PLaystation 3 vs. Xbox 360, how do you feel?

[x240xdrifter]

So this coming holiday season, I have decided to upgrade my gaming system. My Playstation 2 has served me well since late 2004, I have never had a problem with it, ever except a few controllers, but no biggie. I also loved, well still love my PS2, I currently have roughly 40 games, and have owned many more in the past. I love the games I have now, and I love the types of games availabe. I have been a loyal Sony fan, a hardcore loyal Sony fan. I have grown quite acustom to the controller (best design imo) and the graphics have been quite revolutionary. So naturally after all of this, it should be clear I am leaning about 99% towards a PS3. However, I had the chance to really get to play xbox 360, and I really like it, especially Halo 3. The controllers have be designed quite nicely, graphics arent half bad, and the game selection has grown quite well since last time I payed attention. You cant beat the price either. But after all this yapping about, whats your take on the potential of both systems? I'm probably better off with a PS3 (backwards capabilty, hardcore Sony Fan, Graphics are like whoa!) but after playing Xbox, I want one too. deep down I am going to eventually get both, but which one first haha? discuss!

[x240xdrifter]

I failed to see this:

zerothread/292481

for me

still chime in if you'd like

[Loki]

Wii62 ftw!

[R240sx]

So this coming holiday season, I have decided to upgrade my gaming system. My Playstation 2 has served me well since late 2004, I have never had a problem with it, ever except a few controllers, but no biggie. I also loved, well still love my PS2, I currently have roughly 40 games, and have owned many more in the past. I love the games I have now, and I love the types of games availabe. I have been a loyal Sony fan, a hardcore loyal Sony fan. I have grown quite acustom to the controller (best design imo) and the graphics have been quite revolutionary. So naturally after all of this, it should be clear I am leaning about 99% towards a PS3. However, I had the chance to really get to play xbox 360, and I really like it, especially Halo 3. The controllers have be designed quite nicely, graphics arent half bad, and the game selection has grown quite well since last time I payed attention. You cant beat the price either. But after all this yapping about, whats your take on the potential of both systems? I'm probably better off with a PS3 (backwards capabilty, hardcore Sony Fan, Graphics are like whoa!) but after playing Xbox, I want one too. deep down I am going to eventually get both, but which one first haha? discuss!

Ok ill give the jist of it for you.

ps3's are only backwards compatible with ps2 games if you get the 80 gig version, the 40gig version only plays ps1 games. ps3 games are often then not delayed when its a multiplatform release. IE if a game comes out on both 360 and ps3, ps3 version will probably be delayed (there are a few exceptions though). ok those are about the main cons to a ps3.

xbox 360, not many cons, only thing is to pray it doesnt fry as they have a little bit higher then average failure rate. but microsoft has extended a 3 year warranty on the 3 rings of red for just incase. has a reputation of being a shooter console which is good or bad depending on your personal taste, and thats about it.

in the end i suggest you look at the exclusive games available to each console, xbox360 has many great now games like halo 3, Gears of war, Bioshock, mass effect to name a few. ps3 doesnt have as many games but ones to look at now are resistance, ratchet and clank, uncharted:drakes fortune, in reality there best lineup will be next year so you'd have to be patient.

[ceniack]

also, if you play games on your PC, i would get the PS3, as most of the 360 "exclusives" end up on the PC after a few months if they are not released at the same time

[C-Kwik]

I'd look over the current and upcoming games list and decide which games interest you the most and make the decision based on that.

