PDA

View Full Version : E3 Xbox 360 Vs PS3


thechris69
May 18, 2006, 07:25 PM
Plain and simple, based on E3, what system in your opinion is the better buy?
-Graphics
-Value
-Features
All these categories came into play when I watched E3

Graphics- PS3 is better graphically, but not so much that I would buy it over the 360

Value- As you know, the PS3 is more expensive, and Xbox 360 plans to chop the price right before PS3 comes out

Features- Sure, PS3 has built in Blu Ray, Cell, and Harddrive, but your paying about 100 bucks more... and when would you need 60GB??? Whats the deal with the PS3's controller, or should I say the PS2's controller

So that is my 2 cents about 360 VS PS3, I choose 360 because for cheaper you get roughly the same features and same overall system

Your opinions would be great!

Dagless
May 18, 2006, 07:30 PM
Nintendo destroyed Sony and MS :cool:

But. I think MS beat Sony to a pulp. If you haven't seen around these forums, or any forums, you'd know the general feel for Sony was "poor". Or better still if you saw the media event itself you could probably tell.

2nyRiggz
May 18, 2006, 07:33 PM
Ahh gad not one of these threads....we all know what went down.


Bless

Trowaman
May 18, 2006, 09:12 PM
I agree with raggedjimmi.

between the "next gen" consoles M$ has destoryed Sony this round. However, the "new gen" Nintendo, has taken both to the mat.

Personnally, I recommend a Wii for fun, newness, and best franchizes, and M$ for classic gaming of controller in hand/graphic based games. Amazingly, the two systems together will cost the same as one PS3.

EvilDoc
May 18, 2006, 11:16 PM
i would say xbox 360 all the way. Nintendo has a couple cool looking games, games i wouldnt mind trying out. But for some reason i really dont like the Wii mote or what ever its called. Again this is just my 2 cents, take it how you may.. But it all comes down to what system has the games you want to play. I never got into Metal Gear and most of the games i like for the Playstation are coming to Xbox360 (Gta4, Devil may Cry, and more). So for me xbox was the answer.

GFLPraxis
May 19, 2006, 01:14 AM
Plain and simple, based on E3, what system in your opinion is the better buy?
-Graphics
-Value
-Features
All these categories came into play when I watched E3

Graphics- PS3 is better graphically, but not so much that I would buy it over the 360

Value- As you know, the PS3 is more expensive, and Xbox 360 plans to chop the price right before PS3 comes out

Features- Sure, PS3 has built in Blu Ray, Cell, and Harddrive, but your paying about 100 bucks more... and when would you need 60GB??? Whats the deal with the PS3's controller, or should I say the PS2's controller

So that is my 2 cents about 360 VS PS3, I choose 360 because for cheaper you get roughly the same features and same overall system

Your opinions would be great!

Graphics - PS3 by a slim margin. Cell should make for better physics.

Value- if you have a HDTV, PS3 is a better value. If you have a 1080p HDTV, PS3 is a VASTLY better value. If you have a regular or EDTV, XBox 360 is a better value. If you don't want Blu-ray, XBox 360 is a better value.

Features- 1080p, Linux, full use as a PC (including the ability to use video streaming apps like VLC or apps like VNC), network server for transferring data, streaming video, bigger hard drive, Bluetooth- PS3 takes the cake. However, the price may outweigh it.

PS3 is better, significantly so if you have an HD setup and want Blu-ray, but if you don't want to join the Blu-ray crowd then you may view it as overpriced with gimmick features.

Haoshiro
May 19, 2006, 10:09 AM
To be honest I didn't see anything that showed PS3 had "better graphics" then 360. Just comparing MGS4 to Gears of War, I think they were equally impressive visually even if they did have different tone/style.

But yeah, I have no desire to start one of these thread again! You should do some searching and find all the other threads on the topic... and add your opinion there. :)

saunders45
May 19, 2006, 11:26 AM
Graphics - PS3 by a slim margin. Cell should make for better physics.

Value- if you have a HDTV, PS3 is a better value. If you have a 1080p HDTV, PS3 is a VASTLY better value. If you have a regular or EDTV, XBox 360 is a better value. If you don't want Blu-ray, XBox 360 is a better value.

Features- 1080p, Linux, full use as a PC (including the ability to use video streaming apps like VLC or apps like VNC), network server for transferring data, streaming video, bigger hard drive, Bluetooth- PS3 takes the cake. However, the price may outweigh it.

