360 or PS3?

[andrus]

Well I just got my new HDTV so I think that it's finally time that I buy a console to replace my PS2 I sold a while ago. I haven't really paid attention to the new consoles much so I'm not really sure what to get. From what I've just been reading right now, I'm leaning a lot toward a PS3 (40gb) because of the free online, built-in wireless, potentially faster hardware and bluray. I also see that it's getting MGS4 and GT5 which I'm really liking (haven't looked at the upcoming xbox exclusives yet though). However, it seems like online on PS3 is kinda dead since I never hear anybody talking about anything other then xboxlive. It live really that much superior? Although I'd still probably take the crappier online over the better monthly fee online. Is there really any other reason to get a 360 with its RROD and all?

Also, just wondering about a few things..

Does the PS3 actually render the games in 1080p or does it just upscale from 720p?

My wireless router is upstairs and I'm going to have my console down so it'll be pretty far away. When I use my laptop there it's still pretty fast but will there be a more noticeable effect when gaming?

And this is probably a dumb question, but what am I supposed to use the 40gb hard drive for lol?

 

[Roufuss]

Honestly it sounds like your mind is already made up, so there really is no point to yet another one of these threads.

Just get a PS3.

You mention some 360 points, then dismiss them and tout PS3's points as being better by your own admission right in the OP. I don't see the point of this, it'll devolve into a flamewar, you admit you've read into none of the 360 exclusives while doing a lot of PS3 research... just get a PS3. In the end, no matter what anyone says, chances are you'll end up getting a PS3 anyways.

The hard drive is used for music, demo's, downloadable games, soon movies, pictures... the same things a PC HD is used for.

Nobody talks about PS3 online because barely any games use it that are super popular... there is no PSN equivalent of Halo 3 or anything like that.

 

[bboynitrous]

PS3 has a lot of potential. It will get better with Home. I'm hoping it will smash Live apart. Home looks very promising because it seems like the PSN -to me- is like half of their efforts to connect people online. Just wait for Home which should be out in the next couple months.

The games haven't come out yet either though which is slightly disappointing. Uncharted is pretty damn good. Rachet and Clank is fun, although not my cup of tea. Assassin's Creed is also pretty good along with Oblivion and Resistance. Soon Silent Hill 5, Resident Evil 5, Metal Gear Solid 4, Resistance 2, Final Fantasy XIII will all occupy my time. I'm sure there will be plenty of other filler games too. The Blu-Ray playback on the PS3 is also fantastic for my 720P/1080i 27" LCD TV. I really like the PS3 and now it has Divx playback via the latest update from Sony.

With such an excellent featureset and potential, it's just an amazing machine that I have really come to like more and more as the time has went on and i'm sure it can only get better. I hate to sound like a Sony fanboy spewing out words like an advertisement because I hate that. Truly I really was just going to sell this thing in the beginning just to make a profit but I ended up keeping it and it wasn't a bad choice at all.

 

[Roufuss]

PS3 has a lot of potential. It will get better with Home. I'm hoping it will smash Live apart. Home looks very promising because it seems like the PSN -to me- is like half of their efforts to connect people online. Just wait for Home which should be out in the next couple months.
.

PSN has a lot more work to do then just releasing Home. It needs to start getting demo's day and date with Live, it needs to actually get the same demo's for multiplatform games (many companies just skip a PS3 demo, it seems), it needs a MUCH better interface for the store, because that shit is horrible.

It needs a lot more classic PS1 games... prices are excellent, but selection? Cmon Sony, Nintendo + MS have proved this shit is profitable, you need to start working with other companies to get some classics on this shit ASAP. I did hear a rumor Sony is talking with SquareEnix about putting their back catalog on the PSN... now that would be amazing.

Sony still hasn't released points cards, which is a big deal for those without credit cards, and PSN needs much better downloadable games, and on more of a weekly basis. Getting one or two subpar games a month, compared to Live and the VC getting at least 4 if not, is bothersome.

It needs XMB in game (this is coming in 2008, apparently), it needs better online period, because the games I played online (mostly GH 3) were a mess. It needs developer support as well, as Live gets patches for it's games while PSN and Sony get jack squat.

What I *do* love about PSN and Sony is that Sony supports the shit out of every one of their games... Motorstorm and Resistance STILL receive new content, and they were both launch / near launch games!! Folklore has gotten a ton of content, and Warhawk has gotten some too. Sony does an excellent job supporting their own games when they can.

All I know is that the minute I step into the PSN store, I am instantly frustrated because it so confounding and difficult for no reason, compared to using Live and the Wii Shop.

 

[bboynitrous]

Well my point was Home will make the PS3 way more interactive with people. I know the PSN has a ways to go. Sony has been pretty slow in updating the PS1 games lately though. I think Home will bridge the gap for the online gaming portion, at least I'm hoping so. I know it's a lot of hope, you have to have some.

 

[Psychotext]

For what it's worth, I haven't seen a single report of a falcon 360 that's had RROD.