[s13jus10]

ps3's are only backwards compatible with ps2 games if you get the 80 gig version, the 40gig version only plays ps1 games.

wrong. 80g ps3 - about 80% backwards compatible with ps2/ps1 games (meaning it will play about 80% of the titles with no problem)60g - about 98% backwards compatible, can play pretty much every ps2/ps1 game, only a few titles (ones that nobody's ever heard of) won't play on it.40g - not backwards compatible AT ALL. meaning it won't play any ps2 OR ps1 games.

even if your ps2 is still working, I would suggest getting either the 60g or 80g ps3. the ps3 (if you didn't know) actually upscales ps1/ps2 games as well as regular dvds up to not quite high-definition, but definitely better than standard-def.

ps3 games are often then not delayed when its a multiplatform release. IE if a game comes out on both 360 and ps3, ps3 version will probably be delayed (there are a few exceptions though)..

true. multiplatform release games take a while longer to release on the ps3 because it's a little harder to develop games on. on the other hand, most multi-plat games that come out on both 360 and ps3 on the same day are simply ports from the 360 over to the ps3, and look like crap (with some exceptions, ex: CoD4). other games though that are released a little later and were built FOR the ps3 from scratch and not just a port-over, look absolutely stunning (ex: MoH:Airborne).

xbox 360, not many cons, only thing is to pray it doesnt fry as they have a little bit higher then average failure rate. but microsoft has extended a 3 year warranty on the 3 rings of red for just incase. has a reputation of being a shooter console which is good or bad depending on your personal taste, and thats about it.

true. although "a little bit higher than average" failure rate is an extreme understatement. bottom line - 30% failure rate. some will say that is an exaggerated number, but even if it was, say...10% failure rate. that's still 1 console out of every 10 will fry. and even THAT is horrible.

if you really are a "hardcore loyal sony fan" then we shouldn't even be having this discussion. if you were just some casual gamer and didn't know squat about games, I would tell you look over every little thing that each console is good for/price/games/etc. and make your decision based off that, but you're not. go get a ps3. get a 360 later. /thread

[ceniack]

^^^ 40 gig will play ps1 games

Quote »The 40GB model does not have PlayStation 2 backwards compatibility, although does maintain backwards compatibility for original PlayStation titles.[/quote]source - http://www.us.playstation.com/ps3/about/faq

[ceniack]

I'd look over the current and upcoming games list and decide which games interest you the most and make the decision based on that.

hit the nail on the head, that is what i did when i decided to sell my 360, not enough games that were exclusive to the console that i was interested in to justify keeping it.

[R240sx]

wrong. 80g ps3 - about 80% backwards compatible with ps2/ps1 games (meaning it will play about 80% of the titles with no problem)60g - about 98% backwards compatible, can play pretty much every ps2/ps1 game, only a few titles (ones that nobody's ever heard of) won't play on it.40g - not backwards compatible AT ALL. meaning it won't play any ps2 OR ps1 games.

well i assumed he was buying new, as the 60gig is no longer offered by sony i left that one out. and like someone else posted ps1 game can still be played on a 40g.

but i didnt know the percent of compatibility so that was good info.

[x240xdrifter]

I was planning to get the 80gb one, I mean if your going to spend the moeny, might as well do it right...right? little bummed about the playback though, weird how the 60gb has better playback then the 80gb, oh well, also in other news, getting a PSP soon!!!!!!!! WOOT!

[ceniack]

the reason why the 60 gig had better backwards compatibility than the 80 is because the 60gig basically had all the hardware from a PS2 built into it, where the 80 gig only retained part of the hardware and uses software emulation for the rest.

the reason why the 40 gig won't do backwards compatibility is because all of the PS2 hardware was removed.

if the backwards compatability doesn't mean anything to you, i would get a 40gig and then buy a larger 2.5in SATA hard drive to put in like this one

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...36072

it is easy to do and they show you how to do it in the owners manual.

[s13jus10]

^^^ 40 gig will play ps1 gamessource - http://www.us.playstation.com/ps3/about/faq

hmm.. guess I learn something new everyday. good tip

well i assumed he was buying new, as the 60gig is no longer offered by sony i left that one out.

well the 60g is no longer MADE by sony, but retailers still carry them. sony has said that all the 60g's that are currently in stores are enough to last through the holidays. so if complete backwards compatibility is a big issue for you, I'd recommend getting the 60g. but if not, or if you really like motorstorm, get the 80g. both the same price, so it's up to you.

the reason why the 60 gig had better backwards compatibility than the 80 is because the 60gig basically had all the hardware from a PS2 built into it, where the 80 gig only retained part of the hardware and uses software emulation for the rest.

exactly. basically the 60g has hardware emulation while the 80g relies on software emulation.

