PS3 Vs. XBOX 360

[RCA]

I don't have an HDTV

WAT?

Hi, and welcome to the 21st century.

I honestly don't understand why everyone and their momma prefers the 360 controller over the Dualshock....

You're right. At first it did feel weird and out of place. But I have played both consoles long enough for me to become used to both.I still play both now and the controller makes no difference to me, I can play with either one but I would prefer a FPS with the XB controller.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Years back there was a gamepad for the PC that had swappable modules that let you configure it however you wanted. Both sticks, the d-pad, and even the face buttons could all be interchanged in any way.

As for HDTV...why WOULD I have one? I don't really even watch TV. I have TWO VGA widescreen monitors (soon to be 3) which have better-than-HD resolutions for gaming. There is no need for an HDTV in my house, especially not for what they cost.

[RCA]

Well if that is the case then I to have a monitor with HD resolutions also I have a 42' HDTV that I some times use as a monitor.

Why would you need 3 any way?

[MinisterofDOOM]

I have a dual-monitor setup on my PC and I'll be buying a new PC with a bigger monitor soon. The new machine will have a 19'' 16:10 and a 22'' 16:10 and the old PC will get my tiny 15'' 16:9 monitor. I might even go triple monitor on the new PC since I have an old 19'' CRT I can use on the old PC which would be ideal since a lot of older games don't have widescreen resolutions so a 4:3 monitor is still very useful for them.

This is my current gaming setup. The KVM switches the 19'' monitor, keyboard, and mouse between the PC and 360.

[C-Kwik]

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.

Sounds like something a Best Buy employee would say.

While BD has an advantage over DVD9 for gaming, it hardly makes or breaks a game. Nor did Sony go out and say we need more space for gaming so we will implement BD into the console. Sony's interest in BD is primarily for movies as the potential royalties if BD ever actually becomes the format of choice are huge.

I'd agree that I wouldn't nbecessarily call it a bonus feature. I know at least one person who uses both his PS3's primarily as BD players. He plays some games, but ultimately, they were cheaper or as expensive as a BD player. In his case, he might call the ability to play games a bonus.

I wouldn't go as far as to call PS3 Blu-Ray. Its a feature and as a result of marketing and perhaps even "Fanboyism" it has defined the PS3. Perhaps to a fault. But ultimately, if BD wasn't going to be released for distribution of movies, its unlikely Sony would have bothered. Its an expensive technology to be implemented for gaming alone. Frankly, if Sony wasn't able to subsidize its development through the idea of releasing movies on them, then the PS3 would have been extremely expensive to make at launch based on hardware alone. The low relative cost of the hardware at launch was ultimately a result of Sony willing to invest in it in order to try and help push the movie end of BD usage.

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.

Personal preferences are personal preferences. For me, I could care less if the controller is symmetrical or not. The bottom line for me is the XBox controller is more comfortable than any PSx controller I've used. It just fits my hands nicely.

That said, based on at least 2 games, I'd say that the XBOX controller layout has a distinct advantage. Since the D-Pad is arranged within clos reach of either thumbstick, it allows it to be used (albeit crudely) with either thumb. But for such functions as press-to-talk (Halo 3) or switching weapons (Gears of War), it makes sense. Its probably a matter of coincidence that it worked out this way, but it essentially provides up to 4 additional buttons accessible by both thumbs. Halo Wars uses the D-Pad for shortcuts, but I don't think that one would need as access from 2 hands where FPS and TPS games might have distinct advantages of being able to perform a look or move action while performing a secondary input.

As for HDTV...why WOULD I have one? I don't really even watch TV. I have TWO VGA widescreen monitors (soon to be 3) which have better-than-HD resolutions for gaming. There is no need for an HDTV in my house, especially not for what they cost.

Noone NEEDS a HDTV. But I rather enjoy playing my 360 on 46 inches of screen.

I might have agreed about not wanting a gaming console to be a central part of my media center, but turns out after Netflix was launched on the 360, I've found myself using it a lot. Watching Netflix on the TV would have required me to run a long cable around the room to the TV or I would have had to connect my laptop via HDMI. Add to that that using a remote control would have added further complication as the PC is facing the wrong way and is not in front of us. As it stands, I can watch Instant Movies on Netflix through the 360 and simply use my universal Logitech remote. Which brings up one of my bigger gripes about the PS3. I'd have to buy a Bluetooth remote to be able to use it with the PS3. Why the hell didn't they include an IR port?

Our PC set-up isn't too dissimilar from yours. We're running a dual-head set-up but with identical monitors. If you want to remove the clutter of the KVM and have no need to connect your keyboard and mouse to the 360, I'd just look for a monitor with 2 inputs (DVI and D-SUB) that can be switched through the monitor. That's how I have my GF's 360 set-up. The DVI ports are connected to the PC while one of the VGA connections is connected to the 360. A button on the front panel of the monitor switches between the digital and analog connections effectively taking place of the KVM set-up we used to use.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Netflix would be a much bigger bonus point if their instant-play queue didn't suck rotting zombie rectum through a rusty straw covered in anthrax.

[C-Kwik]

I admit, they don't have every movie or TV show on it, but I've watched a lot of movies I have wanted to for a while just because its available. Including the first season of MacGuyver. Some really good ones (or at least recent blockbusters) will come and go. They may have a limited timeframe, but they show up every once in a while. The only real complaint about the service on the 360 is that you still have to look it up on a PC and put the movie into your instant watch queue.

I haven't given up on buying DVD's and I can still get my regular DVD rental from them so I still get access to a lot of DVD's. But it still adds a pretty good backlog of movies to be able to watch when I have nothing else to do and gaming isn't convenient.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I signed up for Netflix the day the NXE hit XBL. I used it to rent one (bad, bad, really really bad) movie and never once used it to actually watch anything on the Xbox. I cancelled it shortly after. If it was more streamlined it would work much better. Having to set up queues and garbage OUTSIDE the xbox to watch movies ON the Xbox really defeats the point of integration. MS should just quit screwing around and actually offer decent stuff directly through XBL.

[RCA]

That said, based on at least 2 games, I'd say that the XBOX controller layout has a distinct advantage...

If anything it is the other way around. The PS3 controller sticks are closer to both the D pad and the buttons. If anything playing with an Xbox controller requires more time off the joysticks to make a difference.

I might have agreed about not wanting a gaming console to be a central part of my media center, but turns out after Netflix was launched on the 360, I've found myself using it a lot. Watching Netflix on the TV would have required me to run a long cable around the room to the TV or I would have had to connect my laptop via HDMI.

This is probably the only reason where Netflix actually is useful. Other then your situation, Netflix on Xbox is useless.

Also PS3 should of also used a IR port. But who uses a remote control for their consoles?

