There are more games on the 360 and cheaper too. PS3 fans would this disagree, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. My vote for you is 360 FTW!!!

That's a PURELY game-by-game basis thing. PS3 vs 360 graphics quality will vary from game to game.

But more importantly, what does it matter? Even if the PS3 had crappier graphics quality across the board, there's a LOT more than just graphics quality to a console. Or at least, there should be for anyone seriously deciding between the two.

4.08 VLSD, NICO 8-way ECU, full exhaust with custom headers,
Tokico Blues with Eibach springs, Stillen FSTB, 20mm RSB

XBOX
pros
-Better online service
-more games
-more of my friends use xbox
CONS
-console failure rate
-PAYING for xbox live
-more screaming 12 year olds
-no blu-ray
-The console is REALLY LOUD!!

PS3
Cons
-online service isnt as good, but hell its FREE
-not as many of my friends have ps3
-doesnt have as many games, but all the good ones make it to ps3, so no biggie
-Its black and it attracts dust really bad HAHA
-sometimes release dates are held back compared to xbox

Pros
-muuuuch lower failure rate, no RROD
-IS SILENT ahhh very nice
-Free online
-blu-ray, and yes i use it alot. even for regular movies
-more mature people seem to have them. IE not as many screaming 12 year olds
-Just feels more streamlined and better made to me, hardware and software.

When it comes down to it, i prefer the ps3 more. I do have both systems and dont play my xbox anymore. And i dont have to worry about the RROD

'93 hatch

Quote, originally posted by themadscientist »

I laugh when people tout the fuel economy of a turbo engine. While it is true that it would be more economical off boost as it is basically a low compression NA motor at that moment, who the heck can stay out of the boost? That's like having a hot girlfreind and just having meaninful conversation.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3472

BTW, this article is pretty general about the issue and just touches on some of the key points. They do link to another article that has some pretty good detail about the solderball issues (which is also somewhat diluted as its not intended for an audience of engineers; but has a much greater depth of explanation) which you can read if you are truly interested. But you'll get the jist of what they think in the article above.

Then I almost bought a PSP3000 until I remembered that I never use my PSP1000 as it is except to occasionally play Locoroco.

anyone take this into effect?

Moving any optical drive while it is spinning has the potential to gouge and scratch discs, i'm sure I can look through the manual of any vertical mount game console and they will all say not to move the system while the disc is spinning.

No S%^T!!!!! It's called basic physics kiddies.
Being too stupid to understand the most basic laws of reality does not make MS responsible for your discs being scratched!

And yeah, I'd be really surprised if the Xbox manual doesn't include a warning not to move the system with a disc in use (or even just sitting idle in the drive).

We just need to get some decent mods for the ps3 now!

Quote, originally posted by kiers_jimbo @ gamespot »

Oh fantastic! This is probably why the Xbox' sales are so good compared to the PS3 - it's the same customers having to buy new consoles over and over again!

LMAO

If you just want to play some games, by yourself and whatever, get a 360.. or if all your friends use xbox live, get a 360..

If you want to have a blueray player, and such, get a ps3.. but that's all about it's good for right now, unless your friends all have one. lol..

Personally, I would choose the PC over all of them. Better graphics, better controls, more multiplayer, and you don't have to pay for it.. but still, consoles are fun.

The PS3's BluRay is fine and all but if I want to watch a BRD I'll by the appropriate player. What it comes down to is what titles are available for the consoles. All the top tier titles will be mulit-platform; GTA, Fallout3, COD series - so what it comes down to is what console exclusives are there.

Pretty soon there wont be exclusive console titles. Tons more money can be made by making it for multiple platforms. Im pretty sure even the new Final Fantasy will be released on xbox, pretty soon im sure MGS will be as well.