[Axel Grungy]

just got a ps3 yesterday. boy this thing is quiet compared to the 360, it always sounds like a jet takeoff haha. build quality is very very good. much better than the 360.

[x240xdrifter]

just got a ps3 yesterday. boy this thing is quiet compared to the 360, it always sounds like a jet takeoff haha. build quality is very very good. much better than the 360.

I want your full review, sir!

[bmike818]

Xbox360>PS3

XBox is cheaper with more GAMES now...arent that what game consoles are supposed to do!!??!!

[MinisterofDOOM]

Actually, the 360 isn't really much cheaper anymore.PS3 is $399 or $499. 360 is $350 or $450. And yes, there's the "Arcade" base model (stupid name...yes I understand the reason but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid) for $279 but it's the only one lacking a HDD so it doesn't really belong. Especially considering the cost of 360 memory units, you might as well step up the $70 to a Premium because that $70 gets you storage than $70 in memory units would.And considering that many 360 owners subscribe to Live gold (I have no idea of the numbers but I don't know ANYONE with a 360 that doesn't have a Gold subscription), once that's done you're at the same price as a PS3 (assuming you pay for a year).

Granted, there still aren't any games that really appeal to me (Warhawk would have but they had to make it yet another #$%& %$&#ing multiplayer-only game instead of a real game, so even that one's out). But you can't really use pricing as your excuse not to get a PS3 anymore. In the end they're within a few dollars of each other.

[C-Kwik]

Actually, the 360 isn't really much cheaper anymore.PS3 is $399 or $499. 360 is $350 or $450. And yes, there's the "Arcade" base model (stupid name...yes I understand the reason but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid) for $279 but it's the only one lacking a HDD so it doesn't really belong. Especially considering the cost of 360 memory units, you might as well step up the $70 to a Premium because that $70 gets you storage than $70 in memory units would.And considering that many 360 owners subscribe to Live gold (I have no idea of the numbers but I don't know ANYONE with a 360 that doesn't have a Gold subscription), once that's done you're at the same price as a PS3 (assuming you pay for a year).

Granted, there still aren't any games that really appeal to me (Warhawk would have but they had to make it yet another #$%& %$&#ing multiplayer-only game instead of a real game, so even that one's out). But you can't really use pricing as your excuse not to get a PS3 anymore. In the end they're within a few dollars of each other.

Well, the lack of a hard drive isn't crippling to the Arcade model. Other than some RPG's that might end up using the hard drive, it will play the entire library of games that are out for the 360. BC of course would not be an option. For game saves, the Arcade model comes with a memory card. Probably the smaller version, but for game saves, it will probably be fine. What is nice about the Arcade, is that it appeals to those with limited budgets while retaining the ability to be upgraded to match the functionality of the higher priced systems. Not sure how important this will be in the long term for consumers, but it may help get to the group of people that have limited fund well before the PS3 can get to that price point. Personally, I wouldn't find value in it myself, but then again, I'm not scrounging pennies to get such a system nor would I be unwilling to wait a little to purchase the model I want.

I do agree that the PS3 is in a much more competetive price range now. Based on the initial reaction to the 40 GB PS3, I think MS might have to consider a response. All are good for gamers.