[MinisterofDOOM]

I just remembered my biggest complaint with the 360 controller. Pathetically for MS, it's the same biggest complaint I had with the xbox controller: NO analog face buttons. Sony had them with the PS2. Where are they, MS? It's not an optional thing anymore. Ever wonder why racing games have such different controls between the two? It's NOT because the 360's triggers are awesome. It's because the 360's face buttons suck.

[C-Kwik]

I signed up for Netflix the day the NXE hit XBL. I used it to rent one (bad, bad, really really bad) movie and never once used it to actually watch anything on the Xbox. I cancelled it shortly after. If it was more streamlined it would work much better. Having to set up queues and garbage OUTSIDE the xbox to watch movies ON the Xbox really defeats the point of integration. MS should just quit screwing around and actually offer decent stuff directly through XBL.

As I stated, its a valid complaint to have. Not sure of the reasoning behind it (perhaps security?). But its not THAT big of a deal. Considering it provides more instantaneous gratification over waiting for the DVD service and beats driving out to pick up a rental DVD.

If anything it is the other way around. The PS3 controller sticks are closer to both the D pad and the buttons.

I think you missed my point. I stated it was a distinct advantage. Perhaps, I could have stated it as a particulatr advantage. But my intent was not necessarily to measure of one controller's superiority over the other. It was merely that the layout lends itself to a particular advantage. You could say that the PSx controller has its own particular advantage as well. Neither necessarily takes from the other as one could make a controller with the 360's orientation and the PSx controller's distances.

If anything playing with an Xbox controller requires more time off the joysticks to make a difference.

Please elaborate...

This is probably the only reason where Netflix actually is useful. Other then your situation, Netflix on Xbox is useless.

It was pretty much the point of Netflix on the 360. Probably wouldn't make sense to use it on a monitor that is already hooked up to a PC...

Also PS3 should of also used a IR port. But who uses a remote control for their consoles?

I do. I have to wonder if you've ever tried using a remote that does Macros. Logitech Harmony remotes do this and its really convenient. Especially if you have a home theatre system hooked to your TV. Rather than turning each device on and switching the TV and/or receiver to the appropriate input, you press a button on the remote corresponding to what you want to do and it will turn everything on that is associated with that activity and switch the inputs accordingly. If I decide to change what I am doing, press the appropriate activity and it will turn off devices that don't need to be on and turn on the ones that you will need, along with switching the inputs accordingly. To turn everything off, I simply hit the power button and it turns everything off for me.

That said since I do use the Netflix functionality, it is convenient to just use the remote instead of picking up a controller. The remote also doesn't timeout like the controller does so I won't have to hold the media guide button on the controller to turn it on, then wait for the controller to sync just to pause the movie I'm watching. Presumably, if I had a PS3, then I would want to be able to do the same if I decided I wanted to watch a BD movie.

Problem is since PS3 is the only device I know of that would be used in home entertainment systems that uses bluetooth for remote control functionality, it would seem unlikely that Logitech or other remote control manufacturers would want to pay to use bluetooth technology in most of their remotes as it would be likely that not all of the people who buy such a device would use the bluetooth connection. However, it appears Logitech will be releasing an adapter that will connect to the PS3 via bluetooth but accept iR signals from any Harmony remote. But its still an extra $60 MSRP. Kinda pricey considering how common and cheap iR is. I would think it wouldn't have been too hard for Sony to release an iR dongle that simply plugs into usb port and even chargeed $10-$20 for it.

I just remembered my biggest complaint with the 360 controller. Pathetically for MS, it's the same biggest complaint I had with the xbox controller: NO analog face buttons. Sony had them with the PS2. Where are they, MS? It's not an optional thing anymore. Ever wonder why racing games have such different controls between the two? It's NOT because the 360's triggers are awesome. It's because the 360's face buttons suck.

Actually, the original XBOX had them. They weren't used very much by devs as far as I know. Frankly, I'm not sure I knew that they were analog until MS announced that they were not going to use analog buttons in the 360 controllers.

My own take on analog buttons is that they don't provide much, if any, advantage. Especially with high levels of resolutions. It would be hard for anyone to make accurate use of 256 resoltuions of pressure without some kind of direct feedback. As an example, when you drive your car and hit the brakes, you can very quickly judge changes in braking force and make quick adjustments with confirmations of the changes made through adjustments. A racing game lacks the feedback necessary to make such adjustments. Visual feedback is way too slow. But to be fair, analog triggers aren't any better at this aspect (The lack of this positive feedback pretty much turned me off of any racing games that are designed to try and be physically realistic). But like analog thumbsticks, analog triggers are dependent on distance moved, which is far more intuitive in that of itself. Which lends itself well to many applications. I'd say 2 stage uses of analog buttons might work fine (similar to most cameras that focus with light press and snap the shot with a full press) but use of the full range of analog button resolution is likely not going to all that useful. At least not without putting a ton of time into using such functionality and with a lot of practice in using it with the specific games. At best, devs are likely using setting range values such that there are much fewer actual increments than the 256 that are available.

[yelnatsch517]

I don't think anyone has mention this yet, but even if the PS3 had 0 games, it would still be better than the Xbox simply because it is one of the best blu-ray players out there, better than some players costing over a thousand dollars. Yes that's right, it is spelled without an E; freakin people need to get that right.

For anyone who say they don't care about the blu-ray aspect of the PS3, I suggest to get out from the cave. It is the new standard already. Not having a blu-ray player is like not having a digital TV. Seriously, who the heck still buys DVDs? That's like using zip disks still.

Anywho, if you want to buy the Xbox360 for the gaming part, you would still have to buy the PS3 for the blu-ray so what's the point? Might as well just stick with the PS3 if you want to save money.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Analog PS2 buttons were INDISPENSABLE in GTAIII/VC/SA. Compare that to Saints Row on the 360 which has on/off face button throttle. GTA had a well-calibrated analog throttle AND brake on the face buttons. That one little difference entirely changes the feel of the games. The switch to triggered throttles on the xbox for GTA sucked on the old controller with it's lack of shoulder buttons.

(The lack of this positive feedback pretty much turned me off of any racing games that are designed to try and be physically realistic).

Yeah, exactly. That's why I usually can't stand racing games. There's just no way to get realistic feedback, and without that I'm always going to feel frustrated that I don't have a good idea of what the car is doing.

I don't think anyone has mention this yet, but even if the PS3 had 0 games, it would still be better than the Xbox simply because it is one of the best blu-ray players out there, better than some players costing over a thousand dollars.

This is exactly my point, though. How does being a good MOVIE player make it a better GAMING device? I have an AWESOME clothes drier. Should I get that instead of the 360 because it's better than some clothes driers that cost more than the 360? The two are NOT RELATED.And the fact that you'd "still have to buy the PS3 for blu-ray" is exactly what I'm disputing. I don't want a bluray player. So getting one on my game machine isn't a bonus. I want a game machine. Any features aside from that are irrelevant as it's the GAMING capabilities that I'm looking for.

