 years ago

    I don't trust Capcom when it comes to quality PC games. The previous DMC games and especially Resident Evil 4 were awful and Lost Planet required a hefty rig to run it, far in excess of the specs of the Xbox 360 anyway. Whether you'll be able to play DMC4 at a slick 60 fps on your PC very much depends on what kind of hardware you have. I'm pretty sure my own ageing PC wouldn't be able to handle it at 1680x1050 (the native resolution of my 22" monitor) with 2X AA so it wasn't even a consideration for me. Plus the PC version is not out next week, it's coming a few weeks later I believe.

  • Darren #64 4 years ago

    Yep, just checked with GAME... PC version isn't out while 1st April.

  • skillian #65 4 years ago

    Yep you're right, 2 months late and a crappy port no doubt. Certainly nothing to brag about :)

  • speedsix #66 4 years ago

    @Darren

    The PS3 cannot manage the same level of AA as the 360 therefore blurs frames together to reduce the aliasing (very cheap yet ugly). Hence why the 360 version is sharper. Texture resolution is the same on both I believe.

  • speedsix #67 4 years ago

    @optimusprym8

    "I ignore comparison videos unless they specifically state for PS3 they have HDMI range set to "Full""

    ..and 360 versions with levels not set to 'expanded' right? Seeing as they are exactly the same thing.

  • viper_h #68 4 years ago

    People are asking why the PS3 version is £10 more expensive than the £29.99 360 version, but why is the 360 version £10 cheaper than all other new 360 games that are released at £39.99? (i'm quoting Play.com pricing here btw).

    Any reason?

  • hana_fubuki #69 4 years ago

    Or you can get it the PS3 version for 45 EUR/ 34 GBP (incl. postage) on videogamesplus.ca. Same-day shipment, which then usually takes 4 days from Canada to where I live (France)

    I own both consoles, but I would have purchased the PS3 version regardless of pricing. Silent console + DS3 beats the 360's noise + controller (having played the demo on both systems, I felt the DS3 handled much better for this game - but that's only my opinion, of course).
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/08 @ 18:05

  • symbiote #70 4 years ago

    It's because they're trying to push the 360 more, what with it's slowing sales.

    360lol

  • captainrentboy #71 4 years ago

    ^ Queer!

  • convercide #72 4 years ago

    The 360 version is only 29.99 on Play.com. http://ww w.play.com/Games/Xbox360/4-/333...

  • Darren #73 4 years ago

    I've just noticed that Capcom's forthcoming PS3 port of Lost Planet is just £24.99 on GAME (with a RRP of £29.99)! That's £20-£25 cheaper than what the 360 retailed at original so it's even stevens really! :p

  • Vic #74 4 years ago

    On 1up, they said that the PS3 version looks better. Plus it has quicker load times and it supports 5.1 LPCM audio and PSN, so really it is the slightly better version.

    Order it from Movietyme, and whats the problem?
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/08 @ 19:44

  • Darren #75 4 years ago

    @optimusprym8 - "I ignore comparison videos unless they specifically state for PS3 they have HDMI range set to "Full"."

    All that setting does is increase the contrast levels and give deeper blacks.

    I have a Sony Bravia D3000 HDTV and if I set RGB Expand to Full everything looks waaaaaaaaaay too dark and detail is lost in all the resulting black shadows. Even if I tweak the settings by increasing the brightness it looks wrong so I use the default Limited setting which looks fine. Maybe it's because I'm using a Sony HDTV though, it did have a PS3-compatible sticker on the frame when I got it? On my old Samsung R41 HDTV I remember the XMB background looking dark grey until I set RGB Expand to Full whereas on my current TV the background looks black on Limited.

    So I guess it all depends on what HDTV you're using as to whether RGB Expand should be set to Limited or Full.

  • Darren #76 4 years ago

    @Vic - I wouldn't put too much faith in 1Up.com personally, they said the Xbox 360 version of Burnout Paradise had screen tearing which it most certainly does not. I suspect they're biased toward the PS3 myself although I've no proof of that. Certainly my own unbiased opinion having played both DMC4 demos is that both look nigh on identical and I cannot say that one is noticeably better than the other for the reasons stated in my first post.

    I found this on 1Up.com:

    "PS3 versus Xbox 360. The differences are negligible. The 360 has 'load times,' according to some, since it loads off the DVD. But these load times amount to barely noticeable 3 or 4 second loads between areas, while the PS3 version cuts the gap down to a couple seconds. The flipside is that the PS3 requires an initial install on to the harddrive. While this is only an inconvenience at the start, it may become an issue as the PS3 harddrives become smaller (new units arrive in the 40g flavors, while the 80g models are dwindling by the day) and PS3 owner's games collections become bigger. Who wants to delete and reinstall games? The graphics are virtually indistinguishable, but if it makes your life better to hear it, the PS3 doesn't do the screen 'tearing' thing the 360 occasionally does."