[redtop91]

Because the 360 is less to manufacture MS can afford (in addition to the revenue from their other branches) to get into a Price war with Sony whereas with over 50% of Sony's annual profit coming from the PS3, Sony cannot afford to return the favor. Based on that I'd say that the 360 will always be cheaper than the PS3. In my opinion the 360 is a better gaming system than the PS3. People are always citing the PS3's capabilities and hardware specs when that doesn't mean a damn thing right now. The PS3 is so much harder to develop for than the 360 (I believe MS provides dev kits to Publishers) that now, and far into the future, it'll be easier to develop for and make better use of it's hardware than the PS3. Microsoft is putting the Xbox 360's full power at the hands of the developer and like it or not, Blockbuster killer apps might move consoles, but that momentum isn't conserved by nothing, 3rd party developer's games in the end win or lose console battles, not killer apps. Best example I can give is a car that has a 1000whp engine in it vs. one that has 500 on the street. On paper, the 1000whp engine is better all day but in practical application it will get demolished because the 500whp engine can be better used at the time. AS regards hardware failure that is a real issue with the 360.............. 2+ years into your ownership of it. I got a launch 360 and it just failed on me last week as a result of neglect. If anything the issues that the 360 is having and MS's customer based response has strengthened my faith in the 360 as a console. If PS3's start developing hardware issues will Sony follow suit? Once again it'll be much more difficult for Sony when they will be taking profit directly out of PS3 sales to cover an issue like that, if they even do. All in all the 360's library is superior to the PS3's for most gamers. There are niche titles that some people like on the PS3 that are absolutely horrid to most which is why some people cling to it IMO but most gamers will rate the 360's library over the PS3's all day, everyday. If anything the big thing that people are missing in this current generation of platforms is the move away from console specific games. Developers like EA are taking over and consoles are seeing games ported from one system over so if pretty much any game is available on either system, it's economically smart to just buy the cheaper console which is what people are doing and this fact is serving Microsoft well. PS3----> <----360

[s13jus10]

well if MS can afford to get into a price war with sony, why can't they "afford" to fix all the d@mn problems with their xboxes?? it's okay, you don't have to blame your "neglect" on your 360's failure, it happens to everyone. I don't know if I said it before, but I had a customer that came in to exchange his 360 3 weeks after he bought it. 3 weeks. it doesn't matter if you bought it on launch day or bought it yesterday, they all fall within that 30% failure rate.

it's always games, games, games. the 360 has been out twice as long as the ps3, of course it has more games. if having the most games was the biggest factor, then why aren't you, along with all other 360 fans, investing your money in a PC? it has the most games, right? and you can find most (if not all) quality 360 titles on PC anyway. and if they're not, they will be in a year. but when it comes to saying 360 has more quality games than PS3, I'm going to have to disagree. I honestly believe the ps3 has just as many quality games as the 360, and did it in only one year. but of course, that's only my opinion. overall the PS3 is more "bang for the buck". not only is it a great gaming system, but an all around home entertainment system. let's come back to this thread in exactly one year from now, and we'll see who has more quality games.

yes, the ps3 is a little harder to develop for than the 360. but that's just because all the developers had a year in advance to get used to developing games for the 360, as it was the only "next gen" console at the time. but when developers put their time into making a game for the ps3 from scratch, the results are absolutely stunning. ex: Naughty Dog stated that Uncharted (the full game) only uses about 30% of the PS3's full power. 30%! have you ever seen Uncharted? good God..it's scary to imagine just what games will look like in a year or two on the PS3.

[R240sx]