[yelnatsch517]

This is exactly my point, though. How does being a good MOVIE player make it a better GAMING device? I have an AWESOME clothes drier. Should I get that instead of the 360 because it's better than some clothes driers that cost more than the 360? The two are NOT RELATED.And the fact that you'd "still have to buy the PS3 for blu-ray" is exactly what I'm disputing. I don't want a bluray player. So getting one on my game machine isn't a bonus. I want a game machine. Any features aside from that are irrelevant as it's the GAMING capabilities that I'm looking for.

I guess you're right, but my question now is why you don't want a blu-ray player. If you have a good enough TV for Xbox360, you would want a blu-ray player to watch movies, unless of course you never watch movies which is just plain weird then.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I don't have a good enough TV for an Xbox 360. My 360 is running through a 16:10 computer monitor running better-than-HD resolution. I do not need an HTDV. My desire to view movies in higher res is essentially nonexistent, and it certainly isn't strong enough for me to waste hundreds of dollars better spent elsewhere in order to sate it.

[C-Kwik]

Analog PS2 buttons were INDISPENSABLE in GTAIII/VC/SA. Compare that to Saints Row on the 360 which has on/off face button throttle. GTA had a well-calibrated analog throttle AND brake on the face buttons. That one little difference entirely changes the feel of the games. The switch to triggered throttles on the xbox for GTA sucked on the old controller with it's lack of shoulder buttons..

Well, to be honest, I own a few GTA games, but never came close to finishing any of them. And I've only played the demo version of Saints Row. So I'll claim ignorance here. But as far as the differences in control schemes, I prefer using the triggers for gas and brake. I always felt the PSx control scheme felt odd. And keep in mind, I felt this way about well before I even owned an XBOX.

Yeah, exactly. That's why I usually can't stand racing games. There's just no way to get realistic feedback, and without that I'm always going to feel frustrated that I don't have a good idea of what the car is doing..

Yeah, I could drive the damned cars in either Forza or GT. Half the time, I wasn't even sure the brakes were doing anything...

I don't think anyone has mention this yet, but even if the PS3 had 0 games, it would still be better than the Xbox simply because it is one of the best blu-ray players out there, better than some players costing over a thousand dollars. Yes that's right, it is spelled without an E; freakin people need to get that right..

If the point is to get it as a BD player, the fact is someone would still have to plop down $400 to get their hands on one. Compare that to DVD players which can cost less than $50 to get. In some cases, you might be able to find one that up-converts to HDMI for that much.

For anyone who say they don't care about the blu-ray aspect of the PS3, I suggest to get out from the cave. It is the new standard already. Not having a blu-ray player is like not having a digital TV. Seriously, who the heck still buys DVDs? That's like using zip disks still..

I bought a HD-DVD player a month before Warner decided to go strictly BD. But I wouldn't have bought either at the prices they were selling for (cost of player itself). I bought mine for $200, but it came with 2 free in the box, along with Toshiba's promotional 5 free offer and Best Buy was throwing in 5 more for free as well. If a standalone BD player that was 2.0 compliant were to come out for $150 and I had money to spare at the time,m I'd snatch one up no problem. But even in the low $200's isn't convincing me to buy.

Anywho, if you want to buy the Xbox360 for the gaming part, you would still have to buy the PS3 for the blu-ray so what's the point? Might as well just stick with the PS3 if you want to save money.

Well, not to be a total smart a** or anything, but assuming PS3 had no games (going back to your previous statement about the PS3 being the best BD player), wouldn't one have to buy a 360 or a Wii anyways?

I guess you're right, but my question now is why you don't want a blu-ray player. If you have a good enough TV for Xbox360, you would want a blu-ray player to watch movies, unless of course you never watch movies which is just plain weird then.

From the sounds of it MoD doesn't have an HDTV. Just hi-res computer monitors, which the 360 happily plays on.

And sure, lots of people want BD. I do. Just not at the price they are offering. And most people would agree as DVD is still outselling BD by a huge margin. Perhaps if the PS3 prices drop much more then I might bite. Since the Logitech iR adapter is going to be about $60 I'll wait as that's an additional cost to consider. I'm fairly picky about how my home theater system works so its pretty much a necessity. If you really want to help me to buy a PS3 sooner than later though, convince Sony to implement built-in iR or a cheap dongle and to drop the price by at least $100. Can't be sure I'd bite but man would it be tempting...

[MinisterofDOOM]

If the point is to get it as a BD player, the fact is someone would still have to plop down $400 to get their hands on one. Compare that to DVD players which can cost less than $50 to get. In some cases, you might be able to find one that up-converts to HDMI for that much.

My $40 Phillips DVD player has true 1080p upscaling. Not that I use it.Actually, when I bought it it was just for something cheap to keep the movie playing load off my consoles (back when I had the 360 on my SDTV) since so many are known for DVDROM drive failures. But it's actually one of the best DVD players I've ever used. My parents bought an early Sony DVD player when the tech was new. That thing ROCKED. It seemed like in the intervening years even expensive DVD players sucked. Now, the cheap ones are better than the good ones were a few years ago.The Phillips is still guilty of taking way too long to eject discs, though. Dunno what DVD players are doing in there, but it takes longer than the spindle should ever need to retract.

[yelnatsch517]

My $40 Phillips DVD player has true 1080p upscaling. Not that I use it.Actually, when I bought it it was just for something cheap to keep the movie playing load off my consoles (back when I had the 360 on my SDTV) since so many are known for DVDROM drive failures. But it's actually one of the best DVD players I've ever used. My parents bought an early Sony DVD player when the tech was new. That thing ROCKED. It seemed like in the intervening years even expensive DVD players sucked. Now, the cheap ones are better than the good ones were a few years ago.The Phillips is still guilty of taking way too long to eject discs, though. Dunno what DVD players are doing in there, but it takes longer than the spindle should ever need to retract.

What upscaler does it have realta, reon, faroujda? Yes it might have an upconverter, but the PS3 most likely has a much better one. The one in the PS3 is supposedly second best in terms of quality and players using those chips are usually a minimum of several hundred dollars. If you don't have a good HDTV at least 40in then I supposed it doesn't matter, but if you do, I really suggest you borrow a friend's PS3 and test how just how clear things can get with a quality blu-ray player playing a blu-ray movie.

I have been spoiled having seen the quality from blu-ray movies and it just blows anything else out of the water. Anyone who has seen it will agree that watching movies in the theaters are just a waste of money now if all you are looking for is quality since a good HDTV with a PS3 will look way better than even the best theaters out there. It is just that good.