That said, seems like you've already made your mind up, so enjoy your PS3!

 

[Tigerblade]

Nobody talks about PS3 online because barely any games use it that are super popular... there is no PSN equivalent of Halo 3 or anything like that.

U-Huh, I guess I imagine the popularity of C0D4 online then.....same with Fifa08, everyone seems to play these 2 games online constantly.

No equivalent to Halo3? Warhawk? Or an even better game in UT3?

 

[erwos]

Live really is that much superior. If you're into online gaming, it's definitely worth the cash, even compared to free PSN.

IIRC, the PS3 doesn't upscale anything, which is a point in the 360's favor (albeit not the biggest one).

Early reports about PSN Home were not encouraging, so I wouldn't bet too heavily on that being a good feature until it actually comes out.

You need the hard drive because MANY PS3 games require installations. I'm guessing this will become something of an issue with owners in another year ("I'm out of space!"). But, of course, you can store other stuff on the hard drive, too, like media and demos. The 360 requires it for caching, BC, and, of course, storing demos and DLC.

The 360 has a much better library than the PS3, especially if you're not a PC gamer. I don't think is really that debatable at this point. Whether the PS3 can close the gap a bit in 2008 will be an interesting thing to see. That's not to say the PS3 has nothing worth playing - it has a few really good games now - but it just isn't as good, and review numbers bear this out.

In terms of multimedia, the 360 is easily the better machine for streaming stuff, but the PS3 does have that magical Blu-Ray drive. Depends on your usage patterns, I suppose.

I would not bank on the PS3 hardware ever seriously outperforming the 360's hardware. Sony is infamous for hyping up their system specs with cool-sounding names (Emotion Engine, anyone?).

If you're mostly gaming, I'd get a 360. But certainly, if you think the PS3 presents a better value (eg, you'll use some of the interesting extras it has), I don't think it's a bad choice. I'm definitely considering buying a PS3 to put next to my 360 after the next price drop - but even if I had to do it again, I'd still get a 360 first.

(And, dammit, TigerBlade, could you possibly be a bigger Sony fanboy? Just look at that sig! )

 

[Rash]

regarding the Hard Drive,
I got the 40gb ps3 and replaced the hard drive with a 250gb which are vey cheap in comparison to the 360 hard drives ( i think 360s biggest Hard Drive is 120gb?)
To put is short my hard drive consists of:
20 gig of Disc game Installs for faster acces loadng games
4 gig of full PS3 Games off the PSN Store
2 Gig of PS1 Games Off the PSN Store
500meg of PSP Games Off the PSN Store
3 Gig of ame Demos
50 Gig of Divx Movies (50 Movies and Heroes Seasons 1/2)
10 Gig of Music
5 Gig of Photos
10 gig for yellow Dog Linux install

As you can see ive already used over 100 Gig, It gives you a guide as to what you might use But soon for alot of people 40-60 gb is not going to be enough which is where the PS3 wins in this area as you can buy 3rd party hard drives cheap, ie soon there will be 500gig sata 2.5" hard drives for less than £100. Sure external hard drives can be used for some things but that adds extra clutter etc.

Hope This Helps

 

[Crighton]

Live really is that much superior. If you're into online gaming, it's definitely worth the cash, even compared to free PSN.

IIRC, the PS3 doesn't upscale anything, which is a point in the 360's favor (albeit not the biggest one).

Early reports about PSN Home were not encouraging, so I wouldn't bet too heavily on that being a good feature until it actually comes out.

You need the hard drive because MANY PS3 games require installations. I'm guessing this will become something of an issue with owners in another year ("I'm out of space!"). But, of course, you can store other stuff on the hard drive, too, like media and demos. The 360 requires it for caching, BC, and, of course, storing demos and DLC.

The 360 has a much better library than the PS3, especially if you're not a PC gamer. I don't think is really that debatable at this point. Whether the PS3 can close the gap a bit in 2008 will be an interesting thing to see. That's not to say the PS3 has nothing worth playing - it has a few really good games now - but it just isn't as good, and review numbers bear this out.

In terms of multimedia, the 360 is easily the better machine for streaming stuff, but the PS3 does have that magical Blu-Ray drive. Depends on your usage patterns, I suppose.

I would not bank on the PS3 hardware ever seriously outperforming the 360's hardware. Sony is infamous for hyping up their system specs with cool-sounding names (Emotion Engine, anyone?).

If you're mostly gaming, I'd get a 360. But certainly, if you think the PS3 presents a better value (eg, you'll use some of the interesting extras it has), I don't think it's a bad choice. I'm definitely considering buying a PS3 to put next to my 360 after the next price drop - but even if I had to do it again, I'd still get a 360 first.

(And, dammit, TigerBlade, could you possibly be a bigger Sony fanboy? Just look at that sig! )

The upscaling thing was a bad thing in the OP's mind. Some games are rendered in 1080p not many because this causes a framerate issue. The 360 has a better vid card than the PS3 and the PS3 has a more hearty processor these things do not equal out in terms of rendering.