If it were to come to that it would be much better news for Sony that for MSFT. There are so few PS3 exclusive titles that really look worth playing that I can't imagine picking up one just to play the limited offerings. Little Big Planet, Resistance, MGS (from what I understand even a lot of the diehard fans were a bit put off by the last convoluted cutscene filled offering, what did it have 20 minutes of gameplay?)? The only exclusive PS3 title that I considered picking up the console for was Assassin's Creed, fortunately it wasn't an exclusive. It certainly helped keep some clutter away from my entertainment centre. I won't even mention Gran Turismo since it seems to be stuck in development/game release hell. Is there even a date on it? I suppose there's the "demo" that you have to pay for (and yet they make their online gaming service free - they've got it the wrong way around). I keep hearing about how the full version will destroy Forza2 when its released but Forza3 (and maybe Forza4) will have been out before GT ever sees the light of day.

Think back to the Halo3 release near the holiday season a few years back? Remember how Sony was fine with that since they would be able to push sales of the PS3 version of GTA, then Rockstar delayed the game and it wasn't able to compete at the register Not only did Sony not even have an exclusive to stack up against the Halo juggernaut, they couldn't even throw a multi-platform title out there either. I could almost hear Ken Kutaragi crying from the other side of the Pacific. The most recent numbers I could find for total console sales are here.

Square Enix, among other developers, has made it clear that developing for the PS3 was a big PITA compared to the 360. Why develop for the easier platform and port it over (I also imagine a 360 to PC port is far easier than a 360 to PS3 port) to the harder to develop platform, IF there is enough demand for it. Final Fantasy XIII will see release on both platforms in the US and is a PS3 only release in Japan.

Side note: I heard that there are new versions of Thief and Deus Ex due out next year but I haven't seen anything about either anywhere. Since the Splinter Cell is no longer about stealth and more like Assassin's Creed meets Jason Bourne I am certainly looking forward to the original (and my favourite) stealth title to get a new game. I saw a snippet (years ago) on G4 that Riddick was also getting a new makeover but haven't heard a thing since. Anybody got anything on these?

The new Riddick is called "Assult on Dark Athena." Butcher Bay has actually been made-over once already (the enhanced PC version that had some significant changes), but this will be a "real" remake with new tech. It'll still tell the Butcher Bay story, but will have a lot of new content as well, involving Riddick sneaking onto a merc ship called "Dark Athena." I'm looking forward to it as a fan of the movies and the first two iterations of the game.

I'm guessing that the enhanced PC version you mentioned is what I was thinking of, though I was certain it was coming out for the 360. The omission of a backwards compatibility patch for Riddick and Deus Ex 2 are inexcusable.

Good to hear a new (full!) version of Riddick is in the works though. Now if could only find out about Thief.

Sorry for the threadjack.

But what about the amount of time that you guys have to send your xbox back to the factory every other month, then get it back, and have to send it back the next day. PS3 FTW all the way, free online play, xbox = expensive online play. I'll admit, xbox does have some good games but 2009 or 2010 will be the year for game for PS3. Definitely get a PS3

Quote, originally posted by Koshin »

I haz a fellacio addiction

$50 a year is "expensive online play"? Sorry to hear about your financial problems.

Dark Athena is that game. It is a remake of Butcher Bay plus new content.

Quote, originally posted by BusyBadger »

$50 a year is "expensive online play"? Sorry to hear about your financial problems.

"Expensive" is a judgement of value, not available funds. XBL simply should not cost what it does.

The Playstation Network blows, however. Free is awesome, but the implementation is abysmal.

I'm well aware of the difference between value and price, in any case...

The value assessment on XBL service though - 4 bucks and change a month is perfectly reasonable if you play much at all. The replayability it adds to one $60 title alone should make its value obvious. Multiply this by two or three games and its even better. The alternative being packing up your rig and driving to someone's house for a LAN party seems pretty expensive in comparison (though its still a blast if its not your only gaming option).

I do think that MSFT should make different versions of the XBL service though. If you don't game online but want to download demos or backwards compatibility patches it should be less, or for someone that doesn't download demos, patches or added game materials but does want online play.

I've heard far more complaints than praise regarding Sony's XBL equivalent, the Playstation Network. But it seems like its easier for Sony to have the lesser service based on the console's offered titles. FPS titles are the backbone of XBL (well, before Guitar Hero and Rockband anyway), the PS3 seems to have such a larger RP base that the online play doesn't seem to be such a necessity. If Gran Turismo ever sees the light of day though, PSN better be up to the task.