Also, with the prices of blu-ray movies matching normal DVDs, I had assumed that they are pretty much the standard now. I didn't even realize that a significant number of people still bought DVDs. I seriously thought that blu-rays made up a good 90% of movie sales nowadays. Meh, who knew.

Do they even sell non-HD TVs anymore? I don't even remember the last time I actually saw one in a store.

[MinisterofDOOM]

My SDTV is sub-par even for an SDTV. It's a crappy Silvania that has issues and will sporadically go into crackle fits. It has a flat tube, though, and is much bigger than my computer monitors. I have it running through a set of cheap Altec Lansing 2.1 speakers so it doesn't sound like complete crap.

I definitely wasn't comparing my DVD player to blu-ray. You're the only one comparing things with blu-ray (which is the whole point here) . But even if I had an HDTV, I wouldn't have some great need to get a bluray player. Especially since my movie collection is on DVD. Spending even MORE money to re-purchase crap I already own isn't remotely appealing. I'll stick to 640x480 for my movies until it becomes vastly more affordable to upgrade.

I have a car and computer that give back far more than sharper visuals when I put money into them.

[RCA]

That said since I do use the Netflix functionality, it is convenient to just use the remote instead of picking up a controller. The remote also doesn't timeout like the controller does so I won't have to hold the media guide button on the controller to turn it on, then wait for the controller to sync just to pause the movie I'm watching. Presumably, if I had a PS3, then I would want to be able to do the same if I decided I wanted to watch a BD movie.

PS3 controllers don't time out.I understand why the IR feature means so much to you. But take your Harmony controller and turn on your tv, and press HDMI. Grab your PS3 controller and your done. Maybe that is more work then you would like to do but is it enough work to cause a "gripe" against Sony?

That said, based on at least 2 games, I'd say that the XBOX controller layout has a distinct advantage. Since the D-Pad is arranged within clos(e) reach of either thumbstick.

I think you missed my point. I stated it was a distinct advantage. Perhaps, I could have stated it as a particulatr advantage. But my intent was not necessarily to measure of one controller's superiority over the other. It was merely that the layout lends itself to a particular advantage. You could say that the PSx controller has its own particular advantage as well. Neither necessarily takes from the other as one could make a controller with the 360's orientation and the PSx controller's distances.

Hmm, well I was going with your D-Pad is closer to the sticks. I said PS3's D-Pads are closer then the Xbox's. SO how does the Xbox controller have an advantage, other then it fits in your hand nicely?

Please elaborate...

The space between the D-Pads and the Left stick is farther apart on an XB controller then on the PS3. The space between the buttons and the right stick is farther apart on an XB controller then on a PS3.

When using claymores/RPGs/Grenade Launchers in COD4 you need to press the left d-pad direction. The time spent off the sticks to press this button leave me more venerable. I die more often doing this on an Xbox then on my PS3. It isn't much time but the less the better. And when playing in highly competitive situations it gets annoying.

total smart a** or anything, but assuming PS3 had no games (going back to your previous statement about the PS3 being the best BD player), wouldn't one have to buy a 360 or a Wii anyways?

From the sounds of it MoD doesn't have an HDTV. Just hi-res computer monitors, which the 360 happily plays on.

And sure, lots of people want BD. I do. Just not at the price they are offering. And most people would agree as DVD is still outselling BD by a huge margin. Perhaps if the PS3 prices drop much more then I might bite. Since the Logitech iR adapter is going to be about $60 I'll wait as that's an additional cost to consider. I'm fairly picky about how my home theater system works so its pretty much a necessity. If you really want to help me to buy a PS3 sooner than later though, convince Sony to implement built-in iR or a cheap dongle and to drop the price by at least $100. Can't be sure I'd bite but man would it be tempting...

Not to butt into your convo with yelnat...I own both systems and I don't play any exclusives for either console (except Forza 2, because GT is taking to long). So why do so many people use this argument?

Also about the PS3 IR Harmony issue...Doesn't some one out there make a USB IR thingy that would allow you to use your remote?

[MinisterofDOOM]

I own both systems and I don't play any exclusives for either console (except Forza 2, because GT is taking to long). So why do so many people use this argument?

Common sense tells me you just answered your own question and the answer is: it's because you're in the vast minority.*

"I don't play any exclusives"..."so many people." There's your answer.

One GOOD exclusive is often enough to attract many buyers. And by good I simply mean one they're extremely interested in. For instance, FFXIII. That horse has been beaten to death but it's a great example of exactly the answer you're asking for. LOTS. And lots. And LOTS. And even more metric craploads of people were all standing by ready to buy PS3s when FFXIII hit. Then it was announced it would come out on 360 too and there went Sony's guaranteed future sales numbers. Many of those people already had 360s and were prepared to buy a PS3 JUST FOR FFXIII(!). Others still didn't have a preference and now have no real incentive to go either way, which is a loss for Sony compared to guaranteed sales. Still others will have gotten the PS3 anyway because of various reasons, but may still wait until FFXIII (meaning future sales, not NOW sales). Others (lots I'm sure) decided "to hell with it" and bought 360s now since that means they can play Halo with thier friends now and FFXIII later instead of just FFXIII later.

Now, I'm not the kind of person to buy a console for ONE game, but if they both have a bunch of the same games I want and one has some extra games I want to itself, that's my choice. And that's how most people look at it, too. Granted most of my favorite 360 games are tri-platform (with the superior version hitting PCs shortly after galrheroihafdf GTAIV directormode swear curse damn) but If GTAIV for instance had been PS3 or 360 only I probably would have gone with that console for that game in addition to the rest of the shared library. And I'm buying an entire new PC just for Diablo III (but not really "just" since performance with more recent games has been crap and it just happens to be time to upgrade anyway).

Exclusives are generally "strong" titles so they hold a lot of weight. I play games for the GAMES, not the brand loyalty (as do most gamers, yourself included I'm sure) and I'll go where the games are. If Fallout 3 were PS3 only I'd have a PS3 right now. Thank God it's not because I get my keyboard and mouse instead of a lamepad, but the point still stands.

Another issue I take with the PS3 is that the price cuts have come at the cost of features I liked. All the flash memory drives are gone now. PS2 backward compatibility is gone (I have an entire drawer full of PS2 games but don't own a PS2 anymore...that would be a REALLY nice feature). The USB ports have been cut in half. How is 2 less USB ports helping cut $100 off the cost of the console? MS didn't pull that crap when they priced the Arcade console down. Yes it's missing an HDD but MS turned around and offered refurb 20gb HDDs for less than a memory unit to Arcade owners; meanwhile all the other specs are identical to the pricier systems; it even has the HDMI port that earlier pricier systems lacked. So while Sony is cutting important features left and right to lower prices, MS is ADDING critical features and STILL lowering prices.All those cut features in the 160GB system is a much more appealing package for $500 than just a $300 PS3 with double the hard drive capacity. And with the base PS2, $300 for a PS3 that'll play my PS3 back library is certainly more appealing and vastly more justifiable.

