PS3 Vs. XBOX 360

[bmike818]

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

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?

[MinisterofDOOM]

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.

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.

[EpicNightMayor]

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.

[C-Kwik]

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

[RCA]

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?

I asked myself that at first to...But it happens every now and then...

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

[MinisterofDOOM]

Blizzard charges to play WoW.

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.

[BusyBadger]

PS3 owns everyone's life.

You post this, yet in your profile you have playing Halo3 and Forza2 listed as interests.

You seem to be experiencing some internal conflict.

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

[C-Kwik]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[kks14_302]

honestly xbox is better you get more for your money.... even though the ps3 has blue ray xbox is better

[C-Kwik]

honestly xbox is better you get more for your money.... even though the ps3 has blue ray xbox is better

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.

[Axel Grungy]

honestly xbox is better you get more for your money.... even though the ps3 has blue ray xbox is better

BEST POST EVARR!!!

[s13jus10]

BEST POST EVARR!!!

[OldmanPurdy]

honestly xbox is better you get more for your money.... even though the ps3 has blue ray xbox is better

Well no.....you get less and pay less thats the whole point you only play for what you need/want. From a pure hardware point of view the PS3 is IS a better value for what it gives its just that what it gives is not what the majority of consumers need/are willing to pay for.

[LovesBigTurbos]

360!!! but never played ps3 so wouldn't really know

[Axel Grungy]

haha on that note... i just sold my crappy 360 about 20 mins ago. GOOD RIDDANCE

[hachiroku781]

I definitely prefer the PS3. In my opinion it is really easy to use and i love the interface on the system itself. Then i really do love the games a lot. Blue Ray is superb in the amount of space it can handle. Plus the PS3 exclusives sold me. MGS4 and omgitssocute<3 little big planet.

[EmKayThree]

Well i don't know if you already got your system, too lazy to read all the posts. I vote for the Xbox360.

Frankly because more people tend to play it, in addition the PS3 tends to have a butt load of online issues, constantly get disconnected from the games.

If you like to play with other people, get the 360.If you're a single player kind of person, then get the PS3.

[bartZ32tt]

I think PS3 would be much better if the 360 didn't get the early jump at release date which brought in a lot of exclusives (some of which had previously been loyal to playstation). PS3 is finally starting to see some love though.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The 360's early launch date didn't really have any direct relation to stealing exclusives from the PS3. It was certainly beneficial in helping the 360 establish a library of desirable games before the PS3 had the chance, though (although I would say Sony is at much as fault there. The PSP is 4 and a half years old and it's game library is still crap. The PS3 is the same way.

Some of the reasons Sony lost exclusives are:--The idea of the exclusive is loosing appeal. Why sell to one side of the market when you can sell to everyone?--The PS3 is simply too difficult to develop for. Many very talented developers have said that the console is simply too difficult to work with to make it worth their while to develop for.--The 360 sells better. This is due to many factors, but XBL and MS's marketing are among them. Available games and pricing are also factors.

If you like to play with other people, get the 360.If you're a single player kind of person, then get the PS3.

I don't think that enters into it at all. There are plenty of good single-player games for the 360 and not many at all for the PS3. The presence of XBL does not mean the 360 is any LESS good at singleplayer gaming. And the LACK of XBL doesn't make the PS3 the better option there. The PS3's game library is s***, which means single OR multiplayer, I'm going with the 360.

[bmike818]

Any games coming out for the PS3 that is worth mentioning?

[C-Kwik]

I think PS3 would be much better if the 360 didn't get the early jump at release date which brought in a lot of exclusives (some of which had previously been loyal to playstation). PS3 is finally starting to see some love though.

Most people argue that the Original XBox was more superior to the PS2. However, the PS2 outsold the XBox by a huge margin. There are many factors that go into a person's decision for a console. The main factors are likely cost and games. But having the superior console does not appear to be a big factor. If that were the case, the Wii would not be doing so well.