PS3 is better, significantly so if you have an HD setup and want Blu-ray, but if you don't want to join the Blu-ray crowd then you may view it as overpriced with gimmick features.


1080P is still theoretical as to the PS3 being able to output a true 1080P signal (GT4 HD) with all the wiz bang graphics (Then there's the whole, finding a tv that actually accepts 1080P signals.. Sony's own SXRD line only accepts 1080i and upscales it) As far as Linux and "full" PC functionality, they didn't mention jack about it at E3. I wouldn't be suprised if that gets scrapped to.

GFLPraxis
May 19, 2006, 11:35 AM
1080P is still theoretical as to the PS3 being able to output a true 1080P signal (GT4 HD) with all the wiz bang graphics (Then there's the whole, finding a tv that actually accepts 1080P signals.. Sony's own SXRD line only accepts 1080i and upscales it) As far as Linux and "full" PC functionality, they didn't mention jack about it at E3. I wouldn't be suprised if that gets scrapped to.

For 1080p: Even if most games don't support 1080p (which some will), I'm sure it'll at least sport 1080p video playback and 1080p output in Linux and stuff like that. Since 1080p devices are so rare, it'd be a must buy if you are one of the 0.1% of people who own 1080p TV's :P

Linux:
Sigh, nobody read my post about it. I'll quote it again.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060516-6846.html
Penguin Power on PS3? Probably.

5/16/2006 2:30:04 PM, by Jeremy Reimer

Ever since the announcement of the PlayStation 3's November release date, the Internet has been abuzz with discussion over the promise of Ken Kutaragi's brief mention of Linux. However, as Kutaragi has been known to make statements that were subsequently changed (for example, in 2005, he said that the hard drive for the PS3 would be optional) many people held off on assuming that their shiny new PS3 would come prepackaged with Penguin goodness.

Now, more recent comments at E3 by SCE network system development manager Izumi Kawanishi suggest that each new PS3 will likely come not only with Linux preinstalled, but also a compiler and a set of development tools. If this is true, the PS3 might become the system of choice for Linux enthusiasts and homebrew developers.

But how much of the PS3's architecture will be accessible under Linux? Certainly anything to do with Digital Rights Management (DRM) or playing burned copies of protected games will be locked out. It's also possible that Sony will reserve some of the more advanced graphics and sound features for the big-name PS3 game developers. However, this doesn't mean that Linux on the PS3 will be no different from running it on any generic PC or Macintosh. IBM has made sure of that:

"Unlike existing SMP systems or multicore implementations of other processors, on the Cell, only the general purpose PowerPC core is able to run a generic operating system, while the SPUs are specialized to run computational tasks. Porting Linux to run on Cell's PowerPC core is a relatively easy task because of the similarities to existing platforms like IBM pSeries or Apple Power Macintosh, but this does not give access to the enormous computing power of the SPUs.

Only the kernel can directly communicate with an SPU and therefore needs to abstract the hardware interface into system calls or device drivers. The most important functions of the user interface include loading a program binary into an SPU, transferring memory between an SPU program and a Linux userspace application, and synchronizing the execution."

The IBM port of Linux allows developers to access the Synergistic Processing Units (SPU, sometimes referred to as SPEs in Sony documentation) using their unique instruction set, by creating a virtual file system that can be accessed by userland applications. From a shell prompt, you can even mount the SPU and do a directory listing with ls, with various elements (the small amount of local memory, registers, and the "mailbox" where messages are sent to and from the SPU) appearing as files. These files can then be accessed with standard Unix system calls. This file system is known as "SPUFS" or "Synergistic Processing Unit File System."

The documentation states that the Cell port of Linux was written by a joint team of Sony, IBM, and Toshiba employees based in Austin, Texas, and that the team hopes to include their work in the upcoming 2.6.13 Linux kernel release. Will we see Beowulf clusters of PS3s next? Only the Penguins know for sure.

Full Linux support and even built in compilers and dev tools. This info is coming from E3 and from IBM.

clayj
May 19, 2006, 11:37 AM
1080P is still theoretical as to the PS3 being able to output a true 1080P signal (GT4 HD) with all the wiz bang graphics (Then there's the whole, finding a tv that actually accepts 1080P signals.. Sony's own SXRD line only accepts 1080i and upscales it) As far as Linux and "full" PC functionality, they didn't mention jack about it at E3. I wouldn't be suprised if that gets scrapped to.I have a 5-year-old TV that will accept AND display a 1080p signal.