    They're obsessed with tearing... erm... LOL

  • hana_fubuki #77 4 years ago

    @Darren -
    I entirely agree with you, both on the usefulness of Full range RGB and the differences (or lack thereof) between the PS3 and 360 versions.

    Full RGB is mostly useful if your HDTV isn't so good at rendering low black levels. I have a recent Samsung LCD (got it last summer, when the model was 1 or 2 months old), and it has very deep black levels -- especially compared to the 2-year-old grey-is-the-new-black Sharp LCD I had before.

    With Full RGB, I often find games too dark, details are lost. (Same thing on the 360 through HDMI, when I set the watchamacallit-black-option to the maximum.)


    And yes, having played both demos one after the other, I did notice they looked a little different, but I'd be at a loss to say exactly how. Was one better than the other? No.
    What changed was mostly contrast and saturation, i.e. things you can easily tweak.

    I have to say this new pastime of comparing videos down to the last pixel is the most stupid trend of the current generation.
    Sure, it makes sense to check out videos to make sure that no version is messed up... but when both clearly look gorgeous (DMC4, Burnout Paradise, COD4), why insist on arguing so rabidly?
    Edited by 1 at 31/01/08 @ 20:57

  • J.C #78 4 years ago

    Yeah, it's the better looking version too.

    [link url=http://ww w.gametrailers.com/player/29150...
    ]http://ww w.gametrailers.com/player/29150...[/link]

    As you can see, the snow monsters towards the end of this video have a slightly shinier effect on PS3 and look less 'dull'.

    ZOMG! One console version looks marginly better than the other. Quick, tell everyone!


    Your a prick. there is virtually no fucking difference at all.

  • Darren #79 4 years ago

    That's very likely a faulty controller though or interference from some other Bluetooth device as I've never encountered any unresponsiveness with either the SIXAXIS or newer Dualshock 3 controller in *any* PS3 game, including the DMC4 demo and I've played through it over 20 times! LOL

  • Darren #80 4 years ago

    The cutscenes in the 360 version of DMC4 are locked at 30 fps whereas they run anywhere between 30 and 60 fps on the PS3... or so I've read on NeoGAF. I have noticed the odd framerate drop in the cutscenes of the PS3 version but nothing I'd describe as "choppy" as such; looks very minor to me, blink and you literally do miss it.

  • septimus #81 4 years ago

    They look identical and play identically. So I went for the 360 version, you'd be stupid not to if you have both consoles.

    It's ridiculous, there is no reason why the PS3 version should be £10 more.

  • Dizzy #82 4 years ago

    Yeah.. installing games on HDD for consoles == stupid idea. making use of HDD for caching or special game features == TEH WIN.

  • Darren #83 4 years ago

    @ApoIogie - Yeah, I agree the enforced install is a bit annoying as it basically means that if you run out of space on your HDD and have to delete it then you won't be able to play the game if there's less than 5 GB of storage space left. Stupid really. It's going to really be a problem for those Japanese and US owners who own the 20 GB HDD models I'd imagine.

    When the developers were asked about this they said that they wanted to do the same thing on the 360 but couldn't because of the HDD-less model. The truth is that without the install the loading times on the PS3 version would likely be twice as long as those of the 360, not a great advert for BD games really.

    @septimus - I own both consoles but I'm getting the PS3 version of DMC4 simply because I prefer the Dualshock 3 controller for this game over the 360 controller plus I played the earlier games on the PS2 so I'm willing to pay the extra. It's not like the game is more expensive than other PS3 games, it's just a case of the 360 version being unusually cheaper. Lost Planet will be £30 RRP on the PS3 with all the extra content though so helps even the balance a bit as 360 owners originally had to pay £50 RRP.

  • ParmaViolet #84 4 years ago

    @apologie

    'The pro PS3 crowd try to tout this as a good thing because it *minisculey* reduces loading times but the truth of the matter is that it was actually a work around to counter the slow data transfer of the Bluray drive. For people with the 40gig PS3 (which is/will be the majority) this installation of games is not a solution in the long run. If you had a large collection of games all installed you'd have to delete and reinstall every time you wanted to play something else (if this takes half an hour each time, it's not really viable)...'

    Pro PS3 crowd? - you aren't fooling anyone.....you've been possibly the biggest PS3 fanboy on here - first you say that you sold your 360, now you have one and your brother the PS3 and you seem to be treating the PS3 with utter disdain.....odd behaviour to say the least..

    I really, really don't understand fanboys......needless to say, I'll be treating your posts with a very large pinch of salt
    Edited by 1 at 01/02/08 @ 10:28

  • ParmaViolet #85 4 years ago

    Actually, now that you mention it, your grammar and spelling is about a million times better than the real apololol....

    Ah well, that would explain my confusion........

    :-)