Because the 360 is less to manufacture MS can afford (in addition to the revenue from their other branches) to get into a Price war with Sony whereas with over 50% of Sony's annual profit coming from the PS3, Sony cannot afford to return the favor. Based on that I'd say that the 360 will always be cheaper than the PS3. In my opinion the 360 is a better gaming system than the PS3. People are always citing the PS3's capabilities and hardware specs when that doesn't mean a damn thing right now. The PS3 is so much harder to develop for than the 360 (I believe MS provides dev kits to Publishers) that now, and far into the future, it'll be easier to develop for and make better use of it's hardware than the PS3. Microsoft is putting the Xbox 360's full power at the hands of the developer and like it or not, Blockbuster killer apps might move consoles, but that momentum isn't conserved by nothing, 3rd party developer's games in the end win or lose console battles, not killer apps. Best example I can give is a car that has a 1000whp engine in it vs. one that has 500 on the street. On paper, the 1000whp engine is better all day but in practical application it will get demolished because the 500whp engine can be better used at the time. AS regards hardware failure that is a real issue with the 360.............. 2+ years into your ownership of it. I got a launch 360 and it just failed on me last week as a result of neglect. If anything the issues that the 360 is having and MS's customer based response has strengthened my faith in the 360 as a console. If PS3's start developing hardware issues will Sony follow suit? Once again it'll be much more difficult for Sony when they will be taking profit directly out of PS3 sales to cover an issue like that, if they even do. All in all the 360's library is superior to the PS3's for most gamers. There are niche titles that some people like on the PS3 that are absolutely horrid to most which is why some people cling to it IMO but most gamers will rate the 360's library over the PS3's all day, everyday. If anything the big thing that people are missing in this current generation of platforms is the move away from console specific games. Developers like EA are taking over and consoles are seeing games ported from one system over so if pretty much any game is available on either system, it's economically smart to just buy the cheaper console which is what people are doing and this fact is serving Microsoft well. PS3----> <----360

Just some points i wanted to make.

the ps3 does not account for 50% of sony's profit, infact sony has seen nothing but deficits from there ps3 manufacturing. you seem to forget that sony, not unlike microsoft, is a multifacited orginazation with products ranging from camras to laptops to audio to tv's to yes even consoles.

also sony is a hardware company, as you may or may have not already known they have already shrunk its cell processor down to 65nm, which was introduced with the 40gb version which coupled with the elimination of the ps2 EE was able to drop the price down to 399. now sony is in the process of shrinking rsx, its graphics engine, down to 65nm as well which will also produce some cost savings. it has also been announced that they have already develped 45nm dies for the cell, which they plan to mass produce next fiscal year, which will cut costs even more and also make it the first console to reach 45nm. If sony is aggressive with there hardware design in the terms of optimizing components and cost reduction then yes, you could even be seeing a $299 console by next year!

another thing to note, is that all console developers from nintendo, to sony, to microsoft send a software developement kit to all publisher. Sony just recently slashed its price of its SDK by $10,000, and also has released EDGE TOOLs which is a compilation of SDK tools used by first party developers to make the development of PS3 games easier for 3rd parties to develop for it. Sony's error was rushing the ps3 to launch, there werent even any SDK's for it back in 2005 so many developers were making games in what they thought the ps3 architecture could handle then adjusted when the got the SDK.

and your car analogy is abit off, i'd say its more like having 2 cars, one that is 500whp, and one that is 575whp, and the one driving the 500whp is a much better driver than the 600whp.

[redtop91]

well if MS can afford to get into a price war with sony, why can't they "afford" to fix all the d@mn problems with their xboxes??

Without a doubt the dumbest post I've ever seen on NICO. Explain to me how MS is supposed to fix the problem on 360's that have already been manufactured? MS's warranty expansion and extension is the only way to address existing 360's. If you can't see that you are dumb as dirt, maybe dumber.

I don't know if I said it before, but I had a customer that came in to exchange his 360 3 weeks after he bought it. 3 weeks. it doesn't matter if you bought it on launch day or bought it yesterday, they all fall within that 30% failure rate.

I stand corrected. This is the dumbest post I've seen. What makes you so certain that that was not a release 360? The new cores are reducing failure rate a lot. GTFO.

it's always games, games, games.

LMFAO. I laughed so hard at this I pee'd a little. Last time I check a Gaming console is supposed to be about games. Fail.

the 360 has been out twice as long as the ps3, of course it has more games.

Ok 1 year into it's life the 360 still had a wider variety of better games. If you are going to pull that card be ready at least to refute the obvious answer.

it's always games, games, games. the 360 has been out twice as long as the ps3, of course it has more games. if having the most games was the biggest factor, then why aren't you, along with all other 360 fans, investing your money in a PC? it has the most games, right? and you can find most (if not all) quality 360 titles on PC anyway.

