[quote]Omega_Red wrote:
Get the 360, just make sure it’s one of the later 2006 models (october and upwards).[/quote]
Gee, thanks for avoiding a discussion and simply telling someone what to do…because you know what’s best.
What should I buy? I’m, like, all giddy with anticipation.
[quote]toughcasey wrote:
playmaker08 wrote:
my opinion, get the 360. it is great to have if you have a windows PC, (dont know if the PS3 does this or not) but you can network it in and share videos/music wherever your xbox is hooked up. i always liked that. plus i always feel like sony tries to nickel and dime everything with their proprietary stuff and no HDMI cable comes with the ps3 etc.
wouldnt hurt to have both i guess…[/quote]
The newest PS3 update adds media center functionality so you can stream anything to your PS3. Plus it now upscales everything (PS1, PS2, PSP games and DVD’s) to 1080i or 1080p.
As for not including an HDMI cable, you can get them for like $10-$20 -you don’t need the expensive brand name versions -they’re all the same.
Like somebody else said who has always had a Playstation in the house: so have I and i prefer them over M$. Not to get deep into the 360 vs PS3 debate, but as for nickel and diming, M$ has the monopoly on that:
You have to buy their wireless adapter, their proprietary hard-drive, their HD-DVD drive -all adding up to $200 or so more than a PS3 costs with those features built-in. Plus the PS3’s hard drive is an SATA drive that can be replaced with any capacity as long as it’s the same spec.
Plus, I have yet to hear of 1 PS3 overheating at all, and the online is FREE.
[quote]DeadSexy wrote:
The newest PS3 update adds media center functionality so you can stream anything to your PS3.
[/quote]
The 360 streams music, pics, and video from your PC as well.
Have to? I’m running a wired connection (which is faster anyway), stock hard-drive, and don’t want an HD-DVD drive…
I’ll give you that, but the only times I’ve ever seen a 360 overheat is online. Many of my friends have had 360s for a couple years and not one has overheated. I’ve had mine a little over a year with no trouble. The 360 is an impressive technological machine which generates a lot of heat. If you keep it locked up in an entertainment center you’re going to have problems (it doesn’t have the greatest cooling system, I’ll admit it). When you think about the millions of people with 360s who’ve had them for years, the percentage of faulty ones is very low. You only ever see them because now they can go post it online. There are millions of people out there with 360s that work, you just only read about the ones that crash.
Free, yes. Fun?..well…have you ever played xbox live? (If not, you’re missing out.)
How about games? You don’t see hits like Gears of War / Halo 3 / Forza 2 / Fable 2 / etc on the PS3. In fact, you don’t see many hits on the PS3 (I’ll give you the Metal Gear Series, and Final Fantasy…but that’s about it).
The price/hardware? The $600 PS3 with the goofy sixaxis controller vs the $400 360 with the regular wireless controller…
As for the loyalty to a company, I had both the PS2 and the original Xbox before the next-gen consoles came out, so I was free to make my decision (PS3 vs 360) based on which I thought was truly the better console. While both have their flaws, the 360 clearly comes out on top for me.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Sales havn’t been updated since april 12th. In the same time frame it has outsold 360. A new report is supposed to come out sometime in june.[/quote]
Can you find anything that backs this up? Everything I’ve read(namely, NPD group analysis) has pre-May figures in favour of the 360. I’m not sure why it would be any different for May/June as the PS3 still doesn’t seem to be getting any killer-apps.
I work in a videogame store and see alot of returns both of ps3 and 360s. In my particular store we see about 10% defective rate within the first 6 months on either system. So whatever you get, buy the Replacement plan.
PS3 has much more power then the 360 and therefore more potential graphics wise as well as the fact that sony’s blu-ray holds much more data then the 360s DVDs do, so the games can look better and be longer at the same time.
BUT the cell chip that the ps3 uses is incredibly hard to program for, the games keep getting delayed and pushed back due to this problem, so you’ll be waiting longer for good games. Now 360 although won’t look quite as good, already has a massive amount of games released for it, everything but “Resistance” and perhaps 1 or 2 more you can get for the 360.
360 also has a much better online experience, not only are there most likely 10X as many people online, but the lag is less, you will get dropped less, ect. Now once again this will most likely change with time once Sony figures out how to work the 600 dollar powerhouse they put on the market. But at this point, for overall experience, buy a 360 with the replacement plan, and trade it in and get a ps3 when ps3 is affordable, reliable, and has a decent game selection.
Just my 2 cents.
Nate.
[quote]Ronsauce wrote:
John S. wrote:
Sales havn’t been updated since april 12th. In the same time frame it has outsold 360. A new report is supposed to come out sometime in june.
Can you find anything that backs this up? Everything I’ve read(namely, NPD group analysis) has pre-May figures in favour of the 360. I’m not sure why it would be any different for May/June as the PS3 still doesn’t seem to be getting any killer-apps.