I agree that Home doesn't appeal to all. I for one can care less about it. But if you are talking more about making your console a more social activity it may very well be a good thing.

Hardrive space is Much less an issue with the PS3 since the drive is user upgradeable at any time. I know some games take up some install space but 99% of the HD space I am useing is not game installs but Game Demo downloads and movie trailers.

The 360's game library is larger but as for being MUCH better than the PS3 I don't see it any more. Most cross platform games are a toss up and as for exclusives the 360 has some great games as does the PS3. I think that what games are must haves are a personal choice and I prefer the PS3 exclusives at this point. I am just sick of the constant string of delays on these games. I still remember the days that you didn't even know a game's title until there was a solid release date for it.

As for Multi-Media that will depend on your operating system. if you use Media Center then the 360 blows away the PS3 but for XP users the PS3 is far easier than the 360. It all depends on what you the user actually wants to do with said system.

As for the crack on the emotion engine you may want to rethink that. It took some developers the entire life cycle of the PS2 to fully see what that system could do. Look at the God of War series of games. These things were leaps and bounds better than other PS2 games and were done on a system that everyone had said was inferior to the newer Xbox.

I like your last line about the "interesting extras." In a few sentences back you referred to the Blue ray in a sarcastic manner. I know you complain about PS3 fanboy-isms but are you not just as guilty of touting the 360's flag?

 

[XLeezardx]

I say get the PS3 and watch Blu-ray movies on that nice HDTV. Grand Turismo 5 is another reason to go to PS3 is your a racing fan. You can plug in the Logitech G25 wheel on the PS3, cant do that with Xbox 360.

 

[4saken]

Sony confirmed in game XMB access is in an upcoming firmware, which one we dont know, so that eliminates a huge issue with the PSN online service.

Online latency quality is just as good if not better than the 360 service. But the Online interface is nowhere near as good as 360's. 360 has set the bar and then some in that department.

But as a complete package, i just see the PS3 definitely being the answer. It does everything i want it to do, and i always have it on. I have even started buying cross platform games on the PS3 due to the fact i rarely turn my 360 on anymore except for exclusives like Forza, Mass Effect, etc.

Warhawk has tons of people playing online and UT3 plays exceptionally well on the PS3.

 

[derek533]

Here we go again.

This topic has been beaten to death in several previous threads. Search is your friend.

Each system has their strength and weaknesses. It boils down to what you intend on using it for.

For pure game playing online and offline, 360 wins hands down. They already have an incredible library of good to excellent games. In fact, they could not release any more games and the current catalog would keep you busy for a very long time.

For game playing, along with more of a home theater type of setup, the PS3 wins with the included Blu-ray player. It doesn't have the catalog of games the 360 has at this point but that is changing for the better with each new release and as developers figure out how to get the most from the hardware.

So there you have it from my perspective. Think about what you are buying it for, and then make your decision. Bottom line however, is both systems are excellent for various reasons and you can't go wrong with either.

 

[erwos]

The upscaling thing was a bad thing in the OP's mind. Some games are rendered in 1080p not many because this causes a framerate issue. The 360 has a better vid card than the PS3 and the PS3 has a more hearty processor these things do not equal out in terms of rendering.

The 360's upscaling has no performance hit, so I don't get how this could be bad. I'm not even going to touch the architecture thing, because I could write for pages about it, and the fanboys would still not be convinced (even with good arguments).

I agree that Home doesn't appeal to all. I for one can care less about it. But if you are talking more about making your console a more social activity it may very well be a good thing.

The previews I've seen of it have not been very complimentary. I'm not saying it's going to suck - I like the concept a lot, truth be told, and was quite excited when it was announced. I'm just saying that buying a console because you think something might be good in the future is something of a sucker's game.

Hardrive space is Much less an issue with the PS3 since the drive is user upgradeable at any time. I know some games take up some install space but 99% of the HD space I am useing is not game installs but Game Demo downloads and movie trailers.

I was careful to point out that this is not a problem now, but when the PS3's library improves enough so that you _are_ installing lots of games. If I had to shove 5gb of data onto my HDD for every game I had, even the 120gb one would start getting a bit unpleasant.

The 360's game library is larger but as for being MUCH better than the PS3 I don't see it any more. Most cross platform games are a toss up and as for exclusives the 360 has some great games as does the PS3. I think that what games are must haves are a personal choice and I prefer the PS3 exclusives at this point. I am just sick of the constant string of delays on these games. I still remember the days that you didn't even know a game's title until there was a solid release date for it.

If we leave PCs out of the equation (as we should - we're comparing the 360 and the PS3, not the "360+PC" vs "PS3+PC"), the 360's exclusives library is indeed much better. You're welcome to prefer the PS3's titles, but if you go to places like MetaRankings and GameRankings, it's very clear that the 360 has a larger library of quality titles.

(Devs like the 360 _because_ they can easily get PC ports from a 360 native title. Penalizing the system because it's friendly to devs and gives them better bang for their buck is completely bizarre. If anything, this will ensure the long-term survival of the system no matter what.)