Your next argument that the PS3 has as many games was refuted by this above statement. Why not get a PC? And no, you can't find most or all of the quality 360 titles on PC.

but of course, that's only my opinion.

You've redeemed yourself a bit, but you are still in the hole.

not only is it a great gaming system, but an all around home entertainment system.

Maybe but again the 360 is equally capable and in many cases more.

let's come back to this thread in exactly one year from now, and we'll see who has more quality games.

Sounds good. I'm willing to bet that it will still be the 360. What does the PS3 have upcoming? MGS4? Yawn. GT5? Forza is better already.

yes, the ps3 is a little harder to develop for than the 360. but that's just because all the developers had a year in advance to get used to developing games for the 360, as it was the only "next gen" console at the time.

Do you have any idea of how long it takes to develop a game? That is without a doubt the weakest defense for PS3's library sucking. That has nothing to do with a game being good or not. PS3 games have been in development as long as 360 games in the case of blockbusters and most A list 3rd party games.

ex: Naughty Dog stated that Uncharted (the full game) only uses about 30% of the PS3's full power. 30%! have you ever seen Uncharted? good God..it's scary to imagine just what games will look like in a year or two on the PS3.

Viva Pinata was pretty too. Just because a game looks good doesn't mean it is good. I played Uncharted the other day and like the rest of the PS3's "blockbusters" since release, it is bland and generic in my opinion.

[bmike818]

..im goin back to playin my 360

playin Mass Effect right now.....it feels so good being so bad

[redtop91]

I'm selling my Mass Effect tomorrow

[s13jus10]

Without a doubt the dumbest post I've ever seen on NICO. Explain to me how MS is supposed to fix the problem on 360's that have already been manufactured? MS's warranty expansion and extension is the only way to address existing 360's. If you can't see that you are dumb as dirt, maybe dumber.

Oh, so it's time to play the name-calling game, huh? YOU my friend, are either the most ignorant, or most fanboy-ish of all people if you can't see that Microsoft constantly produces bad systems. Like I've said before, they keep releasing new versions of the xbox360 and ALL versions have seen the wrath of the RROD. their only way to address existing 360s? please. ALL versions, old or new, be it the pro w/hdmi, halo version, or xbox elite have ALL been victims of the RROD.

I stand corrected. This is the dumbest post I've seen. What makes you so certain that that was not a release 360? The new cores are reducing failure rate a lot. GTFO.

I know for a FACT it wasn't because it was the "new and improved" pro system with hdmi. 3 weeks old, and it fries. "the new cores are reducing failure rate a lot" any numbers to back that? lol a release 360? from 2 YEARS AGO?? YOU gtfo.

LMFAO. I laughed so hard at this I pee'd a little. Last time I check a Gaming console is supposed to be about games. Fail.

I'm sure you did pee a little. Last time I checked, gaming systems weren't supposed to crap out on you when you try to play games. you + ignorance + microsoft = uber fail.

Ok 1 year into it's life the 360 still had a wider variety of better games. If you are going to pull that card be ready at least to refute the obvious answer.

wth are you talking about? the only game worth noting in the 360s first year was Deadrising, and even that was just okay. the first good game on 360 was Gears of War and that didn't come out until the very end of it's first year.

Your next argument that the PS3 has as many games was refuted by this above statement. Why not get a PC? And no, you can't find most or all of the quality 360 titles on PC.

My argument is that the PS3 is great for more than just playing games. Your only argument for 360 being better than PS3 is that it has more games. and that's where I came in with the counter to invest your money in a PC, because it has more games than others, and yes you can find pretty much all of the quality titles on PC. GoW? got it. Bioshock? got it. Mass Effect/Halo 3? on their way to the PC as we speak. understand now? give it a second kiddo, it'll come to you.

You've redeemed yourself a bit, but you are still in the hole.

lol no, YOU are in a hole. a $400 hole that you dug when you bought a 360 only to have it fry on you.