But it doesn't have HDMI or DVI ports. ;)

greatdevourer
May 19, 2006, 11:44 AM
I have a 5-year-old TV that will accept AND display a 1080p signal.

But it doesn't have HDMI or DVI ports. ;) Holy crap! And I thought proper 1080p TVs had only just reached the market!

saunders45
May 19, 2006, 11:53 AM
I have a 5-year-old TV that will accept AND display a 1080p signal.

But it doesn't have HDMI or DVI ports. ;)

yeah but Clay, we're talking about tv's that most people buy, not your un-natural setup. ;)

saunders45
May 19, 2006, 11:56 AM
For 1080p: Even if most games don't support 1080p (which some will), I'm sure it'll at least sport 1080p video playback and 1080p output in Linux and stuff like that. Since 1080p devices are so rare, it'd be a must buy if you are one of the 0.1% of people who own 1080p TV's :P

Yeah, but the way Sony makes it sound, you'd think that all their games are 1080P. From what I remember, I don't even think that there is a "launch" title in 1080P.

Full Linux support and even built in compilers and dev tools. This info is coming from E3 and from IBM.

Let's just say, going by previous Sony examples, I'll believe it when I see it. I just can't see the use for it. People who would actually buy it, and use it are like what 1/2% of buyers, maybe?

Chaszmyr
May 19, 2006, 12:10 PM
To be honest I didn't see anything that showed PS3 had "better graphics" then 360.


PS3 will have the best graphics of any of the three systems. This does not mean that every PS3 game will look better than any 360 game.

MacRumorUser
May 19, 2006, 12:35 PM
PS3 will have the best graphics of any of the three systems. This does not mean that every PS3 game will look better than any 360 game.

Best Graphics??? On paper yes, in reality - Still to be proved. In fact the 360 GPU is meant to be more powerful than the PS3's.

HOWEVER..

All three consoles in reality will do very well, I forsee the market becoming more level 33/33/33....

Sony have the most to prove to me before I part with €620 Ireland R.R.P.

It's the first time in a long long while that I wont be buying a console at launch.

I will however buy a wii, however reading this months E3 and going on comments made at the developers conference prior to E3 that Nintendo WILL stagger the release of the Wii, and then no mention of release date for any territory at E3 - I fear Europe wont be seeing wii until next year.

Haoshiro
May 19, 2006, 12:36 PM
PS3 will have the best graphics of any of the three systems. This does not mean that every PS3 game will look better than any 360 game.

Well I did say that I didn't see anything that really looked better, and the topic is E3.

And I think you mean "best graphical capabilities", since what we see in a game is what actually matters. And in that regard, the 360 has a technically more powerful GPU (graphics) while PS3 has technically more powerful processors (CPU/SPEs).

That is in terms "capabilities", of course - it doesn't mean either systems strengths will be utilized enough for this to be realized. However if any would be, it would be 360 since it is easier to tap into its power then the PS3. (as in, the system will be most likely to reach it's theoretical capability limit.)

DougTheImpaler
May 19, 2006, 01:00 PM
For lack of a better term, Sony lies when it comes to graphics capabilities. They did it on the original PSX saying it could push a million polys/s and the truth is that they had to be un-textured, un-shaded flat polys to do it. They also gave numbers that made the PS2 the most capable current-gen system and it ain't so there, either. Heck, if you've played DOA2 on the Dreamcast and the PS2, you know the Dreamcast looked better. Same goes for other games, too.

baleensavage
May 19, 2006, 02:11 PM
From what we saw at E3, it looks like PS3 has the technical aspect down and Wii has the innovation down. XBox has the current lead because they got out the door first. Sure Xbox is cheaper than a PS3, but $400 is still too much money for a system without high definiton. However, all of this is really irrelevant if they don't get good games (anyone remember jaguar, Lynx or Neo Geo?)

Right now the XBox 360 has next to no games and it's been out for how many months (just look at the shelves in your local EB)? Of those games, maybe 2 have piqued my interest. The original XBox was the same way, there just weren't enough hard-core RPG games. Nintendo has been, with the excpetion of RE4, putting out kiddy games. Mario was fine when I was in middle school, but not when I'm 30. Whether or not you control Mario by waving around a TV remote or with a traditional joystick, it's still Mario.