*I'll posit an extension to this "answer" as well:The reason you, and not "so many people" don't play exclusives and therefore don't care about them is that you, and not "so many people" own a PS3 which HAS no good exclusives to care about or play. "So many people" are busy playing Halo 3 and Gears of War (the greatness of both of which is purely subjective, no doubt) and thinking how much they'd miss those games if they had a PS3, which is exactly why they use that argument...which is I believe the question I was supposed to be answering before I went off track there.

[C-Kwik]

If you don't have a good HDTV at least 40in then I supposed it doesn't matter, but if you do, I really suggest you borrow a friend's PS3 and test how just how clear things can get with a quality blu-ray player playing a blu-ray movie.

Any 1080p source that was encoded well will look good regardless of if its BD or not. And its quite obvious 1080p looks much better than 480i. Even on smaller HDTVs I can see a pretty big difference unless I'm really far away. And I have a pretty good idea how it will look on my own TV since I have an HD-DVD player and a pretty modest collection of movies for it. The upscaling isn't too bad either.

I have been spoiled having seen the quality from blu-ray movies and it just blows anything else out of the water. Anyone who has seen it will agree that watching movies in the theaters are just a waste of money now if all you are looking for is quality since a good HDTV with a PS3 will look way better than even the best theaters out there. It is just that good.

Digital theatres can project images with about 2000 horizontal lines while film projectors are said to be equivalent in quality to about 4000 horizontal lines. While what you actually percieve is based on viewing distance, theatre films have the potential to have much more detail available. And as large as the screen sizes are, I'd expect most movies are encoded with plenty of resolution.

I'll add that I maybe watch one movie at a theater each year. I considered watching movies at a theatre a waste of money even when it was just DVD's. When I do watch a movie in a theater, its because I think it will be something I'd appreciate a lot in an uber large size and with a much better sound system than my own.

Also, with the prices of blu-ray movies matching normal DVDs, I had assumed that they are pretty much the standard now. I didn't even realize that a significant number of people still bought DVDs. I seriously thought that blu-rays made up a good 90% of movie sales nowadays. Meh, who knew.

Actually, according to NPD, Consumers are paying about $10 more on average for a BD movie than a DVD.

PS3 controllers don't time out.I understand why the IR feature means so much to you. But take your Harmony controller and turn on your tv, and press HDMI. Grab your PS3 controller and your done. Maybe that is more work then you would like to do but is it enough work to cause a "gripe" against Sony?

The entire point of a Harmony remote is to be able to handle all functionality of an entertainment system with one remote and without the complicated clutter of trying to figure out which remote to use for which function. What it does is make all the components work as if it was one single component.

Is it a big gripe? Nope. But it is a gripe. Do a search on this and you'll find I'm not the only one who has this "gripe" either. I might be less concerned if the PS3 was sold only as a gaming console. But its designed to be able to act as a media hub. And with universal remotes being quite common, and in many cases preferred, it would seem to me that an iR solution should be necessary for any media device that is intended to be connected to a household's entertainment center to be compatible with common methods of interfacing them. Keep in mind that the original XBOX had a lot of complaints about this, especially from those who were using it as a media center (modded). There are all kinds of creative ways people have come up with to turn on the XBOX with a remote and be able to navigate it with the XBOX remote.

Hmm, well I was going with your D-Pad is closer to the sticks. I said PS3's D-Pads are closer then the Xbox's. SO how does the Xbox controller have an advantage, other then it fits in your hand nicely?

The space between the D-Pads and the Left stick is farther apart on an XB controller then on the PS3. The space between the buttons and the right stick is farther apart on an XB controller then on a PS3.

When using claymores/RPGs/Grenade Launchers in COD4 you need to press the left d-pad direction. The time spent off the sticks to press this button leave me more venerable. I die more often doing this on an Xbox then on my PS3. It isn't much time but the less the better. And when playing in highly competitive situations it gets annoying.

Ok....just wanted to make sure what your argument actually was. And I agree htere is an advantage. But as I said, there is also a distinct advantage of the logistical layout of the D-Pad on the 360 in certain games as it can be accessed with either hand. And I already gave the situational example of where this is helpful.

Not to butt into your convo with yelnat...I own both systems and I don't play any exclusives for either console (except Forza 2, because GT is taking to long). So why do so many people use this argument?

Because some of us do play exclusives. Not for the sake of playing them, but because we actually like them. Before buying an XBOX, the last console I owned before that was an N64 which I bought used and to only play Zelda. Otherwise, I stuck with PC games. I was turned onto Halo by my cousin and loved it, so I bought an XBOX and a copy of it. Bought a few more games and as it turns out I ended up spending less on hardware and such and was able to afford more games. Not to mention many of the PC games I liked were showing up on the XBOX. I was sold on console gaming again. The reason I don't have a PS3? Well, there is nothing I want to play that is exclusive to it bad enough to spend the $400 plus on. When the price comes down enough, I probably will buy one and enjoy many of their exclusives and I'm sure their older ones will be nice and cheap too. I win either way.

Also about the PS3 IR Harmony issue...Doesn't some one out there make a USB IR thingy that would allow you to use your remote?

I already mentioned Logitech is coming out with an interface. But MSRP is $60. That's more than half the cost of the remote I have. I don't know of any other interfaces available.

Just to tack onto what MoD stated as well, I could care less for Final Fantasy games. But the GF loves them and we would likely have picked up a PS3 so she can play it. We have no immediate need to now as she doesn't really care what we play it on.

[yelnatsch517]

Any 1080p source that was encoded well will look good regardless of if its BD or not. And its quite obvious 1080p looks much better than 480i. Even on smaller HDTVs I can see a pretty big difference unless I'm really far away. And I have a pretty good idea how it will look on my own TV since I have an HD-DVD player and a pretty modest collection of movies for it. The upscaling isn't too bad either.

Yea, I totally understand that, but are there even 1080p content that isn't on Blu-ray besides the extremely rare tv stations that might broadcast it? Most HD channels are either 720p or 1080i and I have never heard of 1080p on regular DVD format.

Digital theatres can project images with about 2000 horizontal lines while film projectors are said to be equivalent in quality to about 4000 horizontal lines. While what you actually percieve is based on viewing distance, theatre films have the potential to have much more detail available. And as large as the screen sizes are, I'd expect most movies are encoded with plenty of resolution.

I understand this also, but it is not the potential I am talking about, but rather the reality when watching movies in either environment. They have a much higher resolution, but also expanded to 100s of times larger which reduces the resolution per area which is what we perceive as quality.

Actually, according to NPD, Consumers are paying about $10 more on average for a BD movie than a DVD.