I didn't mention any movie or tv downloads for either PSN or XBL since the discussion seemed to be aimed more at gaming.

I only had my Xbox breakdown once, just like Bbadger it only took a week and I got a free month of Xbox live. Free online is insignificant since the PS3 multiplayer is inferior to the 360, so I don't mind paying a little to get a good online experience.

Why does PS3s take soooo long to update? I am at my bros house and he has a PS3...we got the eye of the beholder game and it took 2 hours to update the game?

That's where our disagreement comes in, though. You (and most people I talk with) value XBL based on what you get out of it. I do not. That's not how things work. I value XBL based on what it consists of. XBL is matchmaking and an index of dowloads. That's it. That should be FREE. The same functionality HAS BEEN free for a decade or more for people with PCs...and not just free, but superior. Especially with games starting to cross the PC/console boundary more nowadays, XBL costing $50/year is unacceptable. You can buy a PC version of a modern game and get a better online experience than with the console version for less. That does not compute. Why does MS not only get away with, but get PRAISED FOR charging money for this service when EVERYONE ELSE EVER has done it for free? Hmmm? XBL offers nothing that warrants paying for.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

PS3 owns everyone's life.

NONE of my THREE 360's are in and out of repairs every other month. So far any repairs have been less than 1 per year. Certainly, there have been a few people that have had some serious bad luck. But it is far from the norm. I don't see the people I game with over XBL missing every other month as well.

Perhaps PS3 will gain some momentum over the next year. But as devs start to look at each new game they want to make, they cannot ignore the install base of the 360 coupled with the higher attach rate. And with the 360 having come in under the $200 mark, sales might be expected to increase at a rapid rate. As a result, 3rd party devs are going to have a harder time remaining exclusive with the PS3 than the 360. However, considering both systems are powerful enough to handle great graphical detail, they can actually develop for both sharing most of the assets.

Quote, originally posted by Axel Grungy »

Pretty soon there wont be exclusive console titles. Tons more money can be made by making it for multiple platforms. Im pretty sure even the new Final Fantasy will be released on xbox, pretty soon im sure MGS will be as well.

Where have you been? Final Fantasy will be out on the 360. It was announced at E3 last year.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox36...93730

As for paying for XBL, its not expensive. But not everyone will choose to pay for it. But its certainly not expensive. Ideally, everyone would love for XBL to be free. But its not. And I, for one, have no problem paying for 2 accounts each year (GF and I).

Quote, originally posted by MinisterofDOOM »

Why does MS not only get away with, but get PRAISED FOR charging money for this service when EVERYONE ELSE EVER has done it for free? Hmmm? XBL offers nothing that warrants paying for.

Blizzard charges to play WoW. Its simple supply and demand. People want to play games online. And many are willing to pay $50/year or more to do so. And many are not. The reasons are complicated for sure. But MS and Blizzard both present great business models for pay-as-you-play gaming. And that MS appears to be having greater success with it shows that MS is doing something right...and Sony, not so much.

Quote, originally posted by BusyBadger »

the PS3 seems to have such a larger RP base that the online play doesn't seem to be such a necessity.

Last I heard, the 360 had more RP games than PS3. And I'm thinking the PS3 is likely dominated by the COD gamers. FPS games are huge for both consoles.

Ultimately, as I said before, get the console that you feel you will use the most. Neither console will be a good value if you don't use it.

It usually takes about 3min but I have waited 15min+ once. It also depends how long you have waited to update.

I don't understand why everyone uses this to defend XBL. The two are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. With WoW, you are paying A DEVELOPER. And in return you are getting constant, continuous development/improvement/new content for the game. You are also paying for maintenance of the servers the game runs on. You are paying the salaries of the GMs/admins/tech support staff in addition to the development team.