So far, aside from FF13, I have seen no real announcements of PS3 games that interest me either, so I for one am going to stick with the PS2 and see what games come out in the next couple years.

baleensavage
May 19, 2006, 02:15 PM
Heck, if you've played DOA2 on the Dreamcast and the PS2, you know the Dreamcast looked better.
Unfortunately it's not always fair to compare ports of games between systems. Oftentimes more time is spent on one system and the other systems are rushed. Take Gauntlet for example. On Nintendo 64 it looked great, but on the PS2 it was terrible. That was a good case of not taking the time to port the game right. And didnt King Kong looks worse on the 360 than it did on PS2?

All of that's not to say that all computer companies (Apple included, whats with the 4x as fast junk) distort tech specs to mean what they want them to mean.

DougTheImpaler
May 19, 2006, 02:17 PM
(anyone remember jaguar, Lynx or Neo Geo?)
A minor nit to pick: Neo*Geo was arcade hardware in a home box with arcade games available for it that sold for multiple hundreds of dollars each. The system had no base RAM; the memory required to play the games was built into the hardware itself, making the games expensive. The system itself sold for $500 in the '90s, and it had a TON of great games so long as you liked SNK's line of fighters, the occasional puzzle game, and a couple sports titles.

Jaguar, Lynx, and even 3DO I'll give you, because they were home machines for the home market and the games just sucked royally.

DougTheImpaler
May 19, 2006, 02:23 PM
Unfortunately it's not always fair to compare ports of games between systems. Oftentimes more time is spent on one system and the other systems are rushed. Take Gauntlet for example. On Nintendo 64 it looked great, but on the PS2 it was terrible. That was a good case of not taking the time to port the game right. And didnt King Kong looks worse on the 360 than it did on PS2?

All of that's not to say that all computer companies (Apple included, whats with the 4x as fast junk) distort tech specs to mean what they want them to mean.
occasionally this is true, but all of those games are exceptions that prove the rule. Look at pretty much any EA game - sports or otherwise. The Burnout games, the Need for Speed games, Madden, whatever it is. They all look better on the more powerful system - Xbox first, Gamecube second, PS2 third. Same goes for most other publishers - Midway's stuff looks better on the more powerful systems as does SEGA's - just look at Super Monkey Ball on all three systems. It's got unbearably long load times, lower quality graphics and sound...just detracts from the playability and the fun.

Haoshiro
May 19, 2006, 02:28 PM
Obviously if you are a Square-Enix gamer then PlayStation or GBA (for the oldies) is the only way to go.

Other then that, my interest is opposite. Sony showed nearly no games that piqued my interest but Microsoft, to my surprise, did. They also have several high profile (but not franchise) RPGs coming. Enchanted Arms is out and it looks good from what I've seen.

baleensavage
May 19, 2006, 02:28 PM
Neo*Geo was arcade hardware in a home box with arcade games available for it that sold for multiple hundreds of dollars each.

My bad ;) Neo Geo was not an example of bad games as much as it was an example of way over-priced (which it looks like PS3 may be cruising towards). Didn't Neo Geo have some feature in Japan where you could take your saved games and play them in the arcades? It always seemed to me like a rich-kids toy.

How about TurboGraphix 16, while we're on the subject? Though that one had some really awesome games for it (Ys comes to mind).

DougTheImpaler
May 19, 2006, 02:34 PM
TG16 was in a bad spot, I think, because the Genesis was so strong in the US at the time of its release (They were released abotu the same time but there was a huge difference graphically and audio-wise that put the TG16 to shame) and the execution of the TurboGrafx CD was so bad that the system failed. Also the TG16 didn't look enough different in terms of graphics from the NES...and with good reason, it used the Hu6820 - an 8bit CPU. Bonk was really, really cool though.

The same system (under the name Turbo Duo, I think) in Japan was the #2 console of the 16-bit era, beating out the Genesis/MegaDrive.

In the end Sega and NEC both learned the hard way that a FMV game is not a popular game.

http://www.emucamp.com/vgee/tg16/

Check out the screen shots at the bottom...the Master System put up a competition to the TG16.

MacRumorUser
May 19, 2006, 02:38 PM
. And didnt King Kong looks worse on the 360 than it did on PS2?.