Maybe but again the 360 is equally capable and in many cases more.

care to elaborate on this? apparently your only argument is that the 360 has more games, I'd like to hear what you have to say about it's other "assets".

Sounds good. I'm willing to bet that it will still be the 360. What does the PS3 have upcoming? MGS4? Yawn. GT5? Forza is better already.

wow. "yawn"? .. I don't have anything to say, just...wow.

Do you have any idea of how long it takes to develop a game? That is without a doubt the weakest defense for PS3's library sucking. That has nothing to do with a game being good or not. PS3 games have been in development as long as 360 games in the case of blockbusters and most A list 3rd party games.

please expain to me how you think the time and effort (length) it takes to create a game has "nothing to do with a game being good or not." so you mean to tell me if you take 2 production studios and give one studio a year to develop a game, and give the other studio a week to develop the same game, the two games could be just as good?

Viva Pinata was pretty too. Just because a game looks good doesn't mean it is good. I played Uncharted the other day and like the rest of the PS3's "blockbusters" since release, it is bland and generic in my opinion.

arright, I want to have whatever it is you're smoking, because it must be some good stuff. are you seriously comparing Viva Pinata to Uncharted? I think a 9.1/10 from IGN constitutes a little more than "bland and generic"

I'm selling my Mass Effect tomorrow

and why is that? oh yeah. you won't see your precious 360 until about 3 months from now

[redtop91]

Like I've said before, they keep releasing new versions of the xbox360 and ALL versions have seen the wrath of the RROD. their only way to address existing 360s? please. ALL versions, old or new, be it the pro w/hdmi, halo version, or xbox elite have ALL been victims of the RROD.

That's the only thing you ever produce RROD. You and the other PS3 fanboy jackasses. You never even produce facts. The only PS3 fans I've ever encountered that know remotely what they are talking about is ceniack and R240sx. You're a dumbass and a douchebag both. Where are the facts you keep screaming for? None of your posts include a single fact just your dumbass mouth diarrhea.

lol no, YOU are in a hole. a $400 hole that you dug when you bought a 360 only to have it fry on you.

LMFAO. You act like I'm never getting my 360 back. Unlike Sony, MS's warranty is comprehensive. I don't know why you even e-pologized in the other thread. You are a genuine douchebag, typical PS3 owner. Get better ammo.

My argument is that the PS3 is great for more than just playing games. Your only argument for 360 being better than PS3 is that it has more games. and that's where I came in with the counter to invest your money in a PC, because it has more games than others, and yes you can find pretty much all of the quality titles on PC. GoW? got it. Bioshock? got it. Mass Effect/Halo 3? on their way to the PC as we speak. understand now? give it a second kiddo, it'll come to you.

PS3 would have the same thing if it actually had games that anyone actually gave a damn about making ports for.

care to elaborate on this? apparently your only argument is that the 360 has more games, I'd like to hear what you have to say about it's other "assets".

I can watch live television on my Xbox 360. Buy or rent HD movies, tune in to web radio, access my PC and create playlists and send them to Nero to burn them to discs. Download Music and music videos. Now what can the PS3 do?

wow. "yawn"? .. I don't have anything to say, just...wow.

So to get you to shutup I have call out crappy overhyped PS3 games? Good. Metal Gear Solid is lame a f***. Like all of the PS3's "flagship" titles its the same damn thing milked since the series' beginning. It took 5 iterations of Gran Turismo to add something new, online play? What else is new?

YAWN

please expain to me how you think the time and effort (length) it takes to create a game has "nothing to do with a game being good or not." so you mean to tell me if you take 2 production studios and give one studio a year to develop a game, and give the other studio a week to develop the same game, the two games could be just as good?