As for Multi-Media that will depend on your operating system. if you use Media Center then the 360 blows away the PS3 but for XP users the PS3 is far easier than the 360. It all depends on what you the user actually wants to do with said system.

I don't get how the PS3's streaming is easier to use. The 360 gives you more flexibility with streaming - you can use the MCX interface for live TV streaming, or the dashboard for very flexible UPnP. You share files the exact same way with DLNA and the 360 dashboard (for most people, that would be WMP11).

As for the crack on the emotion engine you may want to rethink that. It took some developers the entire life cycle of the PS2 to fully see what that system could do. Look at the God of War series of games. These things were leaps and bounds better than other PS2 games and were done on a system that everyone had said was inferior to the newer Xbox.

I completely reject your notion that PS2 games looked better than Xbox games. Sorry, but on the whole, just wasn't true. Look to, say, Soul Calibur II. The EE was a PITA to program for, and it's not a surprise that no one but Sony's studios (and maybe Square Enix?) could wring any sort of comparable performance out of it, and that situation never improved all that much.

I like your last line about the "interesting extras." In a few sentences back you referred to the Blue ray in a sarcastic manner. I know you complain about PS3 fanboy-isms but are you not just as guilty of touting the 360's flag?

Well, of course I'm pushing the 360. It is, by far, currently the better system for people who want to play games. If I was a real 360 fanboy, I would NEVER have told him to buy the PS3. That's not what I recommended. I said, if the PS3's extras make up for its inferior (to the 360) game library, then you should get that.

My dig at Blu-Ray was because, frankly, I hate it for its invasive DRM - AACS wasn't good enough, and they almost didn't make managed copy mandatory. I'm not going to cheer for a format that tries even harder to take fair use rights from us.

Having an opinion != fanboy. Owning everything Sony and then pushing the PS3 as the best thing ever = fanboy. I have enough money that I can buy all three systems, and intend to - I don't _need_ to be a fanboy. I just tell it like I see it, and console gamers should be going for the 360 first if they care about games the most.

 

[Ocellaris]

Here we go again.

This topic has been beaten to death in several previous threads. Search is your friend.

I am shocked to see that on a console gaming forum, console V console discussion would keep coming up

Anyway, I recently bought a 40GB PS3 myself since I think its a better value with Bluetooth, Wifi, replacable HD, Blu Ray drive, and free online play. Honestly the Blu Ray drive was not even a big deal, I just wanted to play games, then I watched some high def movies on my HDTV and I was like Seriously, people need to stop spouting crap like "upscaled DVD looks just as good".

Also the enthusiast in me preferred the PS3 since you can easily run Linux on it and do Folding@Home, and I love the PS3 exclusives like Rachet and Clank, Folklore...

 

[deception``]

As for Multi-Media that will depend on your operating system. if you use Media Center then the 360 blows away the PS3 but for XP users the PS3 is far easier than the 360. It all depends on what you the user actually wants to do with said system.

Both systems are just as easy. You can use WMP11 and Zune software to interact with BOTH the PS3 and 360 using Windows XP. The only problems I ran into had to deal with WMP and it's DRM - the consoles are both just as simple.

The main differences between the 360 and PS3 are as follows:

With the 360 you can play your streamed songs in-game; this is not possible with the PS3.

The PS3 does not handle some [older] types of DiVx well. Just about every file I have tried works with the exception being a handful of anime programs. The 360 will stream everything I throw at it; the PS3 roughly 98%.

 

[Stereophile]

I'm not even going to touch the architecture thing

Good. Outside of any professional computer engineers, we're not qualified.

If we leave PCs out of the equation (as we should - we're comparing the 360 and the PS3, not the "360+PC" vs "PS3+PC"), the 360's exclusives library is indeed much better. You're welcome to prefer the PS3's titles, but if you go to places like MetaRankings and GameRankings, it's very clear that the 360 has a larger library of quality titles.

That's a good point. A major strength of the X360's library is all of the PC ports. If you don't play PC games on console, things are different.

I've made a list. The top five ranked X360 games on metacritic are all cross-platform. The retail exclusive game libraries are surprisingly similar in both quantity and quality. Which is all the more remarkable considering X360 has been out twice as long. Although Live offers up considerably more downloadable games than PSN.

X360<-------------------------------------------->PS3

Halo 3---------------------------------------------Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction
Mass Effect-------------------------------------Ninja Gaiden Sigma
Forza 2-------------------------------------------Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
PGR 3--------------------------------------------Resistance: Fall of Man
PGR 4--------------------------------------------Warhawk
DOA 4--------------------------------------------Singstar
Dead Rising-------------------------------------Motostorm
Viva Pinata--------------------------------------Hot Shots Golf 5
Crackdown--------------------------------------Heavenly Sword
Saint's Row-------------------------------------Ridge Racer 7
Perfect Dark Zero-----------------------------F1 Championship Edition
MotoGP 06--------------------------------------Folklore
Flatout Ultimate Carnage-------------------Eye of Judgement
Kameo Elements of Power-----------------Piyotama
Eternal Sonata
Blue Dragon
Ridge Racer 6

These games are the best reviewed* exclusives to each system.