WHAT???? :eek: Your joking right? King Kong looks a whole generation better on the 360, oh wait it is...... Seriously thats the most ridiculous thing I've heard.


Next to no games on the 360???

Oblivion
Kameo
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Call of Duty 2
Project Gotham Racing 3
Full Auto
Tombraider Legends
Fight Night Round 3
Amped 3
Burnout : Revenge
Battlefield 2 : Modern Combat
Perfect Dark Zero
TopSpin 2
FarCry: Instincts
Dead Or Alive 4
Condemned
The Outfit
King Kong
Tiger Woods 06
Madden 06
Fifa 06
Fifa Road to the World Cup
Football manager 06
NBA 2K6
Final Fantasy XI
Blazing Angels
Need For Speed : Most Wanted
Ridge Racer 6
Rumble Roses

There only the ones I know are out, I've probably missed some.

Of those the highlighted ones are all AAA titles. Others vary from average to very good.

Not many consoles 6 months into life have as many AAA titles.

PS3 launch lineup looks very poor, sure theres some great titles to come, but the launch lineup looks dull. singstar etc......

Haoshiro
May 19, 2006, 02:57 PM
I think the only one you missed was:
- X-Men 3: The Official Game

And in less than two weeks there will also be:
- Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis
- Hitman: Blood Money
- N3: Ninety-Nine Nights
- Enchanted Arms

Abulia
May 19, 2006, 02:58 PM
WHAT???? :eek: Your joking right? King Kong looks a whole generation better on the 360, oh wait it is...... Seriously thats the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

Next to no games on the 360???Dude, don't bring logic into these discussions. That's not what these guys want to hear. ;)

Abulia
May 19, 2006, 03:00 PM
There only the ones I know are out, I've probably missed some.Quake 4 is the only one I can think of.

Don't forget the 20+ games in Xbox Live Arcade as well.

[Edit] NBA Live 06 and NCAA March Madness 06, too. GUN.

Dagless
May 19, 2006, 03:12 PM
I think the only one you missed was:
- X-Men 3: The Official Game

And in less than two weeks there will also be:
- Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis
- Hitman: Blood Money
- N3: Ninety-Nine Nights
- Enchanted Arms

That Table Tennis game is out in the UK, I think. The boxes appeared in Game and had no "preorder" ticket on them.

There's little attracting me to the 360 right now. It will change, GTA and Halo 3 will be big deciders for me. but for now, it's a dull affair.

you know what's funny though. I've read about people getting uber hyped about the PS3 and 360's camera potential (aka, those demo's the PC's had when they first had webcams in 97). The same people who spoke about the Wii "I don't want to use a sensor bar!". Internet makes me laugh.

baleensavage
May 19, 2006, 03:14 PM
Next to no games on the 360???
This is where there personal taste comes into things as well. From that list you gave, I'd say half are shooters and the rest are mostly sports games. The only two that hold any interest for me, an RPG fan, are Oblivion and FF11 (which is available on PS2). 99 Nights and Enchanted Arms also look interesting. Of the 30-40 some odd games you listed, 4 look interesting to me. I don't plan on shelling out $400 for 4 games.

And realistically, compared to PS2's thousands of games, 40 games really is next to nothing.

I'm also not saying that Sony has announced any really good RPG games for PS3 either. As far as I've heard FF13 is about it and I certainly am not going to shell out $600 for one Final Fantasy game.

Haoshiro
May 19, 2006, 03:20 PM
Table Tennis is something that I think actually look very fun, I'll definitely be picking it up at the budget price it's retailing for.

I currently only have one 360 game: Burnout Revenge and I think it is great. But I played on Xbox 1 and it was also great, amazing graphics for Xbox I thought.

For me though, I basically ditched my PC, then bought a Mac. Got the 360 for gaming, plus I knew plenty of PC games would arrive for it.

markjones05
May 19, 2006, 03:32 PM
From what we saw at E3, it looks like PS3 has the technical aspect down and Wii has the innovation down. XBox has the current lead because they got out the door first. Sure Xbox is cheaper than a PS3, but $400 is still too much money for a system without high definiton. However, all of this is really irrelevant if they don't get good games (anyone remember jaguar, Lynx or Neo Geo?)