Meh, $10 is chump change nowadays anyway compared to the roughly $8.50 I spend at Panda Express for lunch everyday at school . But I guess with the depression, it still means a lot to some people.

My SDTV is sub-par even for an SDTV. It's a crappy Silvania that has issues and will sporadically go into crackle fits. It has a flat tube, though, and is much bigger than my computer monitors. I have it running through a set of cheap Altec Lansing 2.1 speakers so it doesn't sound like complete crap.

I definitely wasn't comparing my DVD player to blu-ray. You're the only one comparing things with blu-ray (which is the whole point here) . But even if I had an HDTV, I wouldn't have some great need to get a bluray player. Especially since my movie collection is on DVD. Spending even MORE money to re-purchase crap I already own isn't remotely appealing. I'll stick to 640x480 for my movies until it becomes vastly more affordable to upgrade.

I have a car and computer that give back far more than sharper visuals when I put money into them.

If you get a good blu-ray player, you would not need to replace all your old movies as they would still look fantastic from the high quality scaler in the player.

I understand that you don't view getting a blu-ray player as a priority at the moment compared to your car, but you just might change your mind once you have seen a top notch system. I occasionally spend some time on the AVSforum where people actually considering getting things like this blu-ray player are not considered crazy, so I might just have been brainwashed.

[RCA]

Common sense tells me you just answered your own question and the answer is: it's because you're in the vast minority.*

"I don't play any exclusives"..."so many people." There's your answer.

Well when I said that I wasn't doubting that is was a valid reason for liking one console vs another. I was just looking for some one to convince me. What games for Xbox makes it superior? And why are they so good?

Also I could care less about FF anything. Never got into it. But I wasn't aware that FF would bring in substantial amounts of people to the PS3. Sucks for Sony that Xbox also plays FF games.

I play games for the GAMES, not the brand loyalty (as do most gamers, yourself included I'm sure) and I'll go where the games are. If Fallout 3 were PS3 only I'd have a PS3 right now. Thank God it's not because I get my keyboard and mouse instead of a lamepad, but the point still stands.

Yea I own both. Although brand loyalty doesn't mean much to me, I don't usually like change. So I was hesatent for the Xbox.Also how can you like using the mouse and fail board for PC gaming...OMG I HATE IT!

Another issue I take with the PS3 is that the price cuts have come at the cost of features I liked. All the flash memory drives are gone now. PS2 backward compatibility is gone (I have an entire drawer full of PS2 games but don't own a PS2 anymore...that would be a REALLY nice feature). The USB ports have been cut in half. How is 2 less USB ports helping cut $100 off the cost of the console? MS didn't pull that crap when they priced the Arcade console down. Yes it's missing an HDD but MS turned around and offered refurb 20gb HDDs for less than a memory unit to Arcade owners; meanwhile all the other specs are identical to the pricier systems; it even has the HDMI port that earlier pricier systems lacked. So while Sony is cutting important features left and right to lower prices, MS is ADDING critical features and STILL lowering prices.

LMAO yea I agree I was really upset when Xbox removed their flash memory drives to I just feel that Sony was trying to make the base PS3 like an Xbox Base. Both have HDMI, HDDs, 2 USB ports, no FMDs, no wireless internet. Not sure if newer Xboxs are backward capable though.

*I'll posit an extension to this "answer" as well:The reason you, and not "so many people" don't play exclusives and therefore don't care about them is that you, and not "so many people" own a PS3 which HAS no good exclusives to care about or play. "So many people" are busy playing Halo 3 and Gears of War (the greatness of both of which is purely subjective, no doubt) and thinking how much they'd miss those games if they had a PS3, which is exactly why they use that argument...which is I believe the question I was supposed to be answering before I went off track there.

[/quote]Yea from what I have heard those games are pretty good. I have played them and something about shooting lasers and jumping around like fairies just doesn't appeal to me...

The entire point of a Harmony remote is to be able to handle all functionality of an entertainment system with one remote and without the complicated clutter of trying to figure out which remote to use for which function. What it does is make all the components work as if it was one single component.

Is it a big gripe? Nope. But it is a gripe. Do a search on this and you'll find I'm not the only one who has this "gripe" either. I might be less concerned if the PS3 was sold only as a gaming console. But its designed to be able to act as a media hub. And with universal remotes being quite common, and in many cases preferred, it would seem to me that an iR solution should be necessary for any media device that is intended to be connected to a household's entertainment center to be compatible with common methods of interfacing them. Keep in mind that the original XBOX had a lot of complaints about this, especially from those who were using it as a media center (modded). There are all kinds of creative ways people have come up with to turn on the XBOX with a remote and be able to navigate it with the XBOX remote.

I see. I wasn't aware that so many other people had this issue. But for me it sounds like it isn't an issue even worth mentioning but you love your setup so I can definitely understand.

Because some of us do play exclusives. Not for the sake of playing them, but because we actually like them. Before buying an XBOX, the last console I owned before that was an N64 which I bought used and to only play Zelda. Otherwise, I stuck with PC games. I was turned onto Halo by my cousin and loved it, so I bought an XBOX and a copy of it. Bought a few more games and as it turns out I ended up spending less on hardware and such and was able to afford more games. Not to mention many of the PC games I liked were showing up on the XBOX. I was sold on console gaming again. The reason I don't have a PS3? Well, there is nothing I want to play that is exclusive to it bad enough to spend the $400 plus on. When the price comes down enough, I probably will buy one and enjoy many of their exclusives and I'm sure their older ones will be nice and cheap too. I win either way.

You're a winner in my book

I already mentioned Logitech is coming out with an interface. But MSRP is $60. That's more than half the cost of the remote I have. I don't know of any other interfaces available.

Yea sorry about that I read that but wasn't sure of what you meant.

MoD, C-Kwik or any one else what are your thought on buying a PS3, splitting the HDD's memory down the middle and installing an OS on it. This way you have both a powerful PC as well as gaming console?I was thinking of this but maybe you guys know people who have done it and have their reviews etc...

[MinisterofDOOM]

What games for Xbox makes it superior? And why are they so good?

Well, as I said it's all down to whether the xbox exclusives are games you really care about. But the GoW games are a lot of fun when played with a friend, and there are a LOT of people who think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. Then there are the Halophiles, who can't survive without the worlds best-marketed mediocrity. Those two alone are enough to make it superior for a lot of people apparently. And a lot of people who want a console to play with their friends are going to get the console their friends have...which is likely the 360 since it has established it's dominance so well.

Also how can you like using the mouse and fail board for PC gaming...OMG I HATE IT!

That's exactly how I feel about gamepads. Don't know how anyone could ever tolerate them next to a keyboard and mouse.

Not sure if newer Xboxs are backward capable though.