*metacritic average 70-100

The X360 does currently hold the lead in exclusive games but IMO it's not nearly as lopsided as commonly thought. Looking at their respective 2008 exclusive game lineups, I think PS3 has the X360 beat hands down. (MGS4, LBP, Haze, KZ2, The Agency, Coded Arms Assault, Disgaea 3, Heavy Rain, 8 days, Infamous, Tekken 6, Motostorm 2, Resistance 2, RDR 2, Socom:Confrontation, Valkyrie of the Battlefield, White Knight Chronicles, Yakuza.....)

I completely reject your notion that PS2 games looked better than Xbox games.

Crighton didn't say that. You said you doubt PS3 hardware will ever seriously outperform X360, that Sony over hypes their hardware i.e. Emotion Engine. He gave you an example of how much PS2 improved. How nobody would have thought games like God of War were possible at the beginning of its life cycle. Which is a valid point.

The thing is PS3 and X360 are not mismatched like PS2 and Xbox. Even with its supposedly difficult development environment, graphically, the PS3 is already competing. Ratchet, Uncharted, and Heavenly Sword look as good or better than anything I've seen in an X360 game.

IMO the PS3 will eventually exceed what anyone has done on X360.
GT5 alone proves this. Graphically it blows away every other racing game on X360.

 

[Xrave]

The 360's upscaling has no performance hit, so I don't get how this could be bad. I'm not even going to touch the architecture thing, because I could write for pages about it, and the fanboys would still not be convinced (even with good arguments).

He meant to say that the 360 does not have any native 1080p games (that I know of); they're all 720p or lower and then upscaled to 1080p.

Although the PS3 is similar in regards to this, there isn't any slowdown with the upscaled titles. However, the PS3 does have games that do natively support 1080p. Tekken 5, Super Stardust HD, Heavenly Sword, supposedly GT5 when it's release, and some others that I don't remember offhand.

For the native 1080p titles that have lots of action on screen (Heavenly Sword), there is some graphic stuttering in parts due to the larger amount of pixels being rendered by the PS3.

 

[Psychotext]

He meant to say that the 360 does not have any native 1080p games (that I know of); they're all 720p or lower and then upscaled to 1080p.

It does, but not many of them.

 

[erwos]

Good. Outside of any professional computer engineers, we're not qualified.

I am, but we'll leave that alone, like you said, since you're not.

*metacritic average 70-100

Once you extend that to 90+, or even 80+, things change dramatically, I'd point out. (To quote Penny Arcade: "Doesn't IGN's scale start on a 7?") And, like I said, I consider "360+PC" to be a 360 exclusive - even if that just means console exclusive. To be more succinct - if we're not counting those games as exclusives, tack another $1000 onto your PS3's price so you can buy a gaming PC to play them.

The X360 does currently hold the lead in exclusive games but IMO it's not nearly as lopsided as commonly thought. Looking at their respective 2008 exclusive game lineups, I think PS3 has the X360 beat hands down. (MGS4, LBP, Haze, KZ2, The Agency, Coded Arms Assault, Disgaea 3, Heavy Rain, 8 days, Infamous, Tekken 6, Motostorm 2, Resistance 2, RDR 2, Socom:Confrontation, Valkyrie of the Battlefield, White Knight Chronicles, Yakuza.....)

We'll see how many of those are any good, and how many actually get released in 2008. Like I said, predicting great games is a decidedly tricky proposition. As far as I'm concerned, I'll believe something is "AAA" when it's released and reviewed. Some of those games will probably be fantastic. But some of them will probably be huge disappointments, too.

Do they seem awesome right now? Sure. But "awesome previews" sell more ad views and magazines than "this game is going to suck".

Crighton didn't say that. You said you doubt PS3 hardware will ever seriously outperform X360, that Sony over hypes their hardware i.e. Emotion Engine. He gave you an example of how much PS2 improved. How nobody would have thought games like God of War were possible at the beginning of its life cycle. Which is a valid point.

Even at its height, the PS2 still didn't outperform the Xbox or even the Gamecube (RE4!) graphically. Both systems will improve, so I'm not sure why people seem to think the 360 won't improve just as much. Again, don't get victimized by the "OMG, PS3 has so much more power" hype - Sony would love you to believe it, but the picture is much more murky than that.

GT5 alone proves this. Graphically it blows away every other racing game on X360.

You mean GT5 Prologue, and the gameplay is inferior to Forza 2's - unless you somehow think your realistic racer shouldn't have damage models. That's my point - looking pretty doesn't mean playing awesome, and while I'd like my games to do both, I certainly hope we all still prefer better gameplay.

Again, I'm really planning on buying a PS3 this year - but I'm not going to hype it up beyond all reality just to justify my purchase.