Right now the XBox 360 has next to no games and it's been out for how many months (just look at the shelves in your local EB)? Of those games, maybe 2 have piqued my interest. The original XBox was the same way, there just weren't enough hard-core RPG games. Nintendo has been, with the excpetion of RE4, putting out kiddy games. Mario was fine when I was in middle school, but not when I'm 30. Whether or not you control Mario by waving around a TV remote or with a traditional joystick, it's still Mario.

So far, aside from FF13, I have seen no real announcements of PS3 games that interest me either, so I for one am going to stick with the PS2 and see what games come out in the next couple years.

You need to get your facts straight. First of all 360 is and was made for High definition. So when you buy an xbox360 you are gettin an HD console not sure who told you it wasnt but it is. Second of all it has so many amazing games and everyone I pick up is better than the last.
Oblivion, Ghost recon, Perfect Dark, Call of Duty, DOA, Fight Night. Not to mention the plethora of amazing games announced at E3.
Halo3, Gears of War, Hitman, Splinter Cell, Rainbow 6... the list goes on.

If you were a real RPG fan youd have a computer for it.

saunders45
May 19, 2006, 03:53 PM
And realistically, compared to PS2's thousands of games, 40 games really is next to nothing.

The logic behind that statement is absolutely rediculous.The PS2 has been out forever. It was 6 MONTHS before there was even one supposed good game for the system, and it was a bust (MGS2 sucked, yep I said it).

DougTheImpaler
May 19, 2006, 06:27 PM
I have to agree that 6 months vs. 6 years (since March 2000 when the PS2 was released in Japan) is pretty ridiculous to compare

GFLPraxis
May 19, 2006, 07:05 PM
This is where there personal taste comes into things as well. From that list you gave, I'd say half are shooters and the rest are mostly sports games. The only two that hold any interest for me, an RPG fan, are Oblivion and FF11 (which is available on PS2). 99 Nights and Enchanted Arms also look interesting. Of the 30-40 some odd games you listed, 4 look interesting to me. I don't plan on shelling out $400 for 4 games.

And realistically, compared to PS2's thousands of games, 40 games really is next to nothing.

I'm also not saying that Sony has announced any really good RPG games for PS3 either. As far as I've heard FF13 is about it and I certainly am not going to shell out $600 for one Final Fantasy game.


Precisely how I feel. I don't enjoy sports and console FPS games.

sk1985
May 19, 2006, 08:02 PM
I think the 360 had a better showing. Most 360 games looked really good and were pretty comparable to most PS3 games shown. Both systems are tight and I wouldn't mine owning both. I'm going to have to call it a draw.

M$ had 99 nights, Halo 3, Gears of War, Too Human, it also had that one RPG made by the people that made KOTOR, and that one capcom zombie game I really want...I'm a sucker for zombie games. I also can't forget GTA.

The PS3 had MGS4, FF13 (two different versions to boot), and a few other games that mildly interested me. Nothing really blew my mind other then MGS4. I'm a solid snake fan... Thats basically the only reason why I want a PS3. The PS3 is getting GTA also.

I will say the PS3's 500 and 600 dollar price tag is going to cause me to wait a while to purchase one of those bad boys.

For the mean while I'll pick up a 360 and a Wii.

Haoshiro
May 19, 2006, 08:16 PM
Console FPS games could really get a boost from innovative new controls, and not just Wii.

I had some plans for what I considered the "ultimate FPS gamepad" and was working with a friend in engineering to plan it but ultimately we ended up going separate ways and nothing came of it. Now, it looks like a company has finally realized the idea for a Trackball equiped gamepad called the Reflex Control (http://gear.ign.com/articles/708/708054p1.html).

If something like this really does work, I'd drop Keyboard+Mouse for FPS in a heartbeat for it!


I also just finished reading an article on IGN entitled "Sony's Huge PlayStation 3 Bet (http://gear.ign.com/articles/709/709082p1.html)" and found it pretty interesting.

I mean, from how it's described, if the PS3 and Blu-ray do not succeed this generation, we might not even see Sony in the next next-gen console wars! Wow... Sony is so huge and invoved in so much I think that would be amazing, could this be Sony's "Final Fantasy"?

sam10685
May 20, 2006, 12:50 AM
instant death of sony and microsoft...

sam10685
May 20, 2006, 12:53 AM
I will say the PS3's 500 and 600 dollar price tag is going to cause me to wait a while to purchase one of those bad boys.