With XBL, there is NO development. It is a matchmaking service. NONE of the content found on XBL comes from XBL. And you PAY MORE for most content anyway. With XBL, all hosting is done CLIENT-SIDE, just like with PCs. If you join my game, MY XBOX hosts. XBL is simply a matchmaking service. XBL does not host your games for you like Blizzard does with WoW.

In every conceivable way, the two are different. WoW has costs of operation that need to be covered. XBL's advertising I'm sure could easily cover the costs of operation. But MS doesn't just want to break even, they want to make money. Makes sense, can't argue with that. What gets my goat is that people not only pay it, but DEFEND paying it. XBL is nothing more than a collection of links. It is not worth ANY money from the consumer side. $50 is way past zero.

You seem to be experiencing some internal conflict.

Or maybe there aren't any good FPS or driving titles on the PS3.

Technically, they are very different. But consider the average consumer's point of view. If they want to play WoW, they have to pay. If they want to play Halo 3 online, they have to pay. And even with WoW, do you really think they are charging a bare minimum to cover the costs? No way. They are in it for the money like any other business. In September, Blizzard said it has cost them some $200 million to maintain services for WoW since launch. WoW has been out some 4 years? So if it were a linear cost (which I'm sure its not; this is merely to provide perspective), that's some $4,166,666 per month cost. A million subscribers paying $13 per month is 13,000,000. That would easily clear $9 mil/month in profit. I'm sure costs have increased as they get more subscribers, but with more than 10 million subscribers (they crossed that mark about 1 year ago), they are pulling in some $130 million in revenue per MONTH. That covers more than half the entire cost of operation for WoW since launch with one month of revenue. If you want to bring up value based on costs of operation, there is less here than with XBL.

As for additional content, don't they also charge for the expansion packs? The latest expansion being $39.99. That's sounds about right for most computer games. And if they sold this expansion to even 10% of their subscribers, that's at least $40 million in revenue. I'm sure their development costs are well covered by the sales alone.

Quote, originally posted by MinisterofDOOM »

With XBL, there is NO development. It is a matchmaking service. NONE of the content found on XBL comes from XBL. And you PAY MORE for most content anyway. With XBL, all hosting is done CLIENT-SIDE, just like with PCs. If you join my game, MY XBOX hosts. XBL is simply a matchmaking service. XBL does not host your games for you like Blizzard does with WoW.

NXE...

While its not a dealbreaker, MS did make a new dashboard. And frankly, while Sony sat on their tails for a couple of years trying to get Home released, MS annouces NXE about 6 months prior to launch and effected it on time. And Sony's home isn't anything all that spectacular nor has it brought anymore value to gaming. I agree that its a matter of implementation as you stated earlier, but so far their model for online gaming and overall revenue is not anywhere close to the success MS is having. Perhaps when you have more profit, then you can reinvest some of that money and make changes much more easily than the competition.

Quote, originally posted by MinisterofDOOM »

In every conceivable way, the two are different. WoW has costs of operation that need to be covered. XBL's advertising I'm sure could easily cover the costs of operation. But MS doesn't just want to break even, they want to make money. Makes sense, can't argue with that. What gets my goat is that people not only pay it, but DEFEND paying it. XBL is nothing more than a collection of links. It is not worth ANY money from the consumer side. $50 is way past zero.

I agree, technically, there are huge differences. But on the consumer end of things, its much simpler and is actually the same. If you want to play the games online, you have to pay a fee. And BOTH have clearly shown that it has worth to consumers. People are paying for it. Certainly, not everyone feels that way. And those who don't will not. The value is not in what they do to make it available to you. The value in both cases (from a consumer standpoint) is purely the ability to play the game online at all. Its not like you can play online on Halo 3 or WoW for free. I don't defend XBL beyond this point. But if I want to play H3 online I have to pay. And there is value in that for me as well as many others. This is undeniable.

Care to elaborate? Since the value of any product is relative to the individual consumer.

From a purely technical standpoint, the PS3 has always offered better value. But I choose the 360 because of the games I like to play. My friend on the other hand mainly plays sports games and lately Rock Band. He also watches a lot of Blu-Ray. So it was a better choice for him.