They are. The "Arcade" (cheapest) is not backward compatible out of the box since it doesn't have a hard drive (just 256mb of onboard flash memory), but you can buy various hard drives for it. MS was (maybe still is) offering refurbished 20gb hard drives for less than a normal memory card for Arcade owners. The hard drive is required since, like the 2nd' gen PS3s, backward compatibility uses a software emulator you have to download (but is free).

MoD, C-Kwik or any one else what are your thought on buying a PS3, splitting the HDD's memory down the middle and installing an OS on it. This way you have both a powerful PC as well as gaming console?I was thinking of this but maybe you guys know people who have done it and have their reviews etc...

Not possible. You won't have a powerful PC, you'll just have a PS3 running an OS. PS3 hardware architecture is nothing like a PC, and it won't work. You can run linux, sure, but you can't do much with it gaming-wise. Windows won't run on Cell and DirectX certainly won't work with the PS3's hardware architecture. The xbox 360 is much more PC-like in it's hardware design but even that may not work well. The thing about the consoles is that they're "powerful" only because they're dedicated-purpose machines. PC's are more technically powerful to cope with the increased burden of being multipurpose. Toss an OS eating up resources into the mix for a console and performance will go out the window.As far as raw hardware power, a PS3, even NOT running an OS, is nothing compared to quad-core i7 rig with 8gb RAM and GeForce 9800. The VIDEO CARD alone in that PC is more powerful than the whole PS3. Of course, it also costs as much as the whole PS3. They're just very different worlds. You really can't turn a console into a gaming PC. You can install an OS on it but that doesn't mean you can actually play any games.

[C-Kwik]

Yea, I totally understand that, but are there even 1080p content that isn't on Blu-ray besides the extremely rare tv stations that might broadcast it? Most HD channels are either 720p or 1080i and I have never heard of 1080p on regular DVD format.

There was...

Actually though, its possible there may be HD content on movie download services. I wanna say my Media Vault came with a copy of Bourne Identity. Never watched it as I didn't have anything set-up to watch it on my TV and already had the movie anyways. I can't remember the name of the service either so I can't double check. Its theoreticaly possible either way. And if the encoding is the same, so will the PQ and SQ (assuming equivalent hardware specs).

And honestly, most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between 1080p and 1080i.

I understand this also, but it is not the potential I am talking about, but rather the reality when watching movies in either environment. They have a much higher resolution, but also expanded to 100s of times larger which reduces the resolution per area which is what we perceive as quality.

The fact though is there is more data regardless meaning there wil always be more detail available. Whether you can see it is dependent on size and viewing distance. But as there is more resolution, its going to look at least as good as BD on any TV.

Meh, $10 is chump change nowadays anyway compared to the roughly $8.50 I spend at Panda Express for lunch everyday at school . But I guess with the depression, it still means a lot to some people.

Gotta think long term here. You can get 10 $20 DVD's for $200 bucks or 6 2/3rd's BD's. It really depends on what a person places value on.

If you get a good blu-ray player, you would not need to replace all your old movies as they would still look fantastic from the high quality scaler in the player.

Well, that depends on how much it might bother a person. I know I've repurchased some of the movies on HD-DVD that I already own on DVD. But I seriously doubt I'll ever replace all my 200+ DVD's with HD versions. Probably only select titles. Hell, when I do get a BD player, I'd probably still get SD-DVD is titles that I don't care as much about. Then again, ever since I got Netflix, I pretty much stopped buying every movie I wanted to see and started renting them instead.

I understand that you don't view getting a blu-ray player as a priority at the moment compared to your car, but you just might change your mind once you have seen a top notch system. I occasionally spend some time on the AVSforum where people actually considering getting things like this blu-ray player are not considered crazy, so I might just have been brainwashed.

Those AVSForum guys are hardcore.

Well when I said that I wasn't doubting that is was a valid reason for liking one console vs another. I was just looking for some one to convince me. What games for Xbox makes it superior? And why are they so good?

Also I could care less about FF anything. Never got into it. But I wasn't aware that FF would bring in substantial amounts of people to the PS3. Sucks for Sony that Xbox also plays FF games.

It brings substatial amounts of people to any console its on. But for the most part, it seems to be more of a love it or hate it series. Personally, I just don't care much for RPG type games.

Yea I own both. Although brand loyalty doesn't mean much to me, I don't usually like change. So I was hesatent for the Xbox.Also how can you like using the mouse and fail board for PC gaming...OMG I HATE IT!

Mouse and Keyboard is much more accurate (particularly with aiming). It can be awkward at first, but if you were to compare response times, the Keyboard and mouse wins. Consider that with a mouse, one can turn around to shoot at something that was behind them very quickly. With a thumbstick, you're limited by the max rate of speed. I play Halo with the controller look settings on 10 and its still nowhere near as fast. When I used to play CS, I could check 2 corners as I enter a room very quickly. My room entry technique in Halo is much slower if I'm looking for campers.

LMAO yea I agree I was really upset when Xbox removed their flash memory drives to I just feel that Sony was trying to make the base PS3 like an Xbox Base. Both have HDMI, HDDs, 2 USB ports, no FMDs, no wireless internet. Not sure if newer Xboxs are backward capable though.

Do people actually use the flash memory slots? I think I've used the one on my TV maybe once. Not that wireless LAN is expensive to build in, if they could susbtatially drop the price of a model that had no wireless internet, there could be a market for it. XBOX doesn't have it built-in and its doing fine. And none of my 360's is set up on a wireless connection anyways. I just don't think its a selling point for everyone. Many people, yes. But many others are paying for something they have no need for.

I see. I wasn't aware that so many other people had this issue. But for me it sounds like it isn't an issue even worth mentioning but you love your setup so I can definitely understand.

As petty as it sounds, once you've tried it, its hard to go back. Once you set it up correctly, its extremely simple to use. I tend to recommend it for those that are less technologically inclined as it makes operation of a complicated enetrtainment system very easy.

MoD, C-Kwik or any one else what are your thought on buying a PS3, splitting the HDD's memory down the middle and installing an OS on it. This way you have both a powerful PC as well as gaming console?I was thinking of this but maybe you guys know people who have done it and have their reviews etc...

I can't recall what the limitations of the PS3 were, But I know people have been able to run Linux on it. I do know that much of the functionality of the Cell processor is disabled when doing so but it can be done. Just seems like a waste of time to me though.

And to tack onto what MoD is saying, a guy who actually programs on the PS3 with linux applications (He actually prefers Wii as a gaming console) basically said about the PS3 that the PS3 is extremely powerful as a gaming machine because it does what is needed in gaming very well. He was mostly referring to the SPE's being able to process numbers very fast which lends itself very well to physics and graphics. But that does add another challenge in that it takes more work to program to use them.