For the mean while I'll pick up a 360 and a Wii.

agreed 100%. there's a good chance i'll get a ps3, but not for a while.

sam10685
May 20, 2006, 08:27 AM
Graphics: the 360 has better graphics now, but it 's been out for 5 months already. it will have been out almost a year when PS3 arives. the PS3 has blu-ray... it has MUCH more room for improvement.

Value: Cell processor, Blu-ray, built in wi-fi, 60 gig HDD, 2 costly graphics cards, wireless motion sensing controllers... $600...

Features: Cell processor, Blu-ray, built in wi-fi, 60 gig HDD, 2 costly graphics cards, wireless motion sensing controllers... the 360 only has a DVD drive, not built-in wi-fi, a 20 gig HDD, wireless controllers that don't sense motion, and i don't know about the other stuff...

PS3 is CLEARLY the winner between those two. in the end, i think Nintendo's Wii will come out and kick everyones ass though... (what we were playing at E3 were just beefed up gamecubes...)

GFLPraxis
May 20, 2006, 10:20 AM
Graphics: the 360 has better graphics now, but it 's been out for 5 months already. it will have been out almost a year when PS3 arives. the PS3 has blu-ray... it has MUCH more room for improvement.

Value: Cell processor, Blu-ray, built in wi-fi, 60 gig HDD, 2 costly graphics cards, wireless motion sensing controllers... $600...

Features: Cell processor, Blu-ray, built in wi-fi, 60 gig HDD, 2 costly graphics cards, wireless motion sensing controllers... the 360 only has a DVD drive, not built-in wi-fi, a 20 gig HDD, wireless controllers that don't sense motion, and i don't know about the other stuff...

PS3 is CLEARLY the winner between those two. in the end, i think Nintendo's Wii will come out and kick everyones ass though... (what we were playing at E3 were just beefed up gamecubes...)

Firstly, 2 graphics cards? What are you smoking?

PS3 is a clear winner. Except...what if you don't have an HDTV? Blu-ray is virtually useless to you, and 40 GB of space + WiFi + cell may not be worth $200 more to everyone.

saunders45
May 21, 2006, 01:21 AM
Cell means crap. Everyones hyping the crap out of it. You call it "value" to get a Cell processor in your system. That means jack to, well everybody but like .01% of potential buyers. As far as the PS3's library, nothing interests me. MGS is nothing more than a slightly playable movie anymore. Gameplay wise, Splinter Cell OWNS Metal Gear, hands down. 2nd, Final Fantasy bores me to tears. That's pretty much the "major" exclusives that Sony has going for them. Well, those and Gran Turismo, but that's not much fun either. I'd rather go to my Pop's and help him on with his '69 Z-28. Better than a rice rocket anyday.

MacRumorUser
May 21, 2006, 03:41 AM
With the Cell I've read a lot of details on it, and generally its got many great uses, but it's not really ideal for gaming as it goes.

They are hyping CELL up too much, but it's sony so what do you exepect....

greatdevourer
May 21, 2006, 04:41 AM
And realistically, compared to PS2's thousands of games, 40 games really is next to nothing. Compared to the PS2's 6 years, 6 months is also nothing

And wassisname who said 2 graphics cards, this is post E3 2006, not E3 2005. Sony aren't trying to peddle that level of bs anymore

takao
May 21, 2006, 05:48 AM
fight night round 3 a AAA title ? didn't know _that_

(SCNR but boxing only gets beat by baseball and golf in the boring sports video game department)

MacRumorUser
May 21, 2006, 08:11 AM
fight night round 3 a AAA title ? didn't know _that_

(SCNR but boxing only gets beat by baseball and golf in the boring sports video game department)


Going on the amount of business / retail sales it done on the 360 and the graphical finesse that has wowed many people - yes it's definetly a AAA 'launch window' title...

zap2
May 21, 2006, 09:26 AM
Plain and simple, based on E3, what system in your opinion is the better buy?
-Graphics
-Value
-Features
All these categories came into play when I watched E3



Graphic-Honestly they don't mean that much to me, Halo 2 graphics are fine for most any game i would want, how ever they are a cool extra

Vaue-360 becaue it does everything i need at a lower price point

Features-PS3 might have more but the only thing i like from it is Wi-Fi, and even when u add it to the 360 its still cheaper

Mord
May 21, 2006, 09:39 AM
graphics: 360, sony flat out lies the gpu in the 360 is slightly faster and the cpu is easier to utilize remember all those ps2 screenshots which the real thing never looked nearly as good as?

value: 360 is cheaper and does all the stuff i need

features: 360 xbox live beats all, sony is going to do some cheap imitation which will without doubt suck, has anyone used sony software? if so you know it sucks.

sony did not lie as much with a ps1 so they had people trust with the ps2 but i think they've blown it, they cant get away with such outright lies twice.