 

[ThunderGod66]

I tried living without both...couldn't do it. They're both awesome and both have great exclusives (out and upcoming). Can't we all just get along?

 

[erwos]

I tried living without both...couldn't do it. They're both awesome and both have great exclusives (out and upcoming). Can't we all just get along?

Definitely the best of choices, IMHO. Unfortunately, not everyone has the money for both.

 

[Psychotext]

Definitely the best of choices, IMHO. Unfortunately, not everyone has the money for both.

You'll buy one, even if you have to work more hours to afford it.

 

[Rocketpig]

No equivalent to Halo3? Warhawk? Or an even better game in UT3?

When combined, the userbase for UT3+Warhawk is about 15% of Halo 3 by itself.

 

[XLeezardx]

Man screw all this debate, get both systems, thats what a true gamer would do.

 

[Rash]

When combined, the userbase for UT3+Warhawk is about 15% of Halo 3 by itself.

In my eyes UT3 is a much better game than Halo 3 multiplayer wise, theres so much more you can do in it but thats my opinion,I also think tf2 is way better than Halo 3. The way your quoting you might as well say Halo 2 multiiplayer is better than UT3.

 

[Rocketpig]

In my eyes UT3 is a much better game than Halo 3 multiplayer wise, theres so much more you can do in it but thats my opinion,I also think tf2 is way better than Halo 3. The way your quoting you might as well say Halo 2 multiiplayer is better than UT3.

No, my point was that there's a good chance that in 3-6 months, both of those communities will have dried up a great deal.

The smaller the player pool, the harder it will be to find a good game as the title ages.

BTW, I also like TF2 better than Halo 3. TF2 cracks me up.

 

[Neurofreeze]

UT3 is probably technically better, but the maps mostly suck balls. While it's nice to be able to import new maps and mods, when I buy I game I generally want a complete and fun product, not something I have to patch just to make fun. Halo 3 is also a rather casual friendly multiplayer FPS, unless of course if you play random multiplayer on Live, in which case it's filled with people who will wipe the floor with noobs.

You mean GT5 Prologue, and the gameplay is inferior to Forza 2's - unless you somehow think your realistic racer shouldn't have damage models. That's my point - looking pretty doesn't mean playing awesome, and while I'd like my games to do both, I certainly hope we all still prefer better gameplay.

Forza 2 is only superior in gameplay if you plan on crashing. GT is a driving simulation, much like a flight simulation. I really don't care how a small tear on my wing is going to affect how a Sesna flies. No flight simulator would account for that nor would any fan of the genre by flying with that in mind. Likewise GT is for people who are not in the Burnout mentality and want serious driving simulation. This is a game for people who don't crash and can actually tell subtle differences in racing cars.

Live really is that much superior. If you're into online gaming, it's definitely worth the cash, even compared to free PSN.

IIRC, the PS3 doesn't upscale anything, which is a point in the 360's favor (albeit not the biggest one).

Early reports about PSN Home were not encouraging, so I wouldn't bet too heavily on that being a good feature until it actually comes out.

You need the hard drive because MANY PS3 games require installations. I'm guessing this will become something of an issue with owners in another year ("I'm out of space!"). But, of course, you can store other stuff on the hard drive, too, like media and demos. The 360 requires it for caching, BC, and, of course, storing demos and DLC.

The 360 has a much better library than the PS3, especially if you're not a PC gamer. I don't think is really that debatable at this point. Whether the PS3 can close the gap a bit in 2008 will be an interesting thing to see. That's not to say the PS3 has nothing worth playing - it has a few really good games now - but it just isn't as good, and review numbers bear this out.

In terms of multimedia, the 360 is easily the better machine for streaming stuff, but the PS3 does have that magical Blu-Ray drive. Depends on your usage patterns, I suppose.

I would not bank on the PS3 hardware ever seriously outperforming the 360's hardware. Sony is infamous for hyping up their system specs with cool-sounding names (Emotion Engine, anyone?).

If you're mostly gaming, I'd get a 360. But certainly, if you think the PS3 presents a better value (eg, you'll use some of the interesting extras it has), I don't think it's a bad choice. I'm definitely considering buying a PS3 to put next to my 360 after the next price drop - but even if I had to do it again, I'd still get a 360 first.

(And, dammit, TigerBlade, could you possibly be a bigger Sony fanboy? Just look at that sig! )

Live is actually not that great if you are not into the community aspect. If all you want to do is play a game online multiplayer, then it's actually a lot of stuff you won't care about. I have the usual 12+1 subscription and quite frankly if they offered free multiplayer and put everything else on the subscription basis (cross-game invites, mail, etc), I wouldn't pay. Likewise with PSN, it's got what I need (multiplayer) and when Home comes out, I'm just not going to give a damn about all that crap.

Now if either Sony or MS were to offer better VoIP chat for more money... I'd be totally down with that. I'm used to 32KHz, 16bit PCM vent that I use with WoW. When I get on Live! or PSN, I can't understand jack shit.