I have 2 theories about this, you either have absolutely no reading comprehension abilities or you fully understand what I'm saying but are too blinded by brand loyalty to admit a valid point. Both make you dumb, but the latter makes you ignorant also. I will elaborate in the hopes that you can understand this time around. The extra year that the 360 has been out has nothing to do with having more good games, developers have been making games for both since far before either system was released. You honestly believe that game developers wait until the system launches to start developing games? Wow you are dumb any way you slice it.

arright, I want to have whatever it is you're smoking, because it must be some good stuff. are you seriously comparing Viva Pinata to Uncharted? I think a 9.1/10 from IGN constitutes a little more than "bland and generic"

You aren't a fan of Mass Effect just because it is on the 360, you obviously don't care about it and IGN gave Mass Effect a 9.4. Uncharted sucks. I don't care what IGN says. Their ratings have no bearing on personal opinion. Again however, you have reading comprehension difficulties or you are just dumb. Again likely a combination of both but I'll elaborate again. All anyone ever says about Uncharted and the PS3 in general is that the graphics are good. My comparison was that Viva Pinata has good graphics and that game blows balls. Graphics don't determine a good game. Wii is a perfect example. You are resorting to the same tactics as fs1eb in the other thread. You can't contest the points I'm making so you pretend not to understand. It's a weak minded approach.

and why is that? oh yeah. you won't see your precious 360 until about 3 months from now

No. Since I'll be getting a brand new 360 back I'll be selling that one and I'm buying an Elite. I'm selling Mass Effect because I have bills to pay. Judging by your maturity level you still probably have you parents pay your way so I don't expect you to understand. I ordered my Eagle Rods yesterday though. FTW.

I just noticed you work at Best Buy. That explains why you pretend to know what you are talking about when you don't. When I go into Best Buy I ignore every single rep in there. They are invariably retarded.

Either way I'm not getting embroiled in another debate... Really there is nothing to debate.

Xbox 360 > PS3.
Modified by redtop91 at 11:47 AM 12/1/2007

[C-Kwik]

Ok guys. No need to name call to make an effective argument. Debate and argue the facts all you want. But we don't need the sandbox mentality here. And I don't care who started it. It really doesn't matter. God Dammit, I sound like my mom.

[x240xdrifter]

SIMMA DOWN NAH!!!

being the Sony fan that I am, its PS3 all the way. I'm not in anyway going to knock the 360. When Xbox first came out. I absolutely hated it, but after playing the 360, its a really nice gaming console, with alot of great titles to play. However, I just favor the PS3 more. The games, controllers, interface, capabitlies, all appeal to me more then a 360. I want a 360, but I'm getting a PS3. also a good idea since I already have tons of PS1 and PS2 games. Plus I plan to get a PSP (which is one of the coolest things to date) and that can be used with the PS3, PS3 home sounds really cool too. Each have their flaws and gains, but PS3 is for me. Pleas dont argue about it guys, I just want your personal opinions of what you like and why. Really, no one is wrong with what they are saying.

[s13jus10]

..anyways, I'm having a good day today, don't really wanna ruin it. in other news..

Turns out the Wii is finally beaten in Japan! ..for a month anyway haha.

1st place - NDS LITE, 358,200 units sold2nd place - Sony PSP, 266,100 units sold3rd place - Sony 40gb PS3, 183,200 units sold4th place - Nintendo Wii - 159,200 units sold5th place - MS XBOX360 - 35,000 units sold
Modified by s13jus10 at 3:07 PM 12/3/2007

[bmike818]

I like my 360 because of XBox live. And the fact that the console held its value for almost two years.(unlike PS3-price drop less than a year)

So far PS3's real loyal fan base bought the system for $599 with no Game10 months later, there was a limited time price reduction that turned out to be a sham...next thing you know the price drop is official. And to make things worst they come out with the motorstorm bundle which had an upgraded PS3 with 80gig hard drive for $499 if I bought the console for $599 I would have been pissed, luckily for me my 360 was keeping me occupied...thanks MS...oh and PS3 peoples, you will have to rebuy your 49.99 controller when the dual shock3 comes out with rumble...