But I'd say neither company is doing terribly in a relative sense. Sony does not like being in last place given their domination last gen. But given the year headstart MS had, they are doing fine. MS might have been doing better as well had they not had the whole RROD debacle. But despite that, they maintain their lead. And so long as they stay ahead in the price war, I think this will continue to be the case.

As for loyalty to PSx, consider that outside of contractual obligations or being owned by Sony, devs have more obligation to make sure they are profitable and stay in business than to ensure Sony's success. Ignoring a higher install base AND higher attach rate is suicidal. In order to keep traditional loyalties, then Sony needed to make sure people bought their consoles and bought games for their consoles. In other words, where was Sony's loyalties to the devs? Or where was the loyalties to other systems when the first PS came out? Don't get so caught up in loyalties. In reality, they are usually created by the consumers, not by the companies. Percieved loyalties are simply contractual in nature or perhaps beneficial to both at the time. Sony had a nice run with the last 2 generations so their console had much benefit to any developer. The situation has changed quite a bit now. They are no longer the "go to" console for devs.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Most people argue that the Original XBox was more superior to the PS2. However, the PS2 outsold the XBox by a huge margin. There are many factors that go into a person's decision for a console. The main factors are likely cost and games. But having the superior console does not appear to be a big factor. If that were the case, the Wii would not be doing so well.

Great post.

The fact is console "superiority" is very much a consumer-created idea, too. As I've said many times, PS3 and 360 are both "better" at some things than the other...both have their plusses.

I owned all 3 last-gen consoles. I owned a PS2 during the height of that "generation" and had a massive collection of games for it. Later on I bought an Xbox for Steel Battalion and ended up buying the occasional game for it. And while there were a couple gems (Conker, Far Cry) I never owned as many games for it, nor did I use it as much as the PS2. Yes, it was "more powerful" but it seemed to me the quality of PS2 games increased significantly and continually throughout that console's lifecycle. I didn't observe the same drastic change with Xbox games. By the end of the generation, PS2 games were every bit as technologically impressive as Xbox games.My gamecube still gets more use than the Xbox and PS2 combined, and it's the weakest console tech-wise. But it has all the games I still want to play. It is, in my eyes, the superior console of it's generation.

Nintendo's strength, this generation and last, has been to capitalize on something the other consoles and their developer pools seem to have largely lost sight of: games that are FUN to play. Instead of focusing on crazy graphics, realism, "innovation" (ignoring the motion controls), etc. Nintendo is focused on perfecting the formulas that have made games great forever. Meanwhile everyone else is trying to always do something "new" which rarely works out well.

The big selling point of the Wii is that it's accessible and it's cheap.And, honestly, I think that if it wasn't for soulless college kids who have bought into the gaming fad in recent years and who will believe anything advertisements tell them, the Wii way of doing things would be the most popular. But thanks to College Joe and his idiotic friends, Xbox Live has taken over the market and is transforming gaming from a medium of entertainment to a medium of "plus-one awesome." Doesn't matter if it's fun, it needs to be "BETTER." Better is subjective and often temporary. Fun will always be fun. And on that note, MS AND Sony can suck my balls. I'm going to go play Super Mario Galaxy.

[iobliad]

i would say 360 because of the online game play, but ps3 for better graphics and blueray. plus free online game play

[hitbychance]

360 was built like SH$% we all know that, the ps3 was engineered better and includes a blue ray player which is a huge bonus. I prefer the 360 because of online play and some exclusive games like forza. I will most likely buy a ps3 when i have money to spend on it.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The much lauded blu-ray player is only a bonus if you're also looking for a blu-ray player. As many have said, I don't need a "media console" I need a gaming console. Added stuff isn't worth more money if I don't need it. And that goes for you, too, Xbox Live.

[RCA]

Well to change the topic....

I am a Sony fanboi

And so far the PS3 controllers have failed. After beating the hell out of them the joysticks get weak and my characters move on their own. My 360 controller does not have the same problem. The sticks stay ridged and stiff.