The installing stuff on the PS3 is generally very, very small. Folklore, an RPG, only required 78MB. UT3 was only like... 120MB. However, there are exceptions. Heavenly Sword was about 2.1GB! Strangely enough its loadtime was the longest I've ever experienced (however you will only see a load screen six times in the entire course of the game) and it did have slowdowns in framerate in very specific spots (going up a flight of stairs for instance, when these guys are throwing barrels and dead bodies at you, yet strangely enough no slowdown in the last stages where you are literally fighting over 1000 enemies). UT3, with 5% of the install footprint, has better framerate AND very, very fast load time.

I'm actually running out of space much faster on my 360 for some reason. I can't figure it out by I'm already down to 10GB on my 20GB 360, yet with even all the demos and installs I have on my PS3 I've only used 8GB.... It the OS on the 360 that big? I kind of regret not investing in an elite.

For streaming, with the latest PS3 update, it's pretty much the same. The only difference is that you cannot stream XviD from a media server to a PS3 (you must copy it to the hard drive first), but you can with DivX. The PS3 has "official" DivX compatibility while the 360 only has partial, which mostly means that support on the PS3 includes all official DivX builds, including the old ones, while the 360 one supports only the newest ones, which shouldn't be a big issue unless you have some old videos.

 

[Stereophile]

Once you extend that to 90+, or even 80+, things change dramatically, I'd point out. (To quote Penny Arcade: "Doesn't IGN's scale start on a 7?") And, like I said, I consider "360+PC" to be a 360 exclusive - even if that just means console exclusive. To be more succinct - if we're not counting those games as exclusives, tack another $1000 onto your PS3's price so you can buy a gaming PC to play them.

A 70 on metacritic is a fair cutoff. They're games at least worth a look. A 7 on IGN doesn't mean the same thing. F1CE is in the low 70s on metacritic, not because it's a bad game, but because it's not very accessible and geared towards hardcore F1 fans.

Console exclusive isn't the same as exclusive. It's a selling point if you don't own a gaming PC. But otherwise.... $1000 is a fantasy. You can build or upgrade to an X360 killing PC game machine for much less than that. Future games like Alan Wake will require massive visual sacrifices relative to the PC version to maintain 720p 30fps. Not to mention the fealty of playing an FPS with a controller.

We'll see how many of those are any good, and how many actually get released in 2008. Like I said, predicting great games is a decidedly tricky proposition. As far as I'm concerned, I'll believe something is "AAA" when it's released and reviewed. Some of those games will probably be fantastic. But some of them will probably be huge disappointments, too.

I'm not saying everything in that list will end up AAA. But I see more potential AAA games in PS3's 2008 lineup than X360's.

Again, don't get victimized by the "OMG, PS3 has so much more power" hype - Sony would love you to believe it, but the picture is much more murky than that.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the PS3 is an order of magnitude more powerful. But from my reading, the consensus amongst experts is the PS3 has more potential. Sony certainly proved how far they push HW last generation. One of the lead engineers at IBM stated Cell may offer up to 2.5x the real world performance of Xenon. Since they designed both, I'll take their word for it.

and the gameplay is inferior to Forza 2's - unless you somehow think your realistic racer shouldn't have damage models.

100% your opinion. GT5: Prologue is representative, but I think the full game will be even better. I don't think Forza's damage model is even close to realistic.

 

[Psychotext]

One of the lead engineers at IBM stated Cell may offer up to 2.5x the real world performance of Xenon. Since they designed both, I'll take their word for it.

...and the GPU in the 360 is considerably more powerful than that of the one in the PS3. At the end of the day, there's very little between the two machines.

 

[NeoTek]

I have both and IMHO the 360 is a better system right now. What I mean is that it has a better software line up and better online for right now. I really like the PS3's Operating System (for lack of a better term). It is very clean and a lot less in your face compared to the 360's. I see a lot of potential for the PS3. Installing a different OS, mouse and keyboard support, blue-ray player and a bit more. In the long run I think the PS3 has more potential.



Neo

 

[Stereophile]

...and the GPU in the 360 is considerably more powerful than that of the one in the PS3.

On paper Xenos has an edge. EDRAM, unified architecture etc.. It gives some crazy theoretical numbers. For instance if all 48 shaders are dedicated to vertex operations. RSX can't compete with that. But the real world difference isn't as dramatic. They have very similar capabilities.

Experts at B3D and elsewhere have compared each console's GPU power to PC class 7800/7900, X1800/X1900 hardware respectively. Of course with lower fill rate and bandwidth since the consoles are geared toward lower resolutions.

Graphically, I put Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, and Ratchet Future against anything on X360. John Carmack estimated one gets twice as much out of a given hardware configuration in a closed box vs. open design. Both consoles are capable of a lot more than their relatively puny GPUs would indicate.

However Cell has the potential to walk away from XenoN. 250% is the figure I read. How exactly that advantage will translate with games I'm not sure.

 

[BladeVenom]

For what it's worth, I haven't seen a single report of a falcon 360 that's had RROD.