The only mod I've ever done to a console was with an XBOX. and even then, its intended use was quite specific. I modded it and made it into a media center and installed it in my G35 when I had it. It had a 320GB HDD so I can put a crap ton of music, movies and games on it and was displayed on the Navigation screen. While I am glad that MS was pretty much able to stop this kind of modding as it allowed people to hack up games and such, I do wish there was more flexibility built-into the current XBOX so I could put one in the truck. Namely, the ability to store and play games off the HDD without a disc. And to thwart pirating, they could do this by allowing games to be purchased entirely through XBL. I have reservations about running a disc in a console that has been known to scratch discs due to movement of the console. I'm not sure I want to mod another first Gen XBOX as it seems like a step backwards since I wouldn't be able to play 360 games.

[RCA]

Well, as I said it's all down to whether the xbox exclusives are games you really care about. But the GoW games are a lot of fun when played with a friend, and there are a LOT of people who think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. Then there are the Halophiles, who can't survive without the worlds best-marketed mediocrity. Those two alone are enough to make it superior for a lot of people apparently. And a lot of people who want a console to play with their friends are going to get the console their friends have...which is likely the 360 since it has established it's dominance so well.

Yea the fact that the 360 was established first was pretty big for Microsoft...Every one wants to own next gen gaming system and people bought it up, then got addicted to the games. PS3 hasn't created anything that would cause 360ers to convert...Except for Sony's marketing for the PS3's "powerful graphics". I fell for it but now I am like... EH. They are just as good as Xbox.

That's exactly how I feel about gamepads. Don't know how anyone could ever tolerate them next to a keyboard and mouse.

Hmm, this is weird. It seems so weird to game with one hand 2 feet away from the other...And using numbers 1-9 while playing seems SUPER annoying.

Not possible. You won't have a powerful PC, you'll just have a PS3 running an OS. PS3 hardware architecture is nothing like a PC, and it won't work. You can run linux, sure, but you can't do much with it gaming-wise. Windows won't run on Cell and DirectX certainly won't work with the PS3's hardware architecture. The xbox 360 is much more PC-like in it's hardware design but even that may not work well. The thing about the consoles is that they're "powerful" only because they're dedicated-purpose machines. PC's are more technically powerful to cope with the increased burden of being multipurpose. Toss an OS eating up resources into the mix for a console and performance will go out the window.As far as raw hardware power, a PS3, even NOT running an OS, is nothing compared to quad-core i7 rig with 8gb RAM and GeForce 9800. The VIDEO CARD alone in that PC is more powerful than the whole PS3. Of course, it also costs as much as the whole PS3. They're just very different worlds. You really can't turn a console into a gaming PC. You can install an OS on it but that doesn't mean you can actually play any games.

Hmm good point...Cell architecture isn't compatible with MS OS...I could of swore I saw it on a youtube video. I could be wrong though.And an i7, 8gb, and a 9800 isn't much of a comparison...

That plus it will run you $1300ish

Mouse and Keyboard is much more accurate (particularly with aiming). It can be awkward at first, but if you were to compare response times, the Keyboard and mouse wins. Consider that with a mouse, one can turn around to shoot at something that was behind them very quickly. With a thumbstick, you're limited by the max rate of speed. I play Halo with the controller look settings on 10 and its still nowhere near as fast. When I used to play CS, I could check 2 corners as I enter a room very quickly. My room entry technique in Halo is much slower if I'm looking for campers.

True I have noticed that the x-axis is usually much faster on the PC, but you can play COD4 with the sensitivity turned up to PC speeds.

Do people actually use the flash memory slots? I think I've used the one on my TV maybe once. Not that wireless LAN is expensive to build in, if they could susbtatially drop the price of a model that had no wireless internet, there could be a market for it. XBOX doesn't have it built-in and its doing fine. And none of my 360's is set up on a wireless connection anyways. I just don't think its a selling point for everyone. Many people, yes. But many others are paying for something they have no need for.

I use my flash drive ofter. Transferring music, backing up game data every week or so...When I "re image" my PS3 I save all my crap to my flash drive...It is super continent.

Yea Xbox is doing great, but how many people on Xbox complain about the cost of the MS USB Wireless add on.

As petty as it sounds, once you've tried it, its hard to go back. Once you set it up correctly, its extremely simple to use. I tend to recommend it for those that are less technologically inclined as it makes operation of a complicated enetrtainment system very easy.

The only mod I've ever done to a console was with an XBOX. and even then, its intended use was quite specific. I modded it and made it into a media center and installed it in my G35 when I had it. It had a 320GB HDD so I can put a crap ton of music, movies and games on it and was displayed on the Navigation screen. While I am glad that MS was pretty much able to stop this kind of modding as it allowed people to hack up games and such, I do wish there was more flexibility built-into the current XBOX so I could put one in the truck. Namely, the ability to store and play games off the HDD without a disc. And to thwart pirating, they could do this by allowing games to be purchased entirely through XBL. I have reservations about running a disc in a console that has been known to scratch discs due to movement of the console. I'm not sure I want to mod another first Gen XBOX as it seems like a step backwards since I wouldn't be able to play 360 games.

I would look in to a micro PC that get installed into your car and it would be much more capable then an Xbox and no hacking involved.
Modified by rcabrita at 1:00 AM 5/23/2009

[MinisterofDOOM]

For the keyboard vs mouse debate, here's why I prefer the keyboard:

-More buttons (more functions) at your fingertips at once.1-10 aren't awkward at all for me. 1-5 are in the PERFECT spot, 6 is a reach, the rest are awkward but better than cycling through weapons one at a time like most console games.-I can lift my mouse and set it down again, which basically means on-the-fly calibration of my look controls. I also have variable mouse resolution which means I can change my sensitivity WHILE PLAYING. Don't have to pause, no menus, just hit a button on the mouse. All hardware-based.-With a keyboard and mouse I can make use of nearly all my fingers instead of 6 at most. And with a well-configured game that means more than just running and switching weapons at the same time. 3-4 fingers on the mouse and all 5 on the keyboard get used.-Most game developers' version of gamepad controls are CRAP and most console games don't let you redefine individual buttons. So I got used to hating playing with a gamepad because the controls were awkward by design so often. Games that allow full button-binding are much more tolerable, but I'm still a million times better with a keyboard and mouse. A lot of the time it's just 2 or 3 functions I want to rearrange but the only control change options are massive pre-built controller remappings. PC game controls have been fully configurable for decades. What is wrong with console developers?

You can largely blame Half Life for my keyboard/mouse preference. I had consoles long before my family ever had a PC powerful enough for games. I hated the HL controls at first. They seemed unnatural and I had to think about them. Once I got used to them, though, they became my preference.

[jtjohnny102]

360

[bmike818]

360

i hope this thing works...I hate Trolls!!!