The Orange Box (PS3) -- Why so uncommon?
I noticed the PS3 version of the Orange Box (compilation of Team Fortress 2, Half-Life 2 and the first Portal) is rarer than it's Xbox 360 counterpart. While not out of the ballpark, a CIB copy will usually go for about $25-30, although UK copies are slightly cheaper and it is all-region. Still, that's a bit more than the Xbox one which can be had dirt cheap, maybe like $5 complete. Why was the PS3 version so neglected?
Comments
Valve whined about the PS3 architecture and made their next couple releases 360 exclusive. They went back to Sony when portal 2 allowed steam support.
Late shoddy port. Came out way after the other versions and was never patched with fixes or other updates.
Valve whined about the PS3 architecture and made their next couple releases 360 exclusive. They went back to Sony when portal 2 allowed steam support.
I've played through it and never noticed any major problems. It ran and played smooth for me. I never played team fortress but half life 2 and portal played just fine.
I own it and all I remember is the framerate being really bad. If given the option, I would always get ports for the ps3 with this being one of the very few exceptions. I dunno if current gen collecting is every gonna take off especially for a game that just outright works better on the 360. Personally, I think it's gonna be rare to find a ps3 or a 360 that still works in 20 years.
Probably true. The issue with these modern HDD based systems vs. the old CD systems (which DO still work or can be easily fixed) is the amount of updates, patches, downloads, etc. that will be nearly impossible to be track of or recover once it all becomes obsolete. Too vast a collection of data to properly document and archive.
Late shoddy port. Came out way after the other versions and was never patched with fixes or other updates.
Valve whined about the PS3 architecture and made their next couple releases 360 exclusive. They went back to Sony when portal 2 allowed steam support.
I've played through it and never noticed any major problems. It ran and played smooth for me. I never played team fortress but half life 2 and portal played just fine.
When it launched there were new comparison videos and examples of the crap-tactic port every day. Even the ridiculous loading times when you died in a level that's already loaded were a deal-breaker.
Bioshock was also late and inferior on PS3. That was a running theme early in the console's life. Everything was generall later and generally worse. Red Dead too. First example I recall of the opposite was GTA IV where Microsoft's insistence that it fit on DVD and not install to the HDD made the game require huge compression and ridiculous load and pop-in issues. A tree might appear right in front of you and cause a crash, for example.
Late shoddy port. Came out way after the other versions and was never patched with fixes or other updates.
Valve whined about the PS3 architecture and made their next couple releases 360 exclusive. They went back to Sony when portal 2 allowed steam support.
I've played through it and never noticed any major problems. It ran and played smooth for me. I never played team fortress but half life 2 and portal played just fine.
When it launched there were new comparison videos and examples of the crap-tactic port every day. Even the ridiculous loading times when you died in a level that's already loaded were a deal-breaker.
Bioshock was also late and inferior on PS3. That was a running theme early in the console's life. Everything was generall later and generally worse. Red Dead too. First example I recall of the opposite was GTA IV where Microsoft's insistence that it fit on DVD and not install to the HDD made the game require huge compression and ridiculous load and pop-in issues. A tree might appear right in front of you and cause a crash, for example.
I have a 360 and ps3 with many of the same games. I have 120 PS3 games and I have bioshock and red dead on both systems. You're blowing things out of proportion. What ever differneces there are they are so minor I never noticed them. There are only three games where I noticed a substantial differnece bayonetta mass effect trilogy and Skyrim. I used the PS3 as my main system because of the red ring of death problem. Bayonetta ran like shit on the PS3 with screen tearing and load times but it wasn't bad enough to ruined the experience. Skyrim crashed a lot and was borderline unplayable on the PS3. Skyrim was the only game I noticed a signifigantly better resolution on 360. Mass Effect Trilogy out of the 3 games the first one ran the worse. The cutsceens were compressed. But trilogy and bayonetta never crashed or anything like Skyrim. Red dead I've see no differnce.
Late shoddy port. Came out way after the other versions and was never patched with fixes or other updates.
Valve whined about the PS3 architecture and made their next couple releases 360 exclusive. They went back to Sony when portal 2 allowed steam support.
I've played through it and never noticed any major problems. It ran and played smooth for me. I never played team fortress but half life 2 and portal played just fine.
When it launched there were new comparison videos and examples of the crap-tactic port every day. Even the ridiculous loading times when you died in a level that's already loaded were a deal-breaker.
Bioshock was also late and inferior on PS3. That was a running theme early in the console's life. Everything was generall later and generally worse. Red Dead too. First example I recall of the opposite was GTA IV where Microsoft's insistence that it fit on DVD and not install to the HDD made the game require huge compression and ridiculous load and pop-in issues. A tree might appear right in front of you and cause a crash, for example.
I have a 360 and ps3 with many of the same games. I have 120 PS3 games and I have bioshock and red dead on both systems. You're blowing things out of proportion. What ever differneces there are they are so minor I never noticed them. There are only three games where I noticed a substantial differnece bayonetta mass effect trilogy and Skyrim. I used the PS3 as my main system because of the red ring of death problem. Bayonetta ran like shit on the PS3 with screen tearing and load times but it wasn't bad enough to ruined the experience. Skyrim crashed a lot and was borderline unplayable on the PS3. Skyrim was the only game I noticed a signifigantly better resolution on 360. Mass Effect Trilogy out of the 3 games the first one ran the worse. The cutsceens were compressed. But trilogy and bayonetta never crashed or anything like Skyrim. Red dead I've see no differnce.
Look, I'm just telling you what was in the gaming press. Yes, sometimes it's hard to notice on its own, but the side by side split screen comparisons were irrefutable night-and-day different. Red Dead didn't have the same LOD in the environment at a specified distance (grass, bushes, rocks, etc were more sparse). Orange Box had ridiculous load times compared to every other platform. Bioshock was late and had significantly lower texture detail despite the devs saying it would look exactly the same. Mass Effect didn't even come out on PS3 until the trilogy (WAY late). These are simply facts. I've never owned a 360 but I bought a PS3 at launch and still have it along with several more. It was my preferred system too, so no need to get defensive as if I'm unfairly attacking it.
I bought PC ports wherever possible (including Orange Box) but I was happy to buy Portal 2 on PS3 with the PC Steam code.