Do a Google search. You'll find plenty or reports.

 

[Rash]

The installing stuff on the PS3 is generally very, very small. Folklore, an RPG, only required 78MB. UT3 was only like... 120MB. However, there are exceptions. Heavenly Sword was about 2.1GB! Strangely enough its loadtime was the longest I've ever experienced (however you will only see a load screen six times in the entire course of the game) and it did have slowdowns in framerate in very specific spots (going up a flight of stairs for instance, when these guys are throwing barrels and dead bodies at you, yet strangely enough no slowdown in the last stages where you are literally fighting over 1000 enemies). UT3, with 5% of the install footprint, has better framerate AND very, very fast load time.

You havent done the extra install for UT3 my friend!!
Install UT3 Properly an it takes 2.3gb up!
Ridge Racer 7 is 5.5gb
Time Crisis 4 is 2.5gb
Rachet & Clank is 400 meg
Heavenly Sword is 2.1gb
Thats nearly 13 gb from 5 ps3 exclusive games!

 

[Psychotext]

Do a Google search. You'll find plenty or reports.

Nope, I found a few... including some that said they had falcon machines but actually had zephyrs. I also do the NeoGAF dead 360 stats and out of 1200+ dead 360s there are no reports of falcons dying other than 3 that came with faulty drives out of the box (all from the same shop).

I'd say that the falcon 360s are probably equivalent to the PS3 and Wii for reliability (search around, you can find reports of them dying too).

 

[Psychotext]

On paper Xenos has an edge. EDRAM, unified architecture etc.. It gives some crazy theoretical numbers.

What you've said applies to the cell too. Program for it well and you can do amazing things.

This is why you need to have someone like Insomniac or Polyphony doing your work for you. Those guys are unparalleled when it comes to getting the most out of hardware.

 

[aznknife]

PS3 has a lot of potential. It will get better with Home. I'm hoping it will smash Live apart. Home looks very promising because it seems like the PSN -to me- is like half of their efforts to connect people online. Just wait for Home which should be out in the next couple months.

The games haven't come out yet either though which is slightly disappointing. Uncharted is pretty damn good. Rachet and Clank is fun, although not my cup of tea. Assassin's Creed is also pretty good along with Oblivion and Resistance. Soon Silent Hill 5, Resident Evil 5, Metal Gear Solid 4, Resistance 2, Final Fantasy XIII will all occupy my time. I'm sure there will be plenty of other filler games too. The Blu-Ray playback on the PS3 is also fantastic for my 720P/1080i 27" LCD TV. I really like the PS3 and now it has Divx playback via the latest update from Sony.

With such an excellent featureset and potential, it's just an amazing machine that I have really come to like more and more as the time has went on and i'm sure it can only get better. I hate to sound like a Sony fanboy spewing out words like an advertisement because I hate that. Truly I really was just going to sell this thing in the beginning just to make a profit but I ended up keeping it and it wasn't a bad choice at all.

I laughed at the pointless post. Home will smash Live? Yeah well good luck man. Also 360 also has Divx. Some of the games you mentioned are also out for the 360. The others you mentioned keep getting delayed besides a few.

 

[aznknife]

U-Huh, I guess I imagine the popularity of C0D4 online then.....same with Fifa08, everyone seems to play these 2 games online constantly.

No equivalent to Halo3? Warhawk? Or an even better game in UT3?

Warhawk is the only "good" game out for the PS3 right now. UT3 is only a timed exclusive.

 

[aznknife]

I say get the PS3 and watch Blu-ray movies on that nice HDTV. Grand Turismo 5 is another reason to go to PS3 is your a racing fan. You can plug in the Logitech G25 wheel on the PS3, cant do that with Xbox 360.

You have no fucking point about what your talking about. You can't plug in a Racing Wheel for the 360? Well I am sorry to tell you, you can.

 

[Slade]

I think the point was that the G25 is FULLY SUPPORTED on the PS3. Not the 360. Of course the 360 has racing wheels, but most of those don't hold a candle to the G25.

I like both systems, they have their plus sides and their drawbacks. I for one am not a fan of live. For the PS3, I'm not a fan of their pathetic game list. Over a year and few titles are worth mentioning compared to the 360.

1080p support is overrated unless you are a blue ray fan. Takes a large screen to appreciate 1080p but then what 1080p screen makes for a good gaming screen? Few. Marvel vs Capcom 2 becomes VERY difficult to play when upscaled to 1080p, the PS3 introduces it's own input lag when doing hardware scaling (I have the 60gb). I feel sorry for anyone thinking the PS3 can replace their PS2, the 40gb doesn't support much if at all thru software emulation, and the 80gb is ONLY software emulation. If you want to cut out the input lag caused by upscaling, you have to drop the resolution to 480p.

Get both is my recommendation. If you say it's expensive, damn straight it is. It's called PAY TO PLAY. If you can't afford it, work for it. If you still can't factor it in, you need to get your finances in order first. Too many people thinking debt is a good thing.