A+ Microsoft

[MinisterofDOOM]

Yeah, I know a LOT of people who had the same issue with the Dual shocks and Dual shock 2s. You'd think 4 generations into their analog stick design they'd have it fixed. The on-center springiness looses it's potency and the stick can "sag" off to the side a bit. It takes a lot of the feedback feel out of the sticks, too.

The 360 controllers have their own issues, though. The D-pad is horrendously cheap and mushy and there's a very widespread problem of the up or down (I forget at the moment, I think it's up) not being nearly as sensitive as the other 3 directions. The controller that came with my elite had this issue. I ended up taking it apart and kind of fixing it by re-aligning the components but it's still there to an annoying extent. Fortunately the replacement I bought is not also afflicted.

Sony's recessed d-pad design is MUCH higher quality in addition to being better looking and feeling.

I prefer the layout of the PS3 controller but like the shape of the 360 triggers better. I have an adapter for my Xbox (not 360) that allows me to use a PS2 controller which would have saved that console's life for me if SB wasn't standing by as life-support.

[RCA]

Sony's recessed d-pad design is MUCH higher quality in addition to being better looking and feeling.

I prefer the layout of the PS3 controller but like the shape of the 360 triggers better. I have an adapter for my Xbox (not 360) that allows me to use a PS2 controller which would have saved that console's life for me if SB wasn't standing by as life-support.

It's too bad that Sony figured out how to have a great D pad especially when almost every game doesn't require you to use them. But Yea MS's D pad feels sh*tty but I have never had a problem with it. I like the PS3's controller better but when it comes to FPS you can't beat the MS triggers VS PS L1 & R1

[s13jus10]

The much lauded blu-ray player is only a bonus if you're also looking for a blu-ray player.

well you gotta remember, the Blu-Ray player isn't only for playing Blu-Ray movies... ALL PS3 games are on Blu-Ray discs. the games are Blu-Ray.

that's why it's funny when people say that having a Blu-Ray player on the PS3 is just a "bonus"... no. the PS3 is Blu-Ray. if it didn't have a "Blu-Ray player", it wouldn't be a PS3.

The sticks stay ridged and stiff.

That's what she sa... nevermind.

I like the PS3's controller better but when it comes to FPS you can't beat the MS triggers VS PS L1 & R1

I honestly don't understand why everyone and their momma prefers the 360 controller over the Dualshock "when it comes to FPS".. I hate the 360 controller for FPS. my hands feel really awkward when using the joysticks, because the controller isn't symmetrical. the left joystick is waaay up at the top left, and then the right joystick is waaay down to the bottom right. just holding the controller, using both joysticks feels......awkward. as if the controller is about to slip out of my hands or something. I also feel the trigger buttons are waaay too long. the throw of them is too long. apparently, it's just me, so I'll stop complaining. but I'll take the symmetrical feel of the Dualshock over the 360 controller anyday.

[MinisterofDOOM]

well you gotta remember, the Blu-Ray player isn't only for playing Blu-Ray movies... ALL PS3 games are on Blu-Ray discs. the games are Blu-Ray.

that's why it's funny when people say that having a Blu-Ray player on the PS3 is just a "bonus"... no. the PS3 is Blu-Ray. if it didn't have a "Blu-Ray player", it wouldn't be a PS3.

Well, there's a difference between a bluray DRIVE and a bluray PLAYER. PCs have DVD drives. Not all PCs have DVD players. Having a bluray drive alone is really irrelevant as whatever format it would be would still be the format the PS3 would have (if that makes sense). My point is the ability to play bluray movies is NOT an additional selling point for me because I don't care about that. It would be NICE, but I'd rather save money and not get that feature. I don't have an HDTV, and I don't want to watch movies on the VGA monitor I use for gaming. MEDIA features on a console mean exactly jack squat to me. Exactly how much jack squat is exemplified by the fact that I own an Xbox with DVD remove, 360 with DVD remote and yet I still have a $40 DVD player connected to my TV.