[/quote]
I think he’s talking about the comparison of the first 6 months of the 360 vs the first 6 months of PS3. I’ve seen it too, but can’t find the link…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am one who actually hopes “blue ray” doesn’t catch on like DVDs simply because I have way too many dvds collected at this point. [/quote]
I don’t think you have to worry to much about this seeing as a blu-ray player will play your DVD’s anyway, and just as a example you don’t go throwing away all your CD’s just because you have a I-pod that will play studio quality MP3s.
Nate.
[quote]Nate_0_raid wrote:
PS3 has much more power then the 360 and therefore more potential graphics wise as well as the fact that sony’s blu-ray holds much more data then the 360s DVDs do, so the games can look better and be longer at the same time.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t say it has “much” more power, as game developers have said(minus SOE of course) that the graphics chip in the 360 is far superior to that of the PS3. On paper, the PS3 is pushing a bit more power, but in practice, that’s a moot point because of the difficulty in programming that you mentioned.
Also, the only real reason they’ve needed BluRay for is having hd video like you’d have in cutscenes. I mean, Oblivion fit on a DVD just fine, and it was facking huge!
[quote]Nate_0_raid wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am one who actually hopes “blue ray” doesn’t catch on like DVDs simply because I have way too many dvds collected at this point.
I don’t think you have to worry to much about this seeing as a blu-ray player will play your DVD’s anyway, and just as a example you don’t go throwing away all your CD’s just because you have a I-pod that will play studio quality MP3s.
Nate.
[/quote]
That may be the case, but I also have a few training video on VHS that I can’t even play anymore because I haven’t owned a VCR in several years. Conversion may take time but it usually does happen eventually.
[quote]Nate_0_raid wrote:
PS3 has much more power then the 360 and therefore more potential graphics wise as well as the fact that sony’s blu-ray holds much more data then the 360s DVDs do, so the games can look better and be longer at the same time. [/quote]
The Blue Ray drive does not make a game look better. It can just hold more data.
More is not better. More just means you can have different textures instead of having to recycle. And more in game models of cars tress… whatever.
But I have yet to see a PS3 Game look anywhere near as good as a 360 one. Launch games compared to launch games.
If you’re buying a PS3 just for the blu-ray drive you might have a worthless brick in a few years. Its the betamax vs VHS saga again. Who will win this time? Nobody knows.
[quote]unbending wrote:
Nate_0_raid wrote:
PS3 has much more power then the 360 and therefore more potential graphics wise as well as the fact that sony’s blu-ray holds much more data then the 360s DVDs do, so the games can look better and be longer at the same time.
The Blue Ray drive does not make a game look better. It can just hold more data.
More is not better. More just means you can have different textures instead of having to recycle. And more in game models of cars tress… whatever.
But I have yet to see a PS3 Game look anywhere near as good as a 360 one. Launch games compared to launch games.
If you’re buying a PS3 just for the blu-ray drive you might have a worthless brick in a few years. Its the betamax vs VHS saga again. Who will win this time? Nobody knows.[/quote]
Um Resistance vs every 360 launch game. Hell even gengi was visually impressive.
Motorstorm is also a very pretty game. Maybe GT:HD?
The ability to add more data can make games look better. By having more hi res textures, bump mapping etc. It allows devs to include more informaiton to make the game what they imagined. Also, the cell is extremely good at number crunching. This gives the ps3 the edge in the physics department as well. I emplore you to check out drakes fortune and warhawk, then repost here.
[quote]gsxtacy wrote:
The ability to add more data can make games look better. By having more hi res textures, bump mapping etc. It allows devs to include more informaiton to make the game what they imagined.[/quote]
You can put the highest resolution textures on the disc, but if the console is not powerful enough to manipulate them or doesn’t have enough onboard ram to store them… then its completely useless.
Blu Ray means MORE textures and levels should developers want to make them. It does not mean better. That’s because the PS3 is just not equipped with the hardware to use them. It barely keeps up to the 360 most of the time.
[quote]
Also, the cell is extremely good at number crunching.[/quote]
That’s nice. But you’re not looking for an internet server. This is a game console. It can have the most fantastic processor in the world, but if the games don’t look or play that great then its worthless.
[quote]
This gives the ps3 the edge in the physics department as well.[/quote]
Yeah… ok. Let’s see that. I’ve yet to see a game take advantage of it. All you PS3 fanboys look at is potential and not the real results. The PS3 is a nice little console. Its like the GameCube compared to the Original Xbox.
Its kind of powerful and it can hold its own and it has an amazing potential on paper but in real life it doesn’t deliver.
I did. Still in development. MotorStorm looked like Virual Reality while in development. And then it was released.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Conversion may take time but it usually does happen eventually.[/quote]
True, but most next generation players are backwards compatible with DVD, and I don’t see a reason for that to change since it’s a simple and cheap feature to include.
I don’t buy many Bluray movies right now because they’re pretty expensive, but places like Netflix rent them out at no additional cost.
I went to my local post office to pick up an Xbox (1st gen) I bought on ebay for a friend.
While he was looking for my package, the clerk asked me what it was; I told him it was an Xbox. He said “Ah, another broken 360.”
It can’t be good when postal employees are talking about dead 360s as if it was another “business as usual” situation.