Dagless
May 21, 2006, 10:05 AM
Graphics, Value, Features; 360.

The Value would be better for the PS3 if it was vaguely affordable. Certain Aston Martin and Ferrari (IIRC) come with watches. An 800 fridge has a water cooler, ice cube maker and is made out of aluminium, some even have LCD TV's built in. Good value for money but its just out of the price reach for most people.

Basically, they can stick whatever they want into the PS3. But at 430 it's a no go.

However graphics, value and features mean nothing without the Wiimote :cool:

GFLPraxis
May 21, 2006, 11:57 AM
features: 360 xbox live beats all, sony is going to do some cheap imitation which will without doubt suck, has anyone used sony software? if so you know it sucks.


"It'll suck because I say it will" isn't a valid arguement ;)

Mord
May 21, 2006, 12:01 PM
it will if i say it will. :cool:

but seriously, sony are lying scumbags

Abulia
May 21, 2006, 12:03 PM
"It'll suck because I say it will" isn't a valid arguement ;)
Doesn't hold any more water than the "it'll be free, so it must be better than XBL" arguement. ;)

saunders45
May 21, 2006, 01:39 PM
"It'll suck because I say it will" isn't a valid arguement ;)

Anything attached to SOE is bound to suck, and that my friend, is history.

GFLPraxis
May 21, 2006, 04:29 PM
The fact is that it's free and they're desperately trying to copy all of Microsoft's features. It could very well be good, or at least close enough that it's not a significant advantage. In fact, it looks to have more. We'll see.

GFLPraxis
May 21, 2006, 04:34 PM
Anything attached to SOE is bound to suck, and that my friend, is history.

Just like any software written by Microsoft is bound to suck. Right?
Don't overgeneralize. We'll see.

(edit: before you flame me, that was sarcasm)

2nyRiggz
May 21, 2006, 07:06 PM
Just like any software written by Microsoft is bound to suck. Right?
Don't overgeneralize. We'll see.


Indeed...this service might go where live didn't and add more to the package...which i'm hoping for.


Bless

sk1985
May 21, 2006, 09:02 PM
Graphics: the 360 has better graphics now, but it 's been out for 5 months already. it will have been out almost a year when PS3 arives. the PS3 has blu-ray... it has MUCH more room for improvement.

Value: Cell processor, Blu-ray, built in wi-fi, 60 gig HDD, 2 costly graphics cards, wireless motion sensing controllers... $600...

Features: Cell processor, Blu-ray, built in wi-fi, 60 gig HDD, 2 costly graphics cards, wireless motion sensing controllers... the 360 only has a DVD drive, not built-in wi-fi, a 20 gig HDD, wireless controllers that don't sense motion, and i don't know about the other stuff...

PS3 is CLEARLY the winner between those two. in the end, i think Nintendo's Wii will come out and kick everyones ass though... (what we were playing at E3 were just beefed up gamecubes...)

The Cell is a pretty overrated processor from what I've been reading. Most developers are pretty disappointed with the kind of gains their getting out of. The Cell is a great processor but not as great as sony is claiming. The cell is one processor with 7 synthetic processing units, but in all honesty nothing really beats multiple physical processors. Seriously though the PS3 and the 360 will be about as powerful as each other depending on the developer. Some will make 360 games look better then PS3 games and others will make PS3 games look better then 360 games. If you really look closely at their stats the PS3 is only a hair or two better. Thats the truth.

Dagless
May 22, 2006, 05:42 AM
*wrongly posted*

Haoshiro
May 22, 2006, 07:59 AM
Which system has better graphics is really going to boil down to the Artists and budgets behind each game. Every system has had games that looked great and those that looked terrible. It all depends on how good the artists are and how much time they are given.

It's rather pointless to argue about it beyond what we've actually scene and actually know is real (in terms of PS3). Capabilities of a system mean nothing if the developers don't have the budget for great artists and plenty of time.