A few random comments:
HDDVD/BluRay vs DVD - Once you’ve seen a HD movie on a HDTV; going back to DVD really suck. We need at least one format that matches HDTVs. Personally, I think the future will be dual-players who can play BluRay/HDDVD/DVDs all in one machine. Unless we get streaming video over broadband first. I’d bet on dual players and that the lot of current early-adopters will be being a new player sometimes in the next 2 years.
VHS Tapes: A lot of places will transfer those to DVDs for a few bucks.
BluRay capacity: While nice, it is offset by the PS3’s segmented memory (256MB/256MB) and by the slow transfer speed. Both consoles have a total of 512MB, but the X360 has a more flexible memory layout. Here again, the PS3 gives you potentially more (storage), but at a greater technical price (you gotta work hard to take advantage of it).
My current take on the whole thing:
Xbox 360:
PS3:
I bought a 360 right after Christmas and don’t have any big complaints with the machine so far. I had a PS1 and PS2, but went with the 360 for the price, and the fact that the 360 and PS3 pretty much have the exact same game library.
A couple of things to note:
-I’ve noticed more in-game freezes on the 360 than the PS3. This doesn’t happen a lot, but it has happened more than I’d like to see.
-Machine gets HOT. I’ve never seen anything like it. I don’t have a cooling fan yet, but I intend on buying one. Perhaps the fan will eliminate problem No. 1.
-Noise of the machine. You get used to it afer a while, but the thing is still very loud.
Overall though I’m very happy with the 360; I actually now prefer the 360’s controller to the PS2/PS3.
I’m thinking of getting a Wii also, just b/c I like the idea of the motion-sensor controller, and Nintendo always has great first-party games.
an interesting article with some interesting points. im sure someone could dig up an article that makes similar points about the ps3 though:
[quote]toughcasey wrote:
an interesting article with some interesting points. im sure someone could dig up an article that makes similar points about the ps3 though:
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm[/quote]
I think what all those types of article miss is that Joe Public, who buys the vast majority of the consoles, doesn’t really care about Cell CPUs, GPUs, Xenon processors and all that.
He cares about what games are available. Whether programming those games is like driving a nail using your forehead doesn’t matter to him.
In the end, good games will push systems, bad games won’t and more systems out will attract more companies to write games for the system.
Looking at the number of systems available at launch, vs the amount who ended up on ebay, the hardcore fanboy demographic is a very tiny slice of the overall market. While they can talk up a storm, their economic impact is very close to negligible.
I think the worst thing that could happen for games everywhere is if one (or worse, two) systems got wiped off the map by the third. More competition and more options are good things. I don’t know why people turn console ownership into some kind of religious experience…
The architecture of both systems is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
In point form why the PS3 has “enough” ram:
Large registers 128 128bit, 256k SRam and 512bytes of atomic cache on each SPE means that there is a good amount of space for storing data.
Due to the way SPE’s work, power and storage footprint makes more sense for smaller chunks of data to be worked on at a time (which it will work through very fast) as opposed to more conventional large chunks of data.
EIB is very fast, high bandwidth, capable of 128 read/write tasks at same time, means that data streaming around the Cell and to and from HD, Blue Ray, RSX gets where it needs to dam fast!
Huge storage combination for streaming and/or cache (in terms of HD) for Blue Ray and HD.
High bandwidth, low latency to XDDR memory means that wait times will be minimal.
Split memory XDR/GDDR means that the RSX will not clash with the Cell for memory (dedicated 256 meg for the RSX for all intents and pruposes).
PPE has a reasonable size cache of 512k for more “general purpose” code etc.
PS3 is design for stream code, codes run on JIT instead of double buffering.
It has virtual memory to dump all the not in use data and,
able to access them back quickly via index HDD address rather then search though optical disk.
Cell is able to take a big chunk of data and work load off RSX by new PS Edge vertex processing SPURS function block.
Via this SPE can remove huge load for RSX and RAM requirement on GDDR into thin air.
How can you say the PS3 isnt equipped with the hardware to use high res textures. The cell/RSX combo is extremely powerful so I dont know where your getting your info.
And before you go and bash a game like Motorstorm for not living up the graphical hype, let us not forget the halo beta which officially looks like halo 2 in high res.
Ive been playing the Warhawk beta and Sigma and those both play and look great. You seem like yuo havent actually played any ps3 games, you jsu tlike to criticize from afar. Your right the games havent taken full advantage of the ps3s capabilties yet. How long did it take for gears to come out? a year? That was the first game that really looked next gen on the 360.
I started out as a sega fan growing up, then moved to playstation. I bought the playstation 2 and loved it. After playing my freinds x box on x box live, I instantly got hooked on it. X box games have always looked more like pc games to me. Thats why I love the x box so much. I now have the x box 360 and haven’t had any problems with it whatsoever. There will always be a few errors with game systems when you buy them on launch day, but if you have a 1 year warranty, it shouldn’t matter much. Personally, I think the 360 games that have come out thus far look so much better than any of the ps3 games. But then again, I might buy a ps3 because of killzone 2, which I am a huge fan of. The price just needs to drop a bit.
Someone’s not happy about being banned from